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

The result was delete. JForget 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Antobie

Antobie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Antobie" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Article about a "nutritional supplement" purported to aid in weight loss, makes inflated claims with absolutely no backing, and hasn't received any independent coverage. In fact this article is adspam. Looie496 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or fix :-) A chemical with a CAS number is notable, but the text is an obvious copy/paste from some web source. If someone is willing to make it into an article (it is easy, but I'm not up to it) - fine. If not, then speedy delete. Materialscientist (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• fix or wp:incubate seems notable, but article is just one big advert UltraMagnus^speak 13:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. This may be a duplicate of Orlistat under a different brand name. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, copy of Orlistat and hence can be deleted! --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to generic name. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

*Delete and redirect to generic name.--UltraMagnus^speak 11:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• To whom it may concern I am the brand manager for Mayfair pharmaceuticals the IP owners of antobie soclormag. Our mission statement is to help cure the obesity epidemic very honestly. Obesity is now every developed countries most serious public health challenge costing tax payers multi millions in public health care and its increasing. We have enlisted one of our IT managers to develop this wikipedia article with the aim of furthering our good mission. This is the first time he has created a wikipedia article and we can see that he has put some Xenical data down as our data which is an honest mistake. Please give him reasonable time to tidy this article up. There will be no unproveable inflated claims in this article. Antobie has been developed from clincal studies on fasting and in particular Duncan, C. et al,' Intermittent fasts in the correction and control of intractable obesity' American Journal of Medical Science 245:515-52.

Thankyou for your patience sincerely Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.144.154 (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As the comment above indicates, "Antobie" is probably not the same thing as orlistat. In fact there is no verifiable information whatsover about what Antobie is, so a redirect would not be appropriate at this time. Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

well, the article lists the same CAS number, however, if the above comment is correct and the number in the article is incorrect then I suggest that this article be userfied until the correct information can be added and sourced. also if the article is correct and it is not orlistat then it should be moved to its generic name Soclormag --UltraMagnus^speak 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The other issue here is that the is nothing on google scholar for either antobie or soclormag UltraMagnus^speak 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete [1] this says exactly what it is, it just another multipill containing a load of unproven herbal remedies masquerading as something scientific --UltraMagnus^speak 17:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy if requested. As written the article feels like an advert, and search finds no mention in RS. This may change. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources about this product. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No coverage, and the 'article' is not even an article. No redirect without a reliable source confirming that this is the same as some other product. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron.
• Delete - no references, no Ghits, no categories, no sources → no article. Although I am amused that the same editor who added the {{rescue}} tag to the article weighed in here as "strong delete." Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the arguments for keeping this article are exceptionally weak, but at the moment it doesn't appear that there is adequate consensus to support deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ResKnife

ResKnife (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "ResKnife" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep coverage on macnn, sourceforge magazine, and cnet is significant enough UltraMagnus^speak 13:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sourceforge isn't a magazine, it is a download site. Macnn is a trivial mention. The CNET page is just a place to download the software. So the article doesn't pass the notability guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • funny how gnews says sourceforge.jp is a magazine, I guess I just assumed that the Japanese sourceforge had some sort of magazine. Macnn is significant in its niche (see wp:obscure)
      • The only coverage is one sentence. Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

* Keep: Sorry Joe. Just not enough to warrant a delete. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• • How does "ResKnife 0.4d1, now with OS X-compatibility, is a recent beta version of "developmental, freeware resource editor with ambitions to challenge Resorcerer as the premier tool of choice for developers." being the only coverage not warrant a delete? Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: If the only !votes that this gets are keeps because of one sentence, the AFD should be relisted. Joe Chill (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero significant coverage found in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: There are lots of sources - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No significant coverage in reliable ones though, which is the real issue here.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There are lots. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That link only has a sentence. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Macnn [2] calls it the "premier tool of choice for developers." Other mentions of it are quite favorable as well. They may not say much about it, but what they do say, is quite favorable. So yeah, its notable. Dream Focus 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep since potentially useful, free software should always have a place in WP. The article alone may attract others who can improve it, or upon it. -MBHiii (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: All of these keeps aren't based on any guidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:IAR is a guideline, and people are following it by trying to improve wikipedia --UltraMagnus^speak 21:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:IAR is a policy that only has a sentence and two essays to describe it. IAR has barely ever been a strong argument especially when the coverage is only two sentences. IAR has always just been an excuse for people to go against the guidelines. If everyone ignored all rules towards notability and other stuff like blocking, Wikipedia would not be a good place to be. Joe Chill (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I have changed to strong Keep because of the quality of references and the large number of references. It is notable! Macnn [3] state that it is "premier tool of choice for developers." Many other "mentions" are favourable! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Srong Keep because of two sentences and a google search with download sites? Joe Chill (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The Ghits are download sites; the macnn mention quotes some other source to say that it is a "developmental, freeware resource editor with ambitions to challenge Resorcerer as the premier tool of choice for developers". Ambitions? Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just because it was created by a banned user doesn't mean it has to be deleted, and given the comments below that this may be a reasonable list, it seems appropriate to keep this at the moment. Note that the nomination offers no arguments for deletion aside from those refuted by Skomorokh. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of libertarian organizations

List of libertarian organizations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of libertarian organizations" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete per WP:G5. page has been created on 16 October 2008 by Simultaneous movement, a sockpuppet of Sarsaparilla, although Sarsaparilla is banned since 25 March 2008. page has no substantial edits by other users. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• G5 offers a reason why this list can be deleted; I see absolutely no reason as to why it should. It's a perfectly appropriate topic for an enecyclopedic list, and at a cursory look the list seems sufficiently accurate.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - it seems like a valid list, so I'd lean towards keeping it. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clear WP:INDISCRIMANTORY violation. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Reasonable list that is not indiscriminate, it includes notable libertarian organizations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sanmesh Kalyanpur

Sanmesh Kalyanpur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sanmesh Kalyanpur" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

High school student with no obvious notability; the awards he purportedly won don't have Wikipedia articles, this article doesn't tell us what he actually did to earn either of these awards in the first place, and Google doesn't provide any additional proof of notability beyond this. Note that the article was created by User:Mkalyanpur (likely WP:COI), who also deprodded it when it was listed for deletion in 2007 for the same reasons I'm AFDing it now. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject is not notable and there are no real-world sources for verification. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. TJRC (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Won a bravery award from the president for saving his sister from drowning. Daring , no doubt but not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Deepak D'Souza 07:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That a banned user created this page does not necessarily mean it has to be deleted, as explained by DGG. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stopping the clock

Stopping the clock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Stopping the clock" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

• Delete per WP:G5. page has been created on 2 April 2008 by Sarah Lynne Nashif, a sockpuppet of Sarsaparilla, although Sarsaparilla is banned since 25 March 2008. page has no substantial edits by other users. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-sourced and notable, not apparently covered elsewhere. I wish it had a better title though. As it currently stands, that title could refer to a sporting event or any of a number of other things. TJRC (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —TJRC (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per TJRC and Alansohn UltraMagnus^speak 13:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G5, as noted by Cordyceps2009. I'd encourage anyone who wants to save this article to take it to userspace, read the eleven sources, and bring the page back as their own. It's likely that this is going to be deleted, because G5 is not negotiable. An article that has been created by a banned user is a speedy delete, no matter how good that article might be. A harsh rule, perhaps, but the contributions of someone who uses a sockpuppet are not going to be presumed to be credible or reliable. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is a problem, may I suggest the article should be incubated so that it can be fixed, and any contributions by the above mentioned editor thoroughly checked. --UltraMagnus^speak 05:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think G5 is an issue. As DGG notes, G5 applies to "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others." In contrast, this article has had substantial edits by others since the creating editor last touched it more than seven months ago. Incubation isn't really needed, or appropriate, here. There appears to be nothing substantively wrong with the article, other than the claim that it was created by a banned user. TJRC (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep no matter who created it is is notable, and there is be no problem finding literally several thousand news articles. (at least half of the ones in [4] are directly relevant.) The article needs to be distinguished as Stopping the clock (politics) from its use in sports. G5 is limited to those where there are no substantial edits by others, and that is already not the case here. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Roehrkasse

Brian Roehrkasse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Brian Roehrkasse" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

The same reason as given in the Proposed Deletion rationale stands. This person's life and works, outside of being involved in one event, and even then solely as a named spokesman, have simply never been documented by the world. I can find no sources from which a verifiable biography can be written. Read the one cited source, which was also cited in the previously deleted article, and you'll see no biographical coverage of this person's life and works there, either. Indeed, you'll see explicitly stated that the source's author, one Bud Cummins, has "never met the man" and knows nothing about him beyond that he was a spokesman. At best, if we follow the one single source, we'll end up with a coatrack, because that's largely what that source itself is, in our terms, being more about the things that were said by a spokesman, on behalf of the instutution that he was a spokesman for, than about the actual spokesman himself. There is no scope for a properly verifiable, neutral, biography here. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete (but willing to re-evaluate if more sources come up.) There's a fair amount of buzz about this person in a gnews search, but after weeding out the many passing mentions, most of it seems to stem from Bud Cummins having called out Brian Roehrkasse,[5] and other media outlets reprinting or responding to the spat. Does the spat alone give notability? I'm leaning towards no. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The spat is the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, in which this person's involvement seems to solely be, from what I can find, that of a named spokesman, and not even one of the protagonists. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • And just FWIW, a couple of IPs keep removing the one ref in the article, claiming there are more neutral refs out there. I've had no success getting through to them that they need to actually add their prefered refs, not just remove the one they don't like.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
      • 24.60.184.146 (talk · contribs) was doing the same in December 2008, with much the same edit summaries, too. Whilst I haven't (as already noted) been able to confirm the assertion that such sources exist, and whilst the editor without an account (whom it is pretty apparent is one person) hasn't presented the sources that xe claims exist, xe does have a very good point about this article being a coatrack based upon a source with a clear agenda, and not a biography of this person's life and works in any way. Uncle G (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete Very weak, because there really are a ton of hits on this guy, on Gnews, and a respectable number in Gbooks and Gscholar as well. That said, most of these really are incidental - he was the chief DOJ spokesman, prior to which he was a major spokesman for Homeland Security, so he gets quoted in his official capacity a lot. Despite wading through the first couple of dozen hits, though, I agree w/ Fabrictramp - aside from the Cummins article and corresponding fallout, there seems to be nothing about him, as opposed to incidental mentions. Ray^Talk 01:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep The GW Bush DOJ was involved is so many controversial issues involving the press that I think its press spokesman is notable enough. He has a LinkedIn page that cofirms some of the basic facts in the article, e.g. education. --agr (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Fabrictramp. DoJ issues should be discussed elsewhere; this bio isn't necessary. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: I did a bit of work on the article. Its hard to find the non-trivial references to him because there are SO MANY references to him as a spokesman, but some do seem to exist, and enough to be notable.--Milowent (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here's another article very negative about the guy in Harper's magazine. I didn't add it, but its just more evidence of notability.--Milowent (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with the original nomination, but Milowent has done a fine job of ferretting out sufficient sources showing notability to make deletion inappropriate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Casanovva (film)

Casanovva (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Casanovva (film)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I had an earlier version of this film from AfD #1 userfied to me in March 2009 and held onto it because of an announced April 6 start date. Then I found out that the film was pretty much cancelled [6]. However, and while Andrrews wishes to shoot it in Capetown in 2010 [7], his wishes for the film have yet to be translated into reality. While mention of the on-again off-again film might merit a mention in the director's article, it has remained speculation. And since so many are so willing to rewrite and re-introduce the article even without it being filmed, I realized there was no need to continue holding on to the earlier version (See earlier AfD's under different names). This current version is different from the earlier article and so does not quite meet G4 deletion, so I suggest a polite deletion as crystal. In looking at the infobox, I see informations that can in no way be confirmed, as running time of an unmade film is complete speculation... just as is a budget when there is no confirmed investors. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Per Schmidt's very detailed rationale. Is this your first AFD nomination? Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You could tell? (chuckle) I opined a keep at the original AfD in March... which is why I had that one userfied. When it returned under a different name in August, I opined a delete as the April release had evaporated. And here it is a 3rd time under a 3rd name. Still crystal. My detail had to explain how a "first" nomination was actually a third. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per MQS' well reasoned nomination. That was why I alerted him instead of AfDing this article myself! -SpacemanSpiff 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to bringing the article back when/if this movie is actually made. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Benoit Pausader

Benoit Pausader (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Benoit Pausader" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Pausader is a non-notable assistant professor at Brown University who does not meet WP:PROF. The article appears to have been created as a fan page, and is used primarily as a basis for vandalism, both for the article itself (see [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) and other articles linked to it (see [13], [14], [15], [16]).

I PRODded the article, but the PROD was promptly reverted by 138.16.30.163 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), an anonymous editor posting from Brown, who is responsible for much of the above-mentioned vandalism. The editor made no corresponding edits to either improve the article to overcome its shortcomings or to provide any justification for retention of the article on its talk page. TJRC (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator WildHorsesPulled (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A no-brainer: the subject just graduated (last year) and has 2 whole journal publications, giving him an absolute maximum possible h-index of 2. A country mile short of WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
• Delete, not even close to notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
• Comment. The delete comments above are probably right. There is a mathematics professor from Université Laval who is an active editor at Wikipedia (and whose userid I have forgotten, and it would be helpful to get his comments. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. More opinions are welcome, of course, but this case is already very clear. His h-index is only 1, according to the WoS search "Author=(Pausader B*) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI", meaning he fails WP:PROF #1. He is not a "distinguished" or named-chair tenured professor, not elected to a prestigious society, not chief ed. of a mainstream journal, and so forth. This is precisely why newly-minted academics always wash-out in the AfD stage (with exceedingly rare exception). He may become notable in the future, but the WP:CRYSTAL guidelines don't really permit us to act on such speculation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

• Delete per above. Paul August ☎ 02:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as with the others. Clear enough. Suggest a SNOW and a courtesy blank of the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hasbro Darth Vader Voice Changer

Hasbro Darth Vader Voice Changer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Hasbro Darth Vader Voice Changer" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No evidence of this product's notability. Wholly lacks references. --EEMIV (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Another editor has added some references. I found other references here and at this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per Eastmain's references. The fact that this has survived an earlier AFD brings a higher bar for deletion. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I am sorry, I like Star Wars too, but many toys could have sources, does not mean it should be on Wikipedia. I can not believe this is even on here? How is this encyclopedic? WildHorsesPulled (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be a notable toy. The USA today story features it with a photo and is itself based on prominent coverage in another source, the Family Fun magazine (not linked from Wikipedia article). Toys that receive coverage in reliable sources meet the notability guidelines. Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I also found this. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Michael Lloyd

Douglas Michael Lloyd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Douglas Michael Lloyd" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete. Non-notable. I'm usually in inclusionist for Wikipedia, but there is no reason for this guy to have an article when all the other Public School Trustees no not. He is non notable because he is only a School Trustee. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete he is just a school caretaker, absolutely non notable UltraMagnus^speak 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. He is probably more notable as an IT executive than as a school board official. In fact, many elected members of school boards may be more notable in their day jobs than as school trustees. At this point, I can't justify keeping the article, although some of the speaking engagements seem to hint notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No sources, not encyclopedic. The Ottawa News source is not even an in depth significant source, it simply mentiones subject name. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. For disclosure's sake, the creator of this article approached me for guidance with it back when it was still a sandbox — but my response, which can be seen at User talk:Spuds McGoo, was that it wasn't a very good idea in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN flat out, insufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 03:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nereus (walrus)

Nereus (walrus) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Nereus (walrus)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete, non-notable individual zoo animal. The only claim to notability I can see in the article is that it was featured in an episode of the Animal Planet series Growing Up..., but as that article has summaries of all episodes I can't see that alone as a reason for a standalone article. The only purported reference in the article is a more general link to the zoo where the walrus lives, which mentions but does not maintain an individual page for the walrus. Postdlf (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Google News archive only shows 4 stories related to this particular zoo animal all from 2003. Per WP:NOTNEWS], a splash of publicity when a zoo gets an animal does not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS ~SpK 22:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral Obviously the average zoo animal is not notable, but being the star subject of an episode of a notable television program almost convinces me that a dedicated article is appropriate. Not evidence of notability, but you can read about Nereus in his own words. Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Leda Dionissia Alexopoulou

Leda Dionissia Alexopoulou (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Leda Dionissia Alexopoulou" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This person is plainly non-notable, with no record of accomplishment in any field. No recognised sources are given. She appears to be self-nominated, or a friend of the editor who wrote the piece. A proposed for deletion tag was removed by an anon, with no explanation on the talk page. Bluehotel (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• DeleteUnless sourcing can be documented. The references are in Greek, so it is difficult to evaluate whether they are reliable sources independent of the subject with significant coverage. One ref is supposed to be an article in Cosmopolitan magazine May 2005, but the link does not lead to the article. Someone fluent in Greek needs to assist here in source evaluation. Being a Greek article artist does not confer inherent notability. Nothing at Google News archive for the first and last name or all 3 names. Might be Greek articles. Edison (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Edison I repaired the link to the article Jemesouviens32 (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just unbelievable. Jemesouviens32 has now voted twice.Bluehotel (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – LadyofShalott 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete nn not for an encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS and per Modernist's comment. ~SpK 22:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This artist is notable and well documented in the articles' references which I have cross referenced added this date:Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The few references provided are trivial and do not establish notability. The google searches reveal nothinguseful other than wikis and mirrors. freshacconci talktalk 18:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We don't punish subversion of the encyclopaedia's goals by tearing pages out of it. That there may have been promotional content in the article or unbecoming behaviour by editors speaks nothing to the notability of the topic, which has been convincingly asserted here.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tradeking

Tradeking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Tradeking" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Tradeking. Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#A7 and and once as spam advertising.

• Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#TradeKing_Spam

Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same spam campaign:

Donato A. Montanaro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Response from TradeKing

Hi, my name is Jude Stewart, and I’m director of online content at TradeKing. Among other responsibilities, I keep track of our TradeKing Wikipedia entry. I noted this discussion about whether the TradeKing entry should be considered spam and wanted to weigh in if I can.

First, though, I edited the entry to address some of the complaints so far. I removed the TradeKing logo and the link to one, positive TradeKing product review. The entry also includes a new “Product reviews and criticisms” section, which summarizes the chief advantages and disadvantages product reviewers have cited about TradeKing’s product offering and service. All references are cited to original source; we encourage Wikipedia participants to add others, good or bad.

TradeKing emphasizes transparency and accountability in a real way. Since 2005 we’ve hosted an active social community of investors and traders, who interact with our CEO and senior staff on a daily basis. We welcome dialogue from clients or prospective clients, we hear both real-world criticisms and praise from them, and we try to respond to all of it out in the open.

We think Web 2.0 holds amazing benefits for individual investors. Before this era, people were trading alone in their basements, learning from their own mistakes the hard way. Now traders can freely share information about trading strategies, learn from each others’ mistakes (the easier way), and keep each other informed as to which news sources, tools, and brokerage platforms offer the squarest and best deal. Wikipedia is an important collaborative resource in this new era. In fact, we started our Wikipedia entry to get a better grip on what investors are saying about us, and to improve our services accordingly.

We’re not a publicly-traded company like E*TRADE or TD Ameritrade, so we won’t make that argument for our continued presence on Wikipedia. But we are a public brand, much-discussed in the investing community. Not all of that discussion results in a new account for us, but all of it serves to better inform any investor who’s trying to decide if we’re the broker who should be trusted with their hard-earned money.

In that spirit, we’d submit that the TradeKing entry on Wikipedia should stand. But if the group here decides otherwise, of course we’ll respect that.

Best, Jude Stewart, Director of Online Content, http://www.tradeking.com Joodferl (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)joodferlJoodferl (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Joodfer's response above does not address the major issue, which is that this company appears to be non-notable. TJRC (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Response from TradeKing

We disagree. I’ve reviewed Wikipedia’s notability policy WP:NOTABILITY and can offer you the following points:

• To general notability WG:GNG, we’ve seen significant coverage year after year by Barron’s, Smart Money, Kiplinger’s, Consumer Reports among others. These are, as WG:GNG stipulates, reliable secondary sources, independent of their subject, who presume TradeKing is a noteworthy company in our space. All these references are cited in our entry. I believe these sources and coverage also meet our corporate notability WP:CORP criteria.
• That press coverage has happened year after year, since our inception in 2005. For this reason we believe we meet the criteria of not being temporary WP:NTEMP.
• This is a difficult claim to prove conclusively, but we believe our CEO was the first among financial-services CEOs to blog actively, starting in 2005. We actively welcome any evidence to support or deny this claim, but if it stands, we argue this bolsters our entry’s notability.

We’ve edited the article to address issues in WP:SPAM and improve the article’s balance.

As for WP:SPA, yes, I established this account to be able to address TradeKing’s Wikipedia entry. As a FINRA-regulated firm, every public communication by a TradeKing representative requires prior approval by our internal compliance officer. For this reason I don’t freely edit other articles on Wikipedia – each such edit would require prior compliance approval. You can imagine what a logistical burden a lot of extra editing would impose, and why we avoid it.

Best regards, Joodferl (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JoodferlJoodferl (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Explicity stating my position per my nomination. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site, such as TradeKing;

• Fails Wikipedia's core content policy, WP:NOTABILITY:
• Multiple instances of misues and abuse on wikipedia including, but not limited to;
• SPAM
  • Advertisements masquerading as articles
  • Advertising and conflicts of interest
• Conflict of interest
  • Editors who have a conflict of interest
  • Accounts used for promotion
  • Law Of Unintended Consequences
• What Wikipedia is not
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
• SOCK
  • Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
  • 'Role' accounts
• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
  • Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.

Your contributions to wikipedia under Joodferl and IP 76.127.179.227, consist entirely of promoting TradeKing and is considered WP:Spam. You even created a vanity page for yourself, "jude stewart". It has become apparently clear that your account and IP's are only using Wikipedia for advertising and promotional purposes. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote TradeKing.com --Hu12 (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Are there sources that are both independent of the subject and reliable that discuss the company? I'm not seeing them, and without those sources we can't keep the article, regardless of its tone or concerns about its author and defender(s). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep Very notable trading platform. Plenty of sources available. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The sources referenced in the article, such as Business Week, SmartMoney, Barron's Magazine and MSNBC, are independent of the subject and generally considered reliable, and the coverage they give of TradeKing is significant, so this company meets the notability requirements as set forth in WP:CORP. COI should be avoided but is not by itself a ground for deletion.  --Lambiam 00:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep at least in the present form., Despite the way it was created, it seems it is notable based on the ratings. Other articles from the same source should be judged on their individual merits. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep TradeKing entry for others to learn about the excellent services, teaching programs, and productive and informative forums used to discuss a wide variety of issues regarding investing and stock trading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.216.143.245 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Playground. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Playplace

Playplace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Playplace" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

A pointless short article which is already covered in full and in a much better way by Playground. Fillchugg (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to playground. Perhaps not pointless, and perhaps not covered in full, but I think that this would easily be covered in a section, since this is usually referred to as an "indoor playground". Playplace is, if I'm not mistaken, what McDonald's calls its indoor and outdoor locations for the finish-your-Happy-Meal set. Mandsford (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per Mandsford. I don't see a lot of sourcing that discusses this specific type of playground, but there might be sources out there; Playground would be a good place for them. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per withdrawn nomination JForget 22:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hospitals-Meddelelser

Hospitals-Meddelelser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Hospitals-Meddelelser" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Medical journal published from 1848-1856. Google search (although less appropriate for such an old journal) only shows WP and mirrors and a few Scandinavian library sites. No indication of any notability. Was deprodded with reason "a Google books search indicates that this was a highly-cited journal in its day". However, this search brings up catalogs and such and some publications that indeed cite articles from this journal, but I don't think this is enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). In addition to the notability problems, there is the lack of verifiability. For instance, the article mentions an ISSN (which did not yet exist at that time), but I have only found this on a page of the library of the Karolinska Institute and have not been able to verify it otherwise. The only verifiable information available seems to be the journal name and the years it was published. This does not even seem to be enough for a stub... Crusio (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: "99-0872808-3" does not look like an ISSN ("an eight digit number, divided by a hyphen into two four-digit numbers") to me. Anyway, there seems to be one extra piece of information that is verifiable: see Carl Edvard Marius Levy. Perhaps we could redirect Hospitals-Meddelelser to Carl Edvard Marius Levy? — Miym (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: An ISSN could have been assigned by Ulrich's or the country's national library at any time after ISSN were introduced. I agree with Miym's observation that it does not look like an ISSN. There is a standard for turning an ISSN into a bar code, but I think that ISSN bar codes begin with a 7. I am inclined to keep the article, since there weren't that many scientific journals during the period when this one was published, and to assume that Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)'s criteria were written with present-day journals in mind. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• In principle, I agree with that. But I don't see what we can write... --Crusio (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, if we want to keep the article (instead of redirecting), perhaps we could mention the role of this journal in Contemporary reaction to Ignaz Semmelweis, see also footnote 88 here. This article might be also worth checking (could it be used as an example of an influential paper?). I wonder if we could extract some useful information from here, perhaps the claim that the journal was "influential" (I known, not really a realiable source)? Putting all these together, perhaps it could be just enough to for a stub? — Miym (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think we should get hung up on a probably malformed ISSN - notability of a mid-nineteenth-century journal doesn't depend on its having an ISSN. We may not be able to write much on the basis of what is freely available online, but, again, that's not the requirement for notability. The Google Books search shows that there's almost certainly enough coverage of the subject: it just needs someone to look up the books and do the work, for which there is no deadline. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep-If: From what I've read here, this may be a candidate for my made up doctrine of "obscure but notable." An encyclopedia isn't supposed to advertise but it is supposed to make more accessible that which others have found notable. So, if the claims to notability even if they be obscure dead tree sources with some lasting impact or note, this seems to be a reasonable if briefly covered topic. I guess I always try to ask " is there enough RS coverage to let you write a reasonable article?" and this sounds as if it would be short but of archival value. I wouldn't oppose redirect if a better article can be written and statements comparing and contrasting journals or the situation at the time make a significant contribution that would be silly in an isolated article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Given that it was started by a major internationally known person in the subject at its time, it is worth an article. The US National Library of Medicine Catalog lists it[17], as OCLC 50352611, and see WorldCat . DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to Phil Bridger the article now at least looks like a decent stub. However, I fear that it will never develop further than that, given the absolute lack of sources. But given the evidence for notability, I withdraw my nomination to delete. I suggest that Miym's suggestion to merge and redirect to Carl Edvard Marius Levy deserves perhaps some more thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusio (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Created by a checkuser- Confirmed sockpuppet. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sanghapal.shelke/Archive J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] KANTHAK SOFTWARE

KANTHAK SOFTWARE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "KANTHAK SOFTWARE" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails WP:CORP. Non-notable company. One "reference" is a blog entry. Tan | 39 15:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:CORP, WP:N and WP:RS. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and salt repeatedly recreated from multiple accounts. Kanthak Software was salted already, so this is the reason for the CAPITALIZATION. –xeno^talk 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This is a possible re-creation of Kanthak Software, though that was deleted by CSD, so that wouldn't qualify as a deletion reason. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Xeno's comment (something I didn't realize), I'm gonna close this early and salt the article. Any objections? Tan | 39 15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

B-but ... but if you delete this, we'll lose the delightful text, It offers enterprise software to help other companies improve the customer experience of their customers.

Aw, what the hell, go ahead and delete it. I hope they do better for the customers than they do for the readers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Selenski

Hugo Selenski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Hugo Selenski" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

There's not a lot of coverage here. The article is only about his crimes, so as is so often the case, we don't have a biography, we have an article on crimes. I checked Google news and there was a court date in July. Got an article for each of the the first two days, but that's it. I can't find where the jury decided, nothing about a verdict. Maybe it's Google-fail on my part, but I'm just not seeing it. Appears to fail WP:PERP. Lara 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I am puzzled that a BLP violation was left in the first sentence of the article, even as someone looked at it and presumably did the WP:BEFORE research before nominating it. Of the present refs, one from a TV station. which only links to present news and not a story about the subject of the article, and a broken link to CNN coverage. The local TV station has some historical coverage of Selenski at [18]. That coverage says he was not convicted of the original murder charges but convicted of abusing corpses by burning the bodies [19] and convicted in July 2009 of home invasion in 2003 [20], and that he still faces charges for 2 murders. Just not seeing that WP:BIO is satisfied, and it seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. If he is eventually convicted of some murders, or gets secondary coverage, or has some enduring societal effects, an article could be recreated. Even with 1190 news stories since 2003, it still seems like routine crime and punishment. Edison (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I edit conflicted with you while making changes to the article, but I didn't realize it until several minutes later, after I returned to that tab. To be clear, the whole article was a BLP violation at that point, considering no link in the article was active and the article is wholly negative. That's why we need a CSD option for blatant BLP violations. Lara 18:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see enough coverage to pass WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the excellent arguments above. RMHED 18:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the additional information from recent GNews articles, including [21]. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adam pauley

Adam pauley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Adam pauley" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Contested PROD. The article creator's comment while removing the PROD template was "I object to the deletion of this article as person is a part of greater national issue (violence in environmental movements) and is thus valuable." But, I could not see any evidence of notability for the subject. I think this is a clear case WP:NOTNEWS Salih (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Seems to be a guy who got drunk and crashed a protesters party. The minimal coverage at even the local level (i.e. a couple of column inches in the local police blotter) seems to indicate that this isn't notable even locally. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete despite the article's assertion that he's "notable for making death threats to mountain-top removal activists while in public", the sourcing seems to be a police blotter and youtube. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Worse things are said by drunks at bars in any big town every week. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N. Edison (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above; I see no notability here. ~SpK 22:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wicked (2011 film)

Wicked (2011 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Wicked (2011 film)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This isn't an album so it doesn't apply directly but this is a WP:HAMMER type candidate. Just way too early. Essentially all we have is a title and filming dates with no sourcing. And even the filming dates are ridiculous (15 months?). Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 14:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above: no verification that principal photography has started. Cliff smith ^talk 23:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• As I've written in other AfDs, delete because this was created too early. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Can we not use Wikipedia as a predictor of the future? miranda 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Evo street racers

Evo street racers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Evo street racers" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable organisation by a WP:SPA and WP:COI user, fail WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N guidelines Donnie Park (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep good amount of google news hits to establish notability, the other reasons the nom give are only reasons to improve, and not delete the article UltraMagnus^speak 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Unfortunately, Evo Street Racing meets the criteria of WP:ORG [22], [23] (Note that the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution "Evo" will give you a lot of false Google hits). However, this page requires close attention. Representatives from this group have made many COI edits in order to advertise themselves on Wikipedia [24]. The website itself is filled with dubious claims and boasts exaggerating the importance of Evo Street Racing. [25], [26]. They also claim to be a reliable source of statistical reports using numbers and methods known only to them. [27]. I don't think Evo Street Racers is necessarily evil or anything; I think that perhaps they believe so strongly in the good of their mission that they are willing to bend rules and play with the truth a little. --Dbratland (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. To be honest, I think rather than keep article which is in a poor state (more like a spam article than anycyclopedic which is what this article should be), we are better off deleting this and start with a clean sheet...is that what none of you think about - all you can think about is notability for a spam article which once all these are removed, you are left with very little left in this article.

IMO, User:ELandry1979 need to be told to keep his hands away from this and other related articles, if not he should be indefinitely blocked for a good measure so he can keep his hands away from having anything to spam. Donnie Park (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep With Revisions -- This is an established group with a good amount of media and other resources available on an at least modest pop-culture topic, so it would seem a tad off to have it deleted. It's a lot more data than a stub or a smaller headline in a larger article should probably have, so merging also seems out. It could use a rewrite for neutrality and some clean-up. The open citations needs a resource asap and probably needs removal per WP:WEASEL. "The most" is far too subjective in this case. Also, the author's account seems pretty single-use and is limited to either this article or the broader topic (and references to this group there), that's a separate matter and obviously hasn't been abused for promotion. I'll look at the larger Street Racing article (it's flagged for cleanup anyway) and see if there's any obvious self-promotion. A little improvement and this article doesn't seem like anything to worry about, and some of the search results off Google are things written by Law Enforcement mentioning benefits the group has offered. Ha. Datheisen (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• That was the point I was recommending, I don't think it is worth keeping in this poor state, therefore it will need a clean sheet cleanup. What I did say was that it will need to be deleted then recreated with a clean sheet. I am willing to withdraw this nomination if all this cleanup can be done asap. Donnie Park (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Comment from the article's primary editor would be helpful in this regard to see what plans for changes would be. There is certainly no reason to delete the article with the tags addressed. I left a comment on the article's talk page about this, as well (in the section you created). Datheisen (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] J. Manny Santiago

J. Manny Santiago (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "J. Manny Santiago" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Autobio of a Puerto Rican author, pastor, and theologian. No evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- so far we only have his childhood: I cannot tell whewther he is NN or notable from what is there. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I've sent a note to the editor that created and has been working on this to see if the article is a candidate to be userfied. I wish we would not jump all over new editors with deletion notices, particularly when the article is not a blatant advertisement. There was zero effort to use WP:BEFORE such as querying the person on their, or the article's, talk page about what makes the person notable and then asking about available references. Ideally they decide for themselves that the subject is not notable. Newbies need guidance and not doors slammed in their faces. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Being a pastor does not confer notability. Nothing indicates that this article satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David A. Kaiser

David A. Kaiser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "David A. Kaiser" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Executive editor of a non-notable minor journal. Does not appear to meet criteria for WP:PROF. Serious CoI issues as subject is a heavily involved editor of this article and others within a walled garden related to his career. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I say go ahead with this because of the potential problems this could face unless someone else writes it also notability doesn't seem to exist either. 216.40.74.37 (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Here is his CV. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Kaiser is listed as " senior editor" The ed-in-chief or equivalent of a notable journal is so clearly notable that merely being one is taken for proof of notability in WP:PROF. The journal is published by Taylor & Francis, a reputable but not outstanding publisher. However, although the Journal of Neurotherapy does make it as notable (It's been published since 1995, and is listed in Scopus and other selective indexing services, which are key criteria) , it would be unreasonable to consider it a "major" journal. As for Kaiser otherwise, most of his articles listed in Scopus are essentially short editorials in the journal he edits. Of other papers. the citation count is 23, 16, 3 ,2, ... , which speaks for itself. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as this doesn't really seem to be a major journal in any sense, as DGG says, and as the subject doesn't really appear to meet any of the other criteria for WP:PROF. If anything, the CV posted above would seem to argue against it. (Setting aside the COI issues entirely, as the article appears to have been edited down to a reasonable tone). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Per observations by DGG. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
• Delete I can't help but agree with all of the above. --Sidonuke (talk :: contribs) 06:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I also agree with DGG's careful reasoning. --Crusio (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - i agree with nom and dgg. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Whirling Dervish (Film)

The Whirling Dervish (Film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Whirling Dervish (Film)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable short film. Article written by the director using an account named after the company. Originally prodded, but prod removed along with the maintenance tags by obvious sock of the creator. ↪REDVERS ^{I dreamt about stew last night} 12:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines at WP:NOTFILM. The only sources are from IMDb, and I can't locate any coverage that shows this film is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Don't Delete: needs more time, accepted to film festivals —Preceding unsigned comment added by GBehrens89 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and Userfy to author. Yes... it needs more time... but Wikipedia is not here to promote the film nor about waiting until it gets coverage. Let it hit the festivals and get some nice reviews and then bring it on back. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Concepts and Controversies in Islam

Concepts and Controversies in Islam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Concepts and Controversies in Islam" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Completely unsourced and unnecessary amalgamation of topics covered by several other articles, some of which are Islam, Criticism of Islam, Women in Islam, Jihad, etc. Think this was made in good faith, but nonetheless. Peter Deer (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, articlce has no original information not already covered in other articles. There does not seem to be an reason to re-cover topics here from other articles. Incidentally, it is unsourced. WackoJackO 13:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as there's no need to have an unsourced article that redundantly presents information in poor detail. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no particular merit to this article's content and treatment and "Concepts and Controversies in Foo" is not consistent with how we organize information. Doesn't seem to be anything worth merging from here, we have other articles that cover these topics. Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Why does this feel like someone is trying to troll Islam? Delete because it is unsourced, redundant, and possibly NPOV. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Let me find out and I will appreciate if some one can give me some clue as to how can I do that, so far whatever I have done is through hit and try method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.39.192 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, POV duplicate of Controversies related to Islam and Muslims and a few other articles. MuffledThud (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - recreation of page deleted via AFD with no susbstantial changes or claim of notability. Speedy deleted. ^Khukri 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stavrion Lako

Stavrion Lako (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Stavrion Lako" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No improvement since the article was deleted 13 days ago. Still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Spiderone 11:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 11:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Under G4 recreation of page deleted via AfD. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I have tagged this for a speedy deletion, hopefully an admin will accept it and delete it. GiantSnowman 12:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per above.WackoJackO 13:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "C" Is for (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference HERE)

"C" Is for (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference HERE) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: ""C" Is for (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference HERE)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

An unreleased EP with no reliable sources and very few ghits[28]. Fails the notability criteria at WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. A previous prod and redirect were reverted. JD554 (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into the section in Puscifer .WackoJackO 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Delete - Already has it's own section in the Puscifer article. Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant entire article. WackoJackO 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, and not even complete enough to start an article on. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball: there's no references that discuss the subject, hence no need for an article Bfigura ^(talk) 17:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect: to Puscifer#"C" Is for (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference HERE). Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• People, it's about the same amount of info as for "D" Is For Dubby - The Lustmord Dub Mixes article, and no one said a word when I first created that page. It's a new EP, it needs a page. In addition, there is now a confirmed track listing and release date, plus references. Please relax and just leave it, for the love of christ. Ryan-S79 (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This discussion isn't about "D" Is For Dubby, that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You haven't said how "C" is for ... meets the notability criteria at WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Um, it's an upcoming EP release. There is also an article for Puscifer's first EP. It has a confirmed release date. It has a track listing. It has cover art. What more does it need, a pot of gold at the end? Ryan-S79 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you read any of the links I've provided? WP:NALBUMS states "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Just because it's going to be released doesn't mean it is notable. --JD554 (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Guess what? All previous Puscifer releases came directly from Maynard's Puscifer website, with no independent sources, and no other pages have had any contention like this. Go, merge, delete, whatever the fuck you want. It will be up again in less than a month. Jesus fuckin' Christ.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan-S79 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yowser. I suggest you take a breather on this matter, and take a read of WP:CIVIL too. I have gone through the article on Puscifer's releases and tagged for notability/refs where necessary. Cheers for the heads up on that. Rehevkor ✉ 14:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not established - unlikely to ever pass NALBUMS regardless. Rehevkor ✉ 14:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PMP HQ

PMP HQ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "PMP HQ" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable software product spam by SPA. No reliable sources, only self-published press releases. Could not find sources on Google. Haakon (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7 - Delete - this article about an organisation does not assert its notability. The mere fact that something exists and is spoken about does make it notable - it must be discussed by reliable independent sources in the context of its notability. See WP:EXIST and WP:MILL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not an article about an organisation, however, but about a product. I was under the impression that software articles could not be speedied. Haakon (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, was confused by the lead-in sentence, which probably should include "is an item of software". I thought the article topic was the maker of the software, not the software itself. In that case, regular old delete for the reasons I already put above. (I've accordingly performed a small tidy of the article's lead in paragraph to add the word "software" and remove many of the peacock terms.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      • You're right, the old opening was very ambiguous and now I'm not sure myself anymore. Also noticed that the old lead was a copyright violation of [29]. Haakon (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
        • From an author of the article - we released this software just a week ago and naturally most information about it was taken from our press release. If you guy think it's written much like advertisement please help us edit it to make more neutral or give your input and we would be happy to edit it. As of sources please take a look at [30] Zhadina (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • This is an admission of copyright infringement, of conflict of interest, and of non-notability since this is a freshly released product. Note that press releases are not reliable sources, nor are sources you have to pay $9.95 to read. Haakon (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
            • How could it be admission of copyright infringement for own copyright on the original text in any case thanks to DustFormsWords (talk) article does not contain sentences from that article anymore, same goes to the conflict of interest issue Zhadina (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
            • By the way, why being a "for fee" makes source unreliable? --Zhadina (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost, it appears that I have a FUTON bias. Sorry. Haakon (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
              • More sources [31] and [32] Zhadina (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
                • The first source is a press release and the second link is only a paragraph of the article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Also WP:BURDEN. Haakon (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 15:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fits the profile: a project management and collaboration software product aimed at small and medium size businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • if you look at List of project management software 99% of the list will fall under that definition of non-notability Zhadina (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, and every single one of them imagines that they rate a general interest encyclopedia article, despite the very restricted consumer base for that sort of thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      • "very restricted consumer base" I would disagree with that as SMBs makes about 90% of US and I think world business and therefore constitute huge customer base. On the other hand amount of page reads for such lists also demonstrates significant interest for such information from general public making it worth having in wikipedia. Zhadina (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree. I will try to sift through them as time allows. Meanwhile, other stuff existing does not make PMP HQ notable. Haakon (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - thanks to Zhadina for commenting but he/she argues against her own case. If the software was only released last week, it's almost certainly non-notable unless somehow in that week it's set the world afire and transfigured software creation, the financial world, or society generally. Which it plainly hasn't done. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks to DustFormsWords for editing the article and making it more neutral. As of product being new and such please see my comment below with reference to WP:NN --Zhadina (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Two more sources citing PMP HQ [33] and [34] Zhadina (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Those are both trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Not exactly true as web2review reputable peer review site Zhadina (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.152.43 (talk)
      • A listing page is not significant coverage per Wikipedia's notability guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Per WP:EXIST two independent sources are sufficient evidence of notability "In order to be notable, you need to be mentioned in more than one independent reliable source, such as two different unsolicited news articles" therefore reference cited provide good evidence of notability of the subject matter as defined in the guideline cited Zhadina (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.152.43 (talk)
        • Per WP:NN quotes as follows "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." therefore I believes subject matter is admissible under this criteria. --Zhadina (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: — Zhadina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Looks notable enouph per google search larin [22:55, 15 October 2009] (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.214.26 (talk • contribs)
  • Not per WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually [larin] is right as per WP:NN and Per WP:EXIST (see above) --Zhadina (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: — 190.155.214.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks to Joe Chill and UltraMagnus for the input but also a little request: could you please provide an argument not only state something like "Not per WP:N" as prescribed by WP:ATA --Zhadina (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Google returns enough relevant results. --95.37.250.100 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: — 95.37.250.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, it is distinctive software product description. But why have we threat it as a spam? Kolam (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: — 195.182.157.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, forgot to log in. Kolam (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment To Haakon number of edits by comment author is irrelevant to the subject matter. Please keep it to the point of discussion. Thank you. --Zhadina (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It is relevant to the closing admin. Haakon (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Closing admin has this information without help of posts here. In any case it's clear that there is no consensus on subject matter which is required by WP:AFD --Zhadina (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
      • If you weigh the comments of single-purpose users the same as those of established Wikipedians, then yes, there is currently no clear consensus. This, however, is not how comments are usually weighed. Haakon (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Then I would like to note that subject article was edited by Avono and DustFormsWords --Zhadina (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. Haakon (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
            • It should remove issues of "copyright infringement, of conflict of interest" cited by you. Also per WP:AFD constitutes support for the article: "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination." --Zhadina (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per Zhadina references and quotations --68.160.5.107 (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: — 68.160.5.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note more references citing subject [35], [36] and [37] --Zhadina (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • These look like more trivial mentions on the press release level. The second one is another copy from [38], which is already cited. The third one just has a link to the first one, and the first one I can't evaluate since it costs money. Haakon (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Not exactly true about second as Crunchbase does not contain any press releases at all and never did. You can find out more about it at TechCrunch --Zhadina (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't say they were press releases. Haakon (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
        • You said it's a copy of some other article which it's not. --Zhadina (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
          • No, I said it's a copy from another article. [39] consists of a paragraph from [40] and nothing more. Haakon (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete, as a shameless self-promotion and aggressive marketing, with strong suspection of sock puppets in this discussion. Article still fails to establish any notability, subject software is released a week ago. --GreyCat (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If I would be you I would refrain from such an allegations without some kind of proof which naturally does not exist WP:BITE. --Zhadina (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - The sources offered in the article consist solely of press release or press release rehashes. The sources offered in the discusson consist of more press releases and press release rehashes and directory entries. Despite the length of this disucssion, there are no reliable sources providing any significant coverage about this software to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The company behind this product has attempted to solicit "voters" to this AfD debate: [41] Haakon (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tavastia Club

Tavastia Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Tavastia Club" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

fails WP:ORG , hardly any third party coverage [42]. I would reconsider if someone can find substantial coverage in Finnish. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Chances are someone will restart the article if it gets deleted. Tavastia is undisputably the most famous rock music club in Finland, and of serious cultural value. Here is an extensive article on the club's history from the biggest newspaper in Northern Europe, Helsingin Sanomat, titled "On the forefront of rock for three decades: Tavastia has seen anything from Hanoi Rocks to HIM". The article has numerous inbound links, and pages like Eppu Normaali and most of the bands from Finnish rock could well be added in the future. I can take some time to expand this article if the Helsingin Sanomat write-up qualifies as a realiable source, even if the information can not be directly verified by an English-speaker. --hydrox (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources in Finnish are perfectly acceptable, but there are also plenty available in English. Simply by following the Google Books link above you can see amongst the search results, "the most visible emporium for rock 'n' roll is Tavastia" and "the most important rock club on the national level is the Tavastia club". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep a search shows many sources to establish notability of this club. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Prabhat Das Foundation

Dr Prabhat Das Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Dr Prabhat Das Foundation" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Per discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard it was established that this article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest with the intent to promote the organization. As to the subject itself, it fails WP:CORP as it does cannot establish notability with reliable sources. All references in the article are to the company's web site, and while it claims notability by showing scans of newspapers, nobody has yet been able to translate such photos and in the past web sites have been known to alter scanned images of publications as evidence of their notability (see this AfD for a recent example). Absent real sources this organization does not merit inclusion (and a number of searches have failed to find any). -- Atama頭 06:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 06:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 06:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete blatant self promotion. nothing in gnews [43]. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete failing some shocking revelation about the sources, fails WP:CORPs. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No sources apart from own web site. Fails WP:ORG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for the lack of notability and reliable sources. Salih (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no signs that the charity meets WP:CORP, no gnews hits and only ~3000 google hits. Smartse (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete seems to fail WP:ORG. No mention in reliable sources, and only sources cited are self promotional references. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Google did not return sufficient results to prove notability. COI editors/promotional. NN. Netalarmtalk 01:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Some Facts related to the article Dr Prabhat Das Foundation:

  I am surprised to see that some editors are pushing for a hasty deletion of this article. Before deleting we must do some research to find whether this topic is notable & the information is reliable or not. I have done some research & these are the findings:-

  1) Notability: I am a native of Bihar, India, living in USA. My mother tongue is Hindi & I read Hindi newspapers daily. Though I am a fan of Wikipedia, this is my first contribution. I can well remember dozens of third party & reliable references related to this organization. Majority of natives of Bihar (with population of 50 million) are at least familiar with the name of this charity organization. This organization very well meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia.

  Also, when I was going through this article I noted that some of important facts (that are supported by reliable, secondary sources) were deleted (why?) by the editor Cameron Scott. This organization has volunteers more than ten thousand (there is reference to an American newspaper front page article with this heading ), and this whole fact with its reference was deleted by this editor (later brought back by a contibutor). This seems inapropriate haste in deletion! Similarly he deleted the mention of the fact that more than 300 libraries-community centers are run by this organization! Cameron Scott should have put a ‘citation needed’ tag & should not have removed these important facts that are some proofs of its notability.

  I have also visited the website of this organization & found that there are hundreds of reliable, secondary sources (mainly in Indian languages -Hindi , Urdu & Maithili- newspapers, perodicals, magazines etc. As a daily Hindi newspapers reader I could recognise several of them and they are real, reliable & from reputed (Hindi) publications.

  2) Conflict of interest: One editor Atama, who is hastily pushing for its deletion, has posted some information regarding this article that are not correct. For example, to quote him, “per discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard it was established that this article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest with the intent to promote the organization.” I have reviewd the whole discussion & links with neutrality. This mentioned editor has noted “I, Prakashkanth (this is also my real name) …..am actively involved in this organization; but there is absolutely no conflict of interest as all the information added by me are facts, well referenced in this article & objectively verifiable by reliable, secondary sources.” This is not a proof of conflict of interest, especially when this contributor is not hiding any thing (not even his name!) & has no financial relation with this organization. The only thing is that probably he knows about this organization more than we know & is contributing this information to Wikipedia. For example, as citizen of India, if I contibute to the aricle related to India, it will not automatically prove that I have conflict of interest. In fact majority of the articles in Wikipedia are contibuted by people who are well familier with those topics. Reviewing all these facts I don’t think that this contibutor has any real conflict of interest.

  3) Reliable, secondary sources: The English speaking editors of the Wikipedia should know that majority of people on our planet do not speak english. The mother tongue of about 500 million people is Hindi. If a source is in Hindi it does not make it less reliable! Comments by one editor who seems in very haste to delete this article ( Atama ) is surprizing “…scans of newspapers, nobody has yet been able to translate such photos and in the past web sites have been known to alter scanned images…” He is stating that nobody can translate & understand Hindi! He is also implying that fraud is involved because he himself can not read Hindi. These statements by this editor questions his intention.

  After checking the website of this organization I found that this is essentially an Indian organization NGO, though the founders are in USA, and it is also registered in USA. In fact this was very clear in this article till Cameron Scott deleted this basic information, (again, why?).

  One of the editor who has written about this article just couple of days ago; -“But considering how long the article has been around, and how many editors have worked on it, I have the feeling that it would be rejected because the article can be "cleaned up".”—is now suddenly pushing for its deletion! (why?)

  Wikipedia, though very popular in English speaking world is rarely used by Hindi speaking peoples. But that does not mean that Hindi or other non-English citations should be disregarded. And, if you search on google (the English language search engine) to find Hindi article you will certainly find none! I think that editors of Wikipedia should not have bias against non-English languages.

  --Barnabas2009 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC) — Barnabas2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• A newspaper clipping is still a newspaper clipping even if it's scanned onto the subject's home page. The crux of the matter is that this article will be kept or not based on the quality of the available Hindi sources, as there aren't any English ones. There's also the matter of all the associated images: ideally they want to be on Commons in any case, assuming that we can verify the author. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  Ummm, while I'm at it, while GNews doesn't seem to have anything (possibly because it only searches a finite set of English sources?), Gsearch itself has a few. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  Comment - I understand that a clipping is as good as an online source, but I just wanted to point out that we have been "tricked" in the past. Personally, I believe that a charity is far less likely to post altered self-promotional images than a fringe science author who is using Wikipedia for advertising, but I thought it important to bring up the possibility. -- Atama頭 18:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed. And on that same note, it is quite possible that even when articles are getting subject to canvassing, meatpuppetry et cetera it's important to remain objective. In this case I think it's a bit less open-and-shut than this AfD appears at first glance. Had I any faith at all in the process in question I'd be tempted to stick a {{rescue}} tag on the article, but sadly that's basically just for articles on Pokemon or soap opera characters these days. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep – This is a tough one, as the article is promotional and there is a COI issue. But the main question as far as deletion is concerned is whether this foundation is notable. Again, it's tough, because the sources are not easily accessible to most of us. And yes, we've been scammed before, but I'd like to assume good faith and not conclude it's a scam until I've seen some evidence. There seems to be this idea on Wikipedia that a source is not verifiable unless you can bring it up on your computer screen. I'd like to think that libraries and newspapers still have a place in the repository of human knowledge. So I'm going to give considerable weight to Barnabas2009's assertion that these are in fact reliable, verifiable (to him at least), secondary sources. I'd still like to see more confirmation, but until someone shows me evidence that these scans are manipulated, or that the scanned articles are coming from other than mainstream, reliable sources, I'm going to have to say that they do demonstrate notability. Rees11 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Can you read the scans? Do they cover the subject in a significant manner, per WP:N? Even if we assume that the articles are genuine, if they are only bare mentions of the foundation or puff-pieces then they still don't show notability. For example, look at this reference, do you see where only small portions of the article are highlighted? That could be due to those portions of the article being particularly significant, but those could also be because those are the only places where the foundation is mentioned. If we can't verify the content of the articles then how can we say that notability is established? Remember, we don't assume a subject is notable until proven otherwise, rather the opposite. I posted this AfD in the Indian deletion sorting list in the hope that someone who can actually read those articles might provide that identification to help make this a more informed deletion discussion, so I'm not biased against non-English sources. If those articles were online I could use Google Translate or some other software to do the verification. But I can't. Also, we don't even know what these newspapers are in most cases, the reference I linked is referred to in the article as "Hindi newspapers". Imagine if it was a source in English, and the reference in the article was only called "English newspaper". -- Atama頭 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I'll say, also, that among the English language articles being used, the NewsIndiaTimes paper does seem to be a reliable source, a story written in a legitimate magazine by a journalist that significantly covers the organization. The India Tribune "article" is clearly a press release, not a reliable source. One reference alone generally isn't sufficient for establishing notability. More articles like the NewsIndiaTimes article would do it though. -- Atama頭 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on those points, I just don't want the article deleted simply because the sources are not all in English or published in the NYT. I'd very much like to hear more opinion from people who can read the sources and comment on their reliability. Rees11 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a general question. The foundation's web site is showing scans of newspaper and magazine articles, presumably works that have copyrights to them (as published works). I doubt that the organization has received permission to do so. Does linking to such material violate WP:COPYLINK? I don't ask this in an attempt to "shut down" the references, but as a legitimate concern. I'm not an expert on our copyright rules so it may not be a problem. -- Atama頭 23:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I'm going with keep now for a few reasons (although not a strong keep). This appears to be a contentious AfD, so I'll provide a more elaborate rationale:
  • Ref #1 shows that the organization is not large enough to have done anything notable yet.
  • Ref #2 & #3 show existence
  • Ref #4 is more of a PR exercise in a local Indian-American website, so that's sub-local website (direct link to article)
  • Ref #5 Press release
  • Ref #6 Again press release in a sub-local website. See banner language on homepage. Even if it the article isn't a press release, it's clearly not RS.
  • Ref #7 is coverage regarding a program in a news magazine. The magazine website is here, I'm unable to find much info about the magazine itself, other than that it's a state wide publication.
  • Ref #8 Not a reference
  • Ref #9 same notes as ref #7
  • Ref #10 has three different clippings of non-trivial coverage. One of them is from Dainik Jagran, a reputable Hindi publication.
  • Ref #11 includes both trivial and non-trivial coverage in newspapers. I can't say which newspapers though.
  • Ref #12 includes clips from this publication. IMO, it should be treated as a primary source.
• In addition, there's also this from Yahoo! News that I found. It's not about the organization, but it goes beyond trivial. Given all this, I think the org passes our notability criteria. -SpacemanSpiff 00:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A reporter for ref #7 was shot and killed for investigating government corruption, so I'm guessing it's a reliable source, or at least not fluff.[44] Rees11 (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep I have gone through this organization's website. This organization seems quite notable at least in the Bihar region of India. There are clippings of several articles / newses that are from regional & national, reputable Hindi publications. I think Hindi speaking contibutors can improve the list of references in this article a lot.--LionTiger999 (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC) — LionTiger999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }

• Keep per SpacemanSpiff. I'm assuming good faith on the scanned articles, and hoping that someday reliable mainstream non-English sources are given as much or more weight than a low number of oft-trivial "G-hits". Priyanath ^talk 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• weak Keep if there is solid documentation for the number of voluneeers, preferably not based on a press release. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - the organization is hard to reference by virtue of its location (with language and technological limitations), but that doesn't make it deletion-worthy. Several outside sources are referenced, even though they are hosted on the organization's own website. By my investiagtion, none of those sources have websites of their own that could possibly host the articles otherwise. - Draeco (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Whitney Mutch

Whitney Mutch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Whitney Mutch" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Online news archive search turns up only a mention of student award at school. Single reference given lists only that subject is running for office, and candidates for office are not inherently notable. WP:ORPHAN article. Prod contested by author. MuffledThud (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Just being a candidate in itself doesn't satisfy notability criteria and there's nothing else there that does. Also on a procedural point, creators of articles shouldn't remove prod templates, they should contest them. Valenciano (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I created the article, and removed the notice, since I updated the article to include notability, and according to the notice, I should remove it if I do. Sorry for overstepping procedure. Llamabr (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually you did nothing wrong; anyone can contest a prod by removing the notice. I think Valenciano might be thinking about CSD, which should not be removed by the article creator. Tim Song (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't know that the CSD and Prod situations were different. Valenciano (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't find any news coverage of her candidacy. I was wondering if she'll even be 30 before she'd take office, but it appears she will (assuming she wins). --Milowent (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nom nailed this one. Ray^Talk 03:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Another Comment The article is not an orphan, since she's also listed in United States Senate election in Florida, 2010. So maybe for my education, if being one of two women running, and running, and not being orphaned do not make one notable, what does? Llamabr (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hello, llamabr. Is there any news coverage of her candidacy? She certainly should be listed in United States Senate election in Florida, 2010, but without out any coverage of her, its kind of hard to have a verifiable article and show the notability of her individually. Pretty much anyone (at least age 30 at time of oath) can file to run for the U.S. Senate, so filing to run by itself, and being of the female persuasion, isn't much to go on.--Milowent (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Being a candidate in a general election isn't sufficient, in and of itself, to confer notability on a person who loses the election and isn't already notable for other things — and she's not even that yet, she's merely a candidate in the party primary. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The comments by JzG and slakr are particularly insightful. There is a very real risk of "guilt by association," notable disbarments can be covered in specific biographies (perhaps with a category), and having a list solely for lawyers seems to unnecessarily introduce bias into the encyclopedia as a whole. The voting was pretty close, but given the sensitive nature of this article (especially the demonstrable fact that it has been a BLP issue) moves me to close as delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of disbarred lawyers

List of disbarred lawyers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of disbarred lawyers" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

BLP is a big concern here. Only five entries are referenced, not sure what the quality of those refs are, but what's the encyclopedic aspect of this? If this is somehow kept, the "Have a credible source citing his disbarment (either in his article or in a note here)" should be changed to require a credible source in this list. Lara 05:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The focus of this article is negative, and contentious. Also gives undue weight. There is no biographical or encyclopaedic value. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. i think WP is better off with this material in the body of the articles on the lawyers, fully and accurately referenced, and as a category, which already exists. this is not adding anything important, and would be the biggest possible magnet for BLP violations, esp. if a non-disbarred lawyer was listed. that would simply be the WORST THING IN THE WORLD for WP, if you think about it. (these comments still true, but superceded by Childofmidnights name change below, im inclined towards keep only if name change and rigorous watching done)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What does changing the name fix? Who gets disbarred other than lawyers? The name change is completely pointless and does nothing to address any issues. Lara 15:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Overall this list is not encyclopedic, but more troubling is the non-neutral aspect of the individual entries. Kevin (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - largely unencyclopedic, plus the lack of references makes it a BLP issue. Given the nature of the subject, the references would need to be impeccable - Alison ^❤ 10:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Impossible to make this article balanced. No encyclopedic value as is, and impossible to complete. delete as not a good use of our time. Plus per BLP concerns. ++Lar: t/c 11:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment From the all the comments above is it not really time to create Wikipedia:Encyclopaedic value? "Encyclopaedic value" is a circular argument whereby EV is in the eye of the beholder or the last refuge of the scoundrel, depending upon your POV on any particular topic. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this coatrack for lawyer-hate. In the unlikely event this is kept at AfD, it needs to be renamed "List of disbarred American lawyers".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not sure how the article got into its current state; when I first created it it had a large number of famous historical cases of disbarment from various countries dating back to the 17th century. However, to address some of the concerns raised here:
  • Negative focus. The focus of this article is no more "negative" than those we maintain for other notable (suspected) miscreants, such as Impeachment investigations of federal Judges or the lists in Category:Lists of criminals.
  • BLP concerns. The BLP concerns are the same as with the aforementioned articles, and are avoidable if the material is properly sourced. I would say that if, in the present article, any particular disbarment summary is seen as overly negative or biased, then it should simply be reworded, if possible by quoting from the original ruling or from newspapers of record.
  • Contentious material. The material is not "contentious"; disbarment either demonstrably happened or it didn't. According to legal records it can be definitely established whether it happened, where it happened, and for what cause.
  • Notability. Disbarment for otherwise public figures (such as those already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article) is rare and almost always notable in itself; mainstream news and historical sources typically give such events coverage, and many disbarred lawyers are often referred to as such so often that it becomes a notable aspect of their character.
  • Impossible to complete. Whoever raised this concern is generalizing the scope of the article far outside of Wikipedia's notability guideline. Of course the goal of the article is not to list every disbarment in history; rather, it is meant to list disbarments of notable lawyers (or notable disbarments of otherwise unnotable lawyers, though I doubt there are any such cases).

I think this addresses all the objections. And if we could add back the notable historical cases deleted from the article, and find some references for them, the article would be in a much more encyclopedic and useful state. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or strip to historically notable disbarrments. BLP magnet, and seems to focus only on US lawyers at present. May be better as a category. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We do have a category, but there is no such thing as having to choose between a category or a list. Both formats work for someone, and which one works better is a matter of opinion. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - clearly unacceptable and unencyclopaedic as a list - I note Psychonaut's defence but I am not persuaded that this list does anything more than increase the already huge potential for BLP controversy - and perhaps as CML states that would be less so if made into a Category. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: perhaps "Category of lawyers who have been disbarred"? Emphasise that lawyers in the list may not be currently disbarred. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep per excellent Psychonaut arguments. It is a very well made list which contains sourced and interesting information, as such it is not redundant with a category. It has also been massively reduced without apparent strong reasons just around the AfD nomination, so please check previous versions to make your mind up. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (albeit too late to make a difference). Honestly, since we have categories called "Disbarred lawyers" and "Disbarred American lawyers", and WP:BLP concerns about negativity don't make sense to me. Disbarment is a matter of public record, and the state bar associations and the state supreme courts make no attempt to hide the fact that an attorney has has had his or her license revoked. In fact, every licensing agency considers it very important that the public be made aware if someone has lost the right to practice. That a person has lost the right to practice law is, plain and simple, a matter of cold hard fact, not a matter of opinion. Should we avoid mention of criminal convictions or license revocations because it's "negative"? I agree that this should be (and so far is) limited to notable attorneys. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • We are not a phone book. Or a guide to legal services. Or the Better Business Bureau. What is the encyclopedic use for thbis information, organized as a list? You want to mention that Bill Clinton got disbarred in his article? Fine, if it's sourced. But what use is this list? Other than as a coatrack/attack, that is. As for "WP:BLP concerns about negativity don't make sense to me" <--- that doesn't make sense to me. If you're not concerned about BLP, and the impact unbalanced reporting has on innocent victims, I'm thinking you're confused. ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Lar, please WP:AGF. What kind of "coatrack" or "attack" there is in plain information 1)covered by WP:WELLKNOWN, which is BLP policy even if everyone seems to forget it 2)referring also to 18th-century lawyers (see history of the page)? Come on, you can disagree, but you cannot demote every page which sources some negative informaton as a "coatrack/attack". The list -more so in its original state was incredibly informative and of value. It is interesting for sure to know how and why notable lawyers in history have been disbarred. And you are misunderstanding the comment above, I think. One thing is being concerned about BLP in general, another think is to say that there is reason to be concerned here -which seems not the case. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Rule of thumb: whoever first mentions AGF is often the one who isn't assuming it. Not always but that's the way to bet. I have no issue with this: F._Lee_Bailey#Disbarment ... it's well sourced, and it's in the biography of a well known person, and that biography is balanced. But why does it need to be in a list? I don't think we need lists like this. What encyclopedic purpose do they serve that isn't served by the information in the article itself? You're answering with WP:ILIKEIT based reasons, which just don't fly. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm wondering whether you believe that the two categories should be deleted. "I don't think we need lists like this" may mean the opposite of WP:ILIKEIT, or it may mean that putting that type of label on an attorney's article may be unnecessarily harsh, and that it shouldn't be a category label or something mentioned on a list. I can understand if it's the latter; some would say that the loss of a career doesn't need to be compounded with a scarlet letter (for instance, I don't think we have a category called Category: Adulterers (<--that's 18 scarlet letters). Mandsford (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Categories are not lists, per se. But I'm not seeing the encyclopedic need for the category either... perhaps a CfD is in order once this matter is resolved as a delete. ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Ahah, so we can't ask for AGF because it means violating AGF? Funny. It was you tossing accusations of the article being an "attack" or "coatrack" without justification, and this looked like a bit of an attack on editors that sincerely created the article. But this is not very important. Let's come back to the matter: It's not a matter of ILIKEIT, it's more matter of answering the most classic of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments: "what is the encyclopedic use of X"? The answer is, all these arguments are POV almost by definition. But there's a way out of this POV: on WP have WP:GNG, which is all what we need to define "enciclopedicity". It is notable/it is sourced/is consistent with policies? If yes, it should stay. That's it -and WP:WELLKNOWN in fact acknowledges that. Within that, one must accept that what is not encyclopedic for you can be for someone else (and v/v). You "don't think we need lists like this". I think different -and so do, to my humble judgement, our guidelines and policies. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Your judgment is, in my judgment, not correct. This list, by definition, is unbalanced, it doesn't include lawyers who were incorrectly disbarred, for example. Disbarment is fine in an individual article, where it can be presented in context. But in a list, it's a coatrack. GNG isn't the applicable policy, BLP is. BLP requires balance. Which is lacking. Answer Lara's question. ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Lara's question about encyclopedicity, I've answered above: it's a misleading and POV-loaded question, because you answer using policies and guidelines, no more no less, you don't have to ask yourself anything else. Now: if it is unbalanced (and surely it can be) it means that you have to improve the article, not delete it, because deletion is not article cleanup. If someone has been incorrectly disbarred, it has obviously to be loudly and clearly included in the list entry (one could make a separate section for such cases). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per Psychonaut. It is not an incomplete listing of every disbarred lawyer, but a list only of notable ones. It is reasonable to ask for a ref for each in the article. They are either disbarred or not, and that is public record. (It is not like it was a "List of ambulance chasing lawyers" or "List of overweight lawyers.") If they got reinstated, that can be noted. or the name could be removed. We are not restricted to either category or list. There is no reason it could not be moved to List of disbarred U.S. lawyers. Different countries may have various terms and customs, and penalties which are not quite the same as disbarment in the U.S. Numerous names of extremely notable ones which were removed, such as former Vice President Spiro Agnew and President Richard Nixon should be restored to the present shrunken list. It is pretty easy to find a source for people like Nixon [45] or Agnew [46], [47]. For long-deceased persons, placing a "fact " tag requesting a cite is better practice than deleting the unreferenced text as NonvocalScream did in this edit [48] How are Nixon (died 1994) and Agnew (died 1996) "recently deceased" as the edit summary claims? Deletions such as those make the list look far less encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question What is the encyclopedic value of such a list? These disbarments are allegedly discussed in the articles, so why then do we need a list dedicated to listing these cases? What purpose does this serve that isn't accomplished with the categories? Lara 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• A category doesn't say why each element in the category has been disbarred, and doesn't give sources: a category therefore cannot be used as a quick reference about disbarring cases, but requires to check each article one by one. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Also: check WP:AOAL (and WP:DOAL, of course) to have quick pros and cons. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that we are cherry-picking a single event out of a life, and promoting it beyond where we would be allowed to if it were within a biography. Kevin (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? It is not within a biography. It is a list focused on that unfortunate aspect of their life, but it's not like we're saying this is the only interesting aspect of their life. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies equally to articles containing biographical material as to biographies themselves, so we have to honor the policy in this article as well. The top of that policy state the we must strictly adhere to maintaining a neutral point of view, which is not possible with such a narrowly focussed list. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: Major changes were made to the article beginning at 22:35, 14 October 2009, in order to remove unsourced entries and to add sources for the remaining ones.
• Keep. I generally agree with Psychonaut. Since general notability is assumed for membership on a list, we're not obliged to compile a list of non-notable lawyers who were disbarred. Lists and categories are complementary, so the argument that "this should just be a category" holds little weight. And, as noted by several above, to the extent that it's claimed that there are BLP issues with such a list, categories pose larger problems: lists are articles with references, categories are generated by tags. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well said Kevin. There is no problem with adding in an article suitable, referenced material relating to (in this case) disbarment. Adding it to a list in these circumstances is double dipping into the biography of the individual and painting them twice with the same brush - unfair, unnecessary, unwarranted and not encyclopaedic. Arguing for the lists inclusion based on this or that policy should only occur if we keep our eyes on the main question/prize - "Is this list of encyclopaedic value?" The answer must in my view be NO as it is a list that adds no more to the pedia and in effect limits the professionalism of the project.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. What is "encyclopaedic"/"unencyclopaedic" is your POV. If a list is informative, gives more informations than a category and it is not a mere trivial intersection, it can be of use to someone, and we shouldn't bar this someone to get this information collected and sourced in one place only because you don't like it. About the "professionalism" of this project, well, this is again matter of points of view. But given that fortunately we're not made of paper, this professionalism is in my opinion given also by the ingenuity and vastity of our coverage. Avoiding intentionally to present information in a compact, useful, referenceable way is not what I'd call professional. My point of view of course. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cyclopia - I wonder if you could please tone down your unfounded insinuations - and your apparent need to batter every opinion that does not concur with yours. My point of view comment above is hardly an "I don't like it" argument and for you to say so does not assist. I have given (as you have) an informed opinion in relation to where this encyclopedia should continue to be heading - thus your comment where you appear to manipulate my view into being a slight against mine is not appropriate. Put another way I am sure you would not appreciate my categorisation of your efforts as being I just like it comments. If you could remove the bit you have made up inclusive of the words ... only because you don't like it I would be most appreciative.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Virtual Steve. I am sorry if you found my comment heating. I however stand by its substance, even if maybe wording was a bit harsh -and I apologize for that. You basically said that the list "is not of encyclopedic value" and it "adds no more to the pedia". You didn't explain why, and "encyclopedic value" is a vague term which has no true definition. That's why it amounts -at least to my impression- to "not liking it" , at least until you explain the rationale your position. No insinuation therefore. The fact is: covering notable information and creating informative, non-trivial, non-directory-like lists is allowed by WP:GNG, WP:LIST, WP:NOT and other guidelines/policies; saying that you find something "not encyclopedic" instead has no grounds in policies and guidelines (unless you provide evidence or at least arguments of the contrary)

You're more than entitled to call my second argument on your professionalism comment "ILIKEIT" instead - in fact I started with: "this is again matter of point of view" and ended "My point of view of course" -both of our arguments should be of little use for the AfD.

I hope to have been more clear. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cyclopia - You say I didn't explain why I object to the keeping of this list, however it appears you have by accident or deliberately missed my detailed comment - made in the first part of this thread - I underline it for ease of vision There is no problem with adding in an article suitable, referenced material relating to (in this case) disbarment. Adding it to a list in these circumstances is double dipping into the biography of the individual and painting them twice with the same brush - unfair, unnecessary, unwarranted and not encyclopaedic.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, wait: I said you didn't explain why it was not encyclopedic and unprofessional -and all my discussion was about that (I happen to think that the "unencyclopedic!" card should be either sourced in policies/guidelines or absolutely avoided). I was perfectly aware you brought also another argument, and this, even if I disagree (see my comments to Kevin), was absolutely fine. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note - I have restored the state of the list as of the time of the AFD. Most of the list had been removed because it was not sourced, but the removed material is all easily sourceable, as far as I could determine - just go to the subject articles, and the sources are there. And BLP doesn't apply to many of the removed entries, as the subjects were long dead. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note (to all readers, not just Brianyoumans) - ANY material that is not sourced, whether positive or negative, about a living, or recently deceased person, is subject to removal under BLP, and removal of it is not subject to 3RR restrictions. Have you, Brian, reviewed what you restored before doing so, to make sure that you were not restoring any unsourced material about living or recently deceased persons? Those who say BLP applies only to biographical articles are sorely confused. This list is subject to BLP policy, and if you think differently you are playiing with fire. ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I now sourced (or removed if I couldn't quickly find sources) all living people cited in the list. A few long-dead fellows remain to be sourced. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Cyclopia: I happen to think your overall approach to BLP as well as your view on this specific matter is perhaps the most incorrect of any participant in this discussion so far. However I must give you full props for going in and putting sources in on all the living folk in the list (or removing those you could not find). While I remain (strongly!!!) convinced the list needs to go away, if more people responded that way to BLP concerns, by trying their best as they see matters to fix the problems, instead of saying "well, sources are out there, someone COULD add some if they wanted to", we'd have far less problematic BLPs. So thanks for that work. Sincerely. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks to you Lar: It really makes me feel good that, despite our differences, we can respect each other. My point of view on your BLP approach is, well, reciprocal :) -but indeed I cannot disagree on the fact that such information ,if unsourced, can be problematic. I hope this helps to understand each other better, without being mistaken anymore for a creature the Scandinavian folktales ;) --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I'd like to offer a little apology for blithely reinstituting the old version; I obviously didn't do enough checking before I did so. In my defense, I can say that Cyclopia was able to source a majority of the entries, and the remainder were largely cases where the lawyer had been suspended but not disbarred (Maddox, Kalmbach), or where there seems to be a widely-held assumption of disbarment, but no good source to say so (Liddy, Hall). I have also seen many articles deleted because they have been gutted, and no longer merit keeping. Brianyoumans (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • [EC] Yes - absolutely correct and I note that several of the names on the list (given the article status of the page at this time) are not sourced in any way. Indeed - for those promoting the value of this list - at least one on the list is not only unsourced but it is also a red-link - in effect the list is asking us to believe without any reference or even an article that George Lockhart was disbarred for disrespect to the court of session in advising an appeal to Parliament.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • That guy apparently is dead since more than a century. I will delete it or source it, but well, not a BLP problem probably. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Again Cyclopia - I did not say George was a BLP problem. Please?--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Again: I didn't say you said it. I was just making things clear for people reading the discussion :) --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Anyway, now I found the article (the wikilink was wrong) and sourced it (source weak, but it's a BDP, we have time to do better). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - BLP issues. IF the information is in the persons article, it would be better handled by a Catagory in this case. and Yes I know lists and Cats can live together, but grouping by Cat would solve any BLP issues. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you: A category without sources and explanations, which just lists people as disbarred is better, from the BLP point of view, of a list which is sourced, explains why and how the subject has been disbarred, and if he/she's been reinstated or if disbarment was wrong? I don't understand how can this make sense. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Citations and Reasons for their disbarment (and possible reinstatement) would be explained, in its entirety, in a Article. Whereas, this list would not have any of that information. The information you believe would stay in this list, I believe would be trimmed out as not being 'relevant'. Why should a list of disbarred lawyers list those that had been reinstated? That would be a completely different list, no? The Cat is the simplest way to group them all together, and still have the Whole story, not just a single cherrypicked event, giving to much weight, that would (eventually) explain nothing. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Psychonaut says why. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Leaning delete No real explanation for the categorization save some misconduct (alleged or confirmed) on the part of the subject. Very likely that subjects on the list will be notable largely by virtue of their disbarment (or by virtue of their conduct). Can't really see navigational value in it. If it were a regular list, this wouldn't necessarily be a compelling bunch of reasons to delete, but BLP concerns push me over. Protonk (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you which BLP concerns? Everything is sourced now, and there is a lot more value in it than a list -there are reasons of disbarment, if reinstated is notified, it is even sortable, etc. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I think selection generates the BLP problem. We have a list that's organized only by black marks on individuals (both non-public figures and public figures). What Lara (I think) is saying above is that our natural (on wikipedia) tendency to sort and present information comes into direct conflict with the fact that such an association and presentation is inherently biased. That an encyclopedic association and presentation would be dictated by features which aren't predominantly negative or if they are has some overriding reason to exist (e.g. List of dictators (though that has faced AfDs in the past and I'm not sure of the opinions of others there). In other words we have the informational capacity to source this list and collate these datapoints but we have a duty to refuse to do so. That's the BLP problem. Remember that sourcing is necessary for BLPs, not sufficient. I don't have this page watchlisted so if you want further elaboration or you want to contest a point just hit me up on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and that is the core of what I find profoundly dangerous with in the way many editors understand BLP. A presentation of mere sourced facts -without weasel words, without concealing relevant information etc., in summary, a NPOV-as possible presentation of mere facts is not biased by definition and I cannot understand how can the contrary hold. Neutrally presented facts are neutrally presented facts: no more, no less. It's not like this is "List of evil lawyers" or "List of well-deserved disbarments". It's just "List of disbarred lawyers": you can't get much more robotic than that. How can this be considered "biased" really escapes my understanding. You say "we have a duty to refuse to do so": I'd say we have a duty to NOT refuse to do so. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that's fair and I share your concern, but please try to visualize this as a continuum of opinions. There are editors who view BLP problems (broadly defined) as a black and white decision rule vis a vis deletion. There are other editors who view BLP problems as some component of deletion reasoning or as part of a weighting scheme. The point I'm making broadly is that we have the capacity to display this information but we have no requirement. You note that the list itself is NPOV. If we fail to agree on that starting point I can imagine how arguing over the later particulars would be unhelpful. So I'll try to offer some reasoning (beyond what I said already) why the list might not be NPOV. The act of inclusion onto a list is one of commission. Prior to the existence of this list articles contained information about the disbarment in proportion to its significance to the subject. After the creation of this list we have a collection of names linked by a common (usually negative) event. You note that the event itself is not inherently 'bad', but it is usually shameful and/or not positive. We could make the same article for List of adulterous politicians. The event itself shouldn't be expunged from wikipedia, but our architectural and social tendencies (on wikipedia) create a lean toward collecting the individual events and presenting them in a fashion like this results in a non-neutral presentation. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice and informative answer. I understand the event is not positive, but since it is sourced and real, I again do not understand why should we obfuscate a list of it, forcing people who want to know about the subject in general to search and go through articles one by one. It seems that the concern here is making it as difficult as possible for people to find a summary of neutral, objective, real information. This sounds to me 1)overzealous, 2)a disservice to the readers 3)a violation of spirit, if not of letter, of WP:WELLKNOWN, which is unfortunately the Cinderella of BLP policy. I also don't understand what does it mean that "we have no requirement": technically, is there any article which is "required"? But once an article exists, we should judge as objectively as possible if it is the case of sending it to oblivion. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 08:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the basic points here is that if people want to obtain accurate, up-to-date and reliable information on the status of a lawyer, they should check with the State Bar Association or the Bar Council if they're in the UK. The problem with this list is that if it falls out of date and inaccurate information regarding the status of a lawyer is propagated, there'll be hell to pay. Especially if it causes potential damage to a lawyer's business and our list is suddenly out of step with the Bar Association's opinion. I'm guessing you're not going to put your real, legal identity to this list, nor watch it like a hawk? Imagine the ramifications of posting something in here and having it enter the Google cache at the wrong moment? Not good ... - Alison ^❤ 09:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So you say we basically delete articles because of fear? Textbook case of chilling effect! However at least this is a practical and meaningful argument, even if truly sad and worrying. I wonder if an explicit disclaimer can help in this case. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about a chilling effect at all. I'm talking about being responsible, being accurate and being accountable. Without accountability, there's little concern for pseudonymous people to 'get it right'. With the Bar Association, they have a legal obligation to. I think your point re. a disclaimer is actually a good one & probably something we should consider - Alison ^❤ 09:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand. Allison is saying that we have competing obligations. The first obligation is to the subjects of articles, BLPs obviously being very important, but not the only subject to which we have some debt. The second is to the encyclopedia--in other words we are all here presumably because we feel some social good comes from the collection and presentation of information. We need to weigh those two obligations against each other. Obviously some editors will assign a priority to one of those two obligations, resulting in a distribution of good faith responses. But I don't feel it is a chilling effect or otherwise unwise to assign a high value to our obligation to subjects and (relatively) a low value to our obligation to the encylopedia. In this case our obligation to the encyclopedia suggests that we should have the information in here (in other words I presume that the info is verifiable and given due weight in specific articles) in some form. We want (because we feel that we are better off for having the list) to collect the information and present it in list-form, but here our obligation to the subjects may intervene. We now have an article which will appear in searches for "disbarred lawyer" and we have to 1. ensure its accuracy and 2. ensure its neutrality. Accomplishing 1 may be within our grasp regardless, though the duplication of the info on the list multiplies our obligations (obviously Allison can disagree with me here). Accomplishing 2 is the rub (for me). Absent some overriding encyclopedic obligation and with an inherent neutrality problem, I argue that our obligation to the subjects outwieghs our obligation to present this data in list form (though only weakly). Protonk (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Mercurywoodrose. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Disbarred Lawyers: Arbitrary Break 1

• Comment If I knew how to put in one of those boxes for "arbitrary break", I would do so. I do want to point out that after this discussion began, Cyclopia addressed the task of adding sources to fix the WP:OR concerns. What I see remaining is that some people think that there should be a category, but not a list; and others think that mention of the fact of disbarment in a category or a list would create a WP:BLP issue. I hope that the closing admin will take into account that substantial improvements were made in response to some of the initial objections. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you did put in an arbitrary break. :) To my way of thinking with a BLP, if it's not sourced and can't be sourced, that's pretty much open and shut stub down to nothing or delete. Unsourced BLPs cannot be allowed to remain. So that was the first hurdle, regardless of anything else. That's now been cleared, C went through and removed unsourceable, and sourced the rest. I take it on faith he did a good job and used reliable sources. The next hurdle is whether, even when it's sourced, is it a coatrack and likely to remain such. That's where I think we are. And I see that as insurmountable, regardless of improvements. The very nature of a list such as this is that it cannot be balanced. As Guy explains just below. Finally, we don't need the list itself anyway. The information is available in the individual articles (or should be) or in the Disbarment article (or should be)... and putting it there solves the balance problem, which cannot be solved in this list unless it's turned into something else. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you elaborate on the balance problem? Many people are bringing this argument but I have a hard time understanding what you mean. As I understand balance, it has to be in a BLP, and I agree (there is the issue of what is notable the person for, but let's put it aside). But outside proper biographies, considering "balance" as you do is problematic: it makes coverage of many facts impossible. Let's take an article about the current Polanski issue. It is not inconceivable to have an article about the Polanski case (in fact I think there is or was). The article of course won't deal with all Polanski biography, but it will deal with only the relevant fact, good or bad it is. Is this unbalanced? In a certain sense yes, it only deals with a specific (and negative) aspect of his biography. But I'd also say no, because 1)there's a full article on Polanski, and that's where balance should be and 2)it is explicit that the article topic is selective and as such it is explicit this is not necessarily the only thing Polanski is known for. And that's the way it should be: otherwise it means that all facets of a person biography cannot, by definition, be covered by separate articles because they would be "unbalanced". To me it makes little sense. In this case: here we're listing disbarred lawyers and the rationale of their disbarment. The relevant BLPs are only one click link away, if one wants the big picture. The listing is just for the sake of convenience -the same person could appear also in the "List of 100 top charity donors of all times", but I bet no one here would call this "unbalanced". I don't know if I have been clear, but I hope to have conveyed what is my concern. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Suppose I put together a List of people with warts on their noses, and suppose it was impeccably sourced and only notable people are on it. That list is inherently unbalanced. Do you see why? (for the record List of 100 top charity donors of all time is unbalanced as well, although we are more concerned with negative things, and I'd consider it as deletable as well.) ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No: I really, sincerely, objectively can't see why the list of people with warts on their noses is "inherently unbalanced" (my only concern is that it would be a bit trivial), and I am even more disconcerted by the fact you feel that you would consider the list of charity donors questionable. I am asking you to explain, because I really cannot understand even remotely what is wrong with these examples. Please explain what is the reasoning behind your judgement, because I cannot grasp it by myself. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The main problem here is that anybody who is added to the list is automatically being compared with everyone else on the list, which includes some pretty unsavoury characters. Disbarment can be the result of technical breaches or egregious misbehaviour, so this is equivalent to a "list of criminals" which includes petty thieves alongside mass murderers. The small size of the list makes this more likely to happen. In the prose article on disbarment, a discussion of notable examples with cited content showing why they are notable, is quite acceptable, but lumping together all those who happen to have been disbarred for whatever reason seems to me to be a significant WP:BLP problem just because the event is uncommon and there is little homogeneity between the individuals concerned. The clincher is that it includes people disbarred through automatic process due to heinous crimes alongside people whose disbarment was the result of professional misconduct hearings. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the reasons for disbarment are given, people can see for themselves whether the action was taken from misbehavior in the practice of law, or (I believe this is what you're referring to as technical breach or automatic process) conviction of a felony, whether it's related to the practice of law or not. Regardless, no attorney is ever disbarred without due process. Honestly, I'm wondering how many of the editors are attorneys or have relatives who are, since this seems to be an unusually sensitive topic. Mandsford (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I think this makes an interesting list. I don't think it is necessarily a disgrace to be on this list; it depends on the reason for disbarment. The list is limited to notable figures who already have articles, which I think is essential. For most of the modern cases, the fact of disbarment is really a minor part of their disgrace - most of them served jail terms for some sort of criminal activity. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep rename to List of disbarments. A list of notable disbarments complies with our guidelines and policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

hmm, with this name change taking the focus off the individuals and onto the disbarments, it would to my eyes no longer be a toxic article. if the content stayed rigorously sourced and npov, and watched like a hawk, this name change may just work. Im not sold on keeping, but i cant advocate delete any more now that this possibility has been mentioned.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing the name doesn't change anything. Lara 15:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion and there is nothing wrong IMHO in doing that during the AfD, but unfortunately the name is already a redirect to the current article. CoM, can you or some other admin take care of swapping? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment articles can have multiple categories, sometimes contradictory. when you have a list, it tends to make the item on the list seem to be primarily notable for the subject of that list. so i think cat is better than list in this case.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Leaning delete, although I just added another person (a dead person) to the list (probably a perverse act on my part). As a general principle, I think that any list that associates people with a negative attribute requires stronger justification than a list that associates people with an attribute that is positive or merely neutral. Largely because there are myriad reasons why the lawyers on this list were disbarred (ranging from disrespectful behavior to murder and treason), I don't see any significant commonality among the list entries, which makes it hard for me to see strong justification for this list. Also, given that most people are not eligible for disbarment because most people aren't lawyers, it seems like the existence of this list focuses a certain amount of negative attention on the entire legal profession. (I am not aware of any similar lists of doctors or dentists who lost their medical licenses, university faculty who were stripped of academic tenure, or even politicians who were removed from office.)
  If the article is retained, I think the table should be revised so that no lawyer is listed more than once (if a lawyer had multiple disbarments, all should be reported in the same row of the table). Also, I don't think the disbarment and reinstatement dates should be linked. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought of another relevant professional parallel. There is no list of defrocked Roman Catholic priests, although there is a category for them. There is, however, a List of convicted religious leaders. A list of Roman Catholic priests who have been defrocked would represent the same kind of shared happenstance as the list of disbarred lawyers: (1) being a member of a profession that exiles people who don't conform with its professional rules, and (2) somehow running afoul of those professional rules (possibly a serious violation or possibly something that the rest of the world would consider inconsequential). I see this type of "shared happenstance" as inherently different from (and less suitable for being highlighted in a list than) the shared condition of having been convicted of a crime.
Lest my arguments be dismissed as an evocation of WP:OTHERSTUFF, let me say that I looked for these other lists because there is something about the list of disbarred lawyers that gives me a queasy feeling, and I was looking for parallels to help me understand and define what it is that bothers me about the list of disbarred lawyers. I'm not necessarily convinced that List of convicted religious leaders deserves to be in Wikipedia. However, my queasiness about the idea of List of laicized Roman Catholic priests -- and the perception that it is different from the list of convicted religious leaders -- helps me understand why I don't like the idea of the disbarred lawyers list. --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Guy, above, and per BLP issues that are inevitable. Viridae^Talk 05:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. D_mn'd useful, but utterly inappropriate to Wikipedia. Put it on a Website where it belongs. —SlamDiego_←T 07:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I cite from WP:USEFUL: There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." - As such, I'd like you to elaborate on why it is "utterly inappropriate" on WP. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No one has claimed that Wikipedia articles should be useless. (Did you really need to belabor the point that uselessness is not necessary?) The problem is that usefulness in some general sense is not sufficient, but that's all that I see this article possessing. What is the use of the list to the reader qua consumer of an encyclopædia? A list is literally a relationship amongst its items. While the persons on this particular list are themselves “notable”, are there in fact notable relationships here amongst them? —SlamDiego_←T 09:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand very well your comment because I never talked about uselessness (??). I wanted to point that lists exist mostly because of their usefulness in navigating and collecting information. The notable relationship is: they are all notable lawyers which have been disbarred in public cases, obviously. I don't understand why you're asking -it's the title of the article. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The straw-man that you fought was logically equivalent to the claim that articles should be useless. Your answer to my question about “notability” is quite inadequate. Being “notable” doesn't confer “notability” upon all of one's relationships, nor upon all of one's relationships with other things that are themselves “notable”. The fact that these persons are “notable” doesn't automatically make each relationship amongst them “notable”; the fact that their disbarments were “notable” (if, indeed, they were) doesn't make each relationship amongst the disbarments “notable”. What makes the relationship of this list “notable”? —SlamDiego_←T 16:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The straw-man that you fought was logically equivalent to the claim that articles should be useless. - This is plain nonsense, sorry. I was considering quite the opposite. It seems we just cannot understand each other. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not plain nonsense. You were arguing the opposite of a straw-man. And it seems that you cannot answer my question. But it's plain from your talk of “obfuscation” below that you are amongst those who see the function of this list as to out disbarred lawyers. Again, that might be quite useful, but Wikipedia is not the place for such use. The relationship that this list represents is not “notable”. —SlamDiego_←T 05:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely have a hard time following your reasonings -it seems you're misunderstanding all my reasonings. My fault probably, but really what you say has no relationship with what I am trying to say. For example, no, I do not see at all the function of this list to out disbarred lawyers. I talk of obfuscation because if I need to search all instances of X, I find it useful to have a list of all insteances of X with proper sources and informaton, instead of having to look each instance one by one. As for the question: I cannot answer your question because I don't get the meaning of what question you're asking me. I try to get it re-asking it to you: We have a List of novelists from the United States: what makes the relationship between them notable? Is this what you're asking me? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm having any trouble following your reasoning, and I don't really need for you to follow mine, so long as other editors can follow it. As far as obfuscation is concerned, the word “obfuscate” refers to active concealment or confusion, not to simple failure to highlight something. And, no, I'm not asking you what makes the relationship amongst American novelists notable; I'm asking you what makes the relationship amongst these disbarred lawyers notable, and you're just not answering. If someone want to challenge “List of novelists from the United States” in an appropriate forum, that's fine. If someone want to use “What about article x?” in a AfD, that's not so fine. —SlamDiego_←T 13:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you delete the article, you "actively conceal" its information, so yes, it is obfuscation. And I am not answering your question, again, because your question doesn't make sense to me, like if you were asking me "what colour is gravity": I brought the example not because I want to make a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but because I want to understand what kind of question is yours. So please tell me what is a "notable relationship" in the context of a WP list, and I can discuss about that, because AFAIK WP lists surely should avoid trivial intersections, but being a lawyer and being disbarred seems not trivial at all -it's not like a "List of blonde lawyers". Finally, yes, if you assume that I think that the function of the list is to "out disbarred lawyers", you have serious trouble following my reasoning. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope; you're deliberately confusing commission with omission. The list doesn't have a prior claim on existence. (Any circular response to this point will be duly identified as such.) Not continuing to carry it would be not continuing to highlight. Claiming that we be obfuscating be deleting it is like claiming that one has blocked a discovered ant by shaking it from one's clothing.

The criteria for “notability” don't fundamentally change when we are talking about relationships. Do a significant share of “reliable” sources discuss the relationship amongst disbarments that is captured by this list? If not, then this relationship is not “notable”.

In some sense, as I suppose, the inability to see reason in unreason could be said to be trouble. —SlamDiego_←T 14:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a "prior claim on existence"? The list exists and it organizes information in a meaningful way, it is not a trivial intersection and it is not agains anything in WP:OC, WP:LIST and related guidelines on categorization. That's its claim on existence. There is no need of a "notable relationship" between disbarments (whatever it is, since you fail to explain it) unless you cite me an explicit policy on that (before you rush: no, WP:GNG is not -a list is a navigational and organization aid for subjects which are under the GNG -and the subjects, the concept of disbarment and its relationship with lawyer follow GNG); all what we need is that disbarments are notable and sourced -and the intersection between "lawyer" and "disbarment" is for sure not trivial. So, either you have something in WP:OC,WP:LIST or similar that is relevant, or no need to argue. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[OD] Sorry Cyclopia - but your statement If you delete the article, you "actively conceal" its information is again more nonsense. The articles that relate to this list contain the full information. This has been explained before to you (look a little further down from this post) and you simply refuse to understand the fact of this point. I wonder if you could possibly at least try to stop adding content just for the sake of raising argument? --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You're confounding "concealment" with "destruction". I know that technically information is not lost if the list is deleted, but it becomes much harder for one to have all this information in a single place convenient. I will play the dreaded enciclopedicity card for once: That's basically the sense of an encyclopedia. If tomorrow WP is destroyed, one could argue that nothing has been lost: after all, all meaningful information herein is already somewhere else. However anyone understands that something would have been indeed lost, and that is, having information conveniently collected in one place instead of being scattered here and there. Same, in small, for the list here.

(And yes, I try: but if people keep misunderstanding what I mean I can't let it go). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah interesting - it seems your idea of concealment is far harsher than mine; and of course the ultimate reverse side of the coin (albeit exaggerated to extend your point) you just tossed is that we should never delete anything for fear of concealing some "knowledge"? Sorry I won't buy your reason for keeping on the basis of concealment actively harming anthing at this encyclopedia in this current case. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Why do we have Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and so many other bad outcomes? It is because that is where the knowledge is. Why do we have seat belts and padded dashboards in every one of our cars? It is because we learned. We are (or least, we were) here to share the sum total of human knowledge. And yet, when it comes to living lawyers, we look away; nay, we quake with fear about the money. How is *that* NPOV? Do I invoke Dick the butcher of wikiquote:Henry VI, Part 2#Act IV scene 2, 71–78 ? No; non-violence! I say: let us drive to oblivion all of these disbarred lawyers (and their allied wiki-lawyers) with words. To paraphrase the fictional Peter Clemenza and to serve the incompetants their just deserts: "Leave the words, take the cannoli."--Livingrm (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  What? Do note that no actual information is being removed from the encyclopedia if this gets deleted. All information in this list is included in individual biographies. The sum of all human knowledge and the sharing thereof will be unaffected. Lara 11:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, but navigation and convenient indexing matters as well. It is an easy-of-use thing. Inconvenient knowledge (that word, "inconvenient"!) It is as in An Inconvenient Truth or that use of the word inconvenient in the play A Man for All Seasons, as uttered by the title character to Richard Rich (in reference to the divorce the monarch contemplates): "T: And our job as administrators... R:...is to minimise the inconvenience which this is going to cause. T: That's our only job, Rich, to minimise the inconvenience of things." In terms of knowledge, we wish to fulfill that promise of that otherwise loathsome creature Huey Long and make "Every Man a King". Treat these present-day lawyers and barristers as fellow citizens and nothing more. To paraphrase David Farragut, Damn the legal torpedos and full speed ahead. I promise you: 20 years from now, attempting to obscure such information will be but a quaint exercise of a past age, and the next generation will wonder what the fuss was all about and how we could have survived without convenient access to such information. The Age of obscurity is passing and once we cross those boarders, we can never return again. To paraphrase Lennon and Yoko Ono: "Obscurity is over, if you want it". I go on like this to emphasize that these are age-old problems in merely a newfangled world.--Livingrm (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Right... well, this is still an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lara 12:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. The problem is exactly that it becomes much more indiscriminate if information is left obfuscated between several articles instead of being (also) conveniently summarized and structured in a separate list too, for ease of use and navigation. A list like this is the proper opposite of "indiscriminate". Thank you for helping my point. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second there. No. Your saying that a list is more useful that a Cat, and that is just not true. Your "obfuscated" argument is a red herring. You may prefer a list, but others navigate via Cat's. Especially whan Cats can be further sub-Catted refining a search even further for information. Whereas a list cannot be, it is just a list. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto per Exit. To reiterate, Lists (and especially this one because it is SO prone to UNDUE, NPOV and BLP concerns) are more problematic and far less helpful than Cats.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 01:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cats contain no references, no explanation, nothing. It is just a label smacked on the subject. The list contains references, explanation and, if the subject has been readmitted as laywer, includes this. And you think a cat has less UNDUE and BLP concerns than a list? Please. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming a little tiresome Cyclopia. I hope you will agree that the articles contain the references and the facts, disbarring readmission etc - and it is the articles that (for you) create a need for this list - the list does nothing but repeat (unneccessarily in my view and many others here) the facts relating to disbarrment etc. Indeed because the list is just a repitituous promulgation of these one or two facts; it therefore, for obvious reasons, raises the spectre of problems relating to UNDUE and at times BLP. Now I understand and I can see that you have a love for arguing constantly, and I also note where above (in answer to Lar's comment) you say that you sincerely do not understand how inherently unbalanced this list is; and I appreciate that you personally can't understand the reasoning presented by Lar and many others here, but honestly there are many of us that can understand that reasoning, and that immediately do understand the problems that this list poses. Towards that same understanding many of us also immediately see the differences between a category and a list. That does not mean that you are not entitled to your view - and you have put it numerous times above - and no doubt will put it again below but please at least try and understand that there is a marked difference between a list and a category in this case.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

but honestly there are many of us that can understand that reasoning: Therefore you could explain it.

but please at least try and understand that there is a marked difference between a list and a category in this case.: I understand that, but to my judgement it is the opposite -a category contains much less informaton, and as such seems to me much more problematic than a referenced list. Again, I've seen no attempt to explain to me the opposite. I am sincerely interested in understanding that because it's bewildering for me, and I would be more than happy to declare I've been wrong if convincing arguments are put on the table. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiresome is an understatement. Categories are added to the articles themselves. Articles are (usually) watched by people who are knowledgeable about them, so when someone who shouldn't be added to the category is, they're typically removed fairly quickly. Lists tend to get little attention as they are often complete messes, much like this one. Riddled with unreferenced and/or inapplicable entries, poorly formatted, poorly written, and completely lacking any sort of encyclopedic value, coatrack; those are frequently issues found in lists. Categories take out a lot of the problems inherent with lists. Lara 18:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Cyclopia - Lara's answer supplied overnight (my time) nicely sums up much what I would have said, and/or reiterated on my own behalf and on the behalf of others who have attempted to explain to you what our view of the problems with this article are.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 20:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To the risk of being unbearably tiresome: I understand Lara's objection, because she sees a category as a single label which shows below the article. In this context, I understand the category appears much less problematic. Problem is, if I click the cat, I find this page: Category:Disbarred_American_lawyers. Now, (leaving aside the well known fact that lists and cats are not mutually exclusive): is that page -without refs, without a reason for disbarment, without mentioning if they have been readmitted to the profession, with only automatically compiled bare names- better or worse of a list, and why? Because if you wanted to delete the cat, I'd disagree as well, but at least I'd find the arguments consistent. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Category simply provides a link to the article of the disbarred lawyer in question - where the full knowledge provided (to date) regarding the subject is available - thus no UNDUE. Categories are not articles and do not read as such. The list provides a link to the article in question also but it emphasises negative titbits such as No contest plea to bribery and tax evasion; Convicted of murder; Convicted for stealing money from Holocaust survivors about subjects (sometimes living) - thus UNDUE emphasis. Lists often (and especially this one) read as articles. This list dumbs the subject matter down to a single incident (in this case negative) about the subject and causes readers to walk away with what they believe to be the most pertinent fact of the subject's life. A category benefits neutrality because it in effect forces, or at the very least is likely to force the reader to enter the article to find out more about the subject - exactly because (as you say above) it provides no information. The reader who is interested even if it is in relation to the subject matters disbarment if that is their only interest, will at the same time be offered the full scope and thus overall neutrality of the article. Now I can almost read your next objection before you write it - which will be along the lines of this list also gives a link to the main article; although for the reasons I have just described - and I will reiterate early in this case, the category, provides the best possibility of the reader gaining a balanced view. This list does not provide the same opportunity for balance.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your prediction skills are only half-good: My main objection is about this: causes readers to walk away with what they believe to be the most pertinent fact of the subject's life. -Either you take all readers as clueless robots, or why should they believe this is the most pertinent fact of the subject life? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per Nominator BLP is a big concern here. It would now seem that the earliest unreferenced entry is for 1874(ish). The concerns are/have/should be addressed by finding references or deleting individual entries - not the whole article. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the common BLP concern here is not about sourcing, but that the presentation of a single fact from a person's life fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Kevin (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That same criticism could be levelled at the FA List of Governors of Alaska. It is not NPOV if postives are promoted and negatives are deleted. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We have to make this clear: If the reasoning of Kevin, Lar et al. passes, it means that ALL lists containing living people as members are to be deleted, positive or negative. This is however not included at all in current policies and guidelines, and should be discussed as a policy proposal, not in this AfD. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don;t see that every list of living people is necessarily not neutral. I don't see any problem with the list of Governors noted above, for instance. Kevin (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't understand what you mean. First you say the problem is that the presentation of a single fact from a person's life fails to maintain a neutral point of view and My problem is that we are cherry-picking a single event out of a life, and promoting it beyond where we would be allowed to if it were within a biography. - Point is, every conceivable listing of living subjects does exactly that. If Arnold Schwarzenegger appears in a List of American actors, doesn't this give, in your view, undue weight to the fact that he was an actor when he is also a politician? Or viceversa? Etc. Every listing of people, by definition, categorizes people for a single aspect of their bios. If you think this supposed "cherry picking" is conflicting with UNDUE, it holds for all lists. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that this is a list of one single aspect, indeed a single negative aspect of a persons life - disbarment. The List of American Actors refers to a whole career and a substantial part of an entrants life - hence not UNDUE. Nothing is stopping Arnold being mentioned on the Actors list, nor on a List of Californian Governors. Both of these are not UNDUE, both of them do not emphasise a single (defined as small) negative incident. Please, please read UNDUE - which starts neutrality requires that [each] article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Moving negative parts of a persons life into a list such as this is (as has also been explained above) a COATRACK which is defined as a Wikipedia article [including a list] that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 20:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and how do you define "small". Because I don't think being disbarred is a "small" thing for a lawyer. And no, I don't see any coatrack here because what is the "tangentially related biased subject"? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Lar, for instance. Perhaps I am being redundant: BLP issues are a concern here, despite the injunction to allow only well-referenced entries. Such a list cannot be policed 24/7, and its negative character, in the case of vandalism, is just a can of worms, as far as I'm concerned. The list may be well-referenced in its present form, but remember, new additions of recent disbarments are likely to be derived from the paper, and even my local paper can get things wrong. And someone can add my neighbor across the street, with a non-line (can I claim this phrase?) reference, and you'll just have to take it on good faith--also one of our core principles. Such a list, making such claims, would need doubly-strong references, and we have yet to define such a thing. I understand that in historical cases such problems need not arise, but I'd like us to play safe at least every now and then. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete — just like we would delete a List of administratively-dismissed academics if it ever were to pop up. Same goes for List of doctors sued for malpractice. In this particular instance, it doesn't matter if it can be sourced—e.g., the former from public school records, the latter from court records—it instead matters what it says about the person without explicitly saying it. A notable member of List of administratively-dismissed academics or List of doctors sued for malpractice is part of a Wiki-BurnBook. I'd argue that List of disbarred lawyers would similarly fit the criteria for a burn book. The rest of what I'd say has already been said by numerous people above pertaining to BLP. -slakr^\ talk / 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I geddit. We dont have List of people told off by their teacher but we do have List of United States senators expelled or censured so it follows that...er no I dont get it. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and we don't do "precedent" here, by and large, instead we re-argue the same questions over and over. Perhaps the senators list needs to go too, not sure, but it's not an argument to be advanced to justify keeping this one, only a note that WP has discrepancies. Which need fixing. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a retort to a WP:NOOTHERSTUFFEXISTS position. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and rename per Child.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I agree it could be (and was) a BLP nightmare. But as it isn't now I don't think the potential for harm is a good reason to delete. And if it does get ugly, I'd prefer full protection to deletion. Is it useful? It is sourced per WP:V etc.? I think so. Is it "encyclopedic?" I think it is a good navigational aid and organizational structure. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Why have an article on Disbarment but then not have a list of any famous prominent disbarrings? I see the article has a list...... but that list could grow too large, and need to be split off... hence this article?. If you are worried about it being 'too negative'.. might as well delete 'lists of nazis' and 'lists of mass murderers' .. 'list of nuclear accidents'.. articles on the bankruptices of 2008/2009... ,list of famous people who were excoummunicated by the church, lists of soviet dissidents, and any other list of anything slightly controversial. Disbarrment is fundmanetal to the legal profession in the USA, if you are going to talk about it, you are going to talk about who its happened to, or in my opinion, you arent really talking about it very well. Now... i will admit the article is a bit of a mess, and needs massive revision, starting with the removal of the table and rewriting with some nice flow and rhythym to the language. but... is that really a reason to delete? Decora (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why yes, it is. Also, you want to remove the table from the article? Wouldn't be much of a list without the table would it? I'm not sure you've thought your opinion through very clearly. ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe Decora is referring to the list in Disbarment. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That list shouldn't exist either. The article is on disbarments, why should there be a section listing US disbarments. Ugh. So we have these people's disbarments discussed three times. So pointless. Lara 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If this list gets kept, I suspect the list in the disbarment article will go and just refer to the list article itself. And is your objection to the listing of only US disbarments or to listing of them at all? It was hard to tell from your comment. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think there should be a list in the article at all, rather a few of those more notable (global) examples written into prose, maybe. I just find it utterly ridiculous that someone found it appropriate to put a US-centric section into the article. Lara 18:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep making it clear that this is a list of those with Wikipedia articles, and perhaps not limiting it to recent, if someone will do the work. The article does need some adjustment of tone--the detailed footnoted on Bailey is out of place. It's different from list of doctors sued for malpractice in two ways--first, the equivalent would be doctors struck of the register (being sued for malpractice is I believe fairly routine), and second because its limited to those who have actually been disbarred, not just accused of offenses. If the person is a public figure enough to have a Wikipedia article, and the disbarment is also widely known, and the documentation is solid, , then it's appropriate and there are no BLP problems. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep Is a reasonable list especially since the people contained are people all highly notable individuals. Obviously, we need to only include people who are notable enough to have articles and to make sure that every individual has enough reliable sourcing for the disbarment. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Excise unreferenced names. --Nricardo (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a topic suitable for inclusion within WP, for reasons outlined by many others above me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, a worthwhile list. I went ahead and removed all the unsourced entries. New additions should be verifiable and notable (existing wiki articles on them). Cirt (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep essentially per Psychonaut. Issues have been largely addressed since AfD nom. Per WP:CLN, no need to have only a category instead. Disbarments of notable people are significant events (or more rarely, the disbarment itself is notable), thus it's reasonable to have this sort of list. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Sweat and Wars

Blood Sweat and Wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Blood Sweat and Wars" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Can't find very much at all about this movie. No IMDB page, few Google hits, no news coverage, no IMDB pages for many of the actors, nothing on the director, and it says that it is due for release in 2010. WP:CRYSTAL is appropriate here, I think. Samir 05:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I can find a handful of sources ([49], [50], [51]), plus some casting calls and other passing references. Not very much at this point in time. There may be more sources not indexed by Google; the film's website lists a few more references: [52]. --Chris Johnson (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Mea culpa, I didn't take a look at the Web site for the film but should have as there are a number of reliable sources there. Clearly this is verifiable at this stage, but has it actually been released? If so then it clearly does pass -- Samir 06:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure it hasn't been released (though one source says it was supposed to be out this month at one point). I can't tell whether principal photography has begun as required by WP:NFF. One source indicates that filming was supposed to start in January; can't find any sources saying that it did. They were hard up for money in February, so there could be delays.--Chris Johnson (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and continue expansion. Film appears to meet WP:NFF through sourcing per Travellers' Cheques, The Galway Voice, Sunday World, The Star (1), The Star (2), Irish Post (1), Irish Post (2), Galway First (1), Galway First (2), Galway First (3), Irish Times (1), Irish Times (2), Irish Times (3), Irish Independent, Advertiser, Galway City Tribune... and more. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep That looks like plenty of coverage to me. Dream Focus 01:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Claims of notability are not substantiated by sufficient evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomical Society of New South Wales

Astronomical Society of New South Wales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Astronomical Society of New South Wales" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Little on this astronomical society of 450 members. User:Hell in a Bucket nominated it for CSD; I foolishly thought I could save it and found few references of note. Bringing it up for AfD with respect to notability as I truly am having difficulty dissecting what to do with it -- Samir 05:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me why on Earth this should be deleted. The ASNSW is a major non-for-profit organisation, and many such organisations have wikipedia entries. Ok the entry is a little short, but as I noted in the comments, this is a stub in the process of being fleshed out. And I'm not actually a formal member (although I've been to their meetings) so it's certainly not self-promotion. I was just hoping to fill a hole in wikipedia's coverage. So is the deletion because this is my first attempt at writing a new entry? I guess so. In which case I'm beginning to see why wikipedia has such a bad reputation as being a "old boys club". If this is a closed shop then say so and I'll go away and do something more useful with my time. StarryMan (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, StarryMan, what this article needs is a list of reliable sources that are independent of the ASNSW and discuss the subject in a reasonable amount of depth. If you supply a list of such sources, then you're definitely looking at a "keep" outcome for this AfD; but if no such sources are provided within the seven days, then the prognosis would very likely be "delete". (Note that you don't need to amend or expand the article within that timescale to see that it's kept; all you need do is show that decent, reliable sources exist.)

  If you do not have time to find the sources within the seven days, but you would still like to work on it, please post to say so and I will see that the article is "userfied".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Actually appears notable to me. Is there newspaper (preferably SMH) coverage of its activities? Orderinchaos 16:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete only a province-level academic organization, and their journal is found in no libraries except their immediate region [53]. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – Unfortunately, there is no WP:RS to show that this meets the WP:GROUP criteria … nothing but links to the subject's own website and a {{Dead link}}. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, reluctantly. It seems astounding but true that there is not enough published coverage. It is surprising that the South Australian equivalent has much more coverage [54]. Kevin (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Agilebuddy

Agilebuddy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Agilebuddy" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable software Strongyards (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fits the profile: web-based (SaaS) project management tool that focuses on managing software development projects. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shii (tock) 18:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen

As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails WP:NOTE. Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Aside from one article by Robert Parry [55], the only other coverage has been hagiographical conflict of interest material from the Unification Church-owned and Sun Myung Moon-founded paper The Washington Times. I searched multiple databases, but unfortunately I was unable to find any independent book reviews. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This book was also released in Korea which means the Korean news should be searched as well coverage here [56], the Korean name "평화를 사랑하는 세계인으로" gets over a hundred hits on naver news [57]. Its noted as #15 on the bestseller list last week [58] in Korea.--Crossmr (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Are these independent reliable secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are. Naver news is the equivalent of google news in Korea since google generally only indexes the major Korean english newspapers. The bestseller list is published by Yonhap news agency. Newsis (the first news article) website is here [59]. They're a major news organization.--Crossmr (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do a good faith withdrawn by nominator on this one. I could close it, if that is okay with you? Cirt (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Here is further coverage of the English launch by another Korean news outlet [60].--Crossmr (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I will defer to someone else to close the AfD. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid Cirt is right on this one. There simply aren't sources to support an article yet. There's probably little doubt that there will be at some point (probably soon, if past media patterns in response to Sun Myung Moon / Unification Church issues are any indication), but not now. Ed, you should have waited until there was significant coverage; you really should take this opportunity to learn that articles need reliable sources. -96.241.34.39 (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  Come again? I just pointed to several reliable sources. There are plenty of reliable sources. They might not be english, but there is no requirement that they be in English.--Crossmr (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  [61] here a news article talks about the book setting a record with 200,000 copies for the first edition. [62] this article is about some kind of competition possibly celebrating the book (still working on this one), Here it is at the #4 bestseller spot in July in Korea [63] in its category. Its been on various bestseller lists for months. Another article on the book [64], etc etc, I'm only about a third of a way through the naver news results. More than significant coverage, more than notable.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Doubledot Media

Doubledot Media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Doubledot Media" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Company which isn't as notable as the article tries to make it look, fails WP:COMPANY IMO. Examining references: 1) Press release 2) Does not mention subject, 3) Not independent, press release, 4) Does not mention subject, 5,6) finalist in provincial business award - trivial coverage. 7,8) trivial coverage. Being small is actually one of the main factors in getting into the Fast50/500, 9) Company is not the focus of the article. Affilorama may be a notable product, but that doesn't make its producer notable. And lastly, I don't believe that anyone, particularly a WP:SPA, would bother creating such an article unless there was some conflict of interest. dramatic (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
• Delete per the admirably thorough analysis by dramatic.-gadfium 05:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Salehoo which appears to be their main product. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete User who created page has made no other wiki contribution. Seems like self-promotion to me. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 speedied before this nomination was completed. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Two mundos magazine

Two mundos magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Two mundos magazine" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article clearly lacks content, and the other pages he created say the same thing.  Btilm  03:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is not for cleanup. Editorial issues, including redirecting, should be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sampangan

Sampangan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sampangan" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article has multiple issuses.

1. It does not flow smoothly.
2. It doesn't have enough information to identify the subjuct.
3. It is not wikified. The author probably didn't read the Wikipedia Manual of Style.  Btilm  02:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Points 1 and 3 are never grounds for deletion, just FA status denial. Point 2 could lead to deletion if there is no way to know what the article is about, which is not the case here. The village of Sampangan can be found on Google Earth at 6°54′8″S 109°41′13″E / 6.90222°S 109.68694°E / -6.90222; 109.68694 and is part of the city of Pekalongan. However, it represents an area of just a few blocks, and unless its status as a separate municipal division can be confirmed, I will support no more than a Redirect. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As Blanchardb says, issues 1 and 3 are not grounds for deletion - just issues that need work to make this a better article. I also disagree with the second point - although it needs work to make the content more encyclopedic, what is there (and was when nominated) is more than enough information to identify the subject. Although it is only an essay, I agree with Wikipedia:Inherent notability that all villages, towns, etc are inherently notable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have expanded the article a bit - a Google Search (News, Scholar, Books) had quite a few hits (I added a couple) but mostly they are in Indonesian, which I can't read (although obviously Google Translate is useful!). I am going to add a message on WikiProject Indonesia (or whatever relevant WikiProjects there are) to ask for someone who reads Indonesian to have a look.

I should point out to the nominator that the author of the article is probably not a fluent English speaker - indeed the article was translated using Google Translate from the Indonesian Wikipedia article. A stub for a village such as this should be given leeway, to enable it to be developed. I only did a quick search and found several references to the village, and added just a few. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Such xfd articles hould always at least wait until an obviously active member of the WP Indonesian project is able to comment. Regular attempts by non english speaking editors to add items about their villages usually exhibits a lack of knowledge about the english language indonesian project and that should not be grounds for deletion -but assistance SatuSuro 13:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; by long standing precedent, named places found on maps are generally considered to be inherently notable, and the other concerns are purely cleanup matters. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep An article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. real named places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that the article was later recreated as a redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 3). NW (Talk) 21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Pritchard

Greg Pritchard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Greg Pritchard" — search, news,