Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 20

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< 19 July 21 July >

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. — Aitias // discussion 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelos Tsiaklis edit

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

A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance: Does not assert notability under WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN RM-Taylor (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 08:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "he did not make a first-team appearance" signed it's own death warrant really. Spiderone (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Wrexham are a professional team in a national division so he passes WP:FOOTYN with flying colours. BigDom 16:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • .........except that FOOTYN was shot down in flames by the WP community and is not policy -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it still there then? Surely if it is not policy it shouldn't have its own page. BigDom 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:ESSAY; "n essay is a page reflecting the views of an editor or a group of editors. Unlike policies and guidelines, no formal attempt to gauge their widespread consensus has been made." :) Cheers, I'mperator 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has not played in a fully-pro league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. No significant third-party coverage fails the wider scope of WP:N. --Jimbo[online] 11:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, having not played to required level per ATHLETE or achieved anything special besides. Plenty of previous consensus that England Conference does not meet level for individual players without WP:GNG. Appearances in LoI and NZFC among others are certainly more notable than that.--ClubOranjeT 11:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Youth player who came nowhere near the first team at Manchester City before being released. He has not thus far demonstrated notability. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:57, 27 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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Garbutt edit

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

Not yet played a fully adult professional match, he has only played at the junior levels of the sport. I feel he fails both WP:NOTE and WP:ATH Trevor Marron (talk) 23:47, 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 keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dauterive edit

AfDs for this article:
Bill Dauterive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was tagged for speedy deletion as a repost (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Dauterive, which was closed after only four !votes). I'm bringing it to AfD as a procedural nomination; I think it deserves wider discussion, seeing as how he's a fairly major character in the series. ... discospinster talk 23:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Major character in long running show. I added a little bit of out of universe info, but it's going to take a lexis nexis account to get this up to featured article status. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written, referenced, informative...major character of hit show. No reason to destroy this work. --Captain Infinity (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Major character in a major telivision show. It's better than the majority of fictional character articles: referenced, well-written, no major flaws, links to pertinent articles, not in-universe, and contains some relevant "real world" background. Also, I'm a little confused: the deletion discussion, deletion, and recreation were months ago, and this is just getting tagged as a recreation now? I think that the issues of the previous AfD were addressed when it was re-created, which is perfectly acceptable. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite assertions above, there are no third-party sources which indicate notability. The content should be merged to List of characters in King of the Hill. ÷seresin 02:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A main character in the second-longest running US animated television show ever. No proof of non-notability. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:09, 24 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 fact that the website no longer exists is not a reason to delete. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wishes to present an argument based on WP:WEB or another guideline. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fish Workers edit

World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fish Workers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Website no longer exists and forum seems to have wound up Geronimo20 (talk) 23:01, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Michael Tyler edit

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person arguably only known for one thing and non-notable as an actor as defined by the entertainer guideline, namely he has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is unsourced, but sources can easily be found. I really don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies because although he was never a regular cast member on Friends, he was notable enough to be listed with the cast bios on NBC.com. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. i agree with the commentary above. besides, he appeared in more than one tv series and several movies.--camr nag 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The keyword is significant. The other TV roles were guest appearances, and the movies were so unremarkable, none of them have an article. I am assuming his appearances in those were also incidental, the article certainly doesn't say otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the fact that the movies don't have an article doesn't make them less notable. many notable movies, people, etc., don't have an article. also, you can't just assume that his appearances on them were incidental, that's mere speculation.--camr nag 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a brief search after the above comment, and that was in addition to searches I did before nominating, so I am as sure as I can be bothered to be that they were not significant roles or even films. If you can show me otherwise, that would be great. Films is one of our best covered topics also, and these are pretty recent films. MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    here you can see he's had several appearances. i think it's relevant. also, i think his part in friends alone could have granted him notability, since "one event" would have been just one episode. he appeared 131 times.--camr nag 22:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:ENT criteria is, multiple significant parts, Friends is one, what are the others?. You can appear for a minute on screen and get it listed in imdb, it proves nothing (I'm not even sure why you think I wasn't aware of these other appearances, they are listed in the article, never mind imdb). It is never going to be the case that 1 episode of Friends (or even 1 series as someone suggests) will be considered as the 'event' in WP:OneEvent. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    when i wrote the imdb link i wasn't implying that just for appearing in imdb you're notable. i meant that he had multiple parts. "significant" is, on the other hand, subjective. you might think those roles are not significant, some might say they are. you can't delete an article based on a subjetive motive.--camr nag 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, 'significant' is subjective, but the perception of these roles being insignificant is not helped by the article having zero references to suggest otherwise (no discussion of them in his career information, no detailing of awards etc), and by the fact it identifies them as guest roles, and by the fact the films have no articles. Seriously, anybody who disagrees with me that apart from Friends, he has had insignifcant roles, is free to try and prove otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you don't even have to start with external sources. Using Wikipedia, you can see that the character 'Ethan' was insignificant to the show Sabrina, because neither 'Ethan' or 'Tyler' appears anywhere on that page. Which is reflected by an external search for any kind of significance. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    it makes no sense to look for relevance using wikipedia itself. again, many notable people, events, objects, brands, do not have an article, and that doesn't make them irrelevant.--camr nag 22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I am asking for sources, and indeed looked for them before nominating, and still did it in the above reply. MickMacNee (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea that playing a recurring character, appearing in more than half the episodes of the most popular American TV comedy series of its time, isn't enough to demonstrate notability demonstrates how badly flawed the phrasing of WP:ENTERTAINER is right now. At the very least, we should treat each season of the show as a separate production, which is an accurate relection of the way prime time US TV shows are produced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's certainly a novel way of looking at it I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the comments above. What a stupid notion.... DJ 20:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are to stalk me DJ, try and give an original rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He appeared in about half of the episodes of Friends, which is not exactly one event. Articles specifically about him:[3][4][5][6][7]. So he's never had another particularly noteworthy role, but this one was for 10 years in one of the most watched series ever. Fences&Windows 17:38, 24 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. No sources have been found to prove that Lebanese Premier League is professional. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Barakat edit

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

Fails WP:N, and WP:ATHLETE, having not competed in a fully pro league, no coverage in reliable sources and no way of verifiying any of the (little) information in the article. Although the Lebanese PL's pro status was debated by the Prod-contesting editor, there is no evidence that he ever even played in it, only that he was at one point in the squad of one team. – Toon 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Toon 21:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. No evidence he has played in a pro-league so not notable. 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I found that he has played in the Lebanese Premier League (per RSSSF), but I don't know if that league is fully-pro. We have very few English sources for this athlete, so it's difficult to know if he is notable. Jogurney (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 08:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article states that the subject has played in the Lebanese Premier League, and Wikipedia's article on that league states that it is professional. Subject therefore satisfies WP:ATHLETE, since even if sources are not currently cited it is likely that they exist. Cynical (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - can you please point me to where our article states that it is fully pro? I even did a search for the words "pro" and "professional" and it didn't pop up... am I being stupid? Plus, WP:V is a core policy - if you think that "sources are likely to exist" could you perhaps present some? We have looked and can't find any, so I don't know what your assumption is based on. – Toon 16:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer: Lebanese Premier League 2005-06 "The 2005-06 Season of the Lebanese Premier League was the 58th season of Top-Flight Professional League Football (soccer) in Lebanon." - opening sentence of the article (my emphasis). Just because it isn't supported by sources now, does not mean that the article should be deleted. My rationale for the assertion that sources are likely to exist is simple: whatever its other attributes, this would appear without doubt to be the top football/soccer league in Lebanon, and one would therefore assume that there is Lebanese media coverage out there regarding the league. The fact that we have so far been unable to find this coverage, that it isn't readily findable using Google, or that it isn't in English don't matter. We have plenty of articles which only or predominantly cite offline sources - perhaps if there are any Lebanese users active on enwiki we could ask them? (although perhaps that is better left to WP:CLEANUP rather than an Afd discussion) Cynical (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • reference to professional deleted from league article as that is unsupported by evidence. League season article is pretty much a single editor article lacking peer review or sources. Parent article makes no such claim of professionalism.--ClubOranjeT 11:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note for those wishing to assess this issue, the most recent version of the article including the 'professional' claim can be found here Cynical (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - even if sources were theoretically available, we cannot speculate on their contents. We cannot assume that they prove either side of the argument, and since our core verifiability policy clearly states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." we cannot keep an article just in case sources exist and happen to back up the stance. It is not whether sources exist somewhere, it is whether they have been found. It is clearly not acceptable to keep an article because there "may" be reliable sources out there that prove notability and back up the assertions made here. What it comes down to is there are no reliable sources present, or have been found by the several users who have looked, to back up the LPL being fully-professional. Given that this is a living person's biography, which can do significant damage to someone's life if some unsourced claims are inserted (which is very likely given WP's current practices), the probably-not-notable should not be kept unless there is actual evidence that they meet our inclusion criteria — which we just don't have. – Toon 15:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. The previous editor seems to be confusing verifiability and notability. The question, as far as verifiability is concerned, is not whether "there are no reliable sources present, or have been found by the several users who have looked, to back up the LPL being fully-professional": it is whether such sources exist to verify the article content. Verifiability means verifiability of the article content, not verifiability of notability. The question of whether the Lebanese league is professional or not doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the contents of the article are verifiable, which is the standard for both WP:V and WP:BLP. Please don't let start treating the verifiability and living persons content policies as somehow subservient to the notability guidelines, which are about whether such content should go into a separate article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others, having not played to required level per ATHLETE or achieved anything special besides.--ClubOranjeT 11:17, 24 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 request from author on talk page Plastikspork (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollaxer edit

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

Fails WP:NOTE. No reliable sources in:

Google — news — scholar - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close as the article was created literally 16 minutes before being nominated for AFD. The point of adding tags is to give other users a chance to improve the article, not to inform them why you're about to bring it to AFD. [Addendum: The article in its current form is inadequate, and the topic probably isn't notable. I simply object on principle to bringing an article to AFD immediately after it's created. If it can't be speedy-deleted, at least try a prod first.] Propaniac (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it appears that nobody minds having to discuss the deletion of an article that hasn't existed long enough to show that a) it won't be improved and b) anyone objects to its deletion (that would be the point of prodding first), I might as well change my vote to delete since the article is crap. Pardon me if I refrain from congratulating the nominator. Propaniac (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware of the article's prior history with deletion when I made my initial comments above. Since everybody (including myself) seems in agreement that the prior history is relevant here, I have absolutely no idea why the nomination itself didn't include this information; if it had, I probably would not have objected to the speed of the nomination. Propaniac (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I posted this before but somehow it was erased.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I'm going with spam, there's a possibility for speedy delete. Article seems to be a promotional article for this product, giving little more than what this thing is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt as spam. No issue with the nominator bringing it here other than speedy deletion would have been appropriate as well. Prod would be a waste of time as the creator would likely remove the prod. If they are bold enough to recreate a speedily deleted article after sufficient warning, they are bold enough to remove prod tags. Bringing it to AFD is actually a kinder approach in this case and the nominator is within their rights to do so. --RadioFan (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Nice catch by the nominator. Crafty (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:SPAM. (And Propaniac, you might want to consider that WP:DEADLINE works both ways.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. However, I too am uncomfortable with how quickly it was brought to AfD - it at least suggests that the nominator didn't go through the usual process before nominating Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment You must have missed the comments above. This article has been prod'd and speedied multiple times. AFD is appropriate and it's speed really isn't an issue here. Its beginning to snow here (as expected) and I've updated my !vote to include adding creation protection to this title. No need to continue wasting editors time here.--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I totally agree that it should be deleted, I was questioning whether the nominator had checked for sources and references etc etc themselves, as in WP:BEFORE Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article was speedied twice and failed prodding before it was brought here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and SALT. The AfD tag was removed by the WP:SPA that created this latest version. I rarely say to salt, but given that it keeps getting re-created and now the author is removing AfD tag and trying to play the "I'm new" game, this stinks of blantant spam. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per talk page of article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:57, 22 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, as the church by itself is not notable, but can be redirected. Cheers, I'mperator 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St.Sebastian's Church, Chemmakkad edit

St.Sebastian's Church, Chemmakkad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this parish church among the hundreds of thousands, is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Quilon; will direct anyone looking for this page to at the next level in hierarchy. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 21:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page is tiny and irrelevent and of no real use to any one. Plus there is every thing that everyone above me is saying. I Feel Tired (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per SpacemanSpiff above. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per SpacemanSpiff. Salih (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, but using MOS-compliant title style. It might also be helpful to disambiguate the various St. Sebastian's Churches. TheFeds 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is my 'vote' but I have no particular objection to a re-direct. Springnuts (talk) 11:43, 25 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. no context and no indication of notability Plastikspork (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Blind Driveway edit

Slow Blind Driveway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A fictional character occassionally mentioned by a small town musician, isn't notable, is it? Patchy1Talk To Me! 20:27, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs edit

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fork of Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories, nearly all related concerns are dismissed here. Looks like a conspiracymania. Brandt 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't agree with the nom's rational... but I do agree that this article should be deleted. The article is a spin off from Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories. The topic of that article is definitely notable. It's fringe... but it is notable fringe (in fact it is used as an example of how a fringe theory can be notable in WP:FRINGE itself). As a sub-topic of that article, the various examinations of the photos taken on the moon (or not taken on the moon, depending on one's POV) has some degree of notability... but I have to question whether the sub-topic merits an article on its own. Is the idea of examining the moon photos notable? (and if so, can that notability established through reference to reliable secondary sources that are independant of the topic, as per GNG?) I would !vote for merger back into the main article, except that there already is a fairly good section on photos and films in that main article. Also, this article has other problems... for one thing it has serious WP:V and WP:RS issues. The majority of the article is either cited to unreliable sources (various on line forums and personal webpages and the like) or not cited at all ... and it is filled with Original research (as it is structured, it is a classic example of an OR magnet, just begging for POV warriors to add their own pet theory or analysis of the moon photos)... The one thing I will say in favor of the article is that it is even handed in its problems... both the conspiracy theorists and the debunkers are trying to prove the "truth" of their claims and counter claims, but both are violating WP:NOR in doing this. So the one thing it does not have is POV problems. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This exists because the physical space used up by the photos was creating problems in the original article and giving us "article too long" warnings. Each claim is based on some technical minuta about photography so shorter summeries of the issue can't usefully explain anything and tend to come out looking like one person's opinion vrs another's, thus creating an undue weight problem. Algr (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... but that is exaclty the problem... all this technical minutia about photography and using photographs as sources is where the WP:V and WP:NOR violations occur. It sounds like this was an attempt to avoid violating one policy that ended up violating several others. All our policies have to be followed. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... What you are calling "OR" is just basic info about how photography works regardless of if the camera happened to be on the moon or not. So the ref in this case needn't actually refer to the moon. Is this right? Algr (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it can be OR... WP:SYNT discusses the problem of forming an argument from disperate sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with most of what Blueboar said and I will add that Wikipedia is not a repository of every nut and bolt detail of a fringe theory. It seems to fail WP:notability when considering it independently of the parent article. Its content is mostly WP:OR and WP:SYN. The Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories article already covers the information presented in this article. I fail to understand why anyone will think the article is encyclopedic material. Note: I fully disclose that I am going throughout a very bad and depressing exclusionism phase. I cannot read a single article without wanting to cull half of its content.--LexCorp (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories, maybe some information here would be useful there.--camr nag 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per buleboar Dbrodbeck (talk)
  • Keep, per Algr. --Spotty 11222 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article gives valueable analysis and information. The photographs are often used as "evidence" by either sides on the debate of the hoax and is therefore notable of some deeper analysis than available on just the conspiracy page.--Junsun (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blueboar, if there are reliable sources for any of it, merge what's left into the conspiracy theory page. Auntie E. 04:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment... Almost the entire article is stuff that was originally in the main article, so all the missing sources are there. You'd end up putting this entire page in the middle of that page. (I'd reconect the sources myself, but I'm iPod only for now and just typing here is tough. In a week or two I'll be able to do it. Perhaps it would be better if the summeries on that page were trimmed down. Algr (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reply... I think the summaries on main page cover the ground well, so I would not trim them down... the problems stem from trying to expand on them and provide the details. This is why I think deletion is better than merger. If we merge, and "end up putting this entire page in the middle of that page" all we would be doing is transferring the problems to another article. We might fix some of the WP:V problem of statements being completely unsourced (by reconnecting them to the source provided in the main article), but we would not fix the rampant WP:RS and WP:OR issues. We would still have the WP:RS problem of using unreliable sources such as forum postings and personal webpages to support claims and counter-claims, and we would still have the WP:OR problem of using primary source materials to make arguments not made in those sources (and continued attempts to "prove" theories and debunkings by adding more OR). Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable topic, well written, sourced, NPOV. It's a legitimate and useful sub-article, not a content fork (but I agree that summary paragraphs in main article should be trimmed). No reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability independent of main article is been challenged. Sources are mainly blogs and WP:OR essays. Text body of the article is rampant in WP:OR and WP:SYN even when the sources are taken into account.--LexCorp (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to explain my challenge to notability a bit more. Certainly the theory that the Apollo moon landings were a conspiratorial hoax is notable... and the claim that the video and photographs of the landing were faked is certainly a central element to that conspiracy theory. So broadly speaking the idea of examining moon landing photos to try to prove the theory does have some degree of inherited notability. Unfortunately, this article isn't about the idea of examining moon landing photos ... it is about presenting and debunking the details of specific examinations. And that is where I think notability fails... the arguments for and against specific examinations have not reached the attention of the wider world. Discussion is limited to fringe websites and conspiracy theory forums. (Although, admittedly, there are one or two exceptions, such as the "angle of the shadows" claim that was debunked on the Mythbusters TV show). In other words, this article, as written, is discussing things that are not notable.
If this article had been written to discuss the idea rather than the specifics, I don't think we would be having this AFD (although that topic would probably not have been split off from the main article in the first place). But as it is, I think Notability is an issue. It's a complicated issue, and perhaps one that gets into a grey zone... but it is an issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you would discuss the idea of examining photos without getting into some specific details. For instance, there was discussion from conspiracy theorists about the direction of shadows in photographs, but I heard no specifics. Then on the Mythbusters they showed the photo in question. I froze the frame to I could see the photo. Then I looked through the 5,771 photos taken from the Moon until I found that photo. Then I uploaded it to this article so people could see what they are talking about. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 18:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there are one or two specific claims that can be considered notable because they have been brought to public awairness by the media or on shows like Mythbusters... but those are rare exceptions. Most of these claims are not discussed except by adhearants and opponents of the theory on various conspiracy forums. They are not notable claims.
How do you discuss this without going into details? Simple... You keep the discussion generalized and broad. You mention that conspiracy theorists frequently point to various photos to support their theories, and you perhaps use one or two of the few claims that have entered the public conciousness (such as the one discussed on Mythbusters) as an example... but you stop there. You resist the temptation to try to list every claims, and the proof that is offered to support it (and since you don't mention all this proof, you don't have discuss all the proof that debunks it). Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't list every claim then the hoax proponents say that we are not representing their POV. One woman in Australia says she saw a Coke bottle during the Apollo 11 moonwalk. If that isn't in there, the hoax believers start screaming that it is POV to leave it out. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 19:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we have the WP:notability and WP:Fringe policies for. The mere inclusion of the hoax theory in the encyclopedia is enough to balance the issue. By definition being a fringe theory necessitates that there will be a copious and more respectable number of detractors than those that follow the theory. Otherwise it will not be fringe at all. So WP:Fringe overrides WP:NPOV policy. Nay WP:Fringe is WP:NPOV policy. It is just that fringe theory supporters do not like to follow it understandingly.--LexCorp (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And I think we should examine the claims before listing them. Otherwise it is an indiscriminate collection of info, turning WP to a venue for further promotion of the fringe theory (regardless of its notability). Personally I see no merits for this stand-alone article, so far at least. Brandt 19:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not every claim should be covered... see WP:UNDUE. This policy statement does not simply apply to balancing Fringe theory vs. Accepted science, it also applies to individual claims within a theory. The "shadows fall at the wrong Angle" claim can be used as an example because it has been discussed on TV shows like Mythbusters... but the Coke bottle on the moon claim should not be discussed because it has not been brought to the attention of the general public. (as an aside... re the lady who saw the Coke bottle... if she is correct, that isn't evidence that the moon landing was a hoax... it's evidence that the Apollo 11 mission was not actually the first moon landing... obviously someone was on the moon before Apollo 11 since they left a Coke bottle behind... But who? See... thinking up conspiracies can be fun!) Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable aspect of the "Moon landing fake" conspiracy theory. Maybe the article needs improvement, but we don't decide whether articles are deleted based on how good the article is; we decide based on how notable the subject matter is. Samboy (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case we should also decide whether the conspiracy arguments hold any water. Brandt 19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep shouldnt it be called "moon landing fake theory"? or something like that?! I was searching for that and was hard to find this article. thanks. -Pedro (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, just want to make sure... are you voting on the correct article? This AFD concerns Examination of Apollo Moon photographs, while your comment makes me think that you are referring to the main Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no. it is this one. Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. It's notable, the photograph shadow "thing" was on the news, It was great to find it well covered in wikipedia. Although it deals with these conspirancy theories. Didnt knew about those other articles. --Pedro (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK... thanks for clarifying. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR actually themselves become problematic when applied to fringe theories. Anyone can make up some nonsensical 'flaw' with NASA evidence, and if they can get enough hits to their web page, (or a book published, aka Bart Sibel) then it satisfies all of those WP guides. But a similarly unknown person debunking the 'flaw' might fail WP:RS or WP:OR simply because they aren't making money off of a book deal, or aren't notable for any reason outside the hoax accusation. As a result, the pool of people qualified to respond to a hoax claim is far smaller then those able to make one. Thus satisfying WP:RS automatically violates WP:NPoV. In this case we have to step back and ask which is really a better service to wikipedia readers. Algr (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can not accept the idea that we must ignore one Wikipedia policy in order to adhere to another. No policy "trumps" the others... We must find a way to adhear to all of our policies at the same time. I realize that this can sometimes be difficult, but it must be done. Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check What "Ignore all rules" means. I suggest WP:REASON and WP:Undue weight be applied. Brandt 06:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge via redirect could be fine too, I don't think this is a widely reflected aspect of the moon conspiracy. Brandt 08:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Algr and WP:SPLIT. Anarchangel (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add a couple of things.
    One, many who are adding their comments here, notably Llywrch, seem to be under the misapprehension that the article is a case for the hoax. Every single concise assertion of a hoax is followed by a detailed rebuttal. If anything it should be people who believe it is a hoax here complaining that the article doesn't show their PoV enough. It's sad to see this little attention paid to the article itself by people voting to delete the article.
    Two, this is a perfectly valid spinout of an existing article and I ask the closer to remember WP:VOTE and pay close attention to the dittoing of 'hoax' here in its various guises, such as "If there are reliable sources for any of it", merge what's left..." an exact quote from two editors (there are twenty eight references in the article, including the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal). I should point out the difficulties of restarting the article are nothing compared with the task of preserving the photos once they are orphan images; the process of deleting images is much simpler than that to delete articles, is commonly done by a single person, and there are almost as many dedicated to that purpose as there are at AfD. The content can be copy-pasted; once the photos are off of Commons, they're gone. Anarchangel (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what Anarchangel has to say, the following photos will no longer have links in the article space of Wikipedia should this article be deleted (and if it does get deleted, I will ask for a deletion review): [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Samboy (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fact that an image may be orphaned is a valid reason to keep or delete any article. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, if it were the only reason. Same for WP:VOTE, which is a comment on the proceedings here and not the article. That's why they were added as comments to be considered as a matter of practicality and not in my main statement (that the article is the result of adherence to WP:SPLIT). Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, my vote is in agreement with Blueboar, who made a cogent & persuasive argument for deletion. The last two sentences were simply an attempt at a joke. (And if we can't interject a little humor into an AfD discussion, then the discussion is definitely heading for trouble.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blueboar. If there are reliable sources for any of it, merge what's left into the main page. --hippo43 (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Blueboar. Clearly proof of a conspiracy. (No wait. That's an argument for Keep...) -- llywrch (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Jndrline (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable topic. --Privalov (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per camr Kayau Jane Eyre PRIDE AND PREJUDICE les miserables 03:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just this morning I had to go to Examination article because the info and photo I was looking for ("C" on the rock issue) was not sufficiently covered in the main article. I then passed the links along to the person (a stranger) who emailed their inquiry to me. 5Q5 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is some really excellent and notable material here and it would be a great shame to loose it - also merging would make the main article much too long. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the material notable? I'm seeing a lot of "I'm facinated by this stuff and am glad to see an article on it" type of comments. But facination is not a criteria for notability. These comments do not address the issues and problems with this article. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - to be fair, I am aslo seeing a lot of "I think this stuff is BS and I don't think should be on Wikipedia" type of comments... but being BS is not a criteria for deletion (notable BS is worth an article)... these comments also do not address the issues and problems with this article. Both types of comments amount to little more than ILIKEIT or IDON'TLIKEIT. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it NOT notable? Rome has offshoots for the same reason, and fewer references. Algr (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again, a valid spin-off article. Well-researched and well-cited with good formatting and composition. Simply because another website happens to cover the same topic does not mean that Wikipedia cannot, otherwise we would not have a Wikipedia. The article presents common points and valid counter-points and contains extended information on a topic deemed notable. Thus, I cannot find any valid reason to delete it. the_one092001 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just a sample, the visibility of the stars. The stars in There are no stars in any of the photos are not visible firstly because it is impossible to render both the objects brightly lit by the Sun and the stars. The Earth light overshines them:

Image:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg Secondly, the speed of the film used for the photos was far too slow to register stars: [15]. It looks like the examiners are not too familiar with physics and astronomy. Some people may naturally believe in what they want to believe, but Wikipedia is not a propaganda venue. Brand[t] 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been demonstrated endlessly that the hoax believers either know nothing about photography, or are deliberately lying about it. Hard to tell whether it's ignorance or malevolence, but either way they get it wrong. The photos are a large part of the hoax believers so-called "evidence", since it grabs more attention than dry discussions about numbers and such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's another reason why this stuff should be deleted, the original research could be in every section. Brand[t] 08:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar said: I'm sorry, but I can not accept the idea that we must ignore one Wikipedia policy in order to adhere to another. No policy "trumps" the others... We must find a way to adhear to all of our policies at the same time. I realize that this can sometimes be difficult, but it must be done.

Well that's fine if you can find a way to actually DO this, but this sounds as if you want to delete the article simply because a better one ought to be possible. I don't think that is your intent, but helping to fix the article is, I think, a better approach:
1) There are 30 references, what exactly do you feel is wrong with them?
2) You are saying that the overviews of the issues (which appear in the main page) are notable, but the details aren't. I don't understand this position. It seems to me that without the details, the reader is left seeing the hoaxer and NASA positions in a 'he said - she said' light, which unduly favors the hoax proponents, who don't need to provide details.
3) Hoax proponents contribute to the article. As long as they obey wikipedia rules, there is no legitimate reason to stop them. That is a major factor in why the article and its offshoot are structured the way they are. Removing any argument will be regarded by them as "suppressing the evidence", and thus confirmation of a 'conspiracy' . How do you propose we deal with this?

Algr (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1)Most of the 30 references are to unreliable sources. This is true for both the claims and the debunking. They are also used to support synthetic statements which violate WP:NOR.
2)It is not our job to provide evidence for either viewpoint... our job is to inform readers what any notable viewpoints viewpoints are.
3)If hoax proponents are adding material supported by unreliable sources and engaging in Original research then they are not following Wikipedia's rules. I propose we point to WP:UNDUE, which clearly says that not every viewpoint can or should be included in Wikipedia... I propose we point them to WP:RS, which discusses what types of sources are allowable or not. I suggest we point them to WP:OR. If hoax proponents are adding material supported by unreliable sources and engaging in Original research then they are not following Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia does not care if someone thinks our policies and guidelines are unfair. It does not care if conspiracy theoriests think we are "suppressing the evidence" (they will probably think this no matter what we do). If their evidence is not discussed in reliable sources, then we shouldn't include it. and if a debunk is not discussed in reliable sources then we should not include that either. Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Please tell us which sources you find unreliable. Surely not Phill Platt or Clavius. Although I might concede that Fox news is rather shaky. :) Also, what statements are synthetic?
2) Surely verifiable facts are more encyclopedic then someone's viewpoint.
3) The problem with that is that in most contexts no one advocating a hoax could be considered a reliable source. So the very nature of RS has to change to allow the main article to even exist. We do delete accusations that originate here, but an RS review, while warranted, must begin with a consistent definition of what is RS and what isn't.

Algr (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is unequivocally includable on WP according to WP:FRINGE. Conspiracy theories about Apollo are mentioned specifically in the list of examples of fringe theories that show what kind of articles should be included on WP because of their notability:
In case the concept of inclusion of fringe has caught you unawares, this is the reasoning behind it, from the same WP rule page: Anarchangel (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that we are NOT discussing Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories... that is a different article and the notability of that topic is not being challenged. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that this discussion has had over 77 edits by 26 different editors over the last five days shows notability for the topic being discussed. If this article is so non-notable to Blueboar, why does he reply to every comment here supporting the article? Samboy (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What is notable about this article is how many Wikipedia Policies it breaks and how many editors seem perfectly OK with ignoring them. WP:N, WP:RS, WP:CFORK, WP:Syn, WP:Undue, WP:fringe and WP:OR to name a few. I have not been shown either by reasoning nor by multiple reliable sources (the actual burden of inclusion in WP:NRVE) why this article meets WP:notability independently of its parent article.--LexCorp (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has too much info to merge back in. If you trim the info, you'll help rekindle the edit war that was fought 2-3 years ago. Have fun. I'll watch from the sidelines this time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you suggesting than once an article gets to a certain size it cannot be deleted no matter what? Even when most of its content is not sourced with reliable sources and in fact is mostly sourced with WP:OR or primary sources. When it doesn't meet WP:notability per WP:NRVE although multiple editors assure us that the reliable sources are out there (in limbo presumably) but don't seem to provide any? If we apply that rule to every Wikipedia article we may as well discard all the Wikipedia policies from the start. The existence of this article in its current form makes a farce of Wikipedia Policies and Wikipedia in general. While I do not presume to been an expert on Wikipedia Policies I can tell you at least that some of the opinions and reasons given by some of the editor above as to why this article meets WP:notability show either a complete disregard of the policy by those editors or if we WP:AGF then it shows that those editor do not known nor bother to look at the WP:notability policy.--LexCorp (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is also an independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, which debunks this pile of BS. Brand[t] 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we go strictly by reliable sources, then the entire body of work here about the alleged hoax would be reduced to a single paragraph. And then the edit war would start all over again. Enjoy! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we don't go strictly by WP:RS... we also go by WP:FRINGE (this guideline is the major reason why I disagree with Brand's rational, but agree with the outcome). There are several statements in that guideline that relate to this issue:
Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. - The question is whether this article does validate non-signifiant claims by giving them representation that is beyond their prominence. I think it does.
A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. - This is a key concept... for us to consider the claims in this article to be notable, it has to have been discussed by someone notable, or in some notable source. My contention is that this is not the case with the majority of these claims.
I have never been a stickler when it comes to following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (I am a big fan of the essay WP:The rules are principles)... I pay more attention to the intent of our policies and guidelines than the exact language... but when an article violates both the intent and the language of so many of our policies and guidelines there is clearly something wrong. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quote by Baseball Bugs

If we go strictly by reliable sources, then the entire body of work here about the alleged hoax would be reduced to a single paragraph.

Agree and if the deletion is lost (which right now is more than possible) that is what I am going to do if I have time and strength. Challenge every single source and BS statement that does not meet WP.--LexCorp (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These articles provide what is, in my opinion, a very fair and detailed analysis of the hoax allegations. It lists every one of them that appears to have some interest, and then gives an explanation. It gives lots more info about this than the typical extremist website (one side or the other). If the info can somehow be tightened up to fit into a single article, that would be ideal, but I'm not sure it's possible. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It lists every one of them that appears to have some interest" - exactly the problem I just outlined... we are not supposed to discuss "every claim that has some interest". Just the notable ones that have been commented upon by reliable sources. "It gives lots more info about this than the typical extremist website (one side or the other)." In other words, we are making them appear more notable than they actually are. If we talk about them more than the people who make the claim, we are discussing them out of proportion to their prominence. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Compliments the existing article, but could be change to a "List of XYZ" type article as well. Worst Case: Merge. Needs cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. — BQZip01 — talk 06:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a lot of the things can be sourced from one or two books: Dark Moon and One Small Step?. I think they are RS for the statements of the claims. I don't have either of those books, but if the issue is RS, I think that can be provided. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 02:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a valid side article, the main article too long, so some was separated from it. Perhaps the title could be changed though. Conspiracies involved Apollo Moon photographs. Dream Focus 03:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read this article a couple of years ago (after seeing some TV nonsense) and it was great to find this informative and well organized page with rational explanations for the phenomena reported by the hoax believers. I don't understand some of the reasons for delete given above, but there appear to be three arguments for deletion: (1) it's not notable (or not sufficiently notable to be separate from the main article); (2) it's an undue promotion of fringe nonsense; (3) there is too much original research. I do not agree with any of these arguments. Re (1): regrettably, the issue is notable and searching finds many sources showing interest, and many of them rely on alleged problems with the photographs, for example National Geographic July 2009 and NASA 2001 and ABCNews 2009. Re (2): since the article provides a patient rebuttal of the hoax believers, it is not providing undue promotion of nonsense, although it is unfortunate how it attracts conspiracy theorists who will always be able to add one more "but what about x" sentence. Moreover, many of the technical explanations in the article are interesting. Re (3): yes, the article does not have a citation for every sentence, but I would cut a little slack and note that it does have quite a few sources and can be improved. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, the examples you give show that Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories is notable... they do not show that Examination of Apollo Moon photographs is notable (two of the articles don't discuss examination of photographs at all, and the one that does only discusses the "there are no stars" claim, and not in any detail. The Undue weight issue centers not on "hoax vs not hoax" but presenting different claims with the same weight... the one or two somewhat notable claims, like the "no stars" claim (which could easily be discussed in the main article) are presented with the same weight as completely non-notable claims. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an interesting article that discusses something than many people are interested in. I personally beleive that the Americans did go to the moon, but if it was so cut and dried then this conspiricy theory would have gone away a long time ago. As for the notoriety issues, I've seen many TV programmes on this topic. I think it's a fun, interesting, and well produced article. There's noting wrong with healthy scepticism. Once upon a time people were labed "crackpots" for not believing that Jesus was the son of God, because it was obviously true that he was! I guess that some people have suggested we delete this article because it offends them. Well I say lighten up. It's a good article that raises many good points and has lots of photographic evidence.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  12:57, 27 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 Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perlvayler edit

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

Non-notable Perl module. Oscarthecat (talk) 19:06, 13 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 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - google search provides no evidence of coverage in reliable, third party sources and none are presented in the article, no evidence of other notability. – Toon 21:14, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piping Hot (surfwear) edit

Piping Hot (surfwear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company appears to be not of note, one or two local secondary references only. Trevor Marron (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No website, and the first revision of this article may be a restoration of previously deleted content since it already had a tag on it dated March 2008. That said, the two main editors of this page seem to be experienced content creators so I would like to hear their point of view. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I stumbled across this article, and cleaned it up. But as I have said/fully agreed with the nominator in discussion, there appear too few reliable sources/references to make a decent and useful article. At one point it was a notable clothing range in surfing, but since the main companies demise and lack of its own/suppliers website, the only sources would be written material. Happy to revise my view, but at present it seems a clear case of lack of references to substantiate notability. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This article call the brand iconic. This article is behind a pay wall so it's not celar what the contents are but it does appear to be primarily about the company. The sydney Morning Herlad calls it a famous surfwear brand. If the references are in print rather than offline, that's a reason to tag it for additional referencing and not deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 20 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 19:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Whpq. Crafty (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I found the business related pubs that Whpq did. Someone should keep a keen eye on this for peacocking/promotional language, because there's not a lot of article content justified given the scant sources. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 26 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. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi McDonald edit

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

An unreferenced BLP where virtually all the content is contentious. Even if it were referenced is this person really notable because they've been mentioned a few times for streaking? Polly (Parrot) 19:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. not only it's not notable, it seems self-promotion.--camr nag 23:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and yeah, I went to look at her streaking pics.....for a former "glamour model", I'd have expected her to be better looking. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, it was quite dissappointing--camr nag 15:02, 22 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 SNOW delete Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate DisneyMania Collection edit

The Ultimate DisneyMania Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently imaginary album. Completely unsourced, targeted for release two years from now. WP:CRYSTAL violation. —Kww(talk) 19:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence of its future existence found. I42 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Remarkably detailed track listing for something that presumably hasn't been recorded, as the alleged release date is two years from now. Unsourced and unsourcable article on a future Disney release, although in a strangely familiar style. :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- in fact, this is a borderline speedy as hoax. Well-written article, but the only Google hit is Wikipedia itself. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the fact that one of the categories doesn't exist, and that whoever wrote this can't disambuguate the pages to the correct targets, is proof that this is fake. Not only that, but this skips plenty of Disney movies. Where's Everybody Wants to Be a Cat? Or Someone's Waiting for You? Or Best of Friends? Or The World's Greatest Criminal Mind? Ilikepiepieisawesomeright (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst I support delete, this logic is baffling. I42 (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Once again a new hoax once again from the Disneymania/Sher'Quan Johnson vandal, who has posted false Disneymania album articles deleted in the past here, here, here, here, and here. Suggest a block of MakeLove91 for sockpuppetry. Nate • (chatter) 04:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Nate -- tagged article as unreferenced and a hoax, the fact that they can't even have ONE SONG from The Fox and the Hound = vandalism. Seriously, that movie is a classic. Anyone else agree? Also, at Talk:Walt Disney Platinum Editions, I tried asking if Fox and the Hound is really gonna get a Platinum Edition. I hope so, it's a classic! Ilikepiepieisawesomeright (talk) 04:24, 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. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scd express edit

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

Delete no indication that the subject of this unsourced one-liner is a notable product. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as ad for non-notable specific example of (I assume) a more general type of instrument. Redirect if can figure out what it is. DMacks (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if someone finds sources that changes a lot, but there are none obvious, and none here. Articles need these things; AfD isn't the land of 1000 second chances. Shadowjams (talk) 06:43, 26 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 hoax ({{a3}}). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunt dunt dunt edit

AfDs for this article:
Dunt dunt dunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. While the article appears at first glance to be well sourced, "dunt" does not appear in any of the sources. Good faith gsearch fails to turn up this usage in the first several pages of hits; gnews search doesn't turn up this usage at all. I declined the patent nonsense speedy because it clearly doesn't meet that criterion, nor does it meet any of the other criteria. Since the speedy was contested, went straight to AfD. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:47, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka .NET Forum edit

Sri Lanka .NET Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unrefed one-liner about an on-line group with a claim of 5000 members but no refs to back that claim up; a quick perusal of google doesn't show much by way of relevant reliable sources to this organization's/business's notability, although it does seem to be a business rather than a group if srilanka.net is what is being referenced, difficult to separate wheat from chaff among the search results, though. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 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 Pastor Theo (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pijom edit

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

Neologism or hoax, zero sources, and searches on Google reveal nothing more than a few MySpace profiles and foreign language sites. For one reason or another the speedy deletion was rejected. GraYoshi2x►talk 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not a word that is recognized by any authority. As an interesting quirk of OCR, it has not received any coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This should be CSD material. At best it's a wikitionary candidate, but I see no evidence that's justified. Shadowjams (talk) 06:45, 26 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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

安 edit

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

Delete does each Chinese or Kanji character get a one-line unreferenced article - or is Wiktionary where this belongs (and already is, hence a deletion rather than than a transwiki)? There seems no claim to notability present in the article and given that the sources are likely to be in Chinese I'll let the community decide if we're due for a few thousand stubs like this as I assume that nearly all of these characters are of similar notability - like most English words. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined CSD tag. There's not much context, but it's certainly enough to figure out what the article is about. Best, JamieS93 Only You Can Prevent Drama 21:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's absolutely no point including this. Absent some sort of showing that this character has a special meaning or history (and I can't think of any), it's simply not notable. Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Chinese characters are sometimes necessary in article titles to disambiguate between different characters with the same pronunciation, but this doesn't seem to apply in this case. Badagnani (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a suitable target, redirect to it (I cannot suggest one myself, as I do not know Chinese). Otherwise, delete as more suitable for a dictionary and lack of notability. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible speedy delete for no real content - it doesn't even say directly what the character means, and I didn't need this article to figure out that this was a character from an East Asian script. Not a plausible search term for anything on the English Wikipedia. We have articles on peace and tranquility and a disambiguation for quiet, which is what the character seems to translate to. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No redirect either, since it is an unlikely search term on the English WP. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:58, 22 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 Range voting. Consensus has been established, no need for further discussion after the earlier relist Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Range Voting edit

AfDs for this article:
Center for Range Voting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. non-notable per this debate. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. nomination by single-purpose account, registered and immediately filed, only edits are this nomination. The discussion cited was in 2006, the sources in the present article were not available then. The nominator then was also an SPA, Yellowbeard dedicated to AfDing topics related to Range voting, subsequently indef blocked for disruption. I'll file a sock report, new editors don't ordinarily immediately dive into AfD process. --Abd (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, new accounts don't usually do that, but have you considered it might be an IP editor that has been here a while, but registered because IP's can't nominate an article for deletion? (Yet another reason to require registration). Niteshift36 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to range voting. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no problem with a merge, given how little information there is in the article, but that's an ordinary editorial decision, it doesn't require an AfD. With a merge, if more RS appears, the article can easily be brought back, it's far better than a deletion, and far more useful to readers, since, if they look up the Center, they will find the information. If it were deleted, they would get nothing. We can't merge while it's under AfD, so .... --Abd (talk) 12:18, 13 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, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to range voting. Insufficient content for stand-alone article. Borderline notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per SJ above. Verbal chat 08:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect There are three refs in the article that could show notability.
  1. from The Nation looks like high quality and says "Nonetheless, range voting has received next to no support in academia or the real world. The Center for Range Voting is little more than the pet project of former Temple University mathematician Warren Smith, without whom range voting would probably be unknown (even to Poundstone)."[16].
  2. acceptable as high quality too, a book from columnist and skeptic William Poundstone, it explains the problems with voting systems, and it defends the usage of Range Voting to solve them.
  3. local US newspaper, it asks a co-founder of the center about using range voting for US elections instead of normal voting, it's not an article talking about the center. So, enough notability to keep the redirect, and to have a section in Range voting. Not enough notability for its own article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is what Poundstone writes about the Center for Range Voting in his book Gaming the Vote: "In 2005, Warren Smith started his own Center for Range Voting. Despite the soundalike name, this 'Center' is basically just a website (www.rangevoting.org)." According to Alexa, this site is ranked 3,019,967 [17]. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and re-direct as above. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:03, 22 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. JForget 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of drugs banned from the Olympics edit

List of drugs banned from the Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also:

Air pollutant concentrations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gaius Iulius Caesar (name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles were imported from Citizendium. There are two problems with this: 1. This requires permanent attribution of the text as coming from Citizendium, no matter how many changes we make later. 2. The licence is not compatible, as Citizendium is not dual licenced, but Wikipedia is. This sets up a class of articles that have to be treated as single-licensed, Non-GDFL article. In short, it means that Wikipedia suddenly has a class of articles under a different licensing scheme from all the others. We can't set up a special class of differently-licenced article, surely. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Importing CC-BY-SA content is certainly allowed, per Meta and Meta again. --Falcorian (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Falcorian. Yes, we can (and do) have 2 classes of article. See the license notice at the bottom of the screen? Only CC is guaranteed ("Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License"). GFDL may also apply ("additional terms may apply"), but that's purely on a per-article basis and is the responsibility of the re-user to verify. In other words, you've got it backwards; the GFDL articles are the exception, not the rule.
Excerpting from the Terms of Use (emphasis mine):

Additional availability of text under the GNU Free Documentation License:
For compatibility reasons, any page which does not incorporate text that is exclusively available under CC-BY-SA or a CC-BY-SA-compatible license is also available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. In order to determine whether a page is available under the GFDL, review the page footer, page history, and discussion page for attribution of single-licensed content that is not GFDL-compatible. All text published before June 15th, 2009 was released under the GFDL, and you may also use the page history to retrieve content published before that date to ensure GFDL compatibility.

And regarding attribution:

Importing text:
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. You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License. [...]
If you import text under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). [...] Regardless of the license, the text you import may be rejected if the required attribution is deemed too intrusive.

Considering we already attribute PD content sources w/ {{FOLDOC}} (and the like), I think {{citizendium}} can hardly be deemed "intrusive". --Cybercobra (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a talkpage notice box to indicate CC-only articles? 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. As noted, this type of importing is allowed and envisioned by Foundation-level policy. It's true that we should make a bigger effort to notify people about the license issue before they reuse such contents, but there's no policy violation here.

— Gavia immer (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The article's content will fit within wikipedia's guide lines. However, it comes across as authoritative with horrible sourcing. Such an article should easily have one cite to the national olympic committee. If the authors fix this than my position will change, but until then it should be deleted. I know wikipedia is not always to be treated as authoritative but the topic of this article and the content it contains must be heavily sourced and verifiable. If not, then the wikipedia community is being reckless.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. It needs clean up is not a reason to delete. --Falcorian (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or if WP:ATA is preferred, see WP:RUBBISH. And it does cite the Anti-Doping Agency's own document on the subject... --Cybercobra (talk) 06:51, 18 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. Editors who feel bold enough to merge are welcome to do so. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongholds of A Song of Ice and Fire edit

Strongholds of A Song of Ice and Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no third party sources, fails WP:N, never likely to be anything more than collection of fancruft -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trim and keep - subject clearly has in-universe notability, and there is no consensus that real world notability is required for fictional topics. Article has excessive detail, but that is an editing problem, not a reason for deletion. At worst, the material should be merged into a related article; however, in this particular case I feel that such is not the best solution due to the amount of material that can be legitimately covered. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge with Cities in A Song of Ice and Fire. There's definitely too much in here, but some of the places like Winterfell have RS coverage, as do some of the cities like King's Landing. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is pure synthesis. Any places with reliable sources can be in the main article(s). Abductive (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then that would be a redirect, not a delete, but still... if everyplace notable was mentioned in the main ASoIaF article, it would be HUGE. WP:SS encourages larger and notable subtopics to be broken out like this... just without this much uncited detail. Jclemens (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the cities list. Compromise solution. DGG (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and keep This contians a lot of useful info but I think it needs cutting down and finding out of universe info and sources. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as per ThaddeusB. Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect along with the Cities page to the primary article. I, along with Werthead and a couple others, are the originators of this and a few other realted articels so we generated most of the content. Now that there is a dedicated wiki for the series this really leans into the realm of cruft. I'd ask that the article be Kept and this AfD Closed so I can have a couple days to do the transwiki then I'll also do the redirect myself. I just don't have the time right now tonight. NeoFreak (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were already transwikied to wikia:asoiaf:Strongholds a while ago. Personally, I'd prefer transwikiing to http://wiki.westeros.org since they have more content (and less ads) over there, but it can be lifted from wikia already, or you can always ask me if any page gets deleted and you want it moved. Amalthea 09:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, thanks. I haven't been really active in over a year. It was just dumb luck I check this out when I did. In that case I don't see the harm in just redirecting the articles to the main article page. With a simple redirect interested editors can dig any material left out from the history log without having to ask an admin to crack open a deleted article. With the external wiki linked the fan isn't losing anything and wikipedia gets a little cleaner. NeoFreak (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hasn't it been transwikied to http://wiki.westeros.org already? The simple answer is to do both. Having two dedicated SoIaF wikis is probably redundant in the long run, and my plan is to turn the Wikia one into a resource more for the TV series when it launches. That said, the board wiki also experiences frequent technical problems (it's down at this moment of writing, hence why I can't check to see if it's been transwikied or not) which Ran is working on. Transwiking articles that need to be copied to both the board wiki and wikia is probably a good idea to make sure useful information doesn't get lost.--Werthead (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, agree with NeoFreak on temporarily keeping the article so it can be copied out, than Redirect at a later time.--Werthead (talk) 19:35, 26 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide by airplane edit

Suicide by airplane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

i dont really think this term is used. So i dont really like this article. Enter into me (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with the above... article creation for its own sake. It serves no informative purpose. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I don't like the nom as it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article does little besides defining the term.Rcurtis5 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. i think it should have been a speedy deletion. an invented definition, original "research" and speculation.--camr nag 23:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Quinn (nurse) edit

Tom Quinn (nurse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Academic/nurse - does not meet notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutonium27 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 July 2009

Keep - I have added several references to reliable independent sources showing he is notable.— Rod talk 09:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Qwfp. No specific reason for deletion given. Scopus shows 40 papers, highest citation counts 65 , but as part of a large team. The highest counts for sole or primary authorship are 31, 23, 17. However, there being relatively few nursing journals,and they are rarely cited by medical journals, publications in them will by necessity get lower counts than in medicine. The only objection to the article is if we are not prepared to accept the equal status of all professions. DGG (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone, but change the title! He's a professor. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:PROF as full professor with lots of citations. The fact that he's a nursing professor is irrelevant; he could be notable for that profession. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 23 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 per WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, and improvements. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield School (Sheffield) edit

Westfield School (Sheffield) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A very small, un-notable school. Creating deletion discussion page for Westfield School (Sheffield). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheffieldWikimapian (talk • contribs) 01:46, July 18, 2009

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a former grammar school this is plainly notable. In UK terms it is also medium sized not "very small". TerriersFan (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by general agreement, we normally consider all high schools to be notable & this is an example. DGG (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no guideline that would indicate there is a consensus that all high schools are notable. This one makes no claim of importance or significance, such as being the site of a mass murder or having any historical significance. WP:NOTE has NOT been shown to be satisfied and so should be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable school. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:08, 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. There are three main issues raised in the discussion: 1) WP:ATHLETE - As written, the guideline states: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport." Because she has competed, she passes. Whether the guideline is faulty may be discussed on the guideline's talk page, but as for now, it is what it is. 2) WP:GNG - There is no consensus on this matter, i.e. whether the sources count as significant coverage. 3) WP:NOTINHERITED - The song does not automatically make her notable. All in all, this article is kept because she passes WP:ATHLETE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delilah DiCrescenzo edit

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

This page is a BLP of an American amateur athlete. According to WP:ATH, the page does not meet the criteria for amateurs. It appears likely that the real reason for page creation is the relationship of the subject to a popular song. The contents of the page duplicate material already present at Hey There Delilah#Inspiration for song. The page fails criteria for notability at WP:MUSICBIO and at WP:ITSA. In April, I tagged the page (diff), and there has been negligible further editing of the page since then. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A further, related comment: I agree with Edward's analysis of the Olympic issue. My reasoning in applying WP:ATH was in part that, and also the fact that a single national championship seems less than a world championship, although I realize that the latter point may be the most ambiguous one in making this decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She competes in national meets, but has yet to have an accomplishment to meet wp:athlete. Being the subject of the song falls under wp:oneevent. The reliable sources cover her only in the context of the one event. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She fails WP:ATHLETE. The criteria doesn't say "highest level in the US (or other country), it says "highest level". That is Olympics or World Championships. The song thing.....you're kidding, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the highest level of competition in the amateur sport of Women's 3000m steeplechase would be international competition and not the Olympics or World Championships in the same way that the highest level of competition in baseball would not be the World Series. Per the IAAF (governing body), she has competed at the international level as evidened by this. She in fact, finished third at that particular championship. And there is coverage about her that is wholly unrelated the song as per this interview from Runner's World. Being the inspiration for a hit song as documented in multiple news reports which one cannot help but trip over in any search of her name just adds to the notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing links on the aspects of this discussion about which I have been the least sure. However, the first link you provide gives only a minor mention of a third-place finish in an article mostly about other events. I would like to know what editors who know more about athletics than I do think about whether a Runner's World interview rises to notability. As for the song, the multiple news reports still only seem to relate to one event. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the report on a 3rd place finish is to establish that she competes at the international level in her chosen sport. That represents competing at the highest level for women's steeplechase. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can understand that it's not exactly concrete, but my interpretation is that for a sport like Track & Field, #2 of wp:ath should be followed. "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.". If you go just by an athlete's performance in an international meet, then it opens it up to many other things (what was the competition like at the meet? what place do you have to finish? I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but going by other track athletes who do or don't have an article, it seems like participation in World Championships or Olympics is the criteria.
As far as the Runner's World article, I don't believe that coverage in a specialized publication alone meets wp:n. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certain topics get very little coverage outside of "specialized publications". Sports like track and field, body building, shooting sports etc. don't see much mainstream coverage. So specialized publications, as long as they are reputable, should be considered equally. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Athletes don't magically show up at international level competitions. That they made it that far means that they've made it past the competition at the national level to reach the international stage. So as with you, at the risk of people raising WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'll point out that some journeyman hockey player who mostly rides the bench in the minor leagues but manages to get called up and appear in one game at the NHL level would be deemed automatically notable even if there's no significant coverage about him. But it takes an amateur athlete to make it to the Olympics ( which is a single event that only happens once every four years), or the World championships which is a single (usually) yearly event to be notable seems to be setting the bar in wildly different places for notability. And yes, I admit this little mini-rant probably needs to be discussed in the guidelines page and not here. Having said that, her IAAF profile shows that she has indeed competed at the 37th IAAF World Cross Country Championships which thus fills the overly strict criteria of WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Don't know about the Cross Country...I'm going by clicking World Championships on #2 of WP:ATHLETE. That page says IAAF World Championships in Athletics is the "world championship" for athletics. That would seem to make sense, as the worlds garner much more attention than cross. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As listed at the IAAF site, the world governing body for atletics, [18] lists a separate cross country championship. -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions (and these really are questions, because I don't know): With respect to her IAAF profile, how do her accomplishments compare with other BLPs we have of athletes in her area? (Put another way, do most athletes with her accomplishments also have WP bios, or is she here because of the song?) And with respect to the IAAF cross country championship, does that mean that, for cross country, this championship exists in place of the world athletics championship, or is this a specialized competition occurring in addition to cross countries at the world athletics? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the good question. Let's take a look at her teammates on the World Cross team, simply because they have similiar (actually better) accomplishments. Rebecca Donaghue, [19] - some nice results, was in 5000 m for Olympic Trials, finished 8th. 5th at qualifying for worlds this year. Julie Culley [20], 7th at 5000 m Olympic trials, actually made the world team this year, should have article. Emily Brown, [21], who won the US Cross Qualifying this year, I think she was hurt for last year's trials. Samia Akbar, [22] also was a teammate, participated in the 2007 Worlds for Marathon, could have article, but doesn't. Except Brown, I am certain that all of these athletes have competed in Europe recently with decent results (a quick glance of DD's competition at that international meet.. I recognize one other name).
Other BLPs of athletes in her area.. Jenny Barringer (see talk page for more refs about her, haven't had a chance to put them in the article yet.. Denver Newspaper, USA Today, etc.).. Anna Willard (just added Boston Globe feature on her as a ref).. Kara Goucher.. Shalane Flanagan.. check out the refs for them.
As far as the second part of your question, there's no Cross Country at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, similar to IAAF Race Walking championships or the Juniors. Hope this helps. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that very helpful info. If I understand correctly, by and large similar athletes with similar accomplishments but no song do not have BLPs, whereas the IAAF cross country can be considered a world competition. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Yes I also was hoping to show that many others runners have received significant coverage in what was described as "mainstream coverage". Another example is an article I created, Kate O'Neill.. she has feature articles in USA Today, the Boston Globe and the Hartford Courant. I can't find the same coverage for DD, except for the song. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Thinking about this, it seems to me that it becomes significant how we interpret the criterion at WP:ATH, where it says "who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport." One way of interpreting it is that "competed" means simply having been a participant in the highest-level competition. By that interpretation, every athlete entered in a world championship race is automatically eligible for a BLP, regardless of where they placed in the results. (I say that while recognizing that it is an achievement just to be entered.) Alternatively, it could mean participating in the competition and achieving a result at the highest level, ie., not just participating in the competition but winning, or setting a record, or performing in some other way that is "the highest amateur level." Although, like other editors in this talk, I recognize the problems with otherstuff reasoning, it seems to me that, in practice, the blue-linked pages on runners here follow the second interpretation pretty consistently, and that is what distinguishes them from the red-linked ones. I think that the "keep" arguments tend to rest upon applying instead the first interpretation, along with giving some weight to the song and the interest in the song in the media. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to point out that the existence of articles is heavily influenced by the interests of the editors. We have a huge number of football (soccer) fans. As such, pretty much every player to have made an appearance anywhere will get documented here at Wikipedia. In fact, it gets to the point where pages football players that haven't met notability guidelines get created and put through AFD on a very regular basis. Compare that to the number of fans for amateur athletics and you will end up with an imbalance of articles. I would not put too much weight to the fact that the majority of articles for these other runners are ones that have won major events. It is a reflection of the number of editors interested in the field. I'd also like to point out that making the distinction that one has to have done well at the Olympics or World Championships makes the criteria far too stringent when compared to the "made one appearance" concensus used with professional athletes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The way I understand it is for T&F athletes, if you made the Olympics or the IAAF World Championships in Athletics (not the Cross Country event, not the Racewalking event, not the Junior event—the link goes to the one event), then you meet wp:athlete. The general notability guidelines always comes first, but in this case I feel that the song is wp:oneevent. This is getting a little off the topic of the specific article, but I think that's a pretty good guideline. Think about it this way—for a pro soccer, hockey, baseball, etc. team, they generally have a large amount of fans of the team and general followers of the league. Therefore, anyone who appears for a team will generate interest. A player who had one at-bat in 1906? Not so much, but it's not perfect. For an individual who can't earn a top 3-5 placement for their country in qualifying events every two years... I really don't think there's much interest in the individual. There's always wp:n to fall back on. Perhaps this conversation should be continued on the talk page for wp:athlete, or there could be a request for clarification. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:ATH needs to have some discussion for clarification in general, but for the moment, I'll just comment about what it means for the AfD here. I tend to agree with Omar's take on it. I also can see a logical conundrum in Whpq's argument. It seems like an inference to say that the reason pages for runners are the way they are is entirely due to editor interest, as opposed to editor judgment. I do not think we should keep this page simply because there is a supposed surplus of pages about footballers and other professionals, in order to counteract some sort of unfair imbalance. If, for argument's sake, we say that it is correct that amateur runner pages have been overlooked due to lack of editor interest, then the question arises of why this page does exist. It then becomes very difficult to argue that it exists because of ATH criteria (what ATH criteria made editors take notice of this subject and not the red-linked ones?), and would actually seem to reinforce the appearance that the page exists only because of the song. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for creating this page may have been the song. But it is irrelevant in the same way that promotional autobiographies filled with peacock terms are not judged by why the article was created. The article is to be judged onthe criteria of notability. On this account, the subject has competed at an IAAF World Championship. WP:ATHLETE spcifically states that competing at a world championship meets notability. It doesn't say "competed at and did very well". If that was the requirement, we'd see qualifiers the the statement to identify that they must have earned a medal, or made it into the final heat. But it doesn't. It simply states competed. And she did compete, confirmed with a reliable source. In addition to this, I've already pointed out to interviews in Runners World which seems to have not been given much weight at all. -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: As I've written a couple times here, I believe wp:athlete is referring to the specific IAAF World Championships and not other events such as Cross, Racewalking or the Juniors. Those events are held at a completely different time of year, a different location, etc. etc. It is totally separate and distinct from the IAAF World Championships. I asked for clarification here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Question_about_wp:athlete_for_IAAF_athlete. I realize that you're replying to Tryptofish's competing/competing well point, but my point is that no, she didn't compete at the IAAF World Championships. (I also don't understand where this competed/competed well issue came from, it seems clear me...if you competed, you meet the guideline, period).
Also, I don't believe that an interview in the Daily Runners World is significant coverage meeting wp:n. They've been interviewing runners almost every weekday for years now. Gosh, if everyone they've interviewed is deemed as meeting wp:n, then you could probably say that every post-collegiate participant in a running event meets wp:n (and many college athletes as well). Also, not sure if it makes a difference, but those interviews are only offered online, not in their print publication. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Runner's World is a print publication in relatively general circulation. I'm not a runner, but I know I've seen it in the magazine stands at my local Chapters book store. -- Whpq (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and addiitonal interview from Runner's World and a brief paragraph from ESPN. -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, some editors here may perhaps be interested in this somewhat-related discussion of WP:ATH at the Village Pump. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I asked specifically about the IAAF world championships (race walking, cross) here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Question_about_wp:athlete_for_IAAF_athlete --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I've looked over the talk there, and the last two years of archives, hoping that the question of what "competed" means (simply being there versus finishing strongly) might have already been discussed to a consensus. Nuh-uh! What have I gotten myself into?! (smile) I'm starting to learn what a controversy WP:ATH has actually been. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - It is not clear whether she meets ATHLETE or not, but a failure to meet it is not sufficient reason for deletion. She does meet the GNG, and I do not believe BLP1E applies here. The coverage of the song inspiration has last 2 years, including multiple interviews so there is no reason to believe she is tryign to maintain a low profile about it. (Granted if it was only the song, I would say redirect.) She meets the GNG based on athletic-based stories alone: Runner's World 1, Runner's World 2, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times 1, Chicago Sun Times 2, IvyLeagueSports.com notes "Delilah DiCrescenzo ... is simply the best female steeplechaser in Ivy League history. A three-time League champion in the event, she has run the best time (10:06.88) in Ivy history", Alexandria Times: "Delilah DiCrescenzo beat out five other top distance runners, setting the second best time in the world this year at 9 minutes 47.41 seconds.", Puma Running, and so on

If it is determined that she doesn't qualify for an article, a redirect to Hey There Delilah#Inspiration for song is certainly warranted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About your last point, I agree with you about the redirect. But I see a lot of issues with your other points. I just do not see how the length of time there has been coverage of the song makes the page meet notability, or how it exempts it from one-event, or from WP:ITSA, since she did not write or perform the song. I was interested to see from your links that there was coverage in the two major Chicago newspapers. When I went to the link from from the Tribune, I couldn't read the article because I didn't want to pay. But the two from the Sun-Times look to be home-town coverage of a local high-school student (favorite pizza, etc.), not really evidence of competition at the world level. The Ivy League site is interesting in that it documents first-places and records, but it's still about the Ivy League, which is far from national, not to mention world. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the argument for notability based on the song alone would be pretty weak; I just don't feel it falls under BLP1E. BLP1E is intended to protect private individuals who are involved in some news coverage, not to say someone known for only 1 thing isn't notable. If she had say written the song she would certainly be notable without based on "one event." Now being the inspiration for a song is certainly a weak claim of notability and I wouldn't argue for a keep on that basis. (I should have probably just left my opinion on this off my first post since it was actually irrelevant to the argument I was making.)
However, if we compare "Delilah DiCrescenzo" "plain white" to "Delilah DiCrescenzo" -"plain white" we find 39 news stories about her that mention Plain White T's compared to 139 that don't. So there are over 100 news stories that are presumably about her running as opposed to the song. Granted many of these will be trivial mentions among a list of other athletes you also competed at the same time. However, there are a number that are exclusively about her - I just listed the first several I found, not nearly all of them.
There are many people who argue that athletes that fail athlete are never notable. This view, while common, is not supported by the plain language of WP:Notability (people) which clearly states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." A person can still be worthy of inclusion if they meet the general requirement "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This is the basis that I am arguing for inclusion on.
Although, local sources are generally discounted at AfD, there is actually no guideline stating that sources have to be non-local to prove notability. This is because proposals to establish such a criteria have failed to gain consensus. Regardless, even if we discount the Chicago sources there are still several sources to pick from which aren't local in nature.
So IMO, even if she fails ATHLETE (which isn't clear it seems), she still qualifies for an article under the general criteria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, which is very helpful. (For what it's worth, I repeated your search with similar terms like "song" and "hey there" and got very similar results, but the results all look to be either special interest runner sources, local coverage in Chicago papers, or Ivy League sources as above.) This is the first AfD I have started, and it's proving to be quite a learning experience for me. Speaking personally, I feel as though the keep arguments are relying upon accumulating a critical mass of what I consider to be trivial details, that can debatably be considered in-policy (by applying a subjective reading of poorly-written and internally inconsistent policies), and concluding that they add up to a keep, when I feel that a common sense analysis points clearly to delete. But of course, that's just my opinion. Objectively, I think the decision is coming down to (a) a decision of how WP:ATH applies (which depends upon interpreting ambiguities in its wording), and (b) a decision as to whether the sources you discussed just above (and which we both agree are frequently - I think mostly or entirely - trivial when taken individually) can add up to general notability when combined. That seems to me to be all-too-much in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that "specialty" sources are certainly valid for determining notability if they meet the criteria set out in WP:RS. If they were not, we would have a lot less articles on scientific and medical topics (for example) that aren't well known, but are certainly important to their respective fields. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think she meets WP:Athlete per User:Whpq's source. Strikehold (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Has competed at the highest level of world amateur cross country, and further articles in reliable sources reinforce her notability (regardless of whether one considers these reliable sources "minor"). Wikipedia incorporates aspects of various specialised encyclopaedias (in this case, an athletics one). A pertinent parallel example of this is 15818 DeVeny, which of course would be detailed in a specialised astronomy encyclopaedia. (Note: I'm 100% sure that this long conversation wouldn't be happening if she hadn't been mentioned in a particular song.) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, I would not have started the AfD were it not for the song, because I would not have noticed the article in the first place. The other side of the coin is whether the page would exist were it not for the song, because, as shown above, she has other teammates who placed higher than her, but who do not have pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 27 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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Morley edit

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

Contested PROD, no rationale given by IP user who removed the tag. Original reasoning was "Player has never played at fully-professional level, so fails WP:ATHLETE"; I agree entirely, and so am suggesting that the article is deleted. GiantSnowman 17:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete footballer fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATH as he has never played in a fully-professional league/compeition. More to the point, he fails general notability at WP:N due to lack of any secondary sources. --Jimbo[online] 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not meeting notablility requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not [yet] notable. --Dweller (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rather obviously not a notable sportsperson. Does not meet either WP:Athlete or WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others, having not played to required level per ATHLETE or achieved anything special besides.--ClubOranjeT 11:10, 24 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 Withdrawn per Spiff's sources. Now add them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delgadillo's Snow Cap Drive-In edit

AfDs for this article:
Delgadillo's Snow Cap Drive-In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One source is a user-submitted review, one is a primary source, and one is IMDb. Absolutely no reliable sources found at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources are weak right now, yes. But a quick google suggests that the claim of being a historic attraction are not complete BS. Why not give it some time to improve? Friday (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything can be a "historic attraction" according to the locals, including the 50something-year-old Dairy Queen in my hometown. But I'm not even finding local coverage. It's just another fancy drive-in restaurant on the mother road, and searching News, Books, etc. turns up only directory listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you check the book Route 66: The Mother Road? It's mentioned in the article. The author's article claims it's a bestseller. If this drive-in got significant coverage in that book, that's a good source in my view. Of course, if the claim of coverage in that book is BS, that's another story. Friday (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because the NY Times calls it a relic remarkable for its enduring good humor, CNN Money calls it eccentric, Dallas Morning News details how this great tradition sprang from inauspicious beginnings, Chicago Sun-Times talks about their famous christmas tree stuck to the vintage touring car, while the Tucson weekly talks about the "Sweet survivor" sign on the front window, the LA Times talks about the 50th anniversary, AZ Central tells you about how Juan built the place from scrap lumber he collected from the railyards and how he'd accidentally squirt customers with mustard, the Farmingron Daily Times talks about the number of quirky cars parked in their lot, Travelbite UK details how quirky they are, putting up signs like "Sorry, we're open", but then in writing this stub on an AfD, I digress, their milkshakes just rock! -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, where was all that when I googled? I could google "Google" and come up with zero results. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:38, 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Worley edit

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

Clearly an auto-biography. Notability less than obvious. Favonian (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiographical article about a DJ on a small radio station with no locatable third party sources on google/google news.Rcurtis5 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 24 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Championship Wrestling edit

Real Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero Google news hits on the article title. RadioFan (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages covering events because they also lack references and significant coverage in 3rd party sources. The former event was a very small one (~250 in attendance) and the latter is a future one also lacking coverage:

RCW The Takeover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RCW August Assault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policybazaar.com edit

Policybazaar.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No further notability of this website, fails WP:WEB. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:35, 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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VSPB University edit

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

Non-notable university, only 1,790 Ghits has searched. [23] ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:16, 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, obvious advertising: With more than 300 years of collective expertise on staff and 35,000 square feet of laboratory space, Impact provides a full range of testing services using leading-edge equipment and techniques.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Analytical edit

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

Vanity page Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Spam, and absolutely zero independent references. I42 (talk) 19:47, 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broughball edit

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

Contested prod. New sport with no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Blanchardb Delete. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:28, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firebrands (band) edit

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

Promotional article for a non-notable band, copied directly from their myspace site. They even admit they're not notable - on myspace they state "The members of the band have a sense that time is slipping by and all they can do is stick together and forge on ahead, but the answers as to what their place as musicians are in this world have become less clear... Like so many others, Firebrands are looking for the break they deserve". Fails WP:N andy (talk) 14:50, 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 16:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YAFLA edit

AfDs for this article:
YAFLA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources or indication of notability whatsoever. » Swpbτ • ¢ 14:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a neologism that isn't notable. No references, and I can't find anything on Google (except this, but I doubt that's anything significant). The first nomination, from 2005, seems like it was inappropriately closed. The only keep arguments there were WP:INTERESTING and WP:PERNOM, and the nominator's logic actually made a lot of sense: "Quasi-neologism. Via google, appears not in common use (if one only searches in English, it appears to be a word in some other languages otherwise it's the name of a blog site}. Also, where do we stop: YASLA, YAELA, etc.? Perhaps merge and redirect to TLA. Ifnord 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)". The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NEO. Not sure why it survived AfD 4 years ago, but it hasn't really expanded like they planned. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:21, 22 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 Seventh Brother edit

The result was deleted and salted as a frequently recreated target of a banned user. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
The Seventh Brother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable children's film. Fails WP:NF. Already deleted twice, but CSD was declined because it was speedied before the last AfD finished. Nothing but a slightly cleaned up copy of an "article" at http://wikibin.org/articles/the-seventh-brother.html, which I suspect is highly likely to have been posted by the same vandal who continues attempting to recreate this article. In either case, article does not meet notability requirements, failing WP:N and WP:NF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It has now been confirmed that this article was posted by User:Bambifan101 via a request from a Russian Wikipedian editor who either had no clue or just didn't care that he was banned 200+ times here. This seems like creation by a banned user, even if it wasn't done directly, and a CSD candidate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleting and salting the article as being done as a backdoor job by a hard-banned user. I've had it with this little monster in Mobile. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:03, 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 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jay Jones (J3) edit

Justin Jay Jones (J3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn singer Terrierd (talk) 13:50, 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. Redirect can still be created if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-itis edit

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

Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article

  • The article name is invalid; article names in encyclopedias are supposed to be nouns or verbs (and not even adjectives), so it violates WP:MOS, whereas affixes are valid articles in wiktionary.[24]
  • The topic is invalid as well, the topic is supposed to be an underlying concept and not purely a word or purely lexical- that's what dictionaries do, and do it far better than we can here.
  • The article contains a simple list of words that happen to match a particular lexical pattern- again, dictionaries do it much better, and are usually more complete as well.
  • There is a good wiktionary article that covers the same ground: wiktionary:-itis, and a list of -itis's there.

This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is a dictionary entry with no realistic chance of recovery. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:35, 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 no consensus. Leaning towards keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Sheriff edit

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

self promotional autobiographical vanity article, totally SPAMTASTIC!!!! WuhWuzDat 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unreferenced, not verifiable notability. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it needs to be cleaned up, and references found, but it should be given time to improve. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless there are references out there that confirm notability that I didn't find. Leave this Afd open long enough to allow the necessary improvements. --Stormbay (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like improvements/references are happening. --Stormbay (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Allow some time to improve and/or find references to confirm notability.  Dspradau → talk  16:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears the name was wrong, I have renamed the article and cited a couple of references. I don't have time to do more right now, but I believe notability is established. Agree with the nominator that this was a vanity article, but with a bit more work I think it can become encyclopedic. --Deadly∀ssassin 20:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Loos edit

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

Only barely notable for a single event. LiamUK (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - She's been host of at least two shows from what I see. There are numerous sources as to who she is. She's appeared in several magazines. She seems, from this side of the pond, to be famous for being famous even after the affair. Dismas|(talk) 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. Does being famous for being famous count, then? I suppose we've got a lot of biographies to write, then, fellow wikipedians. LiamUK (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily passes WP:GNG with multiple secondary sources used as references. Out of interest what "single event" is the nominator referring too? --Jimbo[online] 13:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The single event is, as mentioned in the first sentence of the article, her selling of her story that she supposedly had an affair with David Beckham. LiamUK (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. When someone genuinely is famous for being famous, to the point of having multiple reliable independent sources to provide details on said person, and especially where said person has had significant exposure through multiple television shows not directly related to the Beckham affair, then said person easily passes our notability guidelines. We cover celebrities because other sources cover celebrities, not because we deem them to have done anything particularly important. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If she was famous only for sleeping with David Beckham, then it would be delete. But considering what she's done afterwards (such as wanking off a pig appearing on the Farm, Celebrity Love Island and Celebrity X Factor), then she's surely notable to appear here. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily satisfies general notability guidelines. This AFD should probably be snowed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even I would have to agree with that. I mean, I still think it's terrible that she's considered notable, but perhaps that's a problem with the world, not wikipedia. LiamUK (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is how we on this side of the Atlantic feel about Ms. Hilton. (At least Loos would have looked a lot better in that hamburger commercial than Hilton did.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You are having a laugh. Has a mountain of ongoing news coverage about her. Fences&Windows 16:55, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-ism edit

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

Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article

  • The article name is invalid; article names in encyclopedias are supposed to be nouns or verbs (and not even adjectives), so it violates WP:MOS, whereas affixes are valid articles in wiktionary.[25]
  • The topic is invalid as well, the topic is supposed to be an underlying concept and not purely a word or purely lexical- that's what dictionaries do, and do it far better than we can here.
  • The article contains a simple list of words that happen to match a particular lexical pattern- again, dictionaries do it much better, and are usually more complete as well.
  • There is a good wiktionary article that covers the same ground: wiktionary:-ism, and a list of isms that is linked from there.

This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is a dictionary entry with no realistic chance of recovery. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing them one at a time, because it helps the review run smoothly if you make sure that the associated wiktionary article is in a good state before you start.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dicdef. JJL (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "-ism" is a case where ignoring the rules needs to be invoked: there is a colloquial use of "-ism" by itself which makes it into a noun, pertaining to various schools of thought. This idea is explained in the "History" section -- & although brief, it contains material & sources that would not normally be found in the typical dictionary. If kept, though, this article needs to be rewritten to make it appear less like a dictionary entry. (The present shape of the lead paragraph & first section seem to be what created the impression that this is no more than a "dicdef" Wolfkeeper describes above.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this would be found in a typical dictionary, it's word-for-word the same in the wiktionary. And I'm simply not finding that this is on a single topic, it seems to be a bit of a grab-bag of things that end in -ism. For example baptism and cubism, one is something you do, the others a style of painting. I don't really think that these are synonymous in any sense; articles in the wikipedia, here articles have multiple usages combined or not based on whether or not they are largely or completely synonymous, it's in the wiktionary that it's based solely on lexical commonalities.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there could be an article like history of isms or something, but this just isn't that article, it's written, defined and named wrongly for that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:05, 22 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. I would welcome those who are interested in this article to please work on improving its contents. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental issues with energy edit

Environmental issues with energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This stub article has no justified notability and is more the topic of a discussion forum rather than an article. Such a list of issues can easily be factored into an existing article such as Sustainability. Teahot (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to want to be a dab page but searches should turn this material up when needed; or, the links may be placed at an energy-related page. JJL (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be a dab page at present but the idea is to expand it. Very few articles emerge perfectly formed. There is sufficient info in the sibling articles to create a fully fledging article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is encyclopedic and notable, and it can be developed into a good article. RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an encyclopedic article that must exist. It will not be a discussion forum - that does not happen in WP. There is plenty of info able to be sourced on the topic. Energy is a very important issue and is strongly linked with climate change and global warming which are in themselves very notable and at times contentious. I created the article to fill a gap and deliberately tagged it with {{expand}} and {{prose}} with the hope that another editor would run with it. There are many of these overview articles that are non-existent in WP. It seems articles on very specific topics are more likely to be written and there is no overview article to stitch all the related topics together. One instance I found by way of example was Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef existed but no Environmental issues in Australia article. The latter article has since been written. I firmly believe that any gaps that exist in WP should at the very least be filled with a stub page that can be expanded. Such a stub page is a prompt for an editor to expand it and gives a WP reader/user at least some info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously notable topic; needs more sources; can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how we need this article and Energy and the environment as well. Johnfos (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Energy and the environment and Environmental issues with energy are both overview articles and titles give an indication of the areas they cover. Both should exist as per the hierarchy I outlined in Talk:Environmental issues with energy. Also, given the number of links on the Environmental issues with energy page it is obvious that an overview page is needed to tie them all together. If the page is deleted as suggested the content will have to be included elsewhere. Then, given the way that WP is expanding, a page would have to be recreated at some future point. WP has been developing in an organic bottom up method. What I am trying to do is some top down article creation. The two articles mentioned here should exist. Deleting them does not assist the WP project at all. Expanding them would. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alan, you might be trying to do this and trying do that, and you have ideas about future WP coverage. But I'm interested in the here and now, and what is most appropriate for readers who have no clue about your hierachy or top down approach. It doesn't make sense to confuse things by having many small articles when fewer longer ones will suffice. Only one article on Energy and the environment is needed at this stage. Johnfos (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. Having a stub article on a clearly defined topic with a large number of links does help readers. It is effectively a disambiguation page, and there are plenty of those on WP. The page is easily turned into a full length article but no one has done it as yet. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator suggested that some content can be merged into the sustainability article. That would be the wrong thing to do. Sustainability it the opposite to the thrust of this article. This also highlights the need to have an overview article (Energy and the environment) to tie the two together. Energy is a big topic and so there is a need to have a large number of articles to give it a decent coverage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As usual, Alan, you "disagree" with what others are suggesting and see it as "the wrong thing to do". You seem intent on pushing your own agenda. Johnfos (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing wrong with disagreement. Nothing wrong with stating an opinion such as saying someone is wrong. As for pushing my own agenda in WP can you tell me how I would be able to do that? Everything here relies on consensus and is able to be freely edited. And so what is my agenda?? You say "As usual, Alan, you "disagree" with what others are suggesting..." That is totally untrue. I do not "usually disagree" with others. Go and check my 30,000 edit history for evidence of "usual disagreement" and then get back to me with your findings! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An example of how a stub page of links can develop quite quickly in something with a little more substance can be seen here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let's face it Alan, you have started many "Environmental issues with" articles, sometimes in the face of opposition from other editors, eg., Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam. Other editors' opposition often just does not seem to matter and you push ahead with your own POV anyway. In fact it seems to me that you are often on for an argument to justify what you have done and your many entries on this page is evidence of that. I count myself as an environmentalist but see what you are doing as extreme righteous pushing of an environmental agenda on WP. Johnfos (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have created many environmental issues articles because I feel that they are appropriate given that WP has almost 3,000,000 articles and there is an increasing interest in the environment. Yes there was, and still is no consensus, to my creation of the Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam article. (Just remembered that another one was relating to DDT) Please note your wording - call it opposition if you like but the more accurate wording is "lack of consensus". And so you give me one example of where there is no consensus about one of the pages the I have created. How about you check out all the other pages I created (you can see some here and here) How about you use the consensus process rather than making comments on my so called agenda. Put forward cogent arguments against the edits that I do rather than making personal attacks on me. You think I am not NPOV and have an "extreme righteous pushing of an environmental agenda". Well that is utter crap. Have you ever thought about the fact that as someone studying the environmental sciences that it would logically follow that I edit articles about environmental issues? And besides, what am I getting out of the "agenda"? Certainly not fame and fortune! Person attacks that waste my time is what I am getting at the moment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You really sound quite angry, Alan, so there is little point in discussing this further now. But if at some future time you are open to more feedback, please contact me. Johnfos (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Angry - yes, a little bit and certainly not "quite angry". Please try and not make assumptions about me. But why don't we both get back to the job at hand and discuss the merits of whether this article should exist on WP. NO WP pages are a forum for the stuff we have put here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Putting the article up for deletion does wonders for the traffic stats !! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a redirect to Energy and the environment. I see no compelling arguments why the two are different. The onus is on the new article to define why it's meaningfully different, to the point that those advantages overcome the inhernet disadvantages of a fork. It creates more work, opens up the possibility of contradictory issues and conversations on those views, and most of all, it's a total pain for a read to read two or three articles when they're looking for an article on one thing. Someone should explain why these two need to be separate. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repies:
  1. The article titles, which reflects the content, gives a strong indication as to the difference. Compare it to Energy and Energy (society)
  2. The article is not a content fork - it is the next level of the topic hierarchy
  3. I would argue that having two clearly defined articles early on is less work than having to extricate info from an article at some future date to form a new article. Both articles are easily expanded even with just using info that is in the current WP articles
  4. Having the separate articles with clearly defined titles gives readers an indication as to which article they should read.
-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a redirect to Energy and the environment per Shadowjams. I understand the argument of topic hierarchy; however, right now there is a little useful content and it seems (I am not saying it is, but it definitely seems) as a content fork. Merging these two articles will create a more comprehensive article about this topic. Also, the current title is not neutral as mentioned by Teahot. Beagel (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is a fork then all the pages in Category:Environmental issues and Category:Criticisms etc are in the same boat. This article is not a content fork because they are separate, although closely related topics. I created thetwo pages because they are both notable topics and therefore should exist on WP. They may only be short articles at present but I am sure that they will grow into longer articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created Uranium mining in Australia as a collection of links similar to my first incarnation of this page. Now look how it has grown thanks to the efforts of an editor who expanded it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion. I fail to see why an article of global interest and significance is put up for deletion when articles of a local interest or of a far lesser notability and size are retained. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:23, 26 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. Consensus seems fairly clear in that the article is a dicdef, and thus unsuitable for inclusion here. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York minute (time) edit

New York minute (time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Uncited and fairly useless; is there anything worthwhile to say about the phrase except the etymology, which belongs in wiktionary, not here? There doesn't seem to be. Prod was removed without comment. Propaniac (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Powers T 13:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the only other content of this article is trivial facts about previous uses of this phraseRcurtis5 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. it's a mere dictionary definition, filled with anecdotes to make it seem a valuable article.--camr nag 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki. It is a useful, formerly common term. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a dictionary definition, plus anecdotes and an "in popular culture"-style collection of random facts. There is nothing encyclopaedic here. Wiktionary already has an entry at wikt:New York minute, the only dictionaric thing that it doesn't have is the second sentence. If the second sentence can be cited (I've not looked) then that could be added to Wiktionary, but I'm not certain it's needed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very widely used phrase; there may be other uses in popular culture to be added,as well as further discussions of the concept.DGG (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rcurtis5 and Thryduulf: article consists of a dictionary definition and an arbitrary list of occurrences. Cnilep (talk) 14:49, 26 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, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pars Tactical Defence edit

Pars Tactical Defence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Martial art with no assertion of notability.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:18, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Pending edit

AfDs for this article:
Still Pending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - This is 4th nomination for AFD. This article about a non-notable boy band group. This article is no link from other wikipedia articles (Orphan template is tagging), and All links only namespace page and redirects. Noylonm (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. This is not a reason for deletion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No assertion of notability in opening paragraph. LiamUK (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a syntactic argument. The band's notability is asserted throughout the article and via multiple external sources. The fact that the band's notability is not clearly asserted in the opening paragraph should not be of any consequence in this discussion (IMHO) PeachWriter66 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Orphan template is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Article has passed notability requirements on 3 previous occasions. Noylonm appears to have no contribution history other than the nomination of this article for Speedy (not that this is grounds for Keep, but I thought it was worth noting). PeachWriter66 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: No good reasons given for deletion. Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proceedural keep and a trout for the nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Special:Contributions/Noylonm, perhaps you would like to use a minnow. ;-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 24 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 under criteria G7 (Author requested deletion). --Allen3 talk 08:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina division as part of Karađorđevo meeting edit

Bosnia and Herzegovina division as part of Karađorđevo meeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

pointless pov fork of Karađorđevo agreement PRODUCER (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Article Karađorđevo agreement is POV nonsense and therefor it should be removed--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as obvious content fork. For those of you who've never heard of this article before, Añtó| Àntó & PRODUCER have an ongoing edit war over the content of Karađorđevo agreement. I have tried to mediate (unsuccessfully for the most part, unfortunately). A third editor recently joined in and decided they didn't like the content of the article and so split a large chunk out, which is basically the definition of content fork. There is absolutely no reason this material can't be covered in the original (short) article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. the content was improperly split without following the instructions at split --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Emerson edit

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

No references support the notability of this individual. His "career in professional writing began on June 4, 2009". Looks like vanity. Either way, doesn't meet WP:BIO. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blogger with a handful of unpublished works. Entirely non-notable. --Pgallert (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've left a message on the talk page answering the question left there and advised him to check out WP:NOTABILITY to see exactly why we don't think this person is notable. Frmatt (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's nice that his buddy decided to write a WP article, but I don't see the notability so far in his 14 years. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:35, 22 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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Parkinson (footballer born 1986) edit

Jack Parkinson (footballer born 1986) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, because a user thinks it "deserves" a full AfD discussion. The arguement being that this non-League footballer has been mentioned on KentOnline briefly, after being released from a regional non-League based football team. Nothing about this player meets the criteria set for athletes at WP:ATH, as he has never played in (or been anywhere near) a fully-professional league/competition. He he further lacks general notability at WP:N with no real secondary references that are beyond the odd trivial mention. Again, this is another stretched out contested PROD by an established user (who partially admits he fails N) into an AFD because his name popped up on a Google search. --Jimbo[online] 08:26, 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 keep. Consensus suggets that the subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion. COI is not in and of itself a reason for deletion; additionally, the article has been largely rewritten, expanded, and referenced since it was nominated. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Moorer edit

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

The article was created by the subject and is autobiographical. User is the major contributer to the article. Promotional article for un-notable Actor/producer. User has also been promoting his Carmel theatres through the Carmel-by-the-Sea article. Amadscientist (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article does establish notability of the subject with reliable sourcing that supports position of the subject, which is the criteria here. While the article's creator may or may not be the subject, it appears to treat the subject in a relatively neutral manner, or no less so that the majority of biographies of smaller venue artists. It could use more referencing, but there's no indication of extensive hyperbole. The article has certainly had more than one long term registered username make edits to it. An article possibly begun by the subject doesn't automatically qualify for deletion. Issues with a primary editor on this article, who is far from an WP:SPA editor [26] [27], on other articles doesn't apply or belong here, that's a matter for WP:AN/I or WP:COIN. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - User is the subject. Simply read the talkpage and do not make assumptions of disputes. Page is a Playbill, sections are Acting, Directing, and Producing. The page is purely promotional and references Do not denote notability. Clear Conflict of Interest in that the page was created by the subject and is the major contributor. That does not mean no one else is editing it. He practically drew a straight line to the article by placing his linked name within the prose of the Arts and Culture section of Carmel-by-the-Sea 3 separate times. I'll give him credit for overkill though, because he also mentions the theatre and his Company like three separate times in that article as well....not to mention two other articles that I know of that are also self serving, promotional kruft. Articles created by the subject are indeed candidates for deletion due to nuetrality issues and original research as well as conflict of interest.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Not notable, local Central California performer/director/actor. His article is bigger than Gary Beach, a tony award winning actor with historical significance to Broadway. Believe it or not, I can create a page about myself and reference it better than his and make it huge. There is enough published third party information.....but does that make me a notable person of interest on Wikipedia? No.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You cannot "vote" twice. You nominated the article for deletion, that means there is an assumption that you are not in favor of keeping it. Again, this discussion is to regard whether or not the subject of the article Stephen Moorer meets the notability guideline and if the article is sufficiently sourced to support the notability it asserts. That is all this page is for, none of the rest. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I looked hard to find anything that states I should not add to this discussion after making the nomination. This is not a "Vote". Assumption is not a valid reason to keep me from adding my "Delete".--Amadscientist (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article establishes notability under the GNG; COI and OR issues, if any, should be addressed through the normal editing process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it does not. The only references are local, and the most prestigious of those (in the San Francisco Chronicle) is only a passing mention. So if the COI and OR issues are dealt with, you're left with...nothing. --Calton | Talk 14:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vastly inflated Playbill entry for a local artist, with no sign of any impact outside of the the region -- a region which, in theatrical terms, isn't all that significant to begin with. A medium-sized fish, at the very most, in a very small pond. --Calton | Talk 14:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has references - local, yes, but local to the greater San Francisco Bay Area (SF Chronicle, Theatre Bay Area), which is not quite as non-notable to the theatre world as Calton suggests. Any peacock terms or weasel words or trivia can be eliminated by editing the article. Also, it should be noted that this article was nominated in bad faith, stemming from a edit war on Carmel-by-the-Sea, amongst other articles. This AfD should only consider the Stephen Moorer article's merits (or lack thereof); the other edit wars should be resolved within the respective articles' talk pages. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, the article was not nominated in bad faith. Attempts were made to work with the user on another page. The dispute was from the user refusing to allow a change in images. I am not new to the page. Another image I had replaced was then changed back when the editor simply brought it to my atention that the image does not appear to be what I thought. After checking I changed the image back and found another home for the pic. The article simply directs readers to the page where one can see that the user did create it and was the major contributer. Wiki states; Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is a guideline (and a good one, at that), but it is not policy. Nor is it cause, in and of itself, for deletion. If notability cannot be established, the article should go. If notability is established, the article should be kept, but trimmed of traces of conflict-of-interest or other puffery. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, of itself the fact that he started the page is enough to nominate, but to delete I would say it would be for the huge amount of self serving edits to several other articles and lack of notability (the last part is strictly a consensus thing however)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to other articles are absolutely irrelevant to whether this article is worthy of inclusion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person seems to be obviously notable: He is a professional actor with many credits, an award-winning director, and has founded a professional theatre company and various theatre festivals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is fully referenced, contains no peacock words, and has been written and contributed to by a number of editors. The subject is notable, as are his productions and, in particular, the company and festivals and programs he has founded. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a good idea to point out that conflict of interest is not, per se, a reason for deletion, although it is a cause for vigilance. I see all too many AFDs with COI as the sole reason for nomination. That being said, I am neutral regarding this particular article. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I would have to agree, but in this particular case the user has several articles that he is boosting his personal career and theatre groups. I do stand by the AFD nomination, but would also add that notability is such a grey area that I have doubts as to the figure being notable enough to keep an autobiography. I had really never heard of him. But I am not the end all to notability standards....that's why the AFD here. Historic figures in the area such as Bruce Ariss and his theatre had questions of notabilty on wiki, go figure.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject meets the WP:GNG quite easily [28]. Any problems with COI or article style and POV are best addressed with cleanup by other editors... not by deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article does not "Easily" meet all standards, all citations are local newspaper clippings, and online references, that do not necessarily meet reliability. The article uses a review as a reference for a claim that he received positive reviews. That is not a reliable third party source for an extraordinary claim. That requires the statement be published as stating he has positive reviews, not using a positive review as the reference. No publications or journals other than the limited news (much of which was theatres arrange) exist to my knowledge. It fails "Significant coverage" with OR, fails "Independent of the subject" with sources from affiliations connected with the subject (the theatre website). No, sorry but that was incorrect. Regardless of what consensus is lets be factual and within wiki guidelines. Just remember, google hits does not make him notable as not all hits are for the actual subject, Newspaper clippings from local area are easy to come by even for a local performer, establishing a festival in a small community that is not known for theatre in general, is not in itself notable--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines WP:RS and WP:BIO do not mandate that the the coverage be world wide. What matters is "significant covereage in reliable sources". He has that... multiple times over. Let's not reinterpret what guidelines say. Else one might disavow the New York Times as a RS for anything written about New York, or the Washington Post writing about happenings in Washington. The very fact that we are able to outselves read and check the available sources means they are not really "local". One would expect news about New York to be in the New York Times. One would expect news about Washington to be in the Washington Post. One would expect news relevent to San Francisco (not exactly a small-town backwater)to be in the San Fransico Chronicle. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of worldwide status, figure is not known past local area except within th theatre community and even then still not notable. If what matters alone is references than we do need to be extremly strict when considering the sources as reliable and many of the online sources are either paid websites affiliated with the theatre or are promotional sites that cannot be used as references. If article is to remain references will have to be strictly within all policies and guidelines as stated on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no mention of world-wide staus, though the sources are available world-wide. I cannot accept your determination that notability shown through coverage to the millions in the San Francisco area is simply "local" and so may be dismissed, as we are not exactly discussing a neighborhood bake sale that is of note to only a few dozen. Time for a little perspective. An Athlete is notable to athletic community. A mathemetician is notable to the mathematic community. A scientific discovery is notable to the scientific community. And yes, a thespian is notable to the theater community. The same guidelines that allow mass-marketed, low quality fast food products to have article, allows consideration of actors in proper context to what is being asserted and what is being sourced. Concerns over article style are addressed through cleanup, not deletion. WP:Verificatio of information in the BLP is addressed through cleanup, not deletion. Concerns with notability must look at the significant coverage in reliable sources, either availble on the web or through libraries, or through books... [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]... as the man and his work has received recognition for years, making him per guideline "worthy of notice". And so yes, per the guidelines at WP:BIO, he merits inclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notability: Subject is listed in at least 1 international reference book, 1 national reference book, and 1 San Francisco Bay Area reference book: [36]. In addition to 160 mentions in the Monterey County Herald (which covers a population of 400,000+), subject has at least 23 known periodal mentions outside of Monterey County, including 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle, 7 in the San Jose Mercury News, 1 in American Theatre, 1 in Theater Mania, and 6 in the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter: [37]. See WP:GNG and WP:BIO, both of which are met by this coverage, not to mention by his awards won. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, you are emphasising things that do not denote notability. Being metioned in the books shown isn't enough for notability, and as I have stated article does not meet WP:GNG and I was very specific.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The main emphasis on determining deletion is not necessarily notability. WP:BOLP states; Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it worth noting that the article existed without incident for three full years, even though ten other articles link to it and it thus was neither hidden nor orphaned. I find it also worth mentioning that at least one editor on this page has noted that your nomination of the article was in bad faith -- i.e., because of some current personal ill-will with the subject or creator -- which a perusal of relevant talk pages seems to bear out in detail. Again it bears mentioning that the well-explained, detailed consensus on this page is that the article more than meets Wikipedia's stated notability requirements, despite whatever personal objections you may have to that fact. It bears mentioning again, as others have noted on this page, that any POV, COI, or neutrality issues are best settled via an article's Talk page, and via adding to the article sourced and relevant information and/or editing out unsourced peacock words or inflated claims. Lastly, I note that you have just now tagged the article, and also three other articles/sections connected to the subject, with yet another damning template: "autobiography." OK, I'm done. :) Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of personal ill will and bad faith are unfounded. I really do not care that edotors are unfamiliar with the seriousness of the situation, the dishonest boosterism of the editor in question or Wikipedia policy on biographis of living people or Jimmy Wales opinion on how to handle unreferenced infortion in biographies. The single most important part of this discussion is the consensus that is formed, whic I intend to abide by, but don't critisize me for following the guidlines and dealing with this myslf. You inability to see what is happening and point the finger back at me only proves you make desicions based on what you judge to see and not what is happening.
The tags placed are withing wiki guidelines as warning that the subject with COI is editing the articles. This is not personal. I do not know the person. But he has threatened me several times innapropriatly and my taking the actions I have are exactly what editors should do. Remember, notability is not formed by consensus, just whether to keep the article. Notability does not change because we decide it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No personal ill will? It looks to me like you're trying to punish smatprt through every avenue available,[38] when in fact what editors should do is assume good faith, not engage in personal attacks, and step back from edit wars. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal ill will. Subject and article have problems. I have nominated everything in good faith regrdless of how you percieve it.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some external links. The guy is clearly notable...the article is well and fully referenced and he is mentioned repeatedly on the web. Jack1956 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Just saying the article is well and fully referenced does not make it true. The Pac Rep website cannot be used as a reference and is about 5 times. Once this discussion ends those references will be removed, if they do not get removed beffore hand. There are numerouse other references that are innapropriate and will be removed as well as any and all information that is not referenced. Wikipedia is not a promotional site, and we have an obligation to follow the policies guidlins on BOLP, notability and OR stricktly in this situation per Jimmy Wales himself..--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's excessive. While some of the citations to the Rep website could be inappropriate, citation to the Rep's website on statements involving the Rep's activities can be appropriate if they are not "unduly self-serving." Sometimes these are the most appropriate citations; citing a statement that Moore directed a specific production for the Rep to the Rep's website appears no more inappropriate than citing a statement that person X is a member of the board of directors for a public corporation to the corporation's website. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been the satndard on the other theatre articles. All references to official sites removed as affiliation. It's in the guidelines and I am not misinterpreting it. Articles og Biographies should not use affiliation websites as referemces as Theatres should not use official websites either. I pretty much agree with must of what you say however.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post links to the guidelines and policies to which you refer. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per the guideline on reliable sources, primary sources "are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." If you believe that this says that they must be removed, you are misinterpreting it. In fact, as per WP:SELFPUB, "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as" [amongst several items] "the material is not unduly self-serving" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources". Nowhere does that say that primary sources can not (or even should not) be used. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. The subject meets the notability requirements and the article is suitably referenced. Sufficient attention is being paid to ensure that CoI issues do not intrude. Crafty (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only "significant coverage" occurs in sources of only local interest to be the county (population 400-odd thousand, of which nearly half doesn't consider English to be their mother tongue) and thus not reliable for notability purposes or from non-"independent" sources (the the company's website). Excluding those inappropriate sources, there is nothing approaching "significant coverage". MQS's Google searches do nothing to establish the contrary, nor does the company's or the individual's inclusion in a published directory. Bongomatic 00:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to comment on that. I'm not sure why you are linking to "what Wikipedia is not (a directory)" to establish what notability consists of. Or why you're ignoring repeated coverage in one of the top 10 U.S. newspapers (SF Chronicle), and also in an international Shakespeare periodical. Or ignoring a 4-page review in a major international Shakespeare-performance reference work [39], in which review he is mentioned by name 9 times. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Chronicle reference cited (there are two different citations, but to the same article) has only the following mention of the subject:
Further afield, Carmel's Pacific Repertory Theatre founding artistic director, Stephen Moorer, has moved over to become executive director, naming Kenneth Kelleher as guest artistic director for 2008. Kelleher has been a mainstay at San Francisco Shakespeare Festival for several seasons - as well as at Shakespeare at Stinson, which changed its name to North Bay Shakespeare last summer and moved inland from Stinson Beach to Novato. This weekend marks an even more significant change with the opening of Bill Rauch's first season as artistic director of the mighty Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland.
It only mentions his name as a lead-in to a paragraph about someone else entirely. If there is other (and unlike this, significant) coverage in the Chronicle, please point it out. As to the reference in the Shakespeare festival directory, the guide (per its descriptive text here) seems to purport to be a directory of as many of them as possible (it is 568 pages long, of which the theater company's entry takes 3 in aggregate). Given the unlikelihood of the three editors having actually done detailed research on each of the "over 140" festivals and companies, and would probably have taken organization-generated text for their entry, it is highly likely that the text is not "independent of the subject". Bongomatic 06:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Amended Bongomatic 09:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the preface to the book, rather than making assumptions. The author of the 4-page review is cited at the end of the review. Read the rest of this page for the full list of periodical and book mentions, including SF Chronicle mentions. By the way, apologies about the link above, it didn't come out right. Here is the correct link (which I've fixed above) to the 4-page review which mentions Moorer by name 9 times (you can see the mentions in yellow): [40] Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any other direct mentions of Chronicle articles, but in MQS's Google searches, there was one other. The mention (other than the credit) was "Pac Rep founder Stephen Moorer has significantly improved his staging for the run that opened Wednesday at Post Street, with Holly's widow, Maria Elena Holly, in attendance." Hardly "significant coverage." Bongomatic 09:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moorer's entire 203 book and periodical mentions are specifically detailed in the post below MQS's. The entire Chronicle article you just mentioned is a positive review of the SF staging of the Buddy Holly musical play, which Moorer directed. Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, there are also references from San Jose Mercury News, another newspaper based outside the county where the theater is located. Also, there are references from Theatre Bay Area an industry publication which covers the region. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:51, 27 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackobillia edit

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

This is a neoligism, with only 4 non-wiki pages listed on Google PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: A Speedy Delete was original requested on this article, but rejected, as it does not meet the criteria. Following that, a Proposal for Deletion was made, but that was rejected also. Hence this AfD. The creator's response to the PROD was "because the subject is of great imortance tomany of wikipedia users, an the article is being worked with more sources cited" (from the article's Talk page) PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, made up, practically vandalism. Abductive (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably not WP:MADEUP (see the sources section), but a non-notable neologism nevertheless. Jafeluv (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Five results on Google, three of which are Wikipedia.  Cargoking  talk  12:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is even spelt incorrectly.  Cargoking  talk  12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think speedy deletion would be appropriate, because the article is not a blatant hoax. The term is used, for example, here and here, so it's not something made up by the author of the article. Being spelt incorrectly is a reason for moving, not for deleting. Of course, the fact that the expression hasn't been covered in multiple reliable sources does mean that it should be deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Judging by the lack of multiple sources (stated by Jafeluv) and the searches on Google stated by Cargoking. -- Dspradau → talk  12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, however, that Cargoking's Google search was for the term "Jackobillia" (currently the article title), but the sources used in the article use "Jackobilia". The article title could just be a typo. Jafeluv (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, your statement about the Google search is correct. It's possible that a typo occurred in the naming of the article. So, your mention of the expression not being covered in multiple reliable sources is still something I agree upon. Thank you for clarifying it to me.-- Dspradau → talk  13:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I must admit that I neglected to check Google for the spelling with a single 'l' (sorry). I have however looked at the Google News results, and found 3 examples of the use of the term Jackobilia: April 2009, when Michael Jackson decided not to auction off some of his possessions; July 2007 (which is not about Michael Jackson at all); May 2004, about a woman who has memorabilia from the program from Cracker Jack (hence Cracker Jackobilia), again not about Michael Jackson. Most of the use of the term on the Google Search articles are either relating to the auction/not-auctioning of Michael Jackson's possessions mentioned in Google News in April 2009, or they are from personal blogs. Obviously, as I put up this AfD, my vote is delete. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I declined the speedy, on the basis that it was probably going to be deleted anyway. It is unfortunately it got this far. - Jarry1250 [ humorous – discuss ] 11:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interests of fairness, I have left a polite message on the page creator's talk page, to remind them about the AfD, and asking them to contribute to this discussion. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable neologism Francium12 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another WP:NEO that we don't need. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original creator has moved it to Jackobilia, and someone has put a PROD on that page - do we need to change it to AfD on the new page? PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the PROD, put the original AfD back into the head of the article, and invited the editor who placed the PROD to join this discussion. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. Only a single Google news hit refers to Michael Jackson memorabilia, others refer to Cracker Jack collectibles or other unelated subjects.--RadioFan (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE there is about 776 hits on google for jackobilia this proves notability beyond any doubt, also the subject is of great interestet to millions of wikipedia users worldwide...Jomoal99 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete: Definately agree with jomoal99,even if the google searches threw up blogs, blogs means people, people means notability, for this reason I say keep Jackobilia, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Number67c (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)— Number67c (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
    • Comment I see you are new to Wikipedia as your only edits have been in this discussion so you may not be familiar Wikipedia guidelines. Take a look at how notability is defined and what are considered reliable sources. Blogs don't necessarily mean people as anyone can create a blog on any topic. This topic may be notable some day but it doesn't mean the criteria today.--RadioFan (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your logic does not work on Wikipedia! Notability requires verifiable evidence... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim. Substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject constitutes verifiable evidence of notability, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. - blogs are not reliable sources, as they are personal opinions. Going by your logic, Number67c, we really do need to mention that Michael Jackson is not really dead on the Michael Jackson article, as there are more blog hits about that.... If you want to keep this article, it is necessary to find reliable sources that are verifiable. That is how Wikipedia works. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:33, 26 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.

Michael Jackson..... Awthum(With A Lispe) Dude......!! King Of Pop Will Live On 4Ever...!!-=- Micky Fitz!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.64.205 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Denelson83 (talk · contribs). the wub "?!" 12:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee - The Big Boss edit

Bruce Lee - The Big Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a pure copy paste from a torrent description & the article is unneeded see: Bruce Lee and The Big Boss. Max Duchess (talk) 07:10, 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 redirect to Certified first responder. Uncontroversial editorial action. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First responder edit

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

Article is no longer noteworthy by itself, much better content can be found at Certified first responder including a note in the introduction that a "First Responder" is the first medically trained person on-scene. This should become a re-direct to Certified first responder. Frmatt (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per nominator. It's highly likely people looking for the article on this subject will look for 'First responder', but the article is best located at the formal name of the post. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - There are enough differences that it will take a bit of writing to achieve a properly integrated merge, but for the most part, Certified first responder contains more useful content and stronger sourcing. Merging into CFR is the proper solution, and a redirect will resolve any confusion when readers are searching. Doc Tropics 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nomination is malformed. The article does not have an AFD template. Furthermore, the nominator isn't advocating deletion, but redirection. This is a normal editting action that does not require an AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Unknown who removed the template from the page (History doesn't show any changes, despite the fact that I used Twinkle to nominate this on the 20th) but it is there now. I brought it here because this was talked about on the talk page of the article, but no consensus was found (through apathy rather than competing interests) and nobody wants to take a strong stand by either agreeing with me that it should be deleted or by improving it substantially. I figured this was the best way to not get somebody pissed off at me. Frmatt (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Well, if you wanted to get somebody pissed off at you, boldly redirecting might have accomplished that! :) You do need to double-check on Twinkle. It will hiccup once in a while and fail to place the AFD tag. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 24 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, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow pony edit

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

Non notable neolgism. Work permit (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Piper picked a pepper. Wikiboy8967 (talk) 08:26, 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. WP:SNOW. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot dog club edit

Hot dog club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We need a CSD for this kind of blatant WP:NFT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant to point out the editors only other contribution is up for AFD for similar reasons.--Work permit (talk) 02:23, 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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam O. Brown edit

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

Assistant professor with three(!) papers and a few extracurricular activities. Prodded and deprodded some time ago. Abductive (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:Notability (people). Maybe even speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 as an article about a real person that doesn't indicate why its subject is important or significant. (The most significant thing claimed seems to be that he was captain of a fairly successful university fencing team, a claim which doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE). Qwfp (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom and Qwfp. Article created way too early; if not speedy should go via snowball delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sort of listing of minutiae here is what we get when there isn't enough of significance to say about the subject. I don't tend to approve of speedy deletion of articles on academics – usually they've done enough in a Ph.D. to make some sort of claim of significance, though not usually one that will hold up in an AfD. In this case he's one of the co-authors of a paper that comes up second in Google scholar when one searches for cloudberry pollination, so I guess he's one of the experts in that highly specialized subject. It's far from enough for WP:PROF #1, though, and all the rest of the fluff in the article only makes it look worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another classic red-flag here is listing submitted manuscripts as "publications". This sort of information is not even publicly-available, so it probably violates WP:NOR. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:32, 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. No arguments for deletion whatsoever have been raised. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Need Hands edit

You Need Hands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Falcon8765 (talk) 05:11, 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. A redirect can still be created if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Wing Woo edit

James Wing Woo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced biography, I can't find anything to confirm notability B (talk) 04:29, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gale edit

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

Completely unsourced biography, I can't find anything to confirm notability B (talk) 04:28, 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 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lexington Principles on the Rights of Detainees edit

The Lexington Principles on the Rights of Detainees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure, unadulerated use of WP for soapboxing/publicity. Someone's pet political project, full of weasel-worded references to "global experts" but no real sign that anyone's noticed this allegedly global project. Created by and sole contribution of Lexington Principles (talk · contribs), who created this article two days after the indicated launch date of September 25 2008. Calton | Talk 03:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

obsolete commentary-- I changed my mind
  • Comment. While I can't question any of Calton's preceding comments -- and am confessedly unfamiliar with AfD standards, and reflexively reluctant to delete articles -- I think this a fascinating and admirably-done use of Wikipedia for soapboxing/publicity. If the article's currently in violation, it could probably be rewritten to fit all our AfD criteria (see e.g. [41] and [42]. I'm wondering if you'd permit me to email someone at the project, warn them of the impending deletion, inform them of our concerns, and request that they conform their work to our standards. It looks like a professional academic operation; I suspect that they'd comply. Agradman talk/contribs 13:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reality check: Wikipedia is not a social justice organization, it is not a publicity agency for good causes -- however defined -- and it is not platform for political change; it is an encyclopedia. Short form: WP exists to document notability, not promote it.
The only way for them to "conform their work to our standards" is the hard way -- by actually becoming notable and having some actual impact on the world at large. Shuffling some words around in any article won't do that.
As an aside, Agradman, if you don't know what the actual standards for AFD -- which are simply the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia in general -- why are you commenting and what is the actual basis for said comments? --Calton | Talk 14:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed my mind. delete. Writing this clearly took someone a lot of effort, but he/she neglected to communicate why the subject was notable. Agradman talk/contribs 14:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egads, what a lot of bot/javascript edits without a human actually looking at the article. Looking for sources, I find basically jacksquat - google web yields by number 10 some other search engine's page saying "nope, no results for that". And I found exactly one news source (comprising all of six sentences) which can be summarized as "Here is a bunch of law professors, some of whom are local, kibbitzing on how they think the U.S. should handle the detainess."[43]. This makes it clear to me that this is not worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia, even ours. Delete GRBerry 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned......lots of time put into it (maybe), but it comes back to a fairly non-notable group of law professors giving an unsolicited opinion about something. That NPR gave it a nod isn't sufficient. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:55, 22 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 00:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howland Rounders edit

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

Another WP:Madeuponeday article. Created on May 11, 2009. Probably not notable. We need a CSD category. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 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 already deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosoft edit

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

Under 100 Google hits; no assertion of notability. Fails WP:CORP. Biruitorul Talk 02:25, 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 00:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Trevisan edit

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

Subject is non-notable, no references, and possible COI with original author. Deadchildstar (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no evidence of third party coverage. I made a Google search, and looked at the first 40 hits. It is necessary to weed out hits relating to other people with the same or similar names (e.g. Flávio Trevisan Fakih of Brazil, Flavio Travisan the stage director of Italy, etc) and then to ignore the artist's own site, facebook page, a blog, 2 advertising pages and pages which quote from Wikipedia. When one has done this one is left with a couple of trivial mentions, such as [44], which says "Definition of Flavio Trevisan (n.) (born 1970) Italian-born Canadian sculptor and artist", and that is all. A Google News search produces no hits for this artist at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - borderline advertising. Deb (talk) 21:24, 23 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. Consensus indicated that he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard William Aguirre edit

Richard William Aguirre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This candidate for Governor of California does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria for politicians. There are some mentions of him in local newspapers, but they're just announcing his bid for Governor and it's not really "significant coverage" (pretty much anyone who runs for office is going to be in the newspaper at some point). ... discospinster talk 01:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. The only mentions he gets in local newspapers are related to his candidacy which, per WP:POLITICIAN, is not notable in itself. Valenciano (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable guy that is using WP to get publicity for his campaign. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Richard William Aguirre page has been edited to include several television and internet news stories that establish "significant coverage". The coverage is "Significant" and addresses the subject Richard William Aguirre directly in detail. The "Significant Coverage" is from "Reliable, third-party sources" and directly support the information as it is presented in the Richard William Aguirre article. These additions should stop the deletion of the Richard William Aguirre article. Sdpolitics (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop Delete. Please do not remove this article . This article now meets the criteria for approval on wikipedia. All references have been added to address the issues of "significant coverage" and issues of establishing Richard William Aguirre as being notable in it self. (Sdpolitics (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Stop Delete. I added a news paper article from the Obrag, July 20, 2009, about Richard William Aguirre, the environmental group "Save Sunset Cliffs" he founded in 2001 and the work that he and the group are doing in San Diego, CA. to preserve Sunset Cliffs Natural Park. The Group has hundreds of members and is an advisory group to the City Council of the City of San Diego. This should establish Richard William Aguirre as being notable in itself. (Sdpolitics (talk) 18:16, 24 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 00:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and Catharine Whyte Hut edit

Peter and Catharine Whyte Hut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a hut, one of many way-stops in a hiking region, with nothing special about it in the present and no historical significance. Its only claim appears to be that it's named after someone important (not even any actual connection beyond name). My {{notability}} tag was removed a while ago without supplying any additional claim or support of notability. DMacks (talk) 00:31, 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 keep Merging is an editorial decision. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Clampton edit

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

There don't seem to be independent sources confirming the notability of the subject, whether addressed as a person or the letters themselves. Discussion on talk page has been inconclusive. Paul_012 (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think a summary mention in the paper's article would be adequate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable per WP:BIO: not enough coverage from reliable secondary reliable independent sources. Algébrico (talk) 22:22, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I agree with ChildofMidnight. Apparently this person is big enough to have acquired some fame, and a redirect to the paper would not be amiss. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge It's borderline right now. If the article gets beefed up with some sources, it would be more helpful. I'm okay with either one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep essentially this is the title of a pseudonymous column (despite being published through the letters page) in a major newspaper. Seems notable to me, and of a fair amount of historical interest. Dybryd (talk) 05:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Tribbett edit

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

contested prod. Lacks 3rd party references (I'm not finding any Google News hits on the name), RadioFan (talk) 03:41, 13 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 00:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just not seeing any real notability for the subject matter here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep additional changes look good to me. Not that I necessarily get the topic... but the only reason I can think to delete is that I think it looks like a dumb, unimportant article. Wait, this is Wikipedia... that's not a reason. Someone more versed in the subject matter could give a better answer, but as a bystander I say keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #6, as a member of notable bands Twisted Method, Makeshift Romeo, and Dope. In addition to the source noted by Scjessey, there's a mention in New Wave of American Heavy Metal, and that confirms his membership in two of those three bands. The concert review "Fans exult in screaming metal frenzy" (The Columbus Dispatch, August 4, 2003, p. B6) comments specifically on Tribbett's performance as part of one of his bands. And I found an article that discusses his involvement with Dope and Twisted Method, and several quotes from an interview with him (Iwasaki, Scott. "Bands excited about Apathy tour", Deseret News, October 8, 2004, p. W11). Taken together, that's enough evidence of notability for a keep, in my view. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to keep: per Paul Erik. Joe Chill (talk) 14:35, 23 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 defaulting to keep. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killer's Payoff edit

AfDs for this article:
Killer's Payoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

May fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:26, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 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 no consensus defaulting to keep. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Felix edit

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

The subject doesn't appear to be particularly notable in his field. There are no references, and his 'official website' is a deadlink (as of 6 july 2009).

His article seems to exist only as an afterthought to Most Haunted. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A line or two perhaps, but it would have to be referenced - none of this article is. It seems to be a page written by a fan of the show, nothing more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:12, 8 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 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 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 no consensus defaulting to keep. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Studies and Research in Aeronautical Medicine edit

Center for Studies and Research in Aeronautical Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Center of Studies and Research on Aeronautical Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — duplicate created by the original creator after this AFD discussion began
As I said here, I can find documentation of a Centro Ricerche Aerospaziali (Centre for Aerospatial Research) in Guidonia, but no documentation for this. I can find no sources that document the subject, let alone that support this content. Indeed, I can find sources that outright contradict this content, such as ISBN 9782701015187 page 233 which describes a "short lived" (1935–1943) Centre for Aeronautical Research in Guidonia that was a collaboration between the Aeronautica Militare and Sapienza University of Rome, not the University of Turin, and that was not specifically a centre for research in aeronautical medicine.

Mario Pezzi, similarly, was at the Centro Sperimentale at Guidonia (source) and not at this purported organization. The 1963 "special school" associated with the University of Rome is, in fact, the Associazione Italiana di Medicina Aeronautica E Spaziale, which is not a "special school", and not this purported organization.

The content here is unverifiable and I can find no subject by this name. Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 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) 00:13, 13 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 00:07, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take Action! Vol. 8 edit

Take Action! Vol. 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable compilation album; article is nothing but a track listing. I42 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also nominated, for the same reason:
Take Action! Vol. 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NALBUMS tells us no more than that we should apply the WP:GNG (its advice that "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability" and that "[a]lbum articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article" obviously doesn't apply to compilation albums). And neither article fares well by that measure, which "requires significant coverage [of the subject, viz. these two albums] in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article makes no assertion of notability, offers no links supporting notability, and I see only a handful of ghits ([46][47]), many of which appear to be online stores selling it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:15, 13 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 00:06, 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. Content apparently not suitable for merging. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbid Gym:Thaledo edit

Rabbid Gym:Thaledo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mini game embedded within the Rayman Rabbids game. Not notable in its own right. Completely lacking in any decent content. Oscarthecat (talk) 06:07, 13 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, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Random element taken from a larger (and relevant) subject, can't see anything to merge. Someoneanother 01:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: How can an article that says stuff like "You la da de nothing who asen you nothing are bad,but I'm worried,all the jom when I'm who I am by the Wishing Well,Thaledo!,Thaledo!,If that du du du alatoo,I'm on the TV." be merged? Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 14:55, 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 Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gatwick Bear edit

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

I'm not seeing any evidence that this character is notable. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 13 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, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough discussion to establish a consensus. Article has been moved to Patricia Driscoll (Armed Forces Foundation). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Driscoll (disambiguation) edit

Patricia Driscoll (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find sources to back this up. Armed Forces Foundation website doesn't mention her as far as I can see. Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:26, 13 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, 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 Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy Dough edit

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

Blatant advertisement. No notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 19:03, 13 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, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice press release. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:51, 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 merge to Cashis. Note that if merged, the article has to be redirected not deleted. See WP:MAD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cashis discography edit

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

A discography of a questionably notable artist who has actually released only one album. The others listed are future albums. One future album was already deleted as a snowball delete under AfD, the other was in the nom, but the closing admin forgot to delete it. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Author also has a WP:COI issue. He is the artists manager (as admitted on Talk:Cashis and has been made aware of the COI guidelines. Also started a page for his non-notable music label which can be found here: WP:Articles for deletion/Bogish Brand Entertainment. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate references provided, and shows the artists work as a guest on albums and also has two albms coming in september which is also sourced. Rikanatti (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2009
  • Keep/Merge. The possible COI issue and other edits by the articles creator are irrelevant to this discussion. If Cashis is sufficiently notable to have an article (which he appears to be via coverage), the only consideration should be whether this (reasonably-but-should-be-better-sourced) information fits better within the artist's article or as a standalone discography article. Given the size of this, I think it's better left as a separate article, unless it's trimmed to cut out the speculation about future releases, which may mean that it fits within the artist's article.--Michig (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If everything that is speculation or not reliably sourced is removed, there is essentially nothing left. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:17, 18 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, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge. The notability of the artist is not in question and therefore an inclusion of his discography seems fully within Wikipedia policy (I could not find any guidelines regarding discographies in all the acronyms you linked, only regarding artists or regarding individual songs and albums). --Reinoutr (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The violations of those are in that when nominated, there were unreleased songs/albums included, some untitled ones. I've removed those since the nomination. If I remove the info without a reliable source (which is most of it), there will not be enough left for this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even so, the proper procedure is to merge the remaining info to the main article. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge into Cashis article only that info which can be cited to reliable, third-party sources (not much). — Satori Son 21:27, 22 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. Acroterion (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discount Golf Clubs edit

Discount Golf Clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Remainder of promotional article, de-spammed and prod-ed, contested. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or a guide to golf equipment. Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 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 Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hoffman edit

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

Non-notable actor. The only movie for which I can find a valid source is Bedtime Stories where he played the younger version of Adam Sandler's character. I think this actor needs a larger body of work before being included here. Wperdue (talk) 22:56, 13 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, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One minor part does not fame make. WP is not IMDB Lite. --Calton | Talk 03:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. The Notability guideline for Entertainers requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.", which he does not have. - kollision (talk) 03:18, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ryde edit

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

Deprodded, non-notable rock band and fails WP:MUSIC. It has 47,000 Ghits about the band. [48] ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point #9 of the WP:BAND states "Has won or placed in a major music competition." The Ryde has won the finals of the IndieWeek Festival competition which has secured them a spot in the upcoming IndieWeek competition held in October 2009 in Toronto. The winner will win a tour in Ireland. IndieWeek Festival is a notable competition in Canada. I believe this satisfies the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaresimaj (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I'd like to correct ApprenticeFan on the Ghits number. ApprenticeFan has searched for "the ryde band" when the name of the band is simply "the ryde". Ghits for "the ryde" are 645,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaresimaj (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it should be noted that those 645,000 ghits are not all for this band. A simple glance at google shows a clothing company, a jewelry store and so on. freshacconci talktalk 03:28, 23 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, 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 Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Fay edit

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

Porn actress fails WP:PORNSTAR. Was A7 but tag removed. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:57, 13 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, 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 Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Skull Productions edit

The Skull Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable video game company. No sources, and I wasn't able to find any. Article had been prod'd shortly after creation, but it was removed (along with the clean up tags) by an IP. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:40, 13 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, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aren't even a video game company. They make machinima (videos using footage from video games, like the "Red vs. Blue" series). They don't make anything video game related. Delete as a non-notable company. TJ Spyke 03:40, 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 redirect to The Head Cat as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP with leave to speedy renominate if the redirect is resisted without sourcing that demonstrates notability. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny B. Harvey edit

Danny B. Harvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced BLP, I can't find any in-depth coverage and all ghits are superficial: Myspace, track listings etc. Doesn't look to have released an album on a major label and fails WP:MUSICBIO. Primary claim to fame is some composition for TV shows, which is also un-verified. Previously deleted as PROD, then recreated; COI issues in recent deleted revisions which were copied from his MySpace. – Toon 01:27, 13 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, 19 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 hoax ({{a3}}). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunt dunt dunt edit

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

Unsourced (listed sources point to articles defining terms used in the article, not the article subject) neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.-- Syrthiss (talk) 18:45, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_20&oldid=1142644754"