Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 9

< 8 July	10 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Leave me a message if/when he makes his Bremen debut and I'll restore it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markó Futács

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - youth footballer with no senior appearances at all, fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate if/when he plays professionally. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maine 4 President

Non-notable album with little context. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 09:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete arguments shade the transwiki comments, since this is isolated text, im not entirely clear how it fits Wikibooks but can be persauded to undelete if someone is willing to do the transwiki Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative (examples)

The article doesn't look encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place for learning resources. -- Taku (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not a HOWTO, or a list of worked examples. Ray^Talk 04:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks (although someone should, if possible, check for copyvio first). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that step-by-step computations of the derivatives of

f(x)=x^{2},\ f(x)={\sqrt {x}}

and so forth might be copyrighted?? (Maybe you're punning on the word "derivative"?) Plclark (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write keep because WP:ILIKEIT, but I will settle on a transwiki. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then consider merge with Derivative - The information is perfectly encyclopedic but belongs within the derivative article. Examples help explain the topic. On the other hand, that article is already long, so it may be appropriate to keep this separate to avoid load timing issues. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not encyclopedic content. The article derivative should, and does, have some examples. This content already exists in a better form in numerous educational resources, many of which are equally freely available online. Plclark (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing worth merging. The derivative article already has a decent example and doesn't require a large example list. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks - Unless I am mistaken, Wikibooks is a collection of online textbooks. Textbooks are used in school to help people learn. Since this sort of content appears to belong more in a textbook rather than an encyclopedia, a transwiki would be a good idea. --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs) 01:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a textbook. Transwiki first if appropriate to that project. Propaniac (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - examples can be included in articles, but shouldn't be the subject of articles. PhilKnight (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Still Night's Aurora

Appears to be a MySpace Band, which fails WP:BAND per lack of secondary sources establishing WP:NOTE. Nominated here (instead of speedy delete) per request by secondary editor. Could still qualify for speedy deletion. Plastikspork (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who originally nominated this article for deletion. This article doesn't state notability at all. --I dream of horses (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--no notability stated, and none possible, none that I could find. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not assert notability at this point. Couldn't find anything in the line of reliable sources. –blurpeace ^(talk) 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Just another non-notable Myspace band. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 09:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - their one and only album is self-published at a cost of $650 per 100 according to their blog. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G12 by CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan colloquia

Article is a substantial copy of organization's about page. May be spam, or advertisement. Rmosler | ● 14:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not notable, no secondary sources to indicate why it is notable. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just informed about the existence of the new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irfan_colloquia . I am the webmaster and typesetter for all this group's publications in English, including irfancolloquia.org/about (the webpage noted for possible copyright infringement. I affirm that our group DOES give permission for this use. I will begin cleaning up and improving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irfan_colloquia this week. To confirm that I have permission and access, I can be reached at our domain name: contact@irfancolloquia.org . Jonah22 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not solely an issue of copyright, but of notability, with no secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @971 · 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @012 · 23:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleons Eye

Unremarkable news photo service business for single photographer. No (zero) Google news hits. Google searches turn up similarly named but unrelated award. I was unable to find significant coverage of this company. Article created by User:Clairebenari, business owner is Rafael Ben-Ari. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not contagious; you don't become notable by having notable customers use your stock photos or clipart. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:COMPANY and in fairness, the nom should also suggest a few other similar NN in Category:Stock photography. --Shuki (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. The article has been reverted to a version prior to the promotional copyright violation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Eston

'Greater Eston' isn't a place as such, but seems to be a neologism. I'm not sure if it's notable (despite many Google hits) or encyclopedic (this isn't actually a place; just a term). Thoughts? Computerjoe 's talk 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted. Not Cleveland, Ohio but Cleveland, England. Computerjoe 's talk 11:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete without prejudice G11. This article is unambiguous promotion, however from looking at google results it is possible that Greater Eston might be notable as a region within the Redcar and Cleveland unitary authority area. Any encyclopaedic article will be better created from scratch though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the current referenced, non-copyrighted, non-promotional version. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~but reduce to stub if necessary to get rid of the promotion~~. The Borough of Redcar and Cleveland is an odd setup, which includes many standalone settlements in the east of the borough, and a good chuck of the eastern part of the Middlesbrough conurbation in the Western part of the borough. Having lived in the borough myself, I can see the sense in referring to the latter half as "Greater Eston". Normally, I would go for delete anyway, because you can't put an article for a term in Wikipedia just because it should exist. However, as this term is being used by the local authority that covers this area, that counts as a reliable source, therefore the article should stay, just not necessarily in its current form. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as reverted version, below. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revert to e.g. version 295458018 as edited by Keith D on 9 June.73 hits on Google News archive seem to indicate enough notability. The later version due to Richo122 (talk · contribs) is a WP:copyright violation of this page from Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council. Qwfp (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted to avoid a copyvio. Computerjoe 's talk 10:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn No opposition now; so please speedy close this as keep Computerjoe 's talk 16:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With a strong consensus that there is no possibility this article could be salvaged to survive WP:NOTHOWTO; an early closure seems appropriate under WP:SNOW ~ mazca ^talk 06:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to dominate at ludo

wikipedia is not a how-to site WuhWuzDat 20:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTHOWTO—as simple as that. Deor (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to above arguments; 'dominate' sounds suspiciously subjective. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this belongs at WikiHow. --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 21:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, this belongs at WikiHow instead of violating WP:NOTHOWTO here. —LedgendGamer 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTHOWTO pretty much sums up why. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per WP:COMMON.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jonas Brothers. (X! · talk) · @012 · 23:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy (Jonas Brothers song)

With no chart performance or covers, it fails WP:MUSIC, and with no significant media coverage, it also fails WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I'm afraid I disagree. While I do agree in the sense that, indeed, notability is not "inherited", neither does notability create itself. Notability can often occur retroactively with regard to works that a person had done earlier in his or her career that did not become recognised until later on when the person had become famous for something else. A good example is Tennessee Williams, whose first major success was "The Glass Menagerie" in 1945; after this, he was a household name. However, he wrote quite a wealth of plays prior to this, with little success. Yet, now that Mr. Williams is an American literary legend, almost all of his works, obscure or well known, have an article devoted to them. For instance, two of Williams' early plays, "Fugitive Kind" (1937) and "Not About Nightingales" (1938) were not at all popular when first released, and were not even produced on stage for many years. To my knowledge, "Fugitive Kind" has still never been performed on any notable stage to this day. Yet they have articles devoted to them. Why? Because Mr. Williams is so famous that it is appropriate for even his lesser works to still have an area where they may be sought out and researched. Compared with the article in question, this Jonas Brothers song seems far more notable. Like Tennessee Williams and many other people, the Jonas Brothers enjoyed success after their second album's release, and thus the first one is relatively obscure. But since they are such a global phenomenon, it is more than appropriate to have an article devoted to individual songs even on this first album, such as "Mandy". Indeed, it makes more sense; one of Wikipedia's main strengths is that it is a resource people can turn to when they need information about a topic that may not be available elsewhere, such as information about this song. Indeed, it is for precisely this reason that I found the article in the first place. I heard it, wanted to read more about it, could not find much about it on most websites, went to Wikipedia, and voila! This is Wikipedia's strongsuit, and it seems counterproductive to take articles such as this down, especially when I have already mentioned how a precedent has been set with such articles as those about obscure Tennessee Williams plays which are nonetheless deemed worthy of articles. Besides, it is not as though this song were that obscure; it was released as a single, and its music video on YouTube has had over 3,300,000 plays to-date! If that is considered obscure, then I certainly can't fathom what you consider constitutes "notable". --R.h.c.afounder1 (talk/contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Well, if you don't know how Wikipedia deems a song notable, maybe you could start here. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 09:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In additon, you'll probably also want to check out [[WP:N|Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonas Brothers Unless the song gets rereleased and charts, or someone covers it and it becomes notable, its not notable on its own. Put any relevant info in Jonas Brothers article, not that there's much info other than "It didn't chart" Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be redirected to It's About Time (Jonas Brothers album) instead? Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 08:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, while it may not have been a significant cover version, this song was in fact covered by The Hit Crew and is available for purchase on Itunes. Two karaoke versions of the song are also available on Itunes. By the way, I took a look at the notability requirements for albums and songs. According to the guide, it says that "notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Say what you will about this song's notability, but it is irrefutable to say that there is not enough information about it. Indeed, it is much longer and more informative than many article stubs I have seen. --R.h.c.afounder1 (talk/contribs)
- Exactly: verifiable material. There is only one reference in this article, and it's to confirm the release date. There is barely any sourced information, and thus this article is not notable.

And The Hit Crew are not notable enough artists. The criteria involves two independent, notable artists recording the song. The Jonas Brothers are the only notable group to do so. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is the basis for stating that "The Hit Crew are not notable enough artists"? They are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I am not aware of any guidelines requiring more notability (how much more?) for a cover band under WP:NSONGS than to have a Wikipedia article altogether. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - after merging the first paragraph with Jonas Brothers. I don't think this article quite meets WP:NSONGS, even counting The Hit Crew cover, since the guideline mentions being recorded by "several" notable bands. And I am not sure that "two" necessarily qualifies as "several". Three definitely, but with two I'd want to see at least some other indication of notability, and I don't. Maybe that is the Jonas Brothers' first single, but that can be addressed within their own article. The second paragraph of the article would seem worth merging too if reliable sources can be added for it. But if multiple reliable sources are added for that, then this article should be kept under WP:N. As for the title, that should not be any problem from a redirect perspective. The title is consistent with WP:DAB and is the title any experience Wikipedian would look under for this song if they realized that there are several popular songs by the same name. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charlene Cafritz

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gasm

There's no indication that this meets WP:N. Has no references, and is not in Discordian primary sources. Appears to be a neologism and an extension of Operation Mindfuck, but doesn't seem to have any traction. Seems like it was made up recently. Firestorm ^Talk 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability and my be WP:MADEUP. Google search provided no valid results. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain It's kind of a Thing on principiadiscordia.com. It's borderline WP:MADEUP, and WP:N would be a big stretch, but it does seem to have some traction as a micro-subcultural movement. If there's anything reliable to cite on the topic, somebody should speak up. (And while you're at it, admit to how heavily the whole thing is inspired by Project Mayhem from Fight Club.) —chaos5023 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GASMs themselves are rather new. Wikipedia does not take new material? I know for a fact the Golden Apple Seed Missions are happening, as I had helped with ColbertGASM and am helping with LitGASM. I can add citations, though. Hail Eris! (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia does not take new things. In order for it to comply with our notability guidelines, it has to have gotten coverage in reliable third-party sources, like books, academic journals, newspapers, magazines, etc. As much as I love Eris, we already have quite enough chaos on the wiki as it is. Firestorm ^Talk 00:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is reliable? Because, this proves that really, nothing is. Does it simply need to be in a book? Because that is simple to arrange nowadays. You can even get a free ISBN! Lolikhan (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemological relativism may be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or the external link version. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 18:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being "new", itself -- i.e. lack of age -- isn't the problem, the lack of sources is. But if anything at all can be sourced reliably I think that stuff should be better merged into the OM article. What can't be should be deleted, and if that means everything on here (ie. nothing suitable for merge), then that's what should be done. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails N and V due to sourcing. Borderline G11, as importance and encyclopedic relevence isn't clearly asserted. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about G11, but it doesn't seem like its a company, so I don't think it fits. Firestorm ^Talk 21:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A minor meme, for which no reliable sources exist. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW close, with this many "Keep" votes, this is not going to result in any other outcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple J Hottest 100, 2009

A compilation of subjective votes, not a list of objective statistics, it is therefore a copyright violation by virtue of being the intellectual property of the compiler. It has been claimed that this is not a copyright violation since it's being written on this page by people listening to the radio over the air, and not by copying it from a Triple J official source, but the compilation itself is copyrighted. It's also claimed that this is the station's playlist, and therefore it is not copyrighted, but that is not true. It's also claimed that although this page says You may save a local copy or send it to your printer for your own personal use or in order to inform authorised and potential users about the ABC materials. However, you may not make any charge for such use and any commercial exploitation is expressly prohibited. You must include the copyright notice in any copy that you make. You may not modify the information found in ABC materials without the express permission of the ABC., since Wikipedia does not intend to use it for commercial exploitation, it's okay to put here, but that's not compatible with Wikipedia's licenses, and would make it impossible for this page to be copied by commercial forks, which is a violation of Wikipedia copyright terms. When I pointed that out on the article's Talk page, I was told, Oh my goodness this article is staying, just get over it, it's a list of songs, get over yourself . Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in this AfD are:

---> There is no 1992

Triple J Hottest 100, 1993
Triple J Hottest 100, 1994
Triple J Hottest 100, 1995
Triple J Hottest 100, 1996
Triple J Hottest 100, 1997 (Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple J Hottest 100, 1997 - keep resolution seems to be a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy)
Triple J Hottest 100, 1998
Triple J Hottest 100, 1999
Triple J Hottest 100, 2000
Triple J Hottest 100, 2001
Triple J Hottest 100, 2002
Triple J Hottest 100, 2003
Triple J Hottest 100, 2004
Triple J Hottest 100, 2005
Triple J Hottest 100, 2006
Triple J Hottest 100, 2007
Triple J Hottest 100, 2008

It does not include Triple J Hottest 100, which is the correct way to report these lists. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is understandable that a list compiled by an individual or group of 'experts' should be subject to copyright, but the fact remains that this list is voted on by the public and the results are publicly available over a range of broadcast mediums. Due to it being a list compiled from public votes, the list itself should not be subject to copyright.Jimboss123 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TripleJ Hottest 100 lists have a significant historic value and are broadcast over public radio waves. The list is reproduced by numerous news organisations in Australia and around the worlds. Sesh (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Agreed with the reason above. Geshpenst (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Keep is not a valid option under Wikipedia copyright policy unless all of these redirect to Triple J Hottest 100. Should an admin decide that they want to keep this, I will immediately list it at WP:DRV. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this list is produced by a fully publicaly funded government broadcaster (the ABC). It is forbidden for this broadcaster to advertise and it can receive no conceivable revenue from this list (it does tend to sell a CD containing parts of hottest 100 lists but this page can't possibly have any impact on sales of that CD).

Even if the above copyright discussion is correct, and I'm not convinced that it is, I've written to the ABC's legal department to see if they can provide a copyright waiver. They should be willing to do so. Please do not delete these lists until I hear back from them. 152.91.9.115 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny they seem to think they have the right to copyright their material. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that the copyright notice may apply to this list, it should also be noted that this notice was no doubt intended to protect other aspects of what the ABC does. ABC not only runs a number of radio stations, but also 3 TV channels and a large news gathering organisation. Not to mention the production of a number of Australian television and radio programs. I'm sure that they will give permission for these lists to be released into the public domain or under a Wikipedia compatible license. Sesh (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep concur with the arguements already provided - the lists do have significant historical value - extremely notable. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyright violation per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion is that copyright exists upon this work because of Triple J's effort in preparing and broadcasting of the list. However, Copyright does not prohibit the independent creation of a substantially similar or identical work, provided there is no actual reproduction or copying of the original work by any means.

The original work was presented in the form of a radio broadcast. The individual pieces of information (the song artist name and song title) contained within that broadcast cannot be copyrighted, regardless of the format in which it was presented. Copyright protects the particular manner in which the information was arranged and presented.

In addition, the information presented in the various list articles independently researched and written for Wikipedia. The articles contain additional information that distinguishes the article from the original work. The labour and skill of the article author(s) in compiling this information further distinguish these articles from the original work.
Keep --Camson (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it'd be hard to argue that we are violating their intellectual property in reproducing the list when the list is clearly called the "Triple J Hottest 100", indicating implicitly that it is a production of Triple J, and links to the site where they publish that information themselves. We had a similar argument recently about the ARIA Charts and range of related categories (where I'll admit I was the one to raise the copyright question) and I sought a legal opinion from the Foundation's counsel on it which basically said it was defensible (it's a case of not going overboard with the thing and keeping within sane limits, I guess.) Orderinchaos 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not going overboard? Every single year's vote results is being copied verbatim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited 2009 HCA 14 (22 April 2009) para 42 and 43 for the Australian High Court's view on what constitutes originality in the expression of factual information. In this instance the only part that is original is the ordering of the songs. This material in this list is highly similar to that of the IceTV case, which the High Court has ruled did not violate copyright. Joshua mckinney (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_2008 for a recent US chart that had similar copyright concerns where wikipedia's decision was to keep the article. Joshua mckinney (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2008 has nothing to do with this, since the Billboard list is based on sales, not a subjective vote. And the IceTV case again has nothing to do with this, since that has nothing to do with a subjective vote. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So we should delete all election results in Wikipedia as well? They are afterall a list of political parties ranked by a 'subjective vote'. Meatsacks (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The compilation that you are asserting is a covio is a not the individual subjective votes, but is the collection of facts that have been generated by people that have gathered that information. The page under discussion presents that each fact as 1. Artist - Title. This form of presentation is "not a form of expression which requires particular mental effort or exertion" to quote the HCA decision mentioned previously. In addition the decision states: "Whether a selection or arrangement of elements constitutes a substantial part of a work depends on the degree of originality of that selection or arrangement[59]. In this case, a chronological arrangement of times at which programmes will be broadcast is obvious and prosaic, and plainly lacks the requisite originality.". In a similar fashion, an ordinal arrangement of tracks which have been voted on by the public in the order by which they have been voted is likely to satisfy the same logical standard.Joshua mckinney (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why is a list compiled from me (and thousands of others) buying a single or album any different in its compilation than a list of songs compiled from me (and others) submitting a web form indicating a preference for songs? Both are subjective... If anything Triple J are using other people's work insomuch as deciding a favourite song is some minimal effort on the part of voters (although presumably they agree to grant the ABC a right to use the vote for their poll). My opinion of my favourite song is subjective, yes, but comparison analysis of thousands of sales/opinions/votes constitute a fact. --Canley (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep based on the arguments above, unless the ABC writes back saying we can't do it. This AfD is ridiculous. Pwrong (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Stong Keep for all Hottest 100 articles - based on arguments above re: NOT violation of copyright, and in being a very significant historical event in Australian music and radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.89.49 (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. Rebecca (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps restructure - it's not a copyright violation, but needs to be presented in a fashion which appropriately represents Wikipedia policy. The Triple J Hottest 100 is one of the largest radio polls in the world, and songs which perform well on it wear it as a badge of honour, so there's no question of notability. Orderinchaos 03:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is at all a clear cut case of copyright violation as the nominator seems to think. The IceTV v. Nine Network decision of the High Court of Australia cited above seems to be the most reasonable precedent to apply in this case, and other Australian media outlets (such as the Sydney Morning Heraldand the Herald Sun) seem to have no problems with reproducing the lists in their entirety. If they did so with the ABC's permission, then surely it is possible that such permission can be obtained for Wikipedia. As someone said on the discussion page, should we not publish election results for copyright reasons? They are also compiled from public voting by an Australian government organisation. --Canley (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you gather the facts yourself, the collection is not copyright, as interpreted by Finkelstein in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd. See [1] ... "Copyright protection did not extend to the facts themselves, so that a third person could publish the same facts, provided he collected the facts himself and did not copy them from another work." cojoco (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, you people are not getting it. This is not a list of facts, this is a list of vote results. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does this differ from the 81st_Academy_Awards, also a list of vote results? Joshua mckinney (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A vote result is a fact. Pwrong (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I concur, and to quote the OP: Oh my goodness this article is staying, just get over it, it's a list of songs, get over yourself. What next, delete the list of US presidents? FivePointPalmExplodingHeart (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS ticket received at Ticket:2009071010018621 from ABC Aust. They are interested in granting permission, inasmuch as it is required. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification of this, and thanks to whoever contacted the ABC about this. --Canley (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is no different to recording the results of an election- does Wikipedia need to count the votes itself to be legally allowed to post them? --Mossmaal (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email reply from Triple J"Thanks for letting us know about the debate surrounding the Hottest 100 on wikipedia. We have contacted them via the email link that you provided letting them know that we have no problem with those lists being available on wikipedia." - Direct quote from an email i received from Triple J themselves regarding this topic. So given this, the action for deletion should be halted as they are willing to give an exemption for wikipedia to reproduce their lists.Jimboss123 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who then was a gentleman?=OWN3D... That is all... Keep - Ck786 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - that's not a valid release; it's like a "only on Wikipedia" release for an image; we can't accept those. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this needs to be addressed to WP:OTRS. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been sent to WP:OTRS, that was the link referred to in the quote i made above, i just put it here to update people on Triple J's stance on this issue.Jimboss123 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regardless of the copyvio/OTRS allowance issue, the topic is notable. Whether the full list should be included in the article is a question not for AFD - it's for the real (not us amateur wikilayers) to decide in another forum.The-Pope (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since the person suggesting that we delete this is a turkey, and turkeys should not have a say in what happens. 203.192.80.31 (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I have no problem with keeping these lists if ABC releases them. Until such a time, they're a copyright violation. Why people feel this has to be taken personally, I don't understand. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it's painfully obvious Triple J / The ABC have no problem with them being thereand yet you're persisting they should be deleted Geshpenst (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't understand why you chose to bring a sectional copyvio issue to afd. The article(s) are notable - they should exist and cover the issues/timing/number of votes etc of each year's vote. Whether or not the full list is published is a separate issue for the real lawyers to sort out.The-Pope (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I tried to db-copyvio the 2009 one, but that got reverted. How else would this be resolved? Copyright violations are taken to AfD all the time, this is the appropriate venue. And you haven't answered my question as to why this is so personal that people feel the need to assume bad faith and make attacks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is attacking you - just disagreeing with you. To be fair, if the ABC doesnt have an issue with it, then there is no reason to delete the artice. As has been stated on numerous occasions, it is a significant article that has been referenced. The list is made public as soon as it it broadcast on the friggin radio! Just because it is being recorded on wiki does not make it a violation of copyright. You're not being attacked, you're just being stongly disagreed with on a ridiculous proposition... Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up princess - Ck786 (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it is personal. It's our ABC, my 8 cents (or $1.20 with inflation) a week, my vote that got that song in the top 100, my triple j rocks etc etc. Not that any of that excuses personal insults, of course. florrie 06:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's attacking me? Really? Who then was a gentleman?=OWN3D... That is all... Keep - Ck786 Keep - since the person suggesting that we delete this is a turkey, and turkeys should not have a say in what happens. 203.192.80.31 Not to mention your dickish comment right above this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not to mention your dickish comment right above this. Who then was a gentleman?" - Is this not a personal attack of your own?? Fail. Stop winging... Ck786 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event, notable lists and the source is attributed. florrie 06:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More pwnage for this ridiculous deletion propostion - Information is published on the triple J website... http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hottest100_alltime/countdown/cd_list.htm - Ck786 (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More history here: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hottest100_08/history.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck786 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- So what? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "You must include the copyright notice in any copy that you make." The source is cited therefore the information can be reproduced here... Its not rocket science... Ck786 (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - any commercial exploitation is expressly prohibited.. Wikipedia content must be allowed to be reproduced by anyone, including commercial ventures, therefore the copyright limitations issued by abc itself precludes its being here. It's not rocket science. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not according to the Wikipedia Terms of Use... http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use Ck786 (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. prohibition against commercial use is not compatible with CC_BY_SA. But, you know what, I'm through with this discussion. Be dicks amongst yourselves. This discussion runs 7 days. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Be dicks amongst yourselves. This discussion runs 7 days. Who then was a gentleman?" That would be another personal attack... wouldnt it??? Man up and stop being a hypocrite and stirring sh*t... Ck786 (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe this is even being nominiated. The lists are published everywhere and anywhere. -- Chuq (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mr Gentleman, your initial reply of "Keep is not a valid option under Wikipedia copyright policy unless all of these redirect to Triple J Hottest 100. Should an admin decide that they want to keep this, I will immediately list it at WP:DRV" is a huge bad faith assumption on everyone else. We have opinions, we all can read the policy. We all can vote. You should not decide on our behalf - nor threaten DRV involvement during the debate. As for where this debate should be happening... well Wikipedia:Copyright problems would an obvious starting point. A question to ask yourself is "Would you want the article deleted if it was exactly as it is today, but without the full list of songs in a table?" If the answer is no, then AFD shouldn't have anything to do with the article. (and if you claim AFD for no WP:RSs, then in a day's time when the #1 song is announced, I bet there will be plenty of RS to back up the notability of the article.)The-Pope (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is compiled by people listening to the radio in real time and is not a reproduction of materials from the ABC website. The copyright notices linked to by Gentleman are for the website and cover website materials. The compilation of the results by Wikipedians is not a violation of the terms of copyright, nor is use of Wikipedia's compilation for commercial purposes. For results on the latest poll, results have been posted in real time on Facebook and Twitter, indicating that they are not covered by the ABC Online's copyright notice.DrDoogle (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other lists of award winners. I'm thinking in particular of the Oscars, but there are many others. Orpheus (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Triple J website is not the sole source of these results - they are being released in real time via the @triplej Twitter feed, collated by individual listeners and will also be publicly disseminated at the conclusion of the countdown. Relying solely on the ABC website copyright as a reason for deletion is highly disingenuous. Furthermore is it questionable how the use of a list of facts by a commercial entity can be considered "exploitation". Rjbsmith (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without doubt should be kept and furthermore Mr Gentlemen should be blocked/deleted as he quite clearly doesn't have the intelligence to necessitate a wikipedia account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlin14 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyc (talk • contribs) 06:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This list was compiled from public votes by a Government-funded public broadcaster, and disseminated freely via many media. There is no copywritable editorial contribution to the list unless the voting was rigged. It's impossible to imagine any kind of legal problem unless the material was misattributed or substantially misrepresented. TheDewi (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock Studios

If this had just shown up, I would have agreed to the G11 speedy deletion, since it's an obvious attempt to sell porn, but since it's been around in roughly this form for 3 years (sigh), this requires AfD, I think. I just softblocked the company-promoting username of the article creator ... better late than never. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, although don't think a PROD would have been inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, this is an unresolved question. Does a 3-year history on Wikipedia mean all by itself that the deletion is likely to be contested by somebody, and therefore not suitable for a prod? Some people say "don't bother us at AfD if you think you know that it's promotional", some people say "2 people shouldn't overrule the hundreds or thousands who saw this article and passed by without complaining, it should be a community decision". I'd love to know the answer so that I ... and more importantly, the taggers ... feel confident in our decisions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a good reason for not using a speedy, but a PROD does give people time to object. AIUI if something is deleted via a prod and someone later contests it, it is routineley restored and brought to AfD anyway. This is however just my ha'penny's worth! Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (I originally nominated for speedy deletion). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Anstead

Nonnotable actress with short resume playing mastly unnamed or first-named characters, judging only by the refs and sources, negligible third-party sourcing (and "racksandrazors.com" suggests what those sources are interested in.) Borderline speedy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that she or the films she appeared in are notable enough for inclusion here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The needle on the notability meter didn't even twitch. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. A search finds she exists, but the assertions in the article cannot currently be sourced. Yes, she's cute... but she as yet has not built up even a remote notability for Wikipedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian NINJAS

Per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Lane and Nevaeh. They've only teamed together approximately six times, and all the relevant information is already located in the articles of the individual members. The team itself has not established notability independent of its members. Nikki♥311 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather than looking at the number of times they have teamed together, I believe the notability guidelines call on editors to check for sufficient mainstream media coverage. The team is discussed in decent detail here and are mentioned on several reliable websites as holders of the Shimmer Tag Team Championship. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:, disagree. Just holding the Shimmer Tag Team Championship isn't enough to warrant a separate article for the team. Teams who have held more prominent titles (like WWE or TNA tag team titles) and teamed for longer periods of time have been deleted in the past. Most of the Google Hits are from unreliable sources, wrestling news sites, or are trivial mentions of them as the champions. Moreover, the SLAM article linked to is about Nicole Matthews, and the team is mentioned because it is a notable part of her career...but that doesn't make it notable in the history of professional wrestling and warrant a separate article. The mentions in the individual members articles are sufficient for now. If the team continues to team together or wins other championships, the article can be recreated at a later date. Nikki♥311 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The linked site seems to be a reliable source, but it's not in the article. The article as it now stands violated BLP, if references were provided, that would make a difference. However, that source doesn't show up in a Google search, so it's understandable that it wasn't found. In addition, they only get one Google news hit, and only 169 Google hits, none of them apparently reliable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gentleman and the nom. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not a notable tag team. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the Gentleman about WP:BLP. Female tag teams outside of WWE and TNA just don't have the notability for whatever the reason. Get Dumb 08:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. I disagree with GetDumb because female tag teams do not just have to be in TNA to be notable. There are a few female teams on the indy curcuit that are notable.--WillC 21:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shimmer_Tag_Team_Championship#Title_history where they are mentioned. JJL (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Geary

The article was PRODed by User:Mikedrakel on 1 July 2009 with the comment, "individual does not wish to be listed on wikipedia". That PROD was contested by me on 2 July with the comment, "PRODer's only contributions have been to this page, most of them vandalism." Mikedrakel then placed {{db-author}} on the page on 9 July; this was removed by User:Cunard with the comment, "this article cannot be speedied under {{db-author}} because significant contributions have been made by Cnilep to this page." In the seven days since I contested the original PROD, however, I have only been able to locate one (sort of) reliable source. Therefore, since the subject fails WP:Notability (people), I support deletion. Cnilep (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - negligible in notability, and no references available. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no clue if subject wants out of the wikipedia; but she is clearly nn. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether she wants to be in or not is irrelevant snce she is non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't mind inspecting that picture on her chest a little closer. ;o) Artypants, ^Babble 18:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not fit notability guidelines.--Deadchildstar (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, interest in location of artwork notwithstanding. JNW (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzada khurram

non notable individual - page appears to be purely to advertise him. speedy delete removed without explanation by anon editor. noq (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real assertion of notability.-Binary TSO ^??? 09:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, note that AFD notice has been removed by same anon editor Per Ardua (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. Has anyone else wondered why an IP editor can't nominate an AfD, but can remove prod's? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. No point letting this sit out there for long. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted twice (CSD A7) and salted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Band Nee

Talk page makes a claim of notability, but I have seen no support for such a claim. I speedied the article, which was contested; the speedy tag has since been removed by an account whose only edits have been to this article. I didn't want to re-speedy it, so I'm bringing it here instead. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may be helpful to look at this diff, where I removed the promo material/ peacock terms, to get an idea of where this article was earlier. TN X Man 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , possibly speedy, this time by consensus. DGG (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deville (Talk) 01:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of the United Kingdom

Unregistered single issue political group. While some other Pirate Parties are registered, this one is not - it's just a group of people giving interviews, and is not officially registered with the authorities. At minimum, therefore, the name is misleading. It also has minimal press coverage - the party leader has given a few quotes to newspapers, but the party itself has not had a non-trivial mention anywhere I can find. I should also note that they don't even have a manifesto yet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pirate Party#International due to lack of notability. The only secondary source I could find was this one and it's just a trivial mention. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While PPUK is not registered at the moment, registration is ongoing and it will be registered around the end of this month; if non-registration is the criterion for deleting this article, does it really make sense to delete this article and then re-instate it a fortnight later? As to not finding a manifesto, did you not look here or here? -- Cabalamat (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see "IMPORTANT, this is a very rough draft and should not be treated as an official manifesto.", and from the main page, "Top of the list is that we’re starting to create the policy working groups that will [...] write our manifesto." Hence, manifesto is two months away from a final draft. Regardless, the criterion is really at WP:N, which this doesn't meet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pirate Party. A google search shows it doesn't appear to be notable - no non-trivial mentions in any independent third party source. When they do appear, by all means recreate the article. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect or Merge. No way is a political party that was formed two months ago and received no attention from the press notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Even if the party does register with the Electoral Commission it still doesn't mean that it will become notable, as any two people can who are prepared to stump up £150 between them can do so[2]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone searches for this, why not redirect to an article that mentions them instead of a useless "not found" error? So far their only claim to fame is involvement with a large international party. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The party will be registered shortly. Elections for Party Officials have been held and the manifesto is alomst complete. It makes no sence to delete this article to then recreate it in several weeks. The Pirate Party forums and website are far more active than some UK Political Parties that also have wikipedia pages such as A BEE C--Tancred (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party registration information doesn't go into depth, and their manifesto would be a primary source. Neither of those will change whether or not this article meets WP:N. What we really need is some sort of news story or book or something, and we can't know for sure whether or not any of those will happen any time soon. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say What we really need is some sort of news story or book or something, and we can't know for sure whether or not any of those will happen any time soon. Indeed we can't, not for certain. For all we know, the world might be destroyed by an asteroid tomorrow. The intention of PPUK is to hold a publicity/membership drive once we are formally registered (around the end of this month). We expect that this will result in news stories about us in the national press (I am PPUK's Campaigns Officer). This is a reasonable expection, IMO, because PP internationally has 1 or 2 MEPs (from Sweden; one after Lisbon is ratified) and one MP (in Germany). The international Pirate movement clearly is notable, and PPUK is part of that. But if the PPUK article must be deleted and then recreated a few weeks later, I suppose we'll have to go along with that, even though it is a waste of time. --Cabalamat (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, deleting the article would be a waste of time. That's why I'm suggesting that we temporarily hide the article under a redirect so we don't break any rules (WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, etc) and then restore it when more sources become available. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arsala Khan (suspected al Qaida financier)

It appears that the only public information about this guy comes from a Summary of Evidence against a Guantanamo Bay detainee named Abdel Hadi Mohammed Badan Al Sebaii Sebaii. All the document says about Arsala Khan is: "The detainee's pocket literature included documents containing the name Arsala Khan. Two recovered letters written by Usama Bin Ladin express thanks to Arsala Khan for his financial support and protection." The article consisted entirely of that information until a few days ago, when I redirected to the detainee's article (because all the content here was just duplicated from there); before redirecting, I looked on Google and Google News and found mentions of several other people named Arsala Khan, but nothing that looks like this guy.

Another user undid my redirect and added information about two other men named Arsala Khan that could conceivably be the same as this one (since we know almost nothing about this one or the others), but there's no reason to think they're the same. Some brief conversation ensued on the Talk page (there's also something there in response to a previous bad attempt at a prod), and as far as I can tell, the only argument for keeping the article is that it's possible someday someone will uncover more information about this guy (I have no idea why it's not okay to redirect now and undo the redirect when and if that information is discovered). Since it's clear the redirect won't stand without an outside ruling, and the only reason I redirected instead of nominating for deletion was to avoid the AFD process, now that I'm here, I'd just as soon delete the article entirely. (Think about it: anyone looking up this guy has almost definitely heard of him from reading the detainee's evidence memo. So all that a redirect--or keeping the article, minus the info on random other people with the same name--would accomplish is showing the user the memo he's already read.) Propaniac (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not the strongest argument, but as Wikiproject:Terrorism is slowly and steadily parsing through the ARB and CSRTs of Guantanamo captives, often names re-occur with slightly different information; more information about Arsala Khan is likely to be found. In addition, you'll note that the United States has captured a letter written by Osama bin Laden congratulating Arsala Khan, it is likely to be found, whether in this wikinews collection of UBL texts, or our s:Author:Osama bin Laden on Wikisource which is currently being populated and others - and again, more information can be gleaned from there. These are not things we can immediately accomplish in the next 7 days, as we are talking about thousands of pages of information which are being processed - but deletion does not seem necessary for this article, and therefore I would request that it be kept since Wiki is not paper. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- What should a biographical article contain? If one follows the deletion fora long enough, one can come across both arguments that biographical article have to be deleted because they don't contain enough of the standard biographical information -- like the subject's date of birth, where they studied, what they worked at before they became famous -- and the diametrically opposed argument that articles should be deleted because the standard biographical information was "puffery". My own position is that the information on the standard course of the subject's life is good to have, and I look for it, when I work on a biography. But if the thing that makes someone worthy of coverage is significant enough I do not consider a paucity of details on other aspects of their life as a valid argument for deletion. There is a medieval scholar, who was known until very recently, as "False Geber". He is an early instance of sockpuppetry, or identity theft. He wrote under the name Geber, another famous medieval scholar. In the days when books could only be copied out long-hand, writing under the name of a more famous writer was quite common. But, in this particular instance, False Geber also published significant advances to human knowledge. So, he is worth covering, even though we knew practically nothing else about him. Similarly, it is my opinion that being identified as an al Qaeda financier, and a correspondent of Osama bin Laden is sufficiently remarkable to justify coverage here, all by itself. Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both "keep" votes here (which are both from people with ties to the article) fail to acknowledge that the only information in the article is already contained in another article, and the only apparent reason someone could know of this guy is if they had already read that information. (I am ignoring the additional information that was added in the past week about other people with the same name, since I feel sure anyone reasonable would agree that that information has no purpose and should be removed even if this article is kept.) The keep votes are arguing that this person is significant and therefore should have an article; I'm not arguing that he's insignificant, I'm arguing that there should be some known content worth putting into an article as a minimum criteria for the article to exist. (And, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure just being mentioned in some military documents doesn't establish notability, if no other sources ever reported or commented on the subject.) Propaniac (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, my "links to the article" appears to have been wiki-linking the word pocket litter in January 2009. I'm not sure that really disqualifies my opinion, kthx. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth are you talking about? I said "ties to the article" because you edited it significantly and clearly appeared, during our interaction on the article and the Talk page, to be invested in saving it, to the point that you refused to accept any resolution other than bringing it to AFD. It's perfectly fair of me to point out that your argument is not that of an uninvolved observer. Propaniac (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only involvement with the article prior to you attempting to delete it, is wikilinking the word pocket litter as I often go through Wikipedia and add wikilinks to random articles. The fact I have tried to improve the article since you tried to delete it hardly makes me a biased editor. Please do not try to muddy the issue with half-truths; yes i said the article should be saved when you tried to autonomously delete it and I suggested you open an AfD rather than just blank the page yourself...that makes me somebody who cares about procedure; hardly an "involved editor" beyond thinking that your attempts to delete it were premature. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear to everyone else that I said you had ties to the article because you were working on it and defending it prior to the AFD nomination, and that there was no effort on my end towards misrepresentation. My actions in redirecting a useless article, attempting to discuss the resulting conflict, and then coming to AFD have been entirely in line with procedure. Propaniac (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into notability yet, so I'm not going to give a "keep" or "delete", but I must say that it's poor form for Propaniac to cast doubt on Sherurcij's neutrality on the basis of participation in discussion on the article talk page, when Propaniac has also participated in that same discussion. If we're to discount Sherurcij's opinion then we should also discount Propaniac's, because they have both had the same level of involvement in the article prior to the AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that I was involved with the page before the nomination, because I posted the deletion nom. The point of AFD is to seek judgment from users outside of the dispute; it is therefore entirely reasonable, and completely routine, to identify which users are inside the dispute. It would be unfair to me if other editors viewed Sherurcij's response with the impression that he was an outside observer who had simply weighed my argument against this other, anonymous editor. I said he had "ties to the article" and that's it; how could that be an attempt to "cast doubt on [his] neutrality" when, as you point out, all I'm doing is stating that he's coming from the same position that I am? The idea that if two editors are in a dispute, and Editor 1 stops participating in discussion, and explicitly requires Editor 2 to bring the article to AFD in order to effect change, and it's "poor form" for Editor 2 to mention Editor 1's involvement when Editor 1 fails to mention it himself in his argument, is ridiculous. I never accused Sherurcij of "poor form" in not being up-front about his earlier actions, because I assumed good faith. I don't know why you need to assume that I'm trying to carry out some kind of sinister vendetta to subvert justice, instead of simply making sure the discussion is clear to other editors. Propaniac (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Documents of a prosecuting government agency don't come close to satisfying the wp:rs standard. Looks like another GB article that is ostensibly a biography, but is in essence an article about the evidence of lack thereof supporting the charges against the defendant. It's best that these WP:COATRACK articles are gotten rid of, especially when the subject's notability is weak.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator -- the contributor above has made several dozen complaints that contributions I made, related to the "war on terror", lapsed from COATRACK. But in his several years of these complaints I can't remember a single instance when he was willing to try to explain his concerns.
- I'd also like to remind everyone that, while the COATRACK essay raises some interesting points, it is merely an essay, so it is a mistake to treat it as if it were one of the wikipedia's official policies. Geo Swan (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no proof from neutral sources that this person even exists. If the person does exist, the article would need to be deleted and re-made under a different name because of WP:BLP anyway. Cynical (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain why you think BLP requires a different name? Any of the other Arsala Khan we already have articles about can't complain that this article slanders them, when we have another article about them. And no Arsala Khan we don't have an article about is going to come forward and saw, "I am the Arsala Khan who sent Osama bin Laden money. You are slandering me." Geo Swan (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete No RS that I can see. On top of that, WTH is "(suspected al Qaida financier)" doing there? Are there that many Arsala Khan's? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if you do a web search you will find that Arsala Khan is a very common name. Geo Swan (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Geo Swan said, there seem to be tons of Arsala Khans, although the only other one on Wikipedia is a Pakistani legislature member. (I actually stumbled upon this article initially by seeing Arsala Khan in the disambig page category and wondering the same thing you did.) I guess if this article is deleted, the legislature member can presumably be moved to Arsala Khan. Propaniac (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Agree with the nom about concerns whether the article could be describing two other men named Arsala Khan, because we don't know enough about the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's an encyclopedic topic, it just needs to be rewritten. Deletion should generally be a last resort, and only used when cleanup efforts have failed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic vapor sorption

Clearly a copyright violation, though I can't tell from where. My request for information from the initial editor has been ignored. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah it looks like a copyvio, but I can't tell where from either. I don't want to say delete until I know where it is copied from.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the copyright issues, it's a specialist essay rather than an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a specialist topic, the tone is a bit technical but that isn't a valid reason for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, total rewrite or delete, then. The current entry is not up to the job. Nowhere is the subject explained to a general audience. Hairhorn (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable per many Google Scholar hits, and barring any proof of copyvio, it is possible that the author, Dvstechnique (talk · contribs), is just very literate and knowledgeable about the subject, even if it seems to be a single-purpose account with a possible conflict of interest. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, might be copied from an essay they wrote themselves. Is too short a summary to be copied from a review. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rewritten, which TimVickers has already started. The topic looks encyclopedically notable to me, and there are other sources. - Pointillist (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the current en.wikipedia article might be a copyvio of the DVS Brochure listed on Surface Measurement Systems website, because when User:Dvstechnique originally pasted the text (on Wikisource here) it said it was "by D.J. Burnett" who has published academic articles for Surface Measurement Systems (e.g. this). The diagram referred to seems to come from Surface Management Systems research (e.g. it is credited to them here). If an OTRS account-holder were to contact the company, they might release the text under cc-by-xx 3.0 anyway. The UK arm (global HQ?) is apparently run by Dr Daryl Williams of Imperial College[3], and they make equipment that does DVS profiling automatically, so it is in their interest to release their text and indeed images. - Pointillist (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the moment, unless and until better evidence is found that it is a copyright violation. At present we have only a suspicion based on highly circumstantial evidence, but no known source. Yes, it looks like it was copy-pasted from a different format, but it could simply be that it was prepared in a word-processing package. Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions for special cases suggests tagging the Talk page with {{cv-unsure}}, not deleting. Qwfp (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like a synthesis of several articles available on linkinghub.elsevier.com. Thus likely original research. --Pgallert (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't delete articles for being copyright violations without any evidence of copying, and not because they draw together information from many sources, which Pgallert seems to object to. The whole idea of an encyclopedia is that it synthesises information from various sources: the only problem is if the article claims conclusions that the sources don't support, and I see no evidence of that here. The arguments for deletion seem to be that the article is written in a scholarly style and that it uses lots of sources. They sound to me like very strong arguments for keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but in this case I suspect the original version will turn out to be a copyvio of a piece of original research by someone in the marketing dept at Surface Management Systems, which wouldn't be a reliable source anyway. So IMO it is notable but we need someone brainy like TimVickers to drive a rewrite. - Pointillist (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has now joined in at Talk:Dynamic vapor sorption saying it is not copyvio because his colleague has released it. I've replied with advice on how to get it released under cc-by-sa etc. Could someone check that my advice is correct and fix it if necessary? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all - many years ago we at Surface Measurement Systems coined a phrase called ' dynamic vapor sorption' to describe a technique as described in the article. This term has now become widely used in many research and development industries. If you google the exact term you will see many scientific manufacturers now commonly use this technique. We have had many requests from different industries to define the term. My colleague wrote this article to help. It was written and pasted from Word as some have suspected. I am not an expert at Wikipedia and probably never will be. I originally posted it with my colleagues name but we thought we had better take it off in case we were thought to be promoting ourselves. Sorry if I do not keep up with everyone's comments but I still find it daunting to navigate around these pages. Tim has kindly offered to draft me an email which I eagerly look forward to receiving. I hope this whole affair doesn't turn out to be too complicated. We would simply like to share our knowledge. --MOBNMSMS (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that I've now dealt with the copyright release and forwarded the e-mails to info-en-c@wikimedia.org. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A7. Frank | talk 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temxperts

No indication that this is a notable web community. Only 28 "unique" Google results for the name "Temxperts". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete:Per WP:A7--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zarabanda (band)

Has been tagged as unsourced and of dubious notability since 2007. As far as I can tell this fails every criteria in WP:BAND. So, delete per WP:V and WP:BAND. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, full of nonexistent links and no effort has been made to assert notability. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the mentioned WP:Band. Note that all locatable WP:Reliable sources refer obviously to two other bands with the same name ([4] and [5].
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - band full of less than notable people, nothing included to really back up any claims made in the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim nawaz jung bahadur sardar bahadur

Deprodded twice, rarely unnotable historical person. See my talk page. Also, speedy declined. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Also nominating Hashim Nawaz Jung. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 05:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for a colonial soldier to be dispatched to meet the Queen was no small thing -- the article is a mess (poss. machine translated) but I think its easily improved. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made some copy edits and fixed some language mistakes. In my view, articles like this improve the wikipedia and do much to decrease its bias to english-speaking (spec. American) individuals. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Bigdaddy. The article is badly in need of work, though. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is something I have asked several times before in AfDs about subjects from South Asia. Could someone with a knowledge of the culture from which the article subject comes please tell us which of the many words in the article title are actually the subject's name, rather than honorifics. I'm willing to spend spend time on looking for sources (for evidence just look at my talk page for today), but not if I have to spend hours on searches that just end up finding other people with a particular title. I have the same problem that someone who only knows Telegu would have in deciphering which parts of The Right Honourable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, Nobel Laureate and Honorary Citizen of the United States are the actual name of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my belief is that the fellow's name is Hashim Ali Khan. That could be wrong though --- I'm no Indian Army expert and certainly no SA linguist. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been trying to figure that one out, I'm currently inclined to think that the chap was named Hashim Ali Khan, but the difficulty with many Muslim names (and to an extent, Hindu names) is that sometimes honorifics could also be part of the name. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another problem is that the creator of this page created two similar pages - Hashim nawaz jung bahadur sardar bahadur and Hashim Nawaz Jung. One of these has to be made a redirect (after the more suitable one is moved to an appropriate title). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the second and deprodded it --- it should redirect to this one (assuming it survives) as should the other. I think the author(s) are well-meaning but likely have a bit of trouble navigating/editing as english is likely not their 1st language. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've sourced and edited the page now. It still needs sourcing for the awards and honors, and there possibly are some books for that, but not online. This should pass WP:ANYBIO for now. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well played --- the article is vastly better. I imagine if one could dig up an old regimental history (I may check abebooks) there will be more to be found. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree, medals and other honours establish notability. Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A1. No context; page served only as a portal for an external link. RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wapping-gate.

Is just a link to a news article. Perhaps the topic deserves a full article, but right now it appears to be a link to a news article and the headline, failing WP:Advert. Any modification would be hard-pressed to beat WP:News articles. Gosox5555 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't even matter whether the investigation itself is notable or not: the term "Wapping-gate" is an obvious neologism[6] that falls under WP:NEO. The cited Guardian article doesn't even use it. — Rankiri (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete:Per WP:A1--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Models story

Unnecessary content fork of Model. Prod was removed by page creator without any relevant explanation. Alexius08 (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the prod; he also removed the speedy template. As the person who placed the prod, I obviously concur with Alexius08.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, it's a content fork written in a non-encyclopaedic tone. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an unnecessary content fork; also WP:OR and WP:Synthesis, and would require WP:TNT to create an article for this title. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:OR. Iowateen (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that's not an encyclopedia article; that's an essay. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @010 · 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ox Society

(Originally nominated by PRRfan for reason "delete unless cite provided")

As a member of this society and someone who is in contact with nearly 30 years of Ox alumni, I have created this article to contribute to the list of secret societies at Yale University. I will be adding verifiable details soon, as the article at present is unfinished. As you know, many details are not my right to share for the secretive nature of the organization, but I will be consulting with others as to how much information we can list publicly. Please notify me if you have any further queries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishtar21 (talk • contribs) 2009/07/08 18:16:27

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETEone of 33 secret societies at Yale. Appears that the only thing that we can varify is that they are secret, hardly a notable trait.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N unless Ishtar21 can provide those sources by the AfD close date. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By definition a secret society can not be verifiable or notable. And what is it about these societies at American universities that people seem to find so important? I went to university in England and in Poland and managed to study and have a social life (actually much more of the latter than the former) without any formal definitions of or names for my friendship groups. At least this one doesn't follow the ridiculously pretentious practice of using Greek letters to name itself, but, come on, let's get serious, how is a group of friends notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Skull and Bones, a secret society, is quite notable. As to your second point - as an American, I share your befuddlement. I suppose it's some combination of the ideal of "equality" (perhaps not original to America, but certainly popularized by a land with no guaranteed birth-right, Divine-Right Kings or Queens - Elvis and Freddy Mercury exempted), fused with the grand American pastime of taking quaint notions to ridiculous extremes - in this case, setting up entire structures so that everybody can have a social life, even those too dull, unimaginative, and/or timid to find one on their own. May the rest of the world learn at our expense. I'd say that ultimately, fraternities, sororities, and other such organizations are about as useful - and pretentious - as heraldry and Knighthood. Badger Drink (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we personally find these organizations useful/pretentious/etc aren't reasons to delete or keep this article. Let's stay focused on encyclopedic quality and Wikipedia policy. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All work and no side-tangents make Jack a dull, mercenary stick-in-the-mud. Badger Drink (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while some secret societies can be notable (see my reply to Phil Bridger, above), this one seems to fail WP:N. The sources currently provided are, in order: 1) a membership roster published in a borderline blog (showing that it exists, but offering nothing substantial), 2) a link to the front page of a student-run newspaper's website - no mention of Ox on that page, 3) a book describing an "Ox Head Society" from 19th century China - I'll assume good faith, and figure that this is merely the result of an Ivy League student too stupid to manage a useful Google search, rather than assume outright intent to deceit on his part - and 4) a post on a webforum. Nothing useful, and it only calls into question whether anybody in this secret society has ever read an encyclopedia, since whoever wrote this article clearly has no clue as to what constitutes an encyclopedic source. Finally, even if Ishtar21 were to follow through on his promise, the sources provided would still be primary - and secondary sources are what matters for notability. Badger Drink (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You say that some secret societies can be notable, but surely, if they are truly secret, they will, by definition of the word "secret", be neither verifiable nor notable. If the sources required to comply with either of these tests exist then the society is not secret. I know that this is a digression from the main point, which is that we agree that this should be deleted, but I think that it's an important point to make that nothing genuinely secret can be verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Pictures

Contested prod. No assertations of notability in the article, no independent references from reliable sources. While there was a Gateway Pictures that made the 1939 film mentioned, I don't beileve this is the same company - the website domain was only created last year through GoDaddy. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a shimmering logo does not an article make. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence that the companies are different OR the same. Therefore, I recommend removing this article's deletion status and maintaining its stub status so other users can (hopefully) build upon this info. FennShysa offers no evidence that this is spam other than his own "belief". Aliveatoms (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)— Aliveatoms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Non-notable company. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. Even if this was the same company that made the 1939 film, notability is not inherited, so this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, other than a movie which doesn't appear to be notable itself. external links lead nowhere, and tell you nothing. WuhWuzDat 18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable company. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Cunard's research. No RS = no article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY DISAGREE ~~- KEEP~~ I feel this is bordering on an edit war, and strongly feel this article should not be deleted. This article in no way violates the five pillars of Wikipedia. This is a valid encyclopedia entry because it is of historical fact that this company produced the 1939 film. Further more, Amazon cites the film as "one of the top 100 classic films of all time". I think what is causing the problems is the web site, which I agree can neither be proven nor disproven to be the same "Gateway Pictures". Therefore, I request that this deletion status be immediately removed (there are many other pages with much less info available that are part of the wikipedia). Furthermore, I submit that as a compromise, the link to the web page also be removed from the wiki entry, and that we leave this as stub status so others can contribute relevant info. Aliveatoms (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)— Aliveatoms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User has already registered a boldfaced "keep" opinion above; I've therefore struck this one out. You get only one, Aliveatoms. Deor (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, the name of the production company for Bad Boy was Gateway Productions,[7][8] not Gateway Pictures, and it was run by Richard C. Kahn and Herbert Meyer (p. 54, center column). There was a different, short-lived Gateway Productions in Fort Lee, New Jersey, in the late 1940s, run by O. A. Peters and Thomas Taglianetti. However, all I can find on the company that's the topic of this article is a New York Department of State filing dated a month ago. With no reliable sources in evidence that give any substantive information about this (apparently newly formed) outfit or its activities, the article utterly fails WP:CORP. Deor (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect to the character list can be created later. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Buckton

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio should in my view be deleted.--VS ^talk 14:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Redirect to Home and Away. Character that fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable fictional character. Sarah 23:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Home and Away or an appropriate chracter list. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable fictional character. Orderinchaos 03:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin. List of Home and Away characters or List of current Home and Away characters Matthewedwards : Chat 16:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge to an appropriate list (there seem to be a few for this show) and delete. Non-notable fictional character. florrie 15:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete, i.e. per the GFDL, we must retain the edit history in such scenarios. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable minor character. –Moondyne 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed a bit early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KTM 50 SX

Nominating this page and multiple related placeholder pages:

Pages are either empty placeholders, infoboxes only, or articles with too little information. It's also unclear whether they merit separate entries, particularly for closely related models (like "KTM 250 XC-W" and "KTM 250 XC-W Street").

This was part of a large batch of placeholder articles created more than 2 weeks ago. Roughly half the batch was speedied for no content. Speedy was declined by another admin for these pages, citing the "under contruction" tag, which has since expired (a couple missed being speedy tagged altogether). Hairhorn (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps these are notable but there's no good reason to keep pages that provide no information other than saying "____ is a motorcycle made by KTM". Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as almost empty, placeholder articles with little notability. Tavix | Talk 16:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can either delete all of these or make an article for every single motorcycle model ever made. Well. I think I speak on behalf of everyone when i say Delete all KMFDM FAN ^(talk!)
Delete all per Nyttend and Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As nominator says, these articles were given a reprieve by an admin who refused speedy deletion as they were under construction, but nothing has happened to them since. The manufacturer may be notable, and certain series of products may warrant individual articles, but no notability has been established for every individual model, nor is there any precedent for this. I42 (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: per above. Iowateen (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per everyone.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete all for all the reasons listed above. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy McRae

Unreferenced BLP; seemingly non-notable musician of a borderline notable band Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability; no proof that he was a member of any band. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Child's Play (band). Not notable artist, the article has a very little chance for expanding.--Vejvančický (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be inclined to put the band up for AfD too if this guy's article doesn't get through, thought I'd hang on though in case anyone came up with some whopping sources :) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @010 · 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms of micronations

The vast majority of these coats of arms are copyrighted, and so this "article" serves entirely as a non-free gallery. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Vast majority" does not mean "all". If nominator feel,that any of images is copyrighted, simply he can nominate for deletion this image, not article itself.--Yopie (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If your only problem with the articles is a few non-free coats then simply remove them, dont delete the article. remember to be bold.--SelfQ (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I don't think I've been accused of not being bold in a long time. My argument is not that the article contains non-free images, it is that it is here purely to show non-free images. The topic of the article is not legitimate- if there was an article called "Britney Spears album covers", and it merely consisted of a gallery of album covers, I would nominate that for deletion, as removing the covers would render the article useless. A similar thing is true here. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have removed all of the seals that are not free use. J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If our non-free content policies are not good enough, feel free to note the arguments from the previous AfD. Basically, this is unencyclopedic- most of the micronations are barely notable themselves, let alone their emblems. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a ... repository of ... images. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who then was a gentleman? has it right. Image galleries are not WP articles. This violates WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Deor (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Who then was a gentleman?. Unencyclopedic. Reso lute 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail notability. As unencyclopedic as the "Coat of Arms of the Chair I Sit In to Edit Wikipedia." Silly and pretentious utter nonsense. "Micronations" are not nations. No one cares about their "Coats of Arms." Edison (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if WP:NOTREPOSITORY is applied, please also nominate for deletion:

Coats of arms of unrecognized states

Gallery of country coats of arms

Coats of arms of dependent territories

Gallery of sovereign-state flags

Gallery of dependent territory flags

Flags of unrecognized and partially recognized states

Flags of micronations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb az86556 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go that far why not just type in "Gallery of", "Flags of" and "Coats of arms of" in the search box and delete every single article it comes up with.--SelfQ (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly look into it, but the flags of Europe are clearly of more encyclopedic interest than the coats of arms of micronations... J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is the page you're looking for, I believe. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Davenport

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio; was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin which closed wo/prejudice to opening more controlled AFD's. F-a-n-c-r-u-f-t.. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 14:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 14:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and/or merge. The character can be treated to the extent necessary (which is probably less extensive than she's treated in this article) in the parent article or an article collecting thumbnail sketches of its characters. Footnote 9 of WP:FAILN seems roughly on-point: "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'" - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not notable fictional character. Sarah 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Home and Away or an appropriate chracter article. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fictional character; no reliable sources. Generally agree with Simon Dodd here. Orderinchaos 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge Lack of notability for a separate article, which i certainly grant, is no objection to a part in a merged article. Any significant character in a notable work should at least have a single line description in a list, and a redirect to it. We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? DGG (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin. I'm not a fan of minor character lists, they often don't provide any additional context to any reader Matthewedwards : Chat 16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sure they do. They at least tell the person who has entered the name what fiction it is. If done right, they give a sentence or paragraph of content-- in this case, the place in the family relationships. Easy, and should satisfy all. You may not be a fan of minor character lists, but that is straight IDONTLIKEIT. ? I am not a fan of this fiction in the first place, but that doesn't mean i want to delete the articles. DGG (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, true. What I mean is that minor often = not notable, and that many List of minor xxxxxxx characters could be merged into List of xxxxxxx characters. I'm actually okay with this being merged into List of Home and Away characters. She was a top-billed character anyway, if I remember correctly. Matthewedwards : Chat 08:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep until it can be thoroughly researched or merge with List of Home and Away characters (or possibly List of past Home and Away characters?).Skteosk (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable fictional character, no real-world significance. –Moondyne 09:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Alchaenist. TerriersFan (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Neck Village School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Great Neck Village School

The fact that Village School is the oldest alternative high school does not mean it is notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia. Did Village School invent alternative education? No. It was created as the result of the alternative education movement. Alternative schools should be mentioned in the alternative education article. But Village School does not deserve its own article. Not all schools deserve to be notable. Special schools aren’t for the most part so what make this particular school unique? Alchaenist (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nomination. It seems to be notable, after all. Alchaenist (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is established by reliable sources related to both the alumni and the school itself (see Google News search). Makes a good example for the type of learning, and uniqueness isn't a barrier of entry for a Wikipedia article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Having notable alumni doesn't mean anything. The reliable sources are about Village School. But still no indication that it caused any effects on society. There is nothing notable about this school that should be included in an online encyclopedia. It is notable in the school community. But Wikipedia is not a school community. Alchaenist (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scjessey. Plenty of sources, NYT articles on the school from 1971 onward. Clearly notable high school.John Z (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An interesting and unusual school, the first of its type in America. The article is well referenced and the school has been the subject of multiple secondary sources so its notability is clearly established. Dahliarose (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Primary sources or sources affiliated with Village School are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. It needs references that are tertiary sources which it doesn't have. Many students attend traditional schools. Why should they care at all about alternative schools? Alternative schools have affected a small percentage of people. Why should this school be notable for only educating a small population of people? First see WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot wait for it to all of sudden is notable. Alchaenist (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?There are many substantial reliable third party references already used in the article and in the searches above. WP:Notability has nothing to do with "how it affects society."John Z (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are secondary sources but are not tertiary sources. Alchaenist (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles in the New York Times on the school are not reliable third party sources? Hmmm.John Z (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

The article reads like any school prospectus, with nothing of any real note worthiness. Just the usual sales pitch that most schools put out to encourage new entrants. There is no global interest in the school its just a slightly different provincial school. No references from outside of the immediate locality so not even of national notability, let alone global or international notability. dolfrog (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What dolfrog is trying to say is Wikipedia is not a place to advertise local schools. Town articles have more notability than local schools. Therefore, they don't need to prove notability. High schools are notable is NOT policy or guideline. I don't understand why people keep using this as a valid argument. Alchaenist (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you consider that the page needs cleaning up please so do; however this is not a deletion ground. WP:N does not require national notability, particularly in a country as big as the US. If it did we would be culling thousands of pages about matters only notable within their state. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not only an unusual school and the first of its type but the page is supported by reliable, independent sources. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all of the references in the artilce 17 in all, most come from the Schools web site, or school inspectors which is the same for all schools, there is one dead like and a couple of links which do not mention the school at all, There is nothing in any of the links toi state that the school it notable in anyway, but only prove that the school exists. If every school that exists were to be included in Wikipedia then ever school in the world would have to be included and if you look at what Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a directory, and this entry would appear to just a directory entry with no notability from any other school. So what is so notable, about this school and where is the independent documentary support There is none there at the moment. dolfrog (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dolfrog, take a look at Google News and you'll find plenty of news stories about the school, mostly in the early days in the 70s and often in the New York Times. We judge notability of organisations by external news coverage, so why not check out those sources rather than concentrating on the article in its present state? Fences&Windows 16:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am from the UK have no time to look for old Newspaper articles. If they exist then they should be referenced, or the notability was only back in the 1970s and not now, some 40 years later. Has to school made further improvements, or is it part of a larger group of similar schools, have other schools use this school as a model. Or has it just lost its notability, in the sands of time. Refrecnes should go strait the relevant passages or quotes, the reader should not have to scroll though long web pages only to find a passing reference from a former worker.dolfrog (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"have no time to look for old Newspaper articles." If you aren't prepared to research topics, then you shouldn't be arguing at AfD. Also, notability is not temporary - if it was notable in the 70s, it's notable forever as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Fences&Windows 00:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The external news coverage is not tertiary sources. Alchaenist (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources (e.g. the New York Times) are third party publications. Third party publication just means someone other than the subject; i.e. someone other than the school or people involved in the school. When WP:Reliable sources says "reliable, third-party, published sources" it literally means secondary sources, which is why it also says Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. If you're arguing that secondary sources are not third party sources then it's possible that you're confusing third party source with tertiary source. The sub guideline most relevant to this organization is WP:Notability (organizations and companies), which states "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Ha! (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An organization is "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." In this case, Village School is not a typical high school. Therefore it doesn't have tertiary sources to claim notability. Alchaenist (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary sources (e.g., dictionaries and encyclopedias) are not necessary. We're looking for third-party sources (e.g., newspaper articles written by someone that is not part of the school). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are tertiary sources not necessary when this school is not the typical high school? Alchaenist (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of Wikipedia's notability guidelines require tertiary sources to establish notability; all of them require secondary sources instead. Unless you can link to a WP:Notability guideline that says tertiary sources are required, an argument based on a requirement for tertiary sources is invalid. Ha! (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Village School is not a typical high school. Isn't that enough to warrant tertiary sources? Besides, notability is not temporary. I haven't read anything new about the school. Alchaenist (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the type of school it is ↩

↪ and also regardless of what type of topic it is, WP:Notability requires secondary sources rather than tertiary sources. Notability is not temporary states that a topic [...] does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources; in other words, "notability is not temporary" means that it doesn't matter that you haven't read anything new about the school, rather than that it does matter. On a side note, if you're changing your previous comments in an AfD discussion so that they take on a different meaning, it's usually better to strike through the old text and insert new text than to replace the old text with new text; otherwise the discussion no longer makes sense. To strike through text, use <s></s>,<strike></strike> or <del></del>; see WP:Markup#Character_formatting. Ha! (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alchaenist's arguments about tertiary sources should be discounted. Either they do not understand what a tertiary source is, or they do not understand Wikipedia notability guidelines. Ha! is correct about what "Notability is not temporary" means; editors should read policies and guidelines before assuming they mean the direct opposite of what they actually say. Oh, and Keep as I've not read a single good argument for deletion. Fences&Windows 00:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable school with notable alumni, backed up by dozens of reliable and verifiable sources including coverage in The New York Times about the school. Alansohn (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @981 · 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Jackson

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio; was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin which closed wo/prejudice to opening more controlled AFD's. Emma was played by Kylie Minogue's sister; which means boo. Delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 14:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not notable fictional character. The actress is notable and the show is notable but the character is not. Sarah 23:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Home and Away or an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again a not-notable fictional character.--VS ^talk 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fictional character; cannot meet WP:V/WP:RS. Orderinchaos 03:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Wasn't aware of the award nomination for the character - change to Keep or Merge per Matthewedwards below (and in same terms). Orderinchaos 08:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that wee bit of notability would adhere to the actress, not the character. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point there. Have added "or Merge" to my vote. Orderinchaos 10:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it goes hand in hand. The award is character related. She wouldn't have won it if she weren't playing the character. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my reason for opting not to delete. Orderinchaos 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin Matthewedwards : Chat 16:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:A Nobody has found enough sources to establish character notability. I'm not sure in the long run this should be kept -- it is still short enough to be merged into the main character list -- but I don't think it is beneficial to delete. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and try to expand further. This one needs a character plot summary similar to ones used in Simpsons characters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable references found, requirements met. Dream Focus 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually has an award; needs a plot summary added for context,as required by all versions of NOT PLOT. DGG (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dannii Minogue has the award ;) Jack Merridew 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since I don't see enough here for its own article. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Rosetta

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio; was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin which closed wo/prejudice to opening more controlled AFD's. We have just about no content re Angelo Rosetta and if CSD.A7 didn't only apply to *real* people, I pitch him that route. Something else that needs fixing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Home and Away or an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fictional character which is not notable independent of the actors or show itself. I'm okay with the name being redirected to the show article or an appropriate list but I think the article should be deleted. Googling "Angelo Rosetta" and "Home and Away" gets only 126 distinct (of 885 total) ghits, most of which are to forums and fan pages. [9] I don't think Google is solely an indicator of notability but for an award winning and popular TV show that is currently airing, I would expect to see much more if this were a notable character. Due to the lack of reliable sources about this character, the article is also unverified and unverifiable and not maintainable. Sarah 02:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Orderinchaos 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin and Sarah Matthewedwards : Chat 16:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge to an appropriate list (there seem to be a few for this show) and delete. Non-notable fictional character. florrie 15:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge after adding at least some information more than what's hidden in the infrbox. DGG (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man (word)

Articles about words need extraordinary content to be considered encyclopedic. This article does not meet that threshold. It is a mishmash of etymologies and definitions, with no clear connecting thread that would combine them into an encyclopedic whole. It even contains a table of Old High German inflections, highlighting just how much of this content really belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. If there is any encyclopedic content here, it may be a small portion of the final section which is already well covered in other articles. Powers ^T 13:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —+An gr 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although not quite as high-caliber as other articles about words (e.g. Thou), this article is certainly full of sourced, encyclopedic information that has no business in a dictionary. The OHG inflection table is probably dispensable, but the five paragraphs of etymological information that precedes it are not, nor is the "Modern usage" section at the end. The section on the rune Mannaz could probably be a separate article (as it indeed originally was), but that would still leave plenty to make a decent encyclopedia article. +Angr 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extensive etymology is the domain of dictionaries, isn't it? Powers ^T 14:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, brief etymologies are the domain of dictionaries. Extensive etymologies, and discussion of usage, in paragraphs of connected prose, are encyclopedic information. +Angr 14:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. As pointed out by Nyttend below, dictionaries are not constrained to solely brief etymologies. That is purely a function of printing costs, not scope. It's not even an issue for not-paper dictionaries. Uncle G (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sourced and NPOV discussion of its usage makes it a fitting candidate for an article, and if we have an article on a word, we really should discuss its etymology somewhat. By the way, the best dictionaries have extensive etymologies: if I remember right, the OED spends something like half a page on its etymology for "black" alone. Etymologies aside, this content belongs nowhere except an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate your support on the etymology issue, I believe usage guides are also dictionary content, not encyclopedia content. Powers ^T 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Man#Etymology. I don't see any reason why there needs to be an entirely separate article for the word itself. Tavix | Talk 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Man (word) (10KB) is disproportionately long to be a valid section of Man (20KB). From WP:SPLIT: if an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out. Personally, I would rename the article into more appropriate Etymology of man or Man (etymology)— Rankiri (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments suggested by Angr. I also concur with Rankiri that the page is too long to be a section of Man. Cnilep (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can all agree that most of this content doesn't belong in Man; if a merge were to occur it would primarily consist of extracts from the last section. Powers ^T 00:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does Wiktionary actually take content of this kind? I don't recall seeing information presented in this format there.
I think this is a fascinating article, and I'd like to see it retained somewhere, but I must confess I think the argument that it belongs in a dictionary has considerable force. Reserving my !vote for the time being.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Wiktionary has a different format for their content. If any part of this was transwikied, it would have to be reformatted, but that's normal. Powers ^T 00:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Powers. I'm going to go with keep.
It seems to be longstanding custom and practice, on Wikipedia, to allow this kind of content for some words: he, she, it, we, you, they. And indeed, it's possible for an article of this kind to be a featured article: see thou.
It's possible to characterise the "this is custom and practice" argument as WP:WAX, but this goes beyond that essay. A featured article is thoroughly reviewed content, and its existence implies a consensus that fundamentally definitional, etymological or usage-based articles can have a place here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted in my opening statement, some articles about words have extraordinary content and can be excellent articles. But that does not imply that any word can or should have an article. Thou is an important topic because of its historical shift in connotation from informal to formal, and its lack of an obvious cognate in modern English. Furthermore, there is really no "concept" behind the word which would be a suitable place for discussion about the word. "Man", however, is a noun, and while a limited discussion of the origin of the word itself is not inappropriate in the Man article, an entire article with detailed etymology is overkill, IMO. Powers ^T 12:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eskimo. Notable and well-sourced, but not suitable as a stand-alone article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name Eskimo

This article contains nothing but etymology, as explained right in the first sentence. The corresponding section from the parent Eskimo article is actually longer than this one is, making the split seem absurd. To the extent that we have etymology for the word "Eskimo", it belongs in the Eskimo article; aside from that limited extent, this content belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers ^T 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —+An gr 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Eskimo#Nomenclature, but dictionaries include brief one-line etymologies, not paragraphs of sourced prose. This content definitely belongs at Wikipedia (as opposed to Wiktionary), but as a section of the general Eskimo article rather than an article on its own. +Angr 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Etymologies in dictionaries are only brief because they're printed on paper. The medium of the dictionary is not our concern, only the character of the content. Powers ^T 14:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just as Wikipeida is not limited by space in the manner of a traditional encyclopaedia, likewise Wiktionary does not have the paper-based constraints of traditional dictionaries. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Etymologies in dictionaries are brief because that's the nature of dictionaries, whether they're made of paper or not. While Wiktionary is technically capable of holding five paragraphs of etymological information in an entry, in practice Wiktionary entries don't do that. If someone were to add all of this, including references, to wikt:Eskimo#Etymology, it would almost certainly be soon reverted on the grounds that Wiktionary isn't an encyclopedia. +Angr 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - … and people more used to Wiktionary and not-paper dictionaries would rightly object to such reversion. The only people who think that dictionaries are like this are people who don't have a wide enough experience of dictionaries. They may come to Wiktionary and boldly edit to accord with their own limited mental models, but they are eventually encouraged to learn that Wiktionary is not a paper dictionary, and that paper pocket dictionaries do not form the model for all dictionaries. There is not a single complaint about length currently at Wiktionary's Etymology scriptorium. And there are past Beer Parlour discussions where people have pressed for etymologies to be longer. Uncle G (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The OED has some long entries in it about etymology of various words... and it's a dictionary; though some articles in Wiktionary do get transwikied to Wikipedia... 70.29.208.69 (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what is at stake here is not merely the etymology of the word for the stake of philological interest, as would be the case in most dictionaries. Rather, the discussion here treats the relationship between supposed etymologies of Eskimo and perceptions of the word as derogatory. This is much broader than would normally be considered in a dictionary, regardless of page count. Cnilep (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Eskimo. Angr has it right. Ladyof Shalott 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real point in merging text 1 into text 2 when text 2 is already longer. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If Origin of the name Eskimo contains any unique (useful) information, it deserves to be salvaged into Eskimo#Nomenclature regardless of the article's size. — Rankiri (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eskimo. Even though the section "Nomenclature" on that page is longer, it doesn't contain all of the information, nor the sources, on Origin of the name Eskimo. Don't confuse word count with content. Cnilep (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is highly notable and well-sourced. Sebwite (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of which is in question, nor is the combination of the two sufficient to have an article. The issue in question is scope, specifically the contention that Wikipedia is not the place for detailed etymological information. Powers ^T 12:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The overall consensus in this monster of a discussion is clearly in favour of deletion. Despite massive press coverage of Michael Jackson's death as a whole, his children have not obtained sufficient separate notability as an entity to warrant an article; particularly considering the egregious WP:BLP problems that have been brought up in this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Michael Jackson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Children of Michael Jackson

<first nomination> Children who are only know because of their parents do not require a wiki page. There is already page descibing the Jackson family listing these children. 2 lines at a funeral does not make someone a child star MrMarmite (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<from the second AfD, deleted as cleanup> This will doubtless be contentious, but I offer the following argument. The children are in of themselves not notable - they cannot derive notability from their father, because notability is not inherited. Their appearance on stage during the recent memorial is a single event, not in itself according notability to the children, and so is best left as information within the article about the event not about the children. I am sympathetic to the article creator's contention (see Talk:Children of Michael Jackson) that it is becoming increasingly difficult to extract information from the Michael Jackson article, but comments on the talk page of Michael Jackson indicate that this is best solved by spinning out the significant portions of text relating to his music, rather than spinning out information on his children, of which very little exists in this article that is not already included. Finally, I note that beyond what is already included at Michael Jackson, this article simply offers an "expectation" of future notability from supposed estate and custody battles, which means that notability does not yet exist for this spinout. Deletion here would not mean that the article could never be created, but I see no establishment of independent notability for the children beyond the single event of their appearance at their father's memorial at this time. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as above and my AFD entered at same time MrMarmite (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The children are not notable and notability is not inherited. Unfortunately, some might confuse the plethora of media mentions about them during the recent death of their father as notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackson himself: if I remember right, it's standard to redirect the spouse of a notable person to that person's article, and it seems reasonable to do the same with a notable person's children. They're definitely likely search targets. Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's definitely right with their names (and the names are currently redirected), but I wasn't convinced of this for this article title, which is why I went for deletion. Not challenging your opinion here, just explaining to future commentators that I considered this per WP:BEFORE Fritzpoll (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to Jackson's article. None of his children are notable enough for articles and are already covered in his article. TJ Spyke 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this can be moved to Family of Michael Jackson (like Family of Barack Obama), and include the kids, wives Lisa Marie Presley, Debbie Rowe, a family tree, and links to the Jackson family article (the siblings and parents). - Epson291 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only thing with that is that the Family of Barack Obama page is essentially to the same depth of the family tree as the Jackson family article should be, so I'm unconvinced of the need for two separate articles relating to his family. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While that is an option, the thing I worry about is that the Jackson family article it's one line a person. Very little information/weight could be put on Michael Jackson's immediate family when all of the Jackson brothers and sisters have their own unnotable children (and it would violate WP:UNDUE) - Epson291 (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as 'Family of Michael Jackson' article (as suggested by Epson291 above). I've supported the deletion of articles on children of celebrities before, but I'm going to make an exception here - in this case, I think Michael Jackson's children are notable enough, simply for being the children of Michael Jackson, to justify this level of coverage. Yes, normally notability is not inherited, but we are talking about almost the biggest celebrity in the world here. I do think it would be preferable, though, to merge in the content about Debbie Rowe into a single 'Family of Michael Jackson' article. Robofish (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the level of celebrity has any bearing on WP:NOTINHERITED, and I'm not convinced of the need for an exception, but I'll leave that to the closing admin. Why can the material not exist where it already is, in either the Jackson family or Michael Jackson articles? As I say in the nomination, the need to spin material out of an article is paramount when there's a lot of it. Here, there isn't - the MJ article is too big, but the bloat is from discussion of his music, not from his family. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my mind about this, see my comment below. Robofish (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure how this applies under Wiki guidelines, but I came on looking for info about the children, not their father. Whether their notability comes from their father or not, they are a notable news subject. Under the effort to provide information in the most efficient manner, I think the article should be kept. It was much easier for me to be able to go straight to an article about the children, not wade through stuff about the rest of their family. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not wikinews, we are an encyclopedia - we have inclusion guidelines for a reason. Navigational redirects already exist for the names of the children, and can be altered to point directly to the relevant sections for navigational ease. That doesn't give a reason for this standalone article to exist when the children have no individual notability Fritzpoll (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The idea that they are not notable (as we define notability) is silly. The media has been writing about them since they were born. You could easily fill this page with 1,000 refs. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply. They have numerous articles specifically about them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About them only, or more trivially in relation to commentary about their father? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About them specifically. Here's one, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's covering her specifically, I'll grant you, but it's a WP:ONEEVENT coverage, that I refer to in my nomination. She can't just be notable because she said a couple of sentences at her father's memorial, or the subsequent flurry of news coverage about it. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge There is already an article called Jackson family, this would seem the ideal place for this information ACarPark (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Jackson family (slimming down the material). Nothing in there documents notability of the children on their own merits; everything we have to say about them is essentially about their father. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here: the page "Children of Michael Jackson" is a sub-article of Michael Jackson, intended to describe his relationship with the children. It is a sub-article, in the sense of "Songs written by Michael Jackson" or "Music composed by Michael Jackson" or "Dances choreographed by Michael Jackson". The intent is to separately detail another aspect of Michael Jackson's impact (based on his notability), rather than create a sub-section, such as under "Choreography" trying to provide a section about Jackson dance-moves (even though it would still be notable in that article). The specific choice to group the children (rather than the broader "Nuclear family") is because they have been named, as a legal entity, in Jackson's will (to receive 40% of the estate, protected against creditors). That legal entity is not some future expectation; no, instead, it has already been documented. There could be another article, "Beneficiaries named in Michael Jackson's 2002 will" but that would also flow from his notability, rather than something like "List of children who lived at Neverland Ranch" where notability would be tied to the property, itself, rather than Jackson (and people could camp at Neverland after Jackson had left), and would require childhood residency to be a significant aspect of the Ranch. I hope that helps to clarify that the notability of the article is due to the phrase "Michael Jackson" in the title, without the need to use a title such as "Procreation work done by Michael Jackson". Anyway, I do sympathize with the confusion, as trying to consider the children as separately notable, but the article is a sub-article of Michael Jackson, based on his notability, not theirs as independent "3 child-stars named Jackson", such as the notability of "Liza Minnelli" independent of Judy Garland and Vincente Minnelli. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying this article about his children is on a notable topic because notability is inherited from their father's article? That's not really how it works. Further, what is the need for this sub-article at this stage - there isn't a huge amount of material, and being named within a will hardly affords them individual notability. Sub-articles are fine when there is too much information to cover within the main article, but that is patently not the case here. If you were going to create a sub-article to reduce the size of the MJ page, you should look to making Music of Michael Jackson to reduce the size, but the children do not need their own sub-article as it is too specific a topic with too little information. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is much information about the children that didn't fit in the main article, due to space used about his music. Recent Google searches report: for "children of Michael Jackson" 30,300 hits, or for German "Kinder von Michael Jackson" 16,700 hits, and that does not include searches by the children's names or other languages such as French, Japanese and Italian. With children older than Wikipedia, there are more than 12 years of news reports about the children, their disguises, education, and public appearances. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see why this information can't be housed at the Jackson family page, it seems the ideal place for it, and redirects could take you to the location within that article. Also..what's a "Strong" keep? Do they count a double? :) MrMarmite (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson family would become unbalanced per WP:UNDUE. Right now it's basically a list, and if you merge this article it will be half about the three kids, and then single sentences for everyone else. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as everyone for choosing to keep the article. Only Paris seen and heard about her dad's memorial service. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment seems to indicate a reason for delete, I guess I am missing your point MrMarmite (talk)
Keep - Per Wikid77. Gage (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge relevant facts in an article on Michael Jackson. 95.96.73.138 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge relevant facts in an article on Jackson Family 86.138.66.214 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable breakout-for-length of the main article; the children are also getting considerable media attention this week, but the main reason for keeping it is stylistic. JJL (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Absolutely guaranteed to become a BLP nightmare if it isn't already. Can't wait to see the "criticism" section on an article about young children, not! — Please comment R ² 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Children of a notable celebrity do not inherit notability. The children themselves are summarized in Michael Jackson; custody battles and all relevant information after Jackson's death can be mentioned in death of Michael Jackson. — Σ xplicit 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the need for information on the Jackson children over and above what can be reasonably included in the articles Michael Jackson, death of Michael Jackson, and Jackson family. Articles can be created in the future in the case of notable events (such as a custody battle) or if any of the children become notable individuals. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete PLease don't get carried away because of his death people. This is an encyclopedia. An article dedicated purely to the children of a pop star is absurd. This should be summarized briefly in the personal life section. See Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt articles for how it should be done. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After that funeral that was telecast live on all the networks, I think that the kids should get the same treatment that Wikipedia gives to members of other royal families. Mandsford (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into MJ mainpage, a section under family. Also no need for a list of MJs family, or anyone else's for that matter.Fuzbaby (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ or delete The current massive interest in them is through no action of their own; all they have done is reacted the way normal people do to personal tragedies. If we are to make crying at your fathers memorial service or inherting great sums of money grounds for notability then we would need to create millions or articles for completely unkown people. These children are not notable in their own right but rather are of peripheral interest to another subject. If we take a moment and look at the guidlines for notable persons we will see it states "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being their spouse, is not a reason for a standalone article on A" [10] ~~Making them subtopics in the relevant page of the Jackson family makes much more sense as this family most certainly is notable and these children are part of it.~~ If we look at the children of other celebrities on wikipedia standard practice seems to be directing readers towards the notable subject of interest as in the case of Suri Cruise or Shiloh Pitt. Furthermore the current massive interest in the children is driven enitrely by recent events and the media interest in them is certainly going to die down; again, to quote the notability guidelines it "takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability" [11]. Regardless of what popular opinion might be, I feel that stacked strictly against wikipedia's guidelines these children do not meet notability requirements, and thuse the article should be merged or deleted. Solid State Survivor (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the matter has been altered after being persuaded by arguements from other editors. I now support deleting this article without merging into the Jackson family - as per BLP arguements possited by SlimVirgin Realist2 and Lantrix. Solid State Survivor (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the main page, redirect from the kids' names, and delete this. As noted directly above, unless a famous person's family does something to make them in turn famous, then our standing consensus is to redirect to the parent's article. I don't see any reason that this shouldn't be included in the main article, and redirects placed. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We don't need articles about every subset of Jackson's life.--Falcon8765 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Merge Edit. I think that it should be added to the Jackson family page. Portillo (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about priorities: I had originally created the article "Children of Michael Jackson" as a significant sub-article to handle reader requests about his children: Wikipedia users began asking about his children over 120,000x times per day; on 9-July-2009 there were still over 40,000 page-views, with people requesting the children every 1 or 2 seconds (all day long). There was talk that Prince Jackson would have sung during the "This Is It" concert tour, plus reports about their schooling with the nanny. The 2002 will was filed in Los Angeles Probate court on 2-July-2009, and reports stated the children (as a group) would receive 40%, mother 40% & charities 20% of the estate. I didn't see the sense in updating the article about Michael Jackson to keep track of his children's lives, so I though to split as a sub-article based on significance within topic "Michael Jackson". However, people are demanding "wiki-notability" for the article. Meanwhile, nine of his albums became the top 9 in the U.S. (but that's his music, not him). Michael Jackson said that his children were the most important thing in his life; they were "everything" to him. I think that means they were notable to him. So, I wonder how to reconcile Wikipedia policies with these priorities. Perhaps this is a pivotal point in adjusting WP policies. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am still unsure where you are getting these numbers from. How on earth are MJ's post-mortem record sales relevant, and of course his children are notable to him, my children are "everything" to me, that does not mean they need a wiki page. MrMarmite (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11-July-2009: The stats are a complex aggregate of many titles that redirect as names for his children, based on the website stats.grok.se (in use since November 2007). Complicating the total counts are stats for Canadian football player Paris Jackson (same name as MJ's girl). -Wikid77 (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Reso lute 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Notability is not inherited by alleged biological children. Edison (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable on their own. Neither is this the place for play-by-play news about the custody litigation. WillOakland (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His family is fairly notable. ScienceApe (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete They are not notable in their own right in any way shape or form. If they deserve an article simply because they are the children of a dead pop star, then we can open the floodgates to an article on every single child any celebrity has ever given birth to. Lourdes Leon does not have her own article, why are the Jackson children any different? Paul75 (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes isn't notable because Madonna keeps her from the public eye. Lourdes also doesn't stand to inherit properties worth hundreds of millions of dollars, because Madonna isn't dead. But the Jackson kids are in the public eye due to the death of their father, and due to their potential to become not just millionaires, but centi-millionaires. Their power to make news makes them notable. I disagree with the basic position that "notability is not inheritable." (I posted the same thing at the Debbie Rowe discussion board, by the way.) As someone posted above you, "Wikipedia users began asking about his children over 120,000x times per day; on 9-July-2009 there were still over 40,000 page-views, with people requesting the children every 1 or 2 seconds (all day long)." That makes them notable. Jgroub (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a "potential" to become rich is surely not wiki-worthy. Also, please let us know where these page view stats come from. MrMarmite (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly you're citing classic arguments to avoid - The existence of other articles of similar quality is not a good reason for retention, page-views, Google hits, and any metric other than notability through their own actions, not inherited via the fame of their father or a single event are very weak as arguments for retention. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I think being wealthy is in and of itself not notable in the context of an encyclopedia. Extremely wealthy individuals are notable on wikipedia only when they do things that may or may not involve this wealth. For instance S. Robson Walton is notable not because he inherited a massive fortune, but rather because he is the chairman of the coproration that generated that fortune. Solid State Survivor (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err... Lourdes isn't notable because Madonna keeps her from the public eye. Lourdes also doesn't stand to inherit properties worth hundreds of millions of dollars, because Madonna isn't dead. is a ridiculous statement Jgroub. If Lourdes Leon is kept out of the public eye by Madonna, why is she seemingly splashed over every single glossy woman's magazine more and more as she gets older. And she doesn't stand to inherit properities worth millions of dollars???!!! So Madonna doesn't own all that property she lives in then, and isn't going to pass some of it onto Lourdes? Anyway, the Jackson kids may end up getting nothing. Many reports claim he was bankrupt and heavily in debt. And he was living in a rented house when he died. Even if it was a reason to get your own articles, I doubt those kids are going to get wealthy from their father's estate. Paul75 (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I feel the content is worthwhile, but possibly should be merged into a "Family of Michael Jackson" article as mentioned above. Bafleyanne (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)— Bafleyanne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Just to illustrate the problem, how would an article about Paris begin? "Paris-Michael Jackson is" ... what? an actress? a television personality? a musician? No, the only way to describe her at this point is "Michael Jackson's daughter." WillOakland (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge The Children are already mentioned in other articles; there is no need for excessive repetition. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a redirect. They are minors. A comprehensive article would have to get into issues such as biological parentage, custody, and other matters it would be unfair to showcase on a page devoted to minors. As they pass through their teens, we'd be on hand to document the first time they got drunk, their first love affair, the first time they did something silly in public. It would be a BLP minefield. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no no. It is much better to attract unfair comments/insults into one heavily-policed article, rather than let people scatter unfair words (about minors) in dozens of Michael Jackson articles. I have countered wiki-vandalism for years, and so I know how to, logistically, limit it's general proliferation: offer a clear target, with a good defence. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The children are not notable and notability is not inherited. Wait until they have done something notable themselves. Esowteric | Talk 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slim puts it best. – iride scent 21:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin - It looks like this article is going down, but I'd like to point out that the votes based on not-notable are incorrect (if using our definition of the word). 1 2 independant reliable sources that discuss in the children in detail. As far as saying BLP as a reason to delete, that is also incorrect. BLP just says we should follow Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability, and No original research. This article does that, so BLP doesn't come into play. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are WP:ONEEVENT indicators, as they all relate to the event of Jackson's death, and do not therefore accord notability on the children, but on the event of the memorial service, which already has an article. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been articles about them ever since they were born. It certainly isn't ONEEVENT stuff. They always had that taken care off, they just weren't notable (maybe) in the past. Now they're notable, and they've been covered extensively their whole lives. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about issues raised: There has been an implicit blurring of the notability focus, and much talk about "inheriting notability", so let me clarify:

notability focus - the main focus is all the children, as a group tied to Michael Jackson, with no separate articles as claiming individual notability by their own names, only as the group with Michael Jackson.
notability scope - the scope is only with "Michael Jackson" and not as "3 youngsters named Jackson"; there is no attempt to define them as 3 separate articles, independent of their designation as, collectively, the children of Michael Jackson.
no inheritance - there is no attempt to shift notability from Michael Jackson, separately, onto them, such as touting them as the upcoming "Kinglets of Pop" as if that royal term had been passed, by birthright, to some royal heirs.
notable as note-worthy - fundamentally, the article addresses a note-worthy topic, about the children together in relation to Michael Jackson, as being worthy of note. If someone said, "The children of Michael Jackson are planning a public appearance in town today", then would that be note-worthy, or of no importance? Consider the reaction of the local officials, local police, and local citizens of the town, when expecting a public visit of MJ's children.
wealth/privilege: It has been argued that perhaps any group of children, expecting to inherit great wealth, could be documented separately. However, the title of the article includes "of Michael Jackson" rather than just anyone raised in wealth. The significance cannot be separated from the notability of Michael Jackson, as if trying to convert the "1983 music released by Michael Jackson" into merely "some songs released in 1983"; instead, the article is demanding, by the title, to include "Michael Jackson".
arguing independence: Some have asserted that the children will be viewed as famous on their own, even though they never received a major competitive award; however, the subject of the article is the collective group tied inseparably to Michael Jackson, not merely their separate accomplishments.
legal term: If the U.S. Supreme Court were asked to consider a case regarding the "children of Michael Jackson", there would be little doubt as to what that term denotes. There might even be a reply, "You mean, of THE Michael Jackson". The obvious legal implication is another aspect of notability.
Wikipedia precedents: Oh, it's never been done before. They're always part of their parent's article. But these children were orphans, they didn't go home to their mother; they had no legal parents. So, the court awarded temporary custody to their grandmother, Katherine Jackson. This is a rather unusual situation, where they cannot be considered an active part of their parents' life. They are orphans, being assigned to a guardian.

I hope those issues help to clarify the notability as tied directly to Michael Jackson, but also as a legal entity to the American judicial system, a security concern of police departments, and a case of children becoming orphans. Their impact to the court system, and to security concerns of the local police, is because they are the children of Michael Jackson, and hence, the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What have these odd definitions of notability got to do with Wikipedia's definition, which does not (unfortunately because it makes it unclear) to the everyday usage, in the context specifically of WP:NRVE, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:SBST? I'm afraid you don't get to make up the rules of notability as you go along, and I have covered why this is an unnecessary spinout above. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above section ("Comment about issues raised" ) does not give "definitions" of notability, but rather, explains the aspects & situations affecting notability. There has been no attempt to "make up rules of notability" but, rather, to emphasize that the article is about Michael Jackson (the man) with his children, and about his parenting, the masks, schooling, etc. It is not titled "MJ's children after he was gone". There is an illusion here that the article is expected to be 99% about the children, excluding any mention of Michael Jackson (not true). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - These are notable children —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.99.72 (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is not future-proof, since it is logical this kids will grow up and have a mind each one on their own. My suggestion is to create three separate articles with the information regarding each one of those kids (even if redundant, that's ok). And have the article Children of Michael Jackson merged into the Michael Jackson article and the Jackson Family article. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating 3 separate articles has been tried before, and rejected, because they are not yet separately notable (apart from their father), since they have not each won a competitive award, plus they are minors, legally, requiring special coverage, as with child-stars. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep: The children of Michael Jackson are not explained enough in Jackson's main page.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability: I cannot emphasize enough: the article is a Michael Jackson article; the page is about Michael Jackson, as a father with his children. It does not attempt to establish separate notability as "3 kids named Jackson"; no, instead, the article includes many events with Michael Jackson and his children together, during the 12 years (not as a WP:ONEEVENT). It's not like a typical wiki-biography where a father is mentioned 1 or 2 times, and then all the rest is life/work of the notable, independent person. No, instead, it is a Michael Jackson article, where he is mentioned many times in numerous events during the 12-year period. The notability is not because a 3-kid group was seen on stage worldwide, but, rather, it is an article about the notable relationship of Michael Jackson with his children, as reported by major reliable sources, during a 12-year period. OK, at this point, does anyone still imagine the article is about the 3 kids, separately, restricted to only 1 line about their father? There is no, repeat, no issue of inheriting notability, (why?) because it is an article about Michael Jackson as a parent. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Michael Jackson as a parent" is not a notable encyclopedic article by any standard. Any relevance to the relationship with his children can easily be covered by the his main biography or by the Jackson family article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me this whole issue looks like people's desire to keep the world of MJ alive through his children, somewhat ironic given his predilections. He's dead, and no amount of repeated and over detailed information about pre-pubescent children is going to change that . I no more expect to see articles on these young children than I would expect to see articles on the children of other dead celebrities who have no claims to fame of their own. Frankly, I find the whole thing rather creepy. MrMarmite (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on uber-notability: I realize it can seem confusing: the actual uber-notability. I didn't know that much about Jackson, about his numerous albums (etc.), so I was shocked to learn about: the recent 9 Michael Jackson albums in the U.S. top 9 album sales; Amazon.com sold-out of all albums (!!); CD manufacturers couldn't cut CDs fast enough to meet orders (!!!); downloads at iTunes set new sales records; and a memorial viewed by 1 billion people? But that's the reality: MJ is shattering 100 records in every area. When I went to find old articles about MJ+children, what did I find? ...major articles about his parenting (with his kids), written yesterday (!), not just years ago. Wikipedia is not the only one frantically writing about "Children of Michael Jackson" - everyone thinks it's notable. And, he is more alive now, than when living: breaking all these worldwide top-album ranks of the past 100 years; and minimum projected income=US$80 million per year (before the "This Is It" concert tapes are released). Like Elvis before him, MJ will obviously become much bigger in death: and his children will become much richer than he ever was. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Michael Jackson or Death of Michael Jackson, as per WP:RCAT--in particular, the part about "sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text", and perhaps the bit on "people known solely in the context of one event" has something to offer (although "known solely" would be a bit restrictive in this case). The children are a plausible search term, so outright deletion/redlinking could be somewhat counterproductive (not to mention counterintuitive). Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
uninvolved reader cautions against delete, so merge or keep I came here just because I searched the kids' names. I was not interested in MJ and didn't look at his article. Therefore, in the interest of reader ease, a merge or keep is more appropriate than delete. User F203 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's enough to list them in Michael's own page, they do not need their own. As human beings, they do not qualify as notable, simply being Jacko's kids is not enough. magnius (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To elaborate a little on my earlier post--WP:NOTINHERITED might preclude an unqualified "keep" on this one, but it wouldn't necessarily indicate deletion. Please bear in mind the non-keep alternatives to deletion, including a simple redirect to Michael Jackson. The fact that lots of folks are viewing the children's article might not excuse the article's existence, but it could very well warrant a practical response. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, as per Fritzpoll in the second nomination. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 02:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Leave these children alone. They are not notable. 1) they are not notable 2) single issue people don't get any page. If any of these children accomplish something notable other than being children of MJ, then we create the page again. Right now. this is completely useless. 97.124.244.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep: They are some of the most famous children in the world. They are bound to remain in the media spotlight for years to come. The main MJ article is already too long. Brmull (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely the Jackson family would be the best place for them then. A page should not exist because people might be talking about them in the coming years. Never understood why people put strong before delete or keep MrMarmite (talk)

Comment Its in case they feel strongly for or against. Portillo (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A page should not cease to exist because people might not be talking about them in the future. The kids are for now a discrete entity in the public consciousness. At some point it might make sense to merge them or split them up, but for now most readers who are interested in one child are also interested in the others, and are NOT interested in Joe Jackson's kids. The 12 July recap counters the Delete arguments well, in my view.Brmull (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, based upon the numerous points above about notability and obvious BLP issues which will make this article a complete battleground/wasteland. Q ^{T C} 06:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split into separate articles for each person. They are obviously not Michael Jackson's children and so the current title is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt the page until and unless they do something to make themselves notable. These three children are notable only for their father, and have done nothing on their own to be notable. The only one whose voice has even been heard is the daughter. Additionally, as many others have pointed out, notability is not inherited. Lastly, as SlimVirgin pointed out, these are minor children, and the BLP issues alone are quite problematic. Walls of text posted in its defense aside, this article should not exist until and unless these children do something notable in their own right, such as have a singing or acting career. Unitanode 01:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________

Recap up to 12-July-09

The same off-topic arguments have been repeated (for days), so let me summarize in this sub-section; there are 2 core arguments that have been shown to be false:

Core argument 1 - "Delete because non-notable:" Since the article is about Michael Jackson, notability has been established, so the claim is false.
Core argument 2 - "Delete because too little information:" Michael Jackson raised his children during a 12-year period (1997-2009), and there are numerous reliable sources about those activities (masking, home-schooling, shopping, excursions, birthdays, travel), so the claim of "too little" is false.

Beyond those issues, there have been other tangent issues:

Claim of WP:ONEEVENT: This is spurious, as focusing on the memorial, because the article describes Michael Jackson's relationship with his children since birth (for 12 years), not just in one event.
Claim of any rich-children articles: Someone concluded, well then all rich children could be in articles. This is an invalid conclusion, because it assumes notability if Michael Jackson is excluded, as in "all rich children" not just Jackson's. However, there could be another article "Michael Jackson's work with other children", then (given his notability) describe HIV work with Ryan White, roles Jackson gave to child actors, children's charities, excursions to children in Africa, children's parties at Neverland Ranch, etc. The requirement is the notability of Jackson, not just any children without him.
Claim of non-notable parenting: Wikipedia editors don't get to choose which parts of a notable person's life to exclude ("Well, I feel Einstein had a boring childhood so exclude it, and his marriages ended in divorce, so exclude them"). Sorry, that's not the way it works. Once a person is shown to be notable, a typical article starts by identifying their birthdate, parents, childhood, schooling, etc. Wikipedia editors don't get to decide a notable person's birthdate is boring, nor declare that time spent with their children was wasted time. Plus, when there are numerous reliable reports about a notable person's activities with their children, those actions cannot be deemed insignificant or "too limited" to report.
Too many articles about Jackson: Wikipedia editors don't get to randomly exclude information from reliable sources. If there are 250,000 sources about Michael Jackson, then editors can't declare the coverage should be 6 articles only. The number of articles depends on the 32kb limit due to WP:Accessibility: when too much information, then split into another article, even if 27 of them.
Confusing notability with significance: For an article, the notability aspect is just the first step. If someone wrote a one-line article about Michael Jackson's music: "Jackson sang the songs on the album Thriller (end of article)", that would not be a problem due to notability. Michael Jackson is notable, so even 1 line about him still counts. However, the problem with a 1-line article is the "scope of significance" - meaning the total amount of information presented. An article about Jackson's music would even be questionable if it described all recordings from just 1985 (what about the other years?). Focusing on 1985 is not a problem based on notability, but rather, because of the limited scope. There are unusual cases where a single year would be acceptable, such as Einstein's "Annus Mirabilis" as being year 1905, due to his 5 seminal papers and the details needed to describe each, plus the events of their publication. However, that article would be "Einstein in 1905" (not "Einstein's total writings"). So, with Michael Jackson being notable, the issue shifts to "scope of significance" which, in the case of his children, spans a period of 12 years, with numerous published accounts of his activities as a father. If Jackson had only been a father for 3 months, then perhaps, that topic could be considered as "too little" for a separate article, but covering a 12-year period is certainly an acceptable "scope of significance" for such an article.
Merge to article Michael Jackson: That was already rejected because: main article too big.
Merge to article Jackson family: That option was already rejected because: WP:UNDUE with 20x more detail than 15 other family members. There might be a new article "Michael Jackson children with their relatives" to describe events with Janet Jackson and their uncles, plus visits to grandma.
Split as three: When an article is created for each separate person, then notability must be re-established, because those are titled under their own names, hence as "making a name for themselves". Technically, a title could be attempted as "Eldest son of MJ" or "Daughter of MJ" but that would be viewed as skirting individual notability, plus a complaint would be as duplication of childhood years, demanding to re-combine as "Children of MJ".

I realize that many people might not have considered those detailed reasons, described above, so that's why I clarified. As volunteers, it can take years for a person to see the many aspects of how articles are chosen, and why individual-person articles must "make a name for themselves". That ends this sub-section, of the recap up to 12-July-2009. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with these briefly. The article is not about Michael Jackson, which is probably our main sticking point of disagreement - it is about his children. The guideline on notability at WP:NRVE specifies that Jackson's children do not inherit notability from the parent article. WP:ONEEVENT has been raised only to counter the notion that the children are notable solely through their appearance at his memorial - if they have no other claim to notability, then this argument is a valid one. I agree that the "other stuff could exist" arguments are flawed - we should be thinking about this article, and not trying to make hypothetical comparisons to other ones. I've not noticed the argument about there being too many articles on Jackson (this page is getting pretty full!) but I too think that we can have as many articles on notable topics about Jackson as are feasible - my sole disagreement is that this is one of them! :) In your comments about notability vs. significance, I think there is a small flaw in that notability is based on significance. In the case of articles on Jackson's music, the music itself is widely publicised, discussed, and examined critically - they actually have standalone notability of their own, and your commentary is a good argument for an efficient use of articles (why only talk about one year of his music, when all could be discussed, etc.) and is one I agree with.
I will not budge from my notion that this article should not exist as a standalone: I think there is insufficient notability, that it is a worrying BLP nightmare in the making, and that there is a fundamental privacy that should be afforded to children who have done nothing more than be born to famous parents and that the lightning conductor of this article poses a risk to that. My acceptable compromise is a merge. I think we can merge back into Michael Jackson because most of the material in this article is already there. The MJ article does have to be reduced in size, but in terms of the content a split of the material on the children is not warranted because the material about them is not so large that it cannot fit into the main Jackson biography - such a split is warranted for other topics, such as his music, but that debate is not for here. With no reason for a split, the article has to satisfy the concerns of notability of living persons and the associated policies in order to stand alone. I contend that it does not for the reasons I have plastered all over this page, and will try to avoid doing again since I am sure the closing admin is well aware of them! :) I am sure we will continue to disagree on a number of these points, but I hope you can consider moving towards the middle ground that I have tried to establish. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Discussion of the AfD continues below (if new to this debate, please read the above section, #Recap up to 12-July-09). -Wikid77 (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikid, Thank you for further clarifying you points, as these are good arguments that should be addressed. You are approaching the topic in a way that seems much more in-line with wikipedia's guidelines; you see it as a sub-article. I think that a discussion needs to be had on the nature of sub-articles. I am of the mindset that a sub-article, though it is inherently tied to its parent subject, must still maintain its own notability that is of some degree distinct. For instance the article on "Thriller", though a sub-article that is inherently tied to Jackson, achieves its own notability in selling a massive number of copies, producing many number 1 singles, and leaving a distinct impression on popular culture. It seems to me that all of the other Michael Jackson sub-articles sustain their own somewhat distinct notability; even Bubbles the chimpanzee was made into a plush toy and appeared in a video-game. I think the consensus is that, even as a sub-article, if something doesn't posses notability it doesn't meet the criteria of an encyclopedia. Many of the other points you raise seem to argue that the children are indeed notable; being orphaned, set to inherit wealth, and being a distinct legal entity. But I feel that none of these things in-and-of-themselves confer notability; I would hardly expect an encyclopedia article on every legal entity, orphan, or millionaire in the world. I don't think we can take all these distinct factors that do not individually confer notability and say that in aggregate they means something contrary. In regard to your comments that editors do not decide what is important about a subject I agree with you; individual editors cannot make distinctions of what is notable about a particular subject, however consensus can and will. If this were not true sub-articles could be formed about "Michael Jackson's relationship with Brooke Shields" or "Michael Jackson's endorsement of Pepsi-Cola". Regardless of how we as individuals may feel about it, consensus seems to be that Michael Jackson is notable to the public as a, musician, dancer, and eccentric among other things - but not as a parent. Sub-articles should give more detail and further explain subjects that are of extreme notability to their parent subject, and consensus is forming that Michael Jackson's role as a father, or his childrens personal lives following his death, do not warrant an encyclopedia article or sub-article. Solid State Survivor (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, there's no semi-consensus forming on this page to reject the article/subarticle due to "parenting": in fact, 15 people already said "keep" and only 2(?) specifically said MJ "as a parent" is "not notable". As I tried to explain above, there is a difference between notable and significant. Michael Jackson is a notable person, and I would agree that people have mixed feelings about his parenting skills. However, the problem of calling his parenting as "non-notable for a sub-article" is the strong implication that the topic is unimportant. Hence, the "catch-22" dilemma: if not important enough for a sub-article, why include it in the main article? ...and if important enough to be stated in the main article, how does his parenting lose importance when moved to a 2nd page? So basically, why would people put "non-notable" facts on any page of Wikipedia?? Do you finally understand the wiki-mind-fry about notions of wiki-notability? Sub-articles have the notability of their main article, but they must have significance as judged by the amount of reliable-source coverage. For MJ parenting issues, there are thousands of reports showing vast coverage of the topic. Contrast with MJ's unreleased "great" new songs from the "This Is It" concert/tour; they might become hit-songs for Jackson, and people might be amazed at their importance for CD sales, but there are very few reports about those songs; hence, the songs are not significant as a sub-article of Jackson (due to lack of sources), but check again if they become hit-recordings when released(!). -Wikid77 (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sub-articles have the notability of their main article, but they must have significance as judged by the amount of reliable-source coverage. - not according to Wikipedia's defintion of notability. I'm seeing the theme emerging in your lengthy texts that you are using notability in it's real-world usage. That is not the meaning of the phrase here. If you want to subarticle to reduce the size of the main article, then make Music of Michael Jackson, which cannot be doubted to have standalone notability - but if you want to try and set guidelines on when subarticles can be used, AfD debates are not the place to do it. Like it or not, and no matter how you argue it, our existing policies and guidelines do not support your position on sub-articling - feel free to propose these at the Village Pump, get them accepted by the community at large and then we can return and have this debate again. But at this second, nothing about sub-articles here is currently supported by the community as a whole. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sub-articles: The issue of determining "article notability" seems to be very confusing to many people. Prior Wikipedia editors have tried to define/adjust the policies to keep Wikipedia focused on major, "note-worthy" topics. It has been a major concern in keeping pages full of important facts; however, the 32KB browser limit (such as in IE 6.0 on MS Windows 98) tends to limit articles as being split into those "sub-articles". For example, consider a split into 2 smaller sub-articles:
"Jackson music before Thriller" & "Jackson music after Thriller"
Both sub-articles would have the notability of Michael Jackson, equally, rather than debating which one is "more" notable. However, suppose the 2nd sub-article contained 1 line:
"Jackson released the "Billie Jean" single 1 month after 'Thriller'."
That one-line article would still be notable (as a Jackson sub-article), but the significance would need to be addressed by expanding with a broad range of facts, not just 1 line. Some people would want to protest that the 1-line article was "non-notable", but actually, the issue of notability is about the topic, rather than the article-size. Hence, many notable people have 3-line stub articles, but those need to be expanded for their scope of significance. Well, that explains the 2 factors: notability & significance. So, next question: when does notability differ? Answer: Each person has different notability levels, but that is often termed as "Importance: high/low". Also, notability changes when you omit the name "Michael Jackson" as with song "I'll Be There" - that article must stand on its own, as "making a name for itself". Contrast that with "Michael Jackson's version of Ben" - the 1972 song "Ben" might have been non-notable (rather than the top-hit, Oscar nominee), but if significant sources described the MJ version of the original song "Ben", then that sub-article would be acceptable, even though focused on a more narrow topic. The factor of significance allows any article to be split into logical parts: Michael Jackson can have "37" sub-articles (but not one-liners). In contrast, the factor of notability allows any notable topic to begin with a 1-line article. I understand it might take some people months to fully digest those concepts. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is taking you some time to understand the fact that notability is strictly defined in WP:N and not by the real-world definition of the same term. You want your concept to be policy/guideline accepted by the community - fine, go and do it. But you can't do it at AfD. It is not through lack of "digestion" or thought that many of us reject these concepts - it is the fact that you are arguing against the community norms established in our policies and guidelines that causes rejection. Might I suggest Wikipedia talk:Notability as an outlet for these views? Fritzpoll (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I have written a lot of details (above). However, what I have written is very much in line with policy WP:N, with the emphasis that notability is about the topic, not limiting the contents of the particular article. Quote from WP:Notability:

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." -from WP:N

In my writings above, I have merely explained how a notable topic is often covered by a 3-line article. Meanwhile, the tone of writing by User:Fritzpoll is becoming rather caustic (hint: may I say "it is taking you some time to understand" WP:NPA and WP:Assume good faith?). I am not trying to circumvent or argue against community norms, but rather explain the circumstances when a notable-topic article is split into parts: those parts do not suddenly lose notability for the topic. If User:Fritzpoll believes such a viewpoint contradicts WP:N, then I am sorry for any anger generated, but please feel free to amend that policy so that it is clear that notability refers to the topic but not the splitting of sub-articles (does not limit content). I am not re-inventing the rules: "The Da Vinci Code" had 12 sub-articles in 2006 about that single fictional book/film, not even covering 50 years of a person's life. People can't declare: "Michael Jackson only gets 5 subarticles because his life is not notable enough" (incorrect). Use as many sub-articles as needed for future expansion, due to the 32kb limit. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"(hint: may I say "it is taking you some time to understand" WP:NPA and WP:Assume good faith?)" - compare for your comment "I understand it might take some people months to fully digest those concepts.", which is what I was emulating. It was not intended as a personal attack, although if it has highlighted to you how patronising such phrases can appear to someone reading them, all the better. :) I am not angry, I'm simply saying that although other articles do have sub-articles (beware the other stuff exists argument), you've not justified why you've chosen this topic to split off when there is so little said about it in Jackson's biography. Consequently, I argue that the spinoff is an unnecessary content fork when a better alternative to get below the 32Kb limit would be Music of Michael Jackson considering the vast amount of unnecessary detail included in a biography on this subject. Indeed, such a split is being discussed on the talkpage now. But there are two possible reasons to keep this article: either is is a valid fork, which I don't feel has been justified, or it is individually notable, which most people here (including I think you) seem to agree it is not. I'm just pointing out that the fork is not justified and that there are better ways for you to make the information more accessible than by placing non-notable living persons in the perpetual glare of a Wikipedia article. I can't change the policies you refer to incidentally - they have to be changed through consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One final point about WP:N not limiting article content, but only the article topic. The topic of this article in the sense WP:N refers to is in this case the "Children of Michael Jackson". To demonstrate that the topic is notable, you have to show that they are notable, because they are the topic. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For seeing the topic as derived from the title, I understand your viewpoint (shared by others) that the title seems to indicate "children only" and so I suggest (below): #Proposal to rename/move. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jackson family. His children's independent notability is indisputable. But due to how intensely private Michael was, I feel that there is not enough verifiable 3rd hand info to support an entire article. I imagine that in 5 years (Prince will be 17) they'll probably begin to have individual articles.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Perhaps... but this is not the future, this is now... the children themselves are not particluarly notable, of their own accord, at the present time. Wolfpeaceful But I did enjoy reading the article... howeer, the main subject of this article is Michael Jackson, and not really the children, themselves... (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just simply isn't enough notability here to warrant an article. Very much a case of recent news-itis. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I commented before (above) but did not vote. After considering what I and others wrote, I believe it should be merged to Jackson family, I don't see any independent notability for these children. - Epson291 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________

Proposal to rename/move

14-July-09: The current title ("Children of Michael Jackson" ) has been interpreted (by many above) to mean "children omitting father", and I can see future problems with that title. Some have proposed other titles for the article, so I list alternate title names:

AN1: "Family of Michael Jackson" - discussed above; possible confusion with extended "Jackson family"

AN2: "Michael Jackson in parenthood" - perhaps?

AN3: "Michael Jackson in fatherhood" - perhaps?

AN4: "Michael Jackson as father" - perhaps?

In fact, the content of the article includes "facts about Michael Jackson raising those 3 children during 12 years plus their birth-parents". The above codes AN1-AN4 allow short referencing in discussion, so AN1 is the "Family-of" title.

Technically, the article, regardless of title, could be given a stated "Wiki-topic of article" on the talk-page, but most people assume the topic from the title words (e.g., they imagine "Brown mouse" is about a mouse not a bird). That's why a title can lead to a debate (such as arguing to rename as "Brown mouse bird" or merge with "List of brown birds"!). Wikipedia does not yet have spec-pages that identify an article's goal, requirements, or the formal wiki-topic to be judged by WP:N, so the talk-page holds both the long-term background specs (defined if needed) as well as temporary topics (mixed together). Please remember that Wikipedia is a neophyte project, not having formal article-specs for "article sets" or "IRDs" to define interface-requirements between dependent articles; those are engineering practices that have yet to be adopted here. For those reasons, most people "demand" an obvious title that reflects the topic; and endless debates arise because (on 14July09) there is no official way to designate the "notable wiki-topic" that an article covers. I say the topic is "Michael Jackson", others think "children only". Again, Wikipedia was not fully engineered by information scientists, but rather just started collecting articles and inventing policies (without any stated knowledge engineering). Hence, choosing a title can be crucial, and perhaps also embed comments that say "Article's wiki-topic = Michael Jackson" plus put talkpage note describing "==Wiki-topic of article==". Furthermore, people might argue the title "Children of Michael Jackson" includes his entourage of youngsters like Macauley Culkin (when age 12). So, let's discuss renaming. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--The title was not why I personally voted for delete... but rather than content of the article itself... (i.e the children are not actors, nor painters, nor comdedians, nor politicians... they are merely related to a notable person. The title, (if the article is "kept") is okay, in my opinion. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--The children are celebrities, for whatever reasons. Therefore, deserve their own article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity status has little to do with "notability"... There are no independent verifiable sources referencing the children themselves... all verifiable sources point to either Michael Jackson or Debbie Rowe... or the Jackson Family... notability is not inherited...notability of a parent entity does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities... Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits. The fact that these children have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient enough to justify an independent article, unless those same children had notability independent from their famous relatives. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________

Proposal to set protection

15-July-09: There are even more issues, raised above, to consider:

Becomes issue of WP:BLP: The children are living, so there is the issue of "Biographies of living persons" (BLP). However, the children were already "concealed" within several other Jackson articles, which seems even worse, to mask text about those living children in the article of a deceased person, giving the illusion of no longer a WP:BLP. My feeling, expressed above, is better to separate them in one obvious article, rather than keep updating events about the children's lives in several other Jackson articles.
Article protection for WP:BLP: I think this is a strong point to recommend the article for immediate protection because it does contain much detail about those 3 living children, becomes a stronger target for libel, and they are realworld-notable (every day on American TV & on tabloid covers at newstands) so as to attract even more vandalism.

So, please discuss protection, along with other issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, our protection policy does not allow for such preemption. Michael Jackson is an exceptionally heavily watched article, and so the information on the children is much better protected than here, in what will undoubtedly be a less-watched article. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has 2 notable topics

15-July-09: Numerous issues raised over the past few days have shown that the article "Children of Michael Jackson" has been revealed as covering (at least) 2 notable topics:

Notable topic 1: Michael Jackson (notable person).
Notable topic 2: Paris Michael Jackson (covered relative of notable)

Although I have never seen an article defined as covering 2 notable topics, it obviously happened in "Thriller (album)" (notable singer+recording as stated above), plus even if no other article claimed 2 notable topics, Wikipedia does not restrict articles to be merely like other articles. Some relatives get wiki-notability per policy WP:Notability; quote:

"That [the fact] person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being their spouse, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)".

Given that Paris K. Jackson (person A) is daughter to well-known Michael Jackson (person B), notability is proven by adding that "significant coverage can be found on A", especially after she spoke to 20,000, televised to millions, at the Jackson Memorial. Her instantly famous remark generated many retro-articles to be written about Paris K. Jackson; hence, now the article stems from 2 notable topics. I will list both on the page Talk:Children of Michael Jackson. Of course, it is very likely that his 2 sons can be shown as notable topics, but I think it is sufficient to justify the article as existing for 2 notable topics. The article cannot be deleted as covering a "non-notable topic" per WP:N, unless both could be discounted, which is highly unlikely. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have repeatedly said, if Paris Jackson derives notability simply from talking at her father's memorial, then that means that she doesn't get an article per WP:BLP1E - cover the event and not the person - we already have an article about his memorial, so this tidbit of information can go there. Michael Jackson is covered as a notable person in the article Michael Jackson, and his children do not inherit his notability. These claims to notability have been discounted by an large number of participants above. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion 2

Discussion of the AfD continues below (if new to this debate, please read the 2 special sub-sections above, #Recap up to 12-July-09 & #Proposal to rename/move). The renaming codes AN1-AN4 were defined as of 14July09. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thus far, there have been 50 distinctly discernible opinions proffered here. Of those, 36 have recommended either delete or merge with a parent article. This strikes me as clearly discernible consensus that this article should not exist on its own. Given the BLP concerns with having an article written about three minor children, of whom, only one's voice has even been heard, this article should be deleted very soon. Walls of text posted by Wikid77 aside, I have read not one convincing argument as to why the BLP concerns regarding the minor children should be ignored in this case. It also seems very non-standard for Wikid77 to continue to try to offer "summaries" of the discussion, in which he offers yet another long discourse on his views. It makes for difficult reading for those new to the discussion, and that is not helpful at all. Unitanode 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia consensus is based on logical agreement with policies, rather than agreement as a simple majority being 36 of 50 replies. Think of the WP-policies as participants at the discussion table. Also, feel free to ignore my summary comments, if you personally wish, but my intention is not to clutter the debate but, rather, summarize (word "recap") all the major issues and the debate points considered for each issue. As the opinions number over 50, then I am trying to combine repeated issues into perhaps 10. I have been a judge for several school debate conferences, so I tend to be thorough, as required in formal debates. I'm sorry if that seems "non-standard" but that's the norm in debates, and I am trying to keep the comments as short as possible, hence some issues have been omitted in the interest of brevity. This discussion needs to be even longer, in all fairness to others. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is non-standard, it does clutter and obscure the discussion, and policies are not on your side in this in any way. I'd encourage you to step back from this, allow it to be closed as "delete" (which it almost certainly will), and revisit the issue if and when any of these three children actually become notable in their own right. Unitanode 17:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon closer examination I have begun to grow doubtful that this page currently does or will continue to exist as a subarticle describing Michael Jackson's fatherhood. Two paragraphs found in the lead and nearly half the text on Paris concern events that follow Jackson's death (the performance in the memorial service, and custody hearing). If this were a sub-article restricted to the scope of Michael Jackson's fatherhood this information would be seen as exceeding that scope. This article's current name, "The children of Michael Jackson", indicates comprehensive coverage of that topic - the lives of three non-notable children both with and without their father. The other titles proposed do not reflect the information currently written in this page; the prose of the article is written with the children - and not Michael - as the topic of focus, and as stated before there is information here concerning them that exceeds his parenthood. Wikid has proposed that a sub-article concerning Michael Jackson as a father is warranted (a point I am still willing to argue against), however the article presented here is not the one being postulated. Solid State Survivor (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When his daughter says publicly, "Daddy was the best father you can possibly imagine..." - I think the scope just got bigger. Plus, she stood in front of 20,000 as viewed by 1 billion ("now remember you'll be on camera all the time"), so I think the scope just got a WHOLE LOT bigger to include the memorial service. Jackson's impact as a father goes beyond his life. We don't stop talking about Van Gogh, as a painter, because he died and can't talk to other artists. Plus suppose Jackson left a secret note to be read, only, when she turns 18? -Wikid77 (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then when the note is revealed, she can be afforded a Wikipedia article. We can't give people articles on the basis that they might become notable Fritzpoll (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic meets our general notability guidelines. To me, it's that simple. Fences&Windows 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitley keep per Fences and Windows. It does meet the guidelines. Besides, this is not just the children of any Average Joe, these are the children of MICHAEL JACKSON.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To both the above: no, it doesn't meet the notability requirements for people.
- They have multiple reliable sources discussing them in detail (I linked to a couple above), so they clearly meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are notable per WP:N allowing for "significant coverage" as relatives of notables; quote from WP:Notability: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being their spouse, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)". This has led me to launch subsection (above) "#Has 2 notable topics". -Wikid77 (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop "launching subsections" to reply to nearly every single deletion recommendation. These children have done nothing on their own to merit an article, save being the children of a famous person. It's a clear violation of the notability policy, as well as our policy on BLPs. No amount of textwalling will change that. Unitanode 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They are not the children of Michael Jackson. They are the children of Debbie Rowe. If kept, the article needs to be moved to Children of Debbie Rowe. Nashassum (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that it should be deleted, moving an article in the middle of a deletion discussion is highly disruptive. If an administrator watching this page could undo the move, that would be appreciated. Unitanode 00:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about protection: I have added a subsection above as "#Proposal to set protection" with details there. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Michael Jackson because Notability is not inherited and to protect the privacy of the children. Algébrico (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Privacy of minors is at the core here, as all the children are under 13. More so due to COPPA, which needs to be considered, and less so due to WP:BOLP. Lantrix (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No offence meant, but someday these kids may be notable on their own - how could they not, really (think Sean Lennon). At that point, yes, they shall get an article. Until then, keep them with their "father". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the first person to argue for keeping this article (see my comment above, on 9 July), but coming back to it now, it's become considerably more detailed and privacy-invading than it was when I made that comment. I've changed my mind, and I now think that for BLP reasons (particularly 'do no harm' and 'presume in favour of privacy'), it must be deleted. A certain amount of information about Jackson's children in other articles is acceptable, but this degree of coverage is excessive and unnecessarily intrusive. We're an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Robofish (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm assuming that if this is deleted that it will be archived? 208.119.72.6 Wolfpeaceful (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source in the lead sentence of the article claiming "notability" is really nothing but an article about the Family Trust; this does not establish notability; it merely mentions the children's inheritence after their father's death; "notable as a legal entity" is not technically accurate; the children themselves are not legal property... also Family Trusts are not an uncommon practice... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shards of Dalaya

Unnotable Everquest emulation server. First few pages of Google web search are empty of anything except blogs, forums, and torrents, and Google books, news, and scholar are all empty. Likely, suitable sources cannot be found. lifebaka++ 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined the prod on this because it had previously been deleted via prod and wasn't eligible, then got busy IRL and didn't have time to nominate. No reliable sources found, and while I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, I don't see that it even merits redirecting to somewhere in the Everquest family. (BTW thanks for handling the nomination LB) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both references link to the official website. No results on Google News/Scholar/Books. More specific Google searches (e.g. "Shards of Dalaya" review Everquest -showthread -site:*forums*, 88 results) show no signs of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Rankiri. Iowateen (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: violates WP:NOTE, WP:V, and WP:ADS. Andyo2000 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlin Dason

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio; was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin which closed wo/prejudice to opening more controlled AFD's.

"Kaitlyn's background has not been revealed. All that is know is that she started a relationship with Lucas Holden and supported him when his brother Jack was murdered."

The suspense is killing me; delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines. No verifiable material.--VS ^talk 14:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fictional character which is not notable independent of the actors or show itself. I'm okay with the name being redirected to the show article or an appropriate list but I think the article should be deleted. Googling "Kaitlin Dawson" and "Home and Away" gets only 63 distinct (of 434 total) ghits, most (all?) of which are to forums and fan pages. [12] I don't think Google is solely an indicator of notability but for an award winning and popular TV show that is currently airing, I would expect to see much more if this were a notable character. Due to the lack of reliable sources about this character, the article is also unverified and unverifiable and not maintainable. Sarah 02:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no verifiable material (checked two subscription search engines). Orderinchaos 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin, and User:A Nobody, our article rescuer even admitting not being able to find anything to establish notability. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the content of this article is entirely false. It's a hoax article. Matthewedwards : Chat 07:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that not a word of it is true. Skteosk (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Red Renaissance

Non-notable band. No charted records or albums. No major labels. One review in a local magazine. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Falcon8765 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:MUSIC - no significant impact. –Moondyne 08:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Nash

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio; was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin which closed wo/prejudice to opening more controlled AFD's. This one's got a really, really long plot summary which they're calling "Character history" here. Nuke from Orbit with a Daedalus class battlecruiser. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article certainly needs improvement, the subject was a regular character in a notable series for several years amd was brought back for guest appearnaces after that. Edward321 (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and/or merge. The character can be treated to the extent necessary in the parent article or an article collecting thumbnail sketches of its characters. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Davenport, footnote 9 of WP:FAILN seems on-point, mutatis mutandis: "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'" - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another un-sourced fictional character that does not meet notability criteria.--VS ^talk 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable fiction character. Sarah 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, non-notable. Orderinchaos 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete/Merge per my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin. I don't reccommend creating a list of minor characters, which could be a problem all by itself, but I don't suppose there's any harm in merging to List of Home and Away characters Matthewedwards : Chat 16:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @980 · 22:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Higher (Heidi Montag song)

With no chart appearances or covers, it fails WP:MUSIC. --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 11:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet the general notability guideline. Multiple reliable sources: Us Weekly, MSNBC.com, E! Online. The video, at least, seems to have received significant coverage. Powers ^T 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MUSIC: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." The song does not meet any of those qualifications. --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The general notability guideline overrides more specific guidelines. Powers ^T 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It does, however, meet with Wikipedia's general notability guideline, in that it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --JD554 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed does fail WP:MUSIC, and as for the independent coverage of the song, most of it was because of the infamous video produced on a shoestring rather than any artisitc merits of the song, which should be the minimum standard for coverage besides snark. Nate • (chatter) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If a song is notable because of a bad video, it's still notable. In what way does the article fail WP:GNG? --JD554 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:N and comments above mine. General notability > specialized notability. SKS (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 08:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reliable sources; they just aren't in the article yet. How does this article not meet the general notability guideline? Powers ^T 12:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that that matters. If you have a looksie at WP:MUSIC#Songs you'll see that for a song to warrant a stand alone article it has to have 1. charted, 2. won an award or 3. been covered. Those claims then have to be backed up with RS. While the sources in the article my be reliable, they don't do anything to show notability to any of those 3 criteria. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe that's incorrect. No more specific guideline can restrict the inclusion of a topic that passes the general guideline; it can only expand the definition of acceptable content. Powers ^T 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic passes WP:N based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Having passed WP:N, the critera of WP:NSONGS are irrelevant. I'll note that even WP:NSONGS does not claim that songs that don't pass any of its criteria are necessarily non-notable. Because WP:NSONGS can't override Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Rlendog (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although it fails WP:SONG, it most certainly meets WP:GNG which is the prime standard for notability. The artistic merits of the song are irrelevant. If it is notable by virtue of being utter crap, so be it. We don't include on the basis of artistic accomplishment; we include on the basis of coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. This crap is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we include on the basis of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It may have been discussed in reliable sources, but only three articles that discuss the song are reliable. That hardly constitutes significant coverage. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're misreading the WP:GNG which describes significant coverage as "sources address the subject directly in detail". It does, however, go on to say "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Three reliable source is multiple and they do cover the subject in detail. --JD554 (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with JD554's interpretation. Powers ^T 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The coverage, although by no means exclusive, is more than just a trivial mention, and represents enough material in each reference to meet the criterion of being significant. Which is a longwinded way of saying that I also agree with JD554's interpretation. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @980 · 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Black (Home and Away)

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio; was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin which closed wo/prejudice to opening more controlled AFD's. So for 7 days of discussion of this ludicrous bit of dreck, I offer Ethan Black. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) nb: delete![reply]

As the person who closed the behemoth that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin I encourage you to nominate them in clusters, unless your goal is to be pointy. That AFD was explicitly closed so that meaningful discussion could be had about the characters and so that it could be determined if there are any worth keeping. Undoubtably, I suspect that most of them are deletable, but there are probably a handful that are significant enough to warrant keeping.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

others; see User talk:Jack Merridew#The Hugo Deletions where this was discussed. Cluster-noms often fail, so I avoid them. I hear there's talk about a list approach; good, because the ludicrous articles I've looked at gotta go. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and/or merge. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Nash, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Rainbow, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Davenport etc., the character can be treated to the extent necessary in the parent article or an article collecting thumbnail sketches of its characters. Footnote 9 of WP:FAILN seems roughly on-point: "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'" - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fictional character which is not notable independent of the actors or show itself. I'm okay with the name being redirected to the show article or an appropriate list but I think the article should be deleted. Googling "Ethan Black" and "Home and Away" gets only 48 distinct (of 225 total) ghits, most (all?) of which are to forums and fan pages. [13] I don't think Google is solely an indicator of notability but for an award winning and popular TV show that is currently airing, I would expect to see much more if this were a notable character. Due to the lack of reliable sources about this character, the article is also unverified and unverifiable and not maintainable. Sarah 02:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to character list - non-notable. Orderinchaos 03:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin Matthewedwards : Chat 16:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moyea web player

Contested prod, no indication of how this software product is notable. Lacks 3rd party references RadioFan (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of notability at all. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE. --Falcon8765 (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Rainbow

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio; was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin which closed wo/prejudice to opening more controlled AFD's. There are 140 or so others; a pox on the 'pedia; delete. Jack Merridew 11:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character appeared in a notable series for four years. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and/or merge. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Nash, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Black (Home and Away), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Davenport etc., the character can be treated to the extent necessary in the parent article or an article collecting thumbnail sketches of its characters. Footnote 9 of WP:FAILN seems roughly on-point: "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'" - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fictional character which is not notable independent of the actors or show itself. I'm okay with the name being redirected to the show article or an appropriate list but I think the article should be deleted. Googling "Joey Rainbow" and "Home and Away" gets only 54 distinct (of 1760 total) ghits, most of which are to forums and fan pages. [14] I don't think Google is solely an indicator of notability but for an award winning and popular TV show that is currently airing, I would expect to see much more if this were a notable character. Due to the lack of reliable sources about this character, the article is also unverified and unverifiable and not maintainable. Sarah 02:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The low ghit rating may simply reflect the pre-Internet timing of the character. He was used in an Australian Government advertising campaign on mental health, but I have absolutely no idea where one would find that info or verify it (I have tried). I did find three references to the character in a psychiatry journal online and two related publications, in an article on psychiatry in the media ([15], [16], [17]). However, how one would coalesce this single issue (which I understand relates only to a single storyline near the end of this character's onscreen life) into an article which meets Wiki policies I'm unsure of - not one of the other details of his onscreen life is verifiable from a reliable source (he doesn't even appear on the show's website) and if this was a biography of a real person, it'd be a case of BLP1E. Orderinchaos 03:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non commital depending on whether Orderinchaos's findings pan out. I'll try to remember to revist later Matthewedwards : Chat 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, and rename business as usual (disambiguation) here. Greyskinnedboy was the major contributor to what had previously been a redirect, and a consensus of interested parties seems established here. Uncle G (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Business as usual

The disambiguation page was recently moved to make way for this main article. I had previously given the topic some thought (and discussed with others) the best way of presenting the term when I merged two DABs, reforming the system whilst setting up the article about the policy. Anyhow, I diverge.

It is my considered opinion that an article about the general application of the term is destined to never be anything more than a dictionary definition. Wiktionary already includes a definition for the term, which is linked from the DAB page. Wikipedia is not designed for dictionary definitions, IMHO. Lacking an interaction with the business term, however, I ready to be convinced that a page could be supported about this application of the term. I just cannot see it at the moment, sorry. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. After deliberation I see your point. Here, I was trying to document something that could be used to contrast better with project and process -- but it is more of a dictionary definition. On that basis, I have just added a second meaning to Wiktionary. As the author of this article, if you want to revert the changes please go ahead. I'll modify the link to this article I created from the article project management. Thanks. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move disambiguation page, article is no more than a dictionary entry. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agreement from author - I created the page, and I'm convinced it should go, there are no dissenters, can it not just happen now? Greyskinnedboy Talk 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Carballo

Contested prod. Unclear notability. The article reads like a resume. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From my original proposed deletion: "reads like a resume, no strong evidence of notability." Powers ^T 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted, easily qualifies as unambiguous advertising. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life with ashley

Non-notable per WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. Web search returns no reliable third-party links (just because a film has an imdb entry does not make it notable). SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so many NFF violations of late, or are we just catching them more? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page seems relevant and some users seem to over-agressively police new posts. I do, however, think a stub tag should be added. Aliveatoms (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any reliable sources. Fails WP:NF. Iowateen (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this is a) released and b) gets substantial coverage for it, it's non-notable. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite Aliveatoms's bad faith comments and non-policy "argument". No sources, no claims of notability, and, although it's listed at imdb, there's nothing that makes it meet the WP:NOTFILM criteria. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice and uderfy to author. The film will be screening at festivals in 2 months and may build acceptable notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumbledethumps

DELETE. I see about 4,400 Google matches for this but nothing to suggest it is an actual notable dish in need of a Wikipedia article. JBsupreme (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without resorting to "other stuff exists", I have to say this looks no more or less notable than many of the other food entries. Just check out, for example, this list of sandwich entries... Hairhorn (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not aware of any specific policies that cover obscure ethnic foods, but there seem to be enough results on Google Books and Google News to satisfy WP:GNG:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EwkAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=Rumbledethumps

http://books.google.com/books?id=wxXHd8w7CDkC&pg=PA36&dq=Rumbledethumps

http://books.google.com/books?id=1WpaFStgnJ0C&pg=PA7&dq=Rumbledethumps

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/06/gordon-brown-labour — Rankiri (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hairhorn. The proposed reason for deletion is surely tripe. :) Ben Mac Dui 18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well known regional dish. Certainly has notability outside of Scotland as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bubble and Squeak. It is called that in many parts of Scotland, also. Trista (cannot log in at work)24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hairhorn. -Oreo Priest ^talk 01:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia – Saint Lucia relations

very little coverage of actual bilateral relations, yes they've recognised each other but that's about it. [18], [19]. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Recognized each other" is a relation, however low-level. A useful stub.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:10, July 9, 2009 (UTC)

no simply have a relation is not enough for an article, there have been at least 300 of these pairing deleted for failing WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go through this useless discussion again, shall we? Thas has nothing to do with the written notability guideline, it has to do with its philosophical interpretation. Some folks think that anything that an average Joe Six Pack is unlikely to ever know or show interest in should be deleted, while others believe that if there is even a scrap of useful information (which, of course, should be verifiable), that scrap can be useful to somebody and should be kept. Three hundred or so articles may have been deleted, but how many similar articles have been kept? In my (limited) experience, there's been quite a few as well, which again shows the philosophical nature underlying this mad deletion spree. You can cry "non-notable" all you want; the past outcomes clearly showed that it's nothing but an opinion of a group of people, but certainly not of the whole community. There's been a post somewhere about a month ago calling to freeze the bilateral relations nominations until the problem can be discussed as a whole—whatever happened to that initiative? Regards,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:22, July 10, 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid. we can verify a relationship exists but it is not subject to significant wide third party coverage as per WP:GNG. If you want to keep this article provide some reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists"? Bah! Coming from someone whose argument is "BUTWEDELETEDALLTHATOTHERSTUFF" it sounds, pardon the assumption, disingeneous... It's not about that other stuff exists, either; it's about the fact that it exists because it was kept despite all your best efforts to get rid of it. As for all that other brouhaha with the sources, we (yes, you and me) have already been through that before; I have no intention to cover the length of this circle again, because all my arguments fly over your head anyway. No offense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:04, July 10, 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Arguments fly over our heads? Wouldn't it be simpler to just say you think we're idiots and move on? Would save you a shitload of typing. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard as it may be, I am doing my best to assume this is a good-faith nomination. There is no need to use language like you've just did and especially put words I never intended to say into my mouth. I understand you might have had a bad day, but it's no reason to take it out on others.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, July 13, 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of significant coverage of bilateral relations to back your keep argument. simple. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A relation isn't the same as notable relations. Without even pointing to the fact that the article is titled "relations" so a single so-called relation wouldn't even cover the article, mere recognition isn't notable. I don't see anything notable about this relationship. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article User:Russian Luxembourger was not notified of this discussion on her talk page by the nominator. I have notified her per WP:CIVIL.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These countries don't even have representation in each other, and--surprise surprise--there are no independent secondary sources that address the topic of their relations directly or in detail, so WP:N is not met. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think the fact that they have embassies is enough to satisfy marginal notability. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But they don't have embassies. The Russian embassy in Jamaica has a guy who deals with St. Lucia, and there's no St. Lucia embassy in Russia. The relations are a lot less notable than most such articles that I've seen. Mandsford (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for, dare I say it, lack of independent, in-depth coverage of the topic in multiple, independent sources. Ezhiki's special pleading ("let's keep it because, even though it doesn't amount to much, we should still keep it") is unconvincing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The key words in the article are "so far". So far means five years, and have hardly been Earth shattering. Not notable at present. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamblers Axiom

Basically pointless essay for a invented term. References don't use the term, and there are zero google hits for it, besides this article. (The link shows 37 results return but they are all along the lines of "Gamblers axiom = Take the money and run"). 2005 (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources show notability. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like a neologism, and the text of the article doesn't make sense within notions of decision theory. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that enough suitable third-party sources were uncovered over the course of the discussion, demonstrating notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Michael

Contested prod, lacks notability, fails WP:BIO zero references from 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sources for this one. Jafeluv (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep since several sources have now been added. Jafeluv (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Search of local newspaper "Concord Monitor" found several articles. Also found a blog on this guy's collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.12.68 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC) — 38.97.12.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment could you provide links to those newspaper articles, its a start but I still dont think we are up to the "significant coverage" required by WP:BIO, also blogs aren't considered reliable sources--RadioFan (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of the collection are still available: https://www.ourcommunitystores.com/products-game_used_sports_online-usa-3.html Ap3253 (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC) — Ap3253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ Another site selling some of Andy's DiMaggio items: http://www.vintagesportsshoppe.com/prewaritems.html Scroll downAp3253 (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid online stores aren't reliable sources. It would help if you could find the person covered, for example, in a published book or a newspaper article. For more information, see our notability guideline for people. Jafeluv (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please only !vote once. I have struck you duplicate !vote. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and START OVER. The existing article should be deleted its original research / has no sources cited!!!! FULL STOP. JBsupreme (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I have several articles from newspapers, but how can I get them on here. Many of them are old and I have them in paper form. The online version of these papers don't have archives dating back more than a couple of years. The articles are from the 70's, 80's and 90's.Ap3253 (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scan the newspaper articles to your computer, and then upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing

site. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's a start http://www.flickr.com/photos/40373106@N06/

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This appears to be a hoax. I cannot verify any of the claims in this article.Cunard (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion has been changed due to the presence of multiple reliable sources posted by Ap3253. Cunard (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Deletewhile it doesn't appear to be a hoax (going out of the above mentioned websites of online stores), it certainly lacks WP:Reliable sources and fails therefore WP:Notability. By the way the owner of a substantial and significant collection would surely have received an obituary or the like by an online existing newspaper since his death two years ago ... note also that the search function of the website of the metioned "Concord Monitor" is not able to locate anything under the terms "Mitchell" and "baseball" [20].
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea how I came to "Mitchell", however you're right, as my research has based on the wrong name, my statement above is obsolete and I therefore will keep myself neutral.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You searched and voted based on a search of the wrong name - see below

Keep for now. Let's give this article a chance. Sources may be added. Newspaper articles may be scanned... I sure hope they are. Geeky card and comic book collections are a dying breed. I want future generations to know all about them. The Edgar Church collection in comics is a notable and well-known story. In addition, while perhaps notable for his baseball antics, there are mentions of participating in wars which is to me admirable and maybe there are sources of something he did... In truth, I just get a good feeling reading this article and like it. I know these are not technical grounds for keep but this is my vote.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's "Michael" not Mitchell. Here's what I found, although it's a paid sight to see the full articles.38.97.15.196 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CMOB&p_theme=cmob&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(mr%20baseball)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22mr%20baseball%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

- http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CMOB&p_theme=cmob&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(doris%20michael)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22doris%20michael%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

- http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CMOB&p_theme=cmob&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(andy%20michael)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22andy%20michael%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.15.196 (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC) — 38.97.15.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Comment Paid subscription service on the obituary talks about his notability regarding the collection. Not sure how public he was about his collection, so it might not be found on every search engine. That doesn't negate the fact that his collection was large enough that there are still dozens and dozens of high-dollar items still available for sale. It's also hard to verify he was a scout for the Yankees in the late 70's, but unless one can dispute the two players mentioned weren't found by Michael, in his home town, the pieces are adding up.38.97.15.196 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There might be something to this. Take the time to scroll thought the items for sale on this site. Most of them are from the Michael collection and personally endorsed:

http://www.gameusedsportsonline.com/baseball-mlb-more-baseball-items.html

of particular note:

http://www.gameusedsportsonline.com/joe-dimaggio-signed-sunset-league-program-1980-440.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.15.196 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local notability at best.. I don't see how his having a large memorabilia collection is notable enough for an article.Spanneraol (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete lack of reliable refs, maybe locally notable but that doesn't mean he's Wikipedia notable. See WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is met due to the sources presented in the Flickr uploads by Ap3253. Cunard (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, better refs but still questionable, Neutral.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are coming in and the author might need some time to update. In looking at the items for sale at the sites, some of which include the subject of this articles picture, it's clear he was quite a collector. While not "famous", I believe this subject to be notable and the article worth keeping.38.97.15.196 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The links here are not doing much to establish notability. This isn't a game of "find his name mentioned somewhere". To demonstrate notability, there must be significant coverage where the topic of the article is the subject of the article. Of the newspaper links above the first one is to letters to the editor mentioning Michael, the remaining 2 are to a standard obits (one for his wife, one for him) that anyone (notable or not) may receive. The gameusedsportsonline.com links above are to items for sale. I assume you are suggesting this person is notable based on his name frequently being associated with memorabilia for sale and that this implies that he is a noted figure among the collecting community. If is the case, I would think there would be some feature articles in a newspaper or magazine covering the life of this man. That would establish notability. These links do not. There are numerous magazines covering sports collecting and books have been written on the subject as well so this doesn't appear to be a corner case. Also keep in mind that if deleted, it could be recreated at a later date should sufficient sources be located.--RadioFan (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Scans from various newspapers I'll add more as time permitsAp3253 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40373106@N06/

Changed to keep due to the reliable sources shown in the scanning of multiple newspapers by Ap3253. This article and this article prove that WP:BIO is met, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added more scans to http://www.flickr.com/photos/40373106@N06/ and updated the article. More to follow...Ap3253 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think these newspapers show him as anything more than a local figure in Concord. I don't think he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Spanneraol (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with local notability. The numerous reliable sources show that Andy Michael wasn't a marginally notable figure in his day — he was a very notable one. Notability is not temporary, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the requirements for an article have clearly been met. I think his notability extends well beyond local as several newpapers are cited/scanned. Also, collectors are not often showboaters seeking the national spotlight, so they are often only covered in regional publications as this man was. His memorabilia collection aside (some of which is still being sold by dealers across the USA), he was also a scout for the Yankess and responsible for signing Major League players, a decorated WWII veteran, and an all around interesting person. I think this article should stay.162.89.0.59 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and block the socks. This much puppetry burns me up. My brother has a very impressive Star Trek collection; he doesn't warrant an article. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep. Please see my comment near the bottom of the page. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: PMDrive, I sincerely hope you are not calling me a sockmaster. From your comment above, you have voted to delete the article because you believe that this discussion is filled with socks. This is not a valid reason to delete the article. What this AfD debate should be about is whether or not Andy Michael satisfies the notability guidelines. The multiple reliable sources provided in the Flickr uploads by Ap3253 (talk · contribs) show that Andy Michael passes WP:BIO. These sources are from reliable news organizations, such as the Concord Monitor (see here and here), Boston Globe (see here), etc (see here and here). Notability is fully established by these sources.
You and Giants27 may believe that these sources are questionable because they don't appear on these newspaper's websites. But the reason that they don't appear are that most of them were published more than half-a-century ago — before the Internet was born. Ap3253 (talk · contribs)'s uploads do not look forged to me; they are legitimate sources. Notability is not temporary, so these sources cannot be disqualified for being published several decades ago.
I hope that the closing admin reads the arguments carefully and weights the ones that actually cite policy. Both Jafeluv (talk · contribs) (see here), Ap3253 (talk · contribs), Turqoise127 (talk · contribs), and I believe that the article satisfies WP:N. If you have issues with which of us is a sock of any other, please point it out.
"My brother has a very impressive Star Trek collection; he doesn't warrant an article" - true; but has your brother been covered by multiple reliable news organizations? Did he join the army to fight the Nazis during World War II? Has he worked as a scouter for the New York Yankees? If the answers to all three of these questions (but most importantly the first one) is no, then I agree; your brother should not have an article on Wikipedia. But if the answer to the first question is yes, then I must disagree with you and say that your brother should have an article. Likewise, since Andy Michael is discussed in multiple reliable sources, his article should remain on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who was in World War II is notable.. and scouting for the Yankees by itself is also not notable. Neither if having a memorabilia collection or being covered by local newspapers in Concord. The debate here is definitely filled with socks.. Spanneraol (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Andy Michael's participation in World War II garnered him reliable sources. His memorabilia collection also garnered him sources. There is nothing wrong with local notability. In fact, this argument doesn't even apply because the Boston Globe is not in Concord, New Hampshire, or even the state of New Hampshire.

Like PMDrive, you also make a baseless accusation about this discussion being riddled with socks. Again, I request that either of you point out who is a sock of whom. Cunard (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReplySpanneraol: This is not the first time you have suggested that Michael was only covered in one small town local newspaper. Actually, the sources are from a variety of newspapers, including the Boston Globe. If you are not familiar with the east coast, Boston is a pretty large city and that's no tiny local publication as you infer. As to "socks", I didn't even know what was meant until I looked through the help pages and figured it out. I assure you, I have only posted using my signature. I did have another person familiar with Michael, who supplied some source material, take a look at the article. He did vote and made some comments on here, and if that's prohibited then I apologize. There is a lot more source information available on this person, but I have to ask how many are required?? This article will get improved over time, but to delete because you don't like the sources seems a bit much.Ap3253 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, I am sincerely sorry for making you think I was referring to you as a sock. It's patently clear you aren't a sock. I was referring to the anons who showed up seemingly out of nowhere to support this. Since you were able to uncover suitable printed material, I am more than happy to change my vote to keep. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of career achievements by Roger Federer. (X! · talk) · @979 · 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer tennis records

There already are a Roger Federer article and a List of career achievements by Roger Federer. This article is largely a duplicate of those articles. Chidel (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC) A third article I should have listed originally is Roger Federer career statistics. Chidel (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, all of the content is found (or should be) in 2 other articles already. TJ Spyke 05:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of career achievements by Roger Federer; plausible search term—Chris! _ct 06:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article contains very insightful information listing his streaks and who he beat, not found in the other articles. Just requires a lot of clean up to remove duplicated information, or otherwise merge the useful information with List of career achievements by Roger Federer. Zup326 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Merge then Split - The nominated article is the most useful Federer related stat page. However all the pages need merging to prevent duplicate info and then splitting to make it easy to navigate. Deletion is the easy option, and, the wrong one. Francium12 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the career achievements article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of career achievements by Roger Federer. There is no reason for multiple articles on the exact same thing. Reso lute 03:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and redirect to List of career achievements by Roger Federer. There needs to be on a consistent format for listing these achievements and records within the confines of a single article.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IN Entirety; and Develope!: I think this must be kept, and not merged or split, but become more well developed because the other pages are long enough in themselves. So, I think the only solution is to keep but well develope every section!TW-RF (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of career achievements by Roger Federer -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to career achievements ASAP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison for Some Video Converters

This is original research, with the author just listing the specs for three products and suggesting which one he thinks is best. It is also possibly spam, since the author links to the web site for the product he prefers. The article had a prod tag on it, but it had already had two previous prod tags removed, so I thought it should come here. Calathan (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. Also a possible G11 candidate. Jafeluv (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original reasearch. We don't need badly titled, poorly constructed, subjective comparisons of random video converters. See also Comparison for some Audio Converter. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison for some Audio Converter. Alexius08 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReverendWayne (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @979 · 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel Hill Road

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral on the matter. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of why this road is different from any other suburban road. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated. The subject is likely to never meet the notability criteria of "significant coverage in secondary sources." Oh yeah, Speedy close requested. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cumberland, Ohio (where it is), without prejudice to future re-expansion (or re-creation), if there is content to warrant it. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There appears to be a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes notability in these kinds of circumstances. Roughly half of the participants believe that the sources provided do not demonstrate notability; the other half disagree. I am afraid that this question is not likely to be answered until some broader consensus on a bar for notability for these kinds of articles is eached. Shereth 15:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania–Romania relations

whilst noting they have a few agreements [21], these are not subject to wide third party coverage, and also are pretty standard for EU member countries. Most coverage is in multilateral context [22]. That George W visited Lithuania and Romania in the same trip does not equate to bilateral relations, neither does a football match played last year, but I know of at least 1 editor who would think this is worthy of inclusion, clearly not. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are both EU members and close relationships into European countries. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

precedent has shown that simply being EU members is not enough to establish notability, take deleted articles Luxembourg-Latvia/Estonia/Romania, Estonia-Malta, Cyprus-Belgium, Denmark-Malta just to name a few. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ApprenticeFan, do see EU members - there's a separate list where readers can see just who is in the EU. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of verifiable and notable information available via a Google search and the diplomatic websites already listed. You also can't, as above, look at the first 10 or 20 results of 5,000 Ghits and declare defeat. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards delete because I don't see notability in the standard boilerplate "cooperation in economic development" kind of agreements, nor do I see EU agreements that are in place for a number of nations as being indicative as any notability between these two. But I will hold off a little while to see if anyone locates something that shows actual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The threshold for a stand alone article is notability, not WP:Verifiability, co-membership in the EU or other organizations, or editors' notions that sources "must" exist if only someone took the time to find them. The article cites zero independent, reliable, secondary sources, and I could not find any either that discuss the topic directly or in detail. This is the best I could find, but I'm not sure of the source's independence or reliability. Even if it is both independent and reliable, the source by itself is not enough to demonstrate notability, in my opinion. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the record, I searched in Romanian and came up equally short (mostly football matches). Even the Romanian Foreign Ministry has only this to say: "relations exist, a few visits have been exchanged either way, we trade about €32 million with each other (not exactly an impressive sum in economies of $50 billion and $264 billion), we've signed a couple of pieces of paper together, 0.07% of Romanian tourists go to Lithuania, and Romanian citizens can work there (covered here already)". The end. The Lithuanians have even less to say. Given the thoroughly routine nature of the relationship, and given the lack of independent sources on the subject (no, a party at the Lithuanian embassy in Bucharest doesn't cut it), we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This one is close. IMHO, it has the potential in the future to become a notable subject. For now, the specific material listed above fits better other country-specific articles (foreign relations, history, economics, tourism, sport),as it doesn't address specifically the relations. Actually, why don't we deal with this centrally? Can anybody list all X with notable "X-Romania relations". Outside Europe no more than these seem to have sufficiently notable relations with Romania: USA, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, India. Even from these a couple can go. Dc76\^talk 02:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If/when it gets deleted, plese do salvage the text, though. Dc76\^talk 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article looks great now. Multiple bilateral agreements and visits. Well sourced. Notability should not be an issue here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Biruitorul convinced me with his excellent research. The lack of actual notability (as opposed to fabricated notability) looks apparent to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is "fabricated" about anything in the article? Once again, this is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records or The National Enquirer, so we cover all subjects that have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, not just the exceptional or sensational ones. I would also add that a predecessor state of Lithuania, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, very definitely had significant relations involving the territory of modern-day Romania over hundreds of years. Unless we are to create even more bilateral relations articles to cover every different historical entity we need to somehow pull this type of historical, encyclopedic, information together. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to twist mundane, pedestrian functions of governments (like an agreement that boils down to "hey, let's encourage tourism, yeah, that's the ticket") into "notable" is what I consider fabricated notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, if you're talking about something like the Battle of the Cosmin Forest, then yes, Moldavia and Poland (primarily Poland, not Lithuania) did have significant encounters with one another. But what we would need to tie that history to "Lithuania–Romania relations" is a source actually discussing them in that context, not a personal opinion that the relations of modern-day Romania with the Republic of Lithuania can have retroactive relevance to the 15th century. And contextually, that information is much better dealt with in sections/articles on the foreign policy of Moldavia and of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, not in such an article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay, there's embassies. Lots of countries have embassies. There's state visits. Every country does state visits; they're staged well in advance. There's "relatively low" trade. The economy quakes when it moves. There's a handful of fairly typical agreements in international relations. Big deal. About the only significant thing here is the fifty-year gap in relations while Lithuania was part of the U.S.S.R., but that's not enough to carry a claim of notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources that establish the notability of the relationship. Alansohn (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I see that there ample reliable and verifiable sources cited in the article, but which one(s) of these establish notability by covering the topic "directly in detail", as required by WP:GNG? Yilloslime ^T_C
  - "directly in detail ... and no original research is needed to extract the content". Can you point out the original research? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What??? Who said anything about original research? I'm saying that none of the sources address the topic directly and in detail. Is that not clear? Yilloslime ^T_C 21:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say it, Wikipedia said it. You truncated the definition, in full it reads "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Significant is defined in the sentence as "no original research is needed to extract the content." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I'd appreciate if you didn't play word games. The sentence has two clauses, joined by the conjunction "and". Both clauses must be satisfied for the sentences requirements to be met. I'm saying the first part isn't satisfied. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After request by Richard Arthur Norton ([23]) I have found some Lithuanian sources that might be somewhat relevant:
- A couple of articles in newspaper "Kauno diena" ([24], [25]) about trade relations between Lithuania and Romania (with Bulgaria). In short - there are some investments (listed), there is some trade, but relationship is not close...
- An article in newspaper "XXI amžius" ([26]). I guess it is possible to argue that it actually does discuss the bilateral relations (as opposed to, let's say, president's visit or signing of an agreement). For example, it discusses the timings of visits...
- An article in "Lietuvos istorijos metraštis" (English abstract - [27]) about the relations during the Inter-War period. As it says, "[...] until the late 1930s the Bucharest and Kaunas governments and politicians never gave any thought to bilateral relations and interests"...
Is that "significant coverage"? Well, I guess it is more significant than the coverage in many of the sources currently cited in the article... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are clearly sufficient--just as your would expect, considering the politics involved and the relative nearness of the two countries. I can understand nominating for deletion really unlikely pairing on the assumption that no references will turn ups, even without checking, but nominating a pair like this without checking seems to me another matter.DGG (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

didn't you read my nomination, I gave evidence of my google news search? relative nearness of the two countries is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have looked at the first 10 or 20 results of 5,300 Ghits. There is a difference between running a search and looking at the first few titles, and doing research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no I didn't. stop making assumptions of people. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cursory WP:AFTER. If even only 10 of the 3,820 news hits dealt with the relationship, it would be enough to show notability per guideline... even if the other 3,810 of the hits did not. However, sources found by User:Martynas Patasius convince me that such definitely exist. Improving any article just takes work. That relations between EU countries might be "pretty standard" does not meake such non-notable. Pointing out that other bilateral relations articles might have been deleted does not convince me that this one should go as well. The nom's concerns inre some of the content seems a matter for discussion and cleanup, not deletion. The article as it has been improved since nomination is worthy of inclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10 hits have to be non trivial, not merely passing mentions. a lot of google searches are multilateral ie include country X and Y together with another country in the region. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed yes. Common sense does not allow me to conclude that 3,820 news hits would all be simply passing mentions. Common sense does not allow me to conclude that 1,650 book hits would all be simply passing mentions. And obviously, as long as included discussion of Lithuania–Romania is not trivial, guideline does not decree that sources discussing Lithuania–Romania cannot also discuss other countries... specially since it is illogical to believe that a country would have a relationship with only one other country and that they would ignore the rest of the world community. Again, kudos to User:Martynas Patasius for the diligent search, and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for his improvements. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense may lead one to conclude that with 3,820 ghits, some of those hits must more than passing mentions. But that would be sloppy research and would be wrong. Go thru the first few pages and you'll find that most of the articles contain lists countries which just happen to contain Lithuania and Romania. There is no mention of anything even remotely related to Lithuania–Romania relations. And you might find a article or two like this one which actually does discuss just Lithuania and Romania. But as it talks about only a single event (a meeting between gov'ts) rather than the more general topic of Lithuania–Romania relations and it's only 237 words in total, it hardly constitutes "direct detailed" coverage, and thus doesn't establish notability. So if you do a little more work than simply plugging "Lithuania–Romania relations" into a google news archive search, then common sense leads to the opposite conclusion--that most likely all of the 3,820 ghits are either passing mentions or non-mentions. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is now well sourced and quite informative. Multiple independent sources providing substantial detailed information have addressed notability concerns.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Alefbe (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no prejudice against recreation as a disambiguation page, should that become necessary, but given the current paucity of bluelinks (most of the potential targets do not yet exist as articles) I am not going to mandate its creation at this time. Shereth 15:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharara

Article consists of a random list of uses of a Hindi word or words that seem similar. Quelcrime (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attia Sharara. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jafeluv (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then ~~redirect~~ per Jafeluv and WP:OR. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per below replace with a dab page after deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or rewrite as a disambiguation page, which is effectively what it is. Unlike many other foreign-language words this is not in common usage in English. pablo_hablo. 10:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. In principle I don't object to making disambiguation pages, I can find only one article that has this name in its title (Attia Sharara). I don't think that Sharara is likely to be a search term for Streets of Bollywood or Iskra (Egyptian communist organisation). Cnilep (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible disambiguation candidates include Shararat (film) - 1972 film, Sharara (1959 film), Sharara (1984 film), Shararat (2002 film), and Sharara (singer) from Afghanistan. Mostly redlinks so far, but it's possible that someone searching on "Sharara" cound be looking for any one of these rather than this semi-dictionary page. pablo_hablo. 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect as suggested above.121.12.198.155 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But note that if, as Pablomismo suggests, Shararat (film) is as likely as destination as Attia Sharara, redirect becomes impractical, and may in fact require making the page a DAB. Cnilep (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that Shararat (film), which is a different word with more letters, is as likely a redirect target as Attia Sharara which contains the same word.Quelcrime (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea on the likelihood, however I suggested a dab because the words are similar enough for a typo, seeing as there are films called Sharara and Shararat. (I am pretty sure both words are from the same root, one meaning "a spark" and the other meaning "impish, mischievous".) Typos are particularly likely given that both words are transliterated from other writing systems - consider Paratha, Parantha; Mohammed, Mahomet, Muhammad etc. Note also that, even ignoring the Shararats, there remain Attia Sharara, two films called Sharara and a singer called Sharara for disambiguation. pablo_hablo. 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we should not have articles about foreign language words, unless they are ubiquitous. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andro-ethnic

non notable proto-logism WuhWuzDat 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asap. Abductive (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a non-notable neologism. Can't find any sources for it. Jafeluv (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly formed neologism. The combined roots do not mean the intended meaning, which would be better served by cryptoethnic or holethnic; the actual roots suggest "belonging to men (human males) as an ethnic group", which would be a pleasantly ridiculous notion but for separatist feminism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism without sources, lacking notability. The article is also poorly written - I'm not sure if the author is asserting that this is a term of art in media circles ("it used to describe a movement within the media, particularly with the writers and producers of children's television shows"), or simply as a possible neologism ("This term could be considered.... In reality we are unlikely to find...") to describe this perceived "movement". In either case, I could not find any potential sources. Cnilep (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, the single occurrence (outside Wikipedia) of "andro-ethnic" indexed by Google, here, seems to use the word to mean ethnic in the sense of "from an ethnic group" (other than my own). Isn't that opposite to what this page says? Cnilep (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: what Ihcoyc/Smerdis said. —Tamfang (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis of Tlön and his accurate etymology and despite what I trust is not a very serious danger, of Smerdis remaining on his soapbox and writing an article under the same title. Anarchangel (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 NAC ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 3 skull finder

Wikipedia is not a how to site for video games WuhWuzDat 01:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not a free web host. Reso lute 01:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous (Cascada song)

There are no sources saying that this song will be the next single. The article is built completely on original research with statements such as ""Dangerous" has been confirmed as the next single because, as seen in the new advert for Evacuate The Dancefloor, Natalie is seen obviously singing the lyrics to "Dangerous"". This advertisement is for the album and there is nothing to prove that the order in which the songs are played will be the order in which singles will be released. This is a clear-cut, original research article with no reliable sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, particularly section 2 of the article: "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." This article is completely built on speculation. I have seen the advertisement and there is no way to tell what the next single will be. The television commercial is solely for advertisement of the album. No announcements have been made about the next single or singles, nor are there any reliable sources to support the article's contents. --Go1die (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONG. Even if the article could satisfy the former, the latter would still compel deletion: "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article.... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." That settles it for me. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as has already been said. no confirmation that this is a single. delete the page with a view of reviving it if reliable confirmation surfaces Mister sparky (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs & . No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 09:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, let's wait until official and reliable news are released. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country Concert

Totally unreferenced article, tagged for cleanup and wikification as well as sources since April 2008, about a smalltown music concert. No evidence of notability; there are about 6,800 Google hits, but they're all blogs or Myspace or buy-a-ticket-for-Country-Concert websites, and absolutely no reliable sources are to be found. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a lot of fun, but not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sources that I can find are trivial mentions. I did find reliable sources in Google News, but they were all from local newspapers. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Jacobs

Delete: as non-notable vanity page. Subject's claim to fame is apparently that he is a graphic artist from a long-standing Mormon family, which is the best I could decipher, as an old fogey. Appears to fail WP:NOTABLE. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see: his sister Rachel Jacobs' AFD for more info and votes/opinions re Parker Jacobs' deletion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought the closing admin was going to take care of this under the other AfD. Non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Currently not enough meat in reliable sources to support the BLP. Some can be WP:Verified, but that's about all. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:BIO. Brian Reading (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Washington Nationals minor league players. The target of the merge can be discussed/amended as necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Hicks

Low level minor league baseball player, currently playing in "short season A" league. Has not achieved notability. Spanneraol (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, and there's no evidence that he's notable any other way. Coverage is either trivial or non-independent, or both. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gulf Coast League Nationals. Not notable enough to merit a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he's no longer with the Gulf Coast Nationals—he's currently playing for the Vermont Lake Monsters. BRMo (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Washington Nationals minor league players. I checked Gnews and the references appearing in the article, and I don't think he's received enough coverage from reliable sources to merit an independent article. BRMo (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge until notability can be established.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of top prize losses in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of top prize losses in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

Seems to just be a list of random, fancrufty, unencyclopedic information. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 00:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Umm, yeah, no. trivia, indiscriminate information, unencyclopedic, non-notable, etc. Reso lute 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge it with the list of winnings page. I'm sure there are references for this out there, as I can't imagine this coming out of the blue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there aren't. I'll change my mind if you can produce a reliable source for each case. Abductive (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added sources for the UK one. I suspect that the others will be easily sourceable if searches are carried out in the relevant languages - this is a top rated show across the world and big losses always gets media coverage.. TerriersFan (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of Wikipedia is not a Directory. Abductive (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge it with the list of winnings page. TerriersFan (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer Nom. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced trivia, unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. (Why no US section?) Tavix | Talk 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the top prize losers into the article that corresponds to the international variant (i.e. merge all the Japanese top-prize losers into the article of the Japanese version of Millionaire), and that's my final answer.
Merge, per above. —Terrence and Phillip 06:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Tavix, there is no US section because nobody on the American version of the show has answered the last question incorrectly.--Tomballguy (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Chris[reply]

Wow, would have never guessed that. Thanks. Tavix | Talk 17:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Tavix, but did you know Japanese has the most number of contestants who get the final question wrong, and that happen at least once every year, so this is the place to show this interesting fact, so please keep it. It's very interesting. Thanks-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.132.243 (talk)

Strong delete Indiscriminate list of fancruft. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Washington Nationals minor league players. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Pena

Low level minor league baseball player, currently in the Rookie leagues. Has not achieved notaility. Spanneraol (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete What about the Metropolitans and the Industrials, the Cuban teams for which he played? Unless we can prove that they're fully professional, delete, but we should see whether he were perhaps fully professional before becoming a minor leaguer. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cuba does not permit professional sports, so the Industriales and the Metropolitanos are amateur teams. Nevertheless, they play in the Cuban National Series, which is the highest level national baseball league in Cuba, so the Baseball WikiProject's notability guidelines would probably regard that as sufficient to establish notability. BRMo (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gulf Coast League Nationals. Not notable enough for a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Peña is no longer with the Gulf Coast League Nationals—he currently plays for the Hagerstown Suns. BRMo (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Washington Nationals minor league players. A Google search finds quite a few references to this guy, but many of them are in Spanish (which I studied in high school but have mostly forgotten) so it's hard for me to assess whether the coverage is significant or trivial. For now, I think a merge to the minor league players article is the best solution until an editor can add more sourced information. BRMo (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BRMo. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Per BRMo, the sources can probably be roughly translated using Google's translation tool.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Washington Nationals minor league players. Seems a reasonable solution. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Jaime

Very low level minor league baseball player, played in the dominican leagues last season and is in "short season A" this year. Has not achieved notability. Spanneraol (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, and there's no evidence that he's notable any other way. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gulf Coast League Nationals. Not notable enough for a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he's no longer with the Gulf Coast Nationals—he currently plays for the Vermont Lake Monsters.BRMo (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Gnews search found only a couple of brief mentions. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N. BRMo (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Washington Nationals minor league players. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge Another example of an article that really could be deleted but redirecting makes more sense since the content will still be there. Redirect and merge to the page Niteshift36 mentioned.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 5. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Venema

Person who didn't won Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 5, no notability and no sources in this article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not indepedently notable in own right. Delete as we have with others on this show who failed to do anything afterwards.Fuzbaby (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: The show only finished 2 days ago, she was the front runner to win the show, and her eviction shocked most people, she was voted favourite model of the series by the public. I'd say her and the runner up Cassi are the two from the show will be the ones to watch. At least give Clare a few months to do some modelling before deleting her surely, as I said, the show finished only 2 days ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.55.218 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, necessary sourcing isn't present here, and I can't find sources anywhere else to prove her notability. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is really a matter of WP:BLP1E. If she gets notable later, it can be re-written. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE: An article today states that Clare has been signed to Chic agency. I think she'll do big things, her test shots with the agency are already awesome. See her official listing on Chic's page here: http://www.chicmanagement.com.au/models/770/clare-venema/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.235.220 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 121.217.235.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: Found some very good informations from her before the show.

Rfsilveira (talk), 01:07 July 10, 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.75.47.171 (talk)

— 189.75.47.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: The above account Rfsilveira does not exist. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the account User:Rfsilveira exists and is active since several years now [28]. Please check more carefully. --Ilion2 (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the account that posted that comment. The one you link to has had no activity since July 1, 2009. If you actually click on the one above, in the comment signature, you'll see that it goes to a non-existant page. The talk link goes to the account you linked to. Someone forged the signature. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been signed to Chic Management, won the 3rd place in Australia's Next Top Model. Article is much better now : when AfD was startet [29], now [30]. --Ilion2 (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE: She was voted as fan favourite. Show has only recently ended. She just signed new contract. Still in tabloids. Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.62 (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tidied up and found some reliable refs but they don't, in my opinion, really help assert notability. There's an article there on bullying in these modelling comps, that's for sure. Merge relevant material to Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 5 (which in itself needs some serious referencing). (I feel like I need to shout to be heard amongst all this other 'shouting'. florrie 02:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect in agreeance with Florrie above. Orderinchaos 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by someone, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Kho Support Group

Non-notable support group. Google search only gives 16 hits mostly facebook, the group's page and some replies to news articles and forums by the founder. For background on the controversy see Katrina_Halili#Controversies Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Hayden Kho if that is appropriate. This group fails both WP:NOTE in general and WP:CLUB specifically. Drawn Some (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, merge with Hayden's article. --TitanOne (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Seems to qualify for A7 of CSD guidelines. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree with a redirect/merge since this group is not notable enough to even be mentioned in the parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect can be created if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Solis

Delete "A-" class minor league baseball player, has not achieved notability Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, and there's no evidence that he's notable any other way. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gulf Coast League Nationals. Not notable enough for a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Gnews search didn't turn up much other than trivial mentions, certainly not enough for an article. BRMo (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge Could be deleted but the content can be kept if/when he becomes notable. Redirect and merge to Washington Nationals minor league players.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a blatant hoax about a depressed mother elephant who goes to a motel room and hangs herself after accidentally killing her baby. Edison (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asali Baby Elephant Dies

This should be deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS, as it is nothing but a news story. A redirect to Memphis Zoo would not be appropriate due to the implausible title of this article, so deletion is the only viable option. Them From Space 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I have nothing to add to the concise case made by the nominator, except for my consent. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I speedily deleted the article as a blatant hoax, which claimed that the mother elephant had hung herself in a motel room. It had been re-created after previously being speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. This was not a story about the baby elephant dying. Edison (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (G7) by Nyttend. NAC. The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing With The Antichrist

Yeah So. I made this a while ago, but now I know it doesn't meet wikipedia's nobility standards. Non-notable album. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 00:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted under G7, as noöne has made any significant edits except the author, who has plainly requested deletion by nominating it here. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect term to Bookkeeping. No properly verified information to merge at this point. — Satori Son 16:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remote bookkeeping

Delete, no sources, bordeline ad Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and source could go into Bookkeeping if some sources are there doesnt really have notability for standing alone Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that the mechanics of doing bookkeeping in this way are notable. JJL (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @979 · 22:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bookkeeping. Not noteworthy enough to stand as a separate subject. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as either WP:NEO or WP:DICTDEF. I don't see anything notable about this specific mode of bookkeeping. DMacks (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treadsetter

Appears to be a neologism that was just made up one day. I don't think this is vandalism to the point of meeting any of the criteria for speedy deletion, but its close. Them From Space 00:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed. A made-up neologism that fails to verify any sort of notability with reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--per nom and Scjessey. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - TexMurphy (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously; borderline A1 patent nonsense or G3 hoaxy vandalism per WP:CSD. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter nonsense. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 06:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no relevant ghits, delete per nom. PamD (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: per WP:MADEUP. Iowateen (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainer of Love

This article about a planned reality television show contains no substantial information beyond links to a casting call. It should be deleted as WP:CRYSTAL until a verifiable airdate is published by a reliable source, at which point, it could be re-created. Plastikspork (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See For the Love of Ray J (season 2) and Real Chance of Love (season 2) which are also up for deletion. Plastikspork (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about consensus right? Well the consensus on those show has been to keep the pages until now. The Megan Wants a Millionaire page has been here since the casting call has been issued and nobody complained. Same for Daisy of Love. I don't get the point of deleting now that the page has been created. That would just lead to two wastes of time (one when this page was created and one when it'll be recreated). The show will air eventually ad the show will need its page then, so why not keep the page. For those reasons I'm voting keep.--Whadaheck (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So which is it? Is it The Entertainer (TV show) or The Entertainer of Love? It seems like there are speculation issues, checking the page move history. If you would like, I can point you to examples where these pages were deleted. I would say that NFF for films is a good criteria if you want to set a precedent. Once a premiere date has been confirmed by a reliable source, then it would seem that it fails to be WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first it was called "The Entertainer Of Love" but a later blog stated only "The Entertainer" (here: http://blog.vh1.com/2009-06-29/more-sober-house-fit-club-pepa-and-chilli-on-the-way-from-vh1). It is not speculation, it is name shifting, like Trophy Wife became Make Me Your Trophy Wife and then Megan Wants a Millionaire.--Whadaheck (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm voting keep as well, because I agree that this page should be kept. It's a complete waste of time if it's just going to be recreated again. I say leave it on here, it's not doing any harm at all. WikiMaster500 (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:INHERITED and WP:LOSE and WP:NOTAGAIN. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think sometime in 2010 from a blog a reliable premiere date. Plastikspork (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @054 · 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, noting that the two references are blogs and are so presumed to be not sufficiently reliable. Userfy on request for WikiMaster500 or any other editor, but this should not be in mainspace until it has independent reliable (not blog) third party sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are official blogs from the network reporting press releases from said network not reliable?--Whadaheck (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things titled “blog” tend not to be considered serious. In this case, the blog postings are non-independent, and so the entry can be considered promotional. A more specific guideline is WP:NFF --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kwertii's links show that it exists, none of them are reliable sources, and as such, do not establish noability for Wikipedia. (X! · talk) · @979 · 22:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Bear Common Lisp

Non-notable software product TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could probably be a speedy delete. Completely non-notable, no sources, etc. Renee (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Gsearch or Gnews to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - did you actually do a search? There's tons of stuff: http://www.google.com/search?q=armed+bear+common+lisp. It is a well-known Lisp implementation. Kwertii (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the search results to pull out anything to show notability? I specifically said nothing to show notability, not nothing at all. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major modern CL implementation. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @053 · 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Kewrtii's Google search returns many Google results, but none of them are reliable sources that cover Armed Bear Common Lisp in depth. A Google News Archive search returns no results, and I have been unable to find sources through other searches. Cunard (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - simply because you've never heard of it doesn't mean that it's not notable. While ABCL is certainly not international headline news on the front page of the New York Times, it is a major Lisp implementation which is well known among Lisp programmers. To establish notability further than the above Google search, herewith a selection of third-party ABCL references, among the many others that exist:
- [31] - Peter Seibel (author of a popular Lisp textbook)'s Lisp FAQ; includes ABCL as a major Lisp implementation (the first one listed, in fact)
- [32] - well known, major, third party Lisp wiki, indicating notability
- [33] - another well known, major, third party Lisp wiki article
- [34] - major international Lisp conference that includes ABCL based presentations.
- [35] - well known, major, third party Lisp blog which references ABCL here and elsewhere, numerous times
- [36] - New York City Lisp club's Google Summer of Code proposal including ABCL work
- [37] Usenet discussion of ABCL in com.googlegroups.jvm-languages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwertii (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:NOTE. References to establish notability must be reliable, independent, non-trivial. Other wikis, blogs, and Usenet discussions are not reliable. The remainder would be considered trivial references, as none are directly about ABCL, they just happen to mention it. I'm sorry, but those just do not IMHO establish notability to Wikipedia's standards. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Blowgun French Open

a non notable sporting competition. no coverage in google news in English or French.the article includes the day's agenda such as a barbeque! LibStar (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As non-notable as France Sport Blowgun Association, which is also up for deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not notable. Reso lute 01:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was Redirect to Radiohead per WP:CRYSTAL via WP:HAMMER and WP:SNOW. Once sufficient verifiable information is available from reliable sources, this action can be easily reversed. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohead's eighth studio album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Radiohead's eighth studio album

Album has received no significant coverage; article is speculative and until recently, based largely on WP:OR. Will this album ever actually come to fruition? Ask the crystal ball.

Unlike In Rainbows, this album does not yet have enough independent coverage to warrant an article. Bdb484 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER, which is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:TenPoundHammer's Law#Time to promote this essay to a guideline?. Edison (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Quietus source is pretty short and the only information given about the album is pretty much "It's going great, but apart from that I have nothing else to report." The BBC source doesn't offer much more information. It's probably too early for this album to have an article yet. Jafeluv (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article offers no more info than what is already on the Radiohead page. I say leave it alone until at least the title of the album is confirmed. --Pritoolmachine2806 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - <to the tune of Creep> "I'm a creep, with a Wp:HAMMER". (Seriously, no release date or name means there's realistically no other outcome.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm amazed this article survived. An AfD saved my life. Lugnuts (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In Rainbows, it's not. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 06:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL Rlendog (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karma Police, delete this article, its WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER violations are making me feel ill. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stop, Hammer time. JuJube (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; no title, no track list, no release date. It's WP:HAMMERTIME for this WP:CRYSTALBALL. Cliff smith ^talk 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. Eventually there will be more information so the article should be kept until there is, so someone doesn't have to recreate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iminrainbows (talk •contribs) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1993 Philadelphia Phillies season. So Why 11:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macho Row

This is a minor term, even for someone who knows the Phillies. It's not culturally significant enough to have its own article and has only one reference. Delete or redirect to 1993 Philadelphia Phillies season or History of the Philadelphia Phillies. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge Per nom, the season article makes most sense.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitz Foundation for Intercultural Ecosphere Safety

fails WP:ORG, no third party coverage [38] LibStar (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I was unable to find any reliable source coverage of this organization --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reso lute 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas (Producer)

Lacks in-depth coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! Please let me know how can i solve the "in-depth coverage" problem and consequently how can i improve my article to avoid future mishappenings like this. Thanks ! Mandarinu

Well, by finding and incorporating coverage about Dallas found in independent, professional newspapers, magazines and such. That's how notability is established - not by having a website or a MySpace page. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--there is no coverage that I can find. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macklin Finley

Fails notability guidelines and includes no reliable or verifiable sources. Bmg916^Speak 18:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nn-autobio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The editorial review at Amazon describes the author as: "Macklin Finley is a goof-ball who bounces around the country writing unsellable books of poems." [39]. His 2008 35 page "book" "Hairy Engine with Wings" is already out of print. The 2007, 80 page "Pure Ether Funk" is ranked #3,779,516. They don't even give info on the 2009 "The Mutt". So I'm thinking non-notable WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any coverage of this poet, and Niteshift's info supports my findings. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valéry Grancher

Deletion proposed: non-notable, self-advertisement, possibly a hoax.--Galassi (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely not a hoax. A quick Lexis Nexis search produced 24 French articles about him and 1 English article from the Washington Post (April 10, 2002 Wednesday, section: STYLE; Pg. C01) - I can send people the English article if need be. 20 articles are from the French newspaper Le Monde which seems to assert notability. Having said that, this article needs a very serious clean-up. Whole sections (especially Valéry Grancher#Some pieces analysis should probably be removed. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Google yield nothing of the sort, and neither did NexisLexis.http://www.google.com/search?hl=ru&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aru%3Aofficial&q=%22Val%C3%A9ry+Grancher%22+%22washington+post%22+April+10%2C+2002&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA&lr= French articles refer back to French wiki. Insufficient notability even if not a hoax.Galassi (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the above, as nominator your views on deletion are already apparent. No hard feelings :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did you put into Nexis Lexis? When I searched for "Valéry Grancher" in Lexis it came up with 25 results including a Washington Post article. I have no COI in this article and I'm not a liar. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quite obviously notable - Google shows several dozen news hits at here. that said, one of you says that LexisNexis provides stories, and the other says it doesn't. Could we have some proof one way or the other? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My Lexis Nexis results on Lexis Nexis Academic, search parameter "Valéry Grancher" for all dates in Major US publications, major international publications and news and wires services comes up with these results: here Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above comments. I didn't bother to comment before because it was so obvious, but if someone is needed to make up the numbers then I'll !vote. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HollyWild Animal Park

Non-notable animal park. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A couple of significant coverage pieces in local newspapers, and a fair bit in national news on a chimpanzee escaping with two friends and a man stealing a bear cub. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources on Google News Archive. I found this article from The Greenville News and this article from the Spartanburg Herald-Journal. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been boldly rewritten to eliminate spam and copyvio problems. Notability has been established. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. When notability is uncertain at this moment, then WP:CRYSTAL states that we cannot keep the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajile

Does not establish its notability, and a quick Google search doesn't suggest that it will anytime soon. Also seems to serve only to advertise the framework. — ^Fatal Error 22:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt seem to be of any note whatsoever. WP:NOTMANUAL. --neon white talk 23:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per comments on its talk page, it may be more notable than presumed by these comments. It is also impossible to predict whether any topic will "establish notability . . . anytime soon". That's more of an opinion than fact. The previous deletion discussion can be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.44.58 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)— 98.14.44.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was previously on afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJILE/2006-07-13 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJILE, though the quality of those discussions is abysmal. The article is a blatant advertisement and manual primarily written by the software's author that Wikipedia has been abused into hosting for three and a half years now, waiting for it to "establish notability". As amply (and proudly!) evidenced by the software's official site itself, it has not. No third-party sources are presented to establish notability, almost certainly because none exist; googling finds nothing better than a handful of mentions on blogs. After this framework has become notable an article would be appropriate. That time is not now, and we've given it more than enough leniency in the meantime. —Korath (Talk) 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. per User:Korath. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of these Delete votes appear to come from individuals with the technical knowledge to speak on this subject. So far these Delete votes seem opinion rather than fact based. This article can be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards, why not use your apparent Wikipedia expertise to improve rather than delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.141.58.29 (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without third-party reliable sources, the article in fact can not be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards, and our Wikipedia expertise cannot be applied. If we were to apply our technical expertise, that would be original research, which is explicitly forbidden; no one else would be able to determine whether the article was valid without duplicating that research. —Korath (Talk) 13:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I ran across this article because of a completely inappropriate link from Unobtrusive JavaScript, which further supports the idea that this is essentially an advertisement.--Inonit (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Has been open for 19 days and no reliable secondary sources to determine any notability have been found, so it is reasonable to suggest that none will. Black Kite 10:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Star Ultras

Apparently non-notable fan club for a Puerto Rican soccer team. The article makes a claim for 30 regular members; barring any evidence of reliable, independent sources materializing, that seems a paltry number of members for a notable organization of this type. Given that I can't find anything at all besides blogs and forums and social networking stuff in the relevent google search this one seems well below the inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:N. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The blog Blog is their official site, from what i can gather as a Islanders fans is that they let their domain run out as their working on a new site. Size of the group is not really relevant as the only ultras group in the caribean and the first mayor supporters group on the island it has some historical value. I'll take a gander on editing the page and making it fit the criteria at WP:N. Automotivado (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that self-published blogs are not sufficient to establish notability nor are they usually considered reliable sources. I see literally nothing in any source defined as reliable in WP:RS. If you could add some reliable sources to the article, it would help! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - under construction. I would give them a few more days to find reliable sources, or They're out! Bearian (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the most verifiable and useful content to Puerto Rico Islanders, the team this fan club supports. Normally fan groups get covered in the article about the team they are fans of. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable fan clubs may get that coverage, but there is nothing to suggest this club is anything of note. Reso lute 01:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @978 · 22:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in itself, and no need to have every fanclub on the mainpage for notable teams. No refs have been added to this page, and it consists of self discription and promotion and links to their own blog/website.Fuzbaby (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. Less members than a classroom and nothing else to make it special. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable secondary sources mentioning this fan group, thus failing WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG. Also fails notability for non-commercial organisations at WP:CLUB. --Jimbo^[online] 08:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Mayve deserves a passing mention on the Islanders article, but other than that doesn't appear to be notable. Giant Snowman 10:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund Mifsud

Non notable person. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient reliable-source coverage to meet WP:BIO. See e.g. [40], [41], [42], [43], and other google news sources. Jfire (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously prominent in his country and field; there's a lot of media coverage. Shouldn't be hard to source and expand. Ntsimp (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Jfire. Iowateen (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computalk

Advertising Tom King and the radio show Dingbatter (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability. Not seeing significant coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coat rack for a WP:BLP, fails notability. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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