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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that there are not enough reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. NW (Talk) 21:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Teamwork Project Manager

Teamwork Project Manager (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Teamwork Project Manager" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable software product by SPA. Cannot find significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Delete per nom. BlazerKnight (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --GreyCat (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: I found [1], [2], and [3]. Joe Chill (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This is advertising; the only information in the article is a feature list and non-neutral puffery: Teamwork Project Manager is used by thousands of well known companies around the world.... Even if this were notable, it would still need to be re-written from scratch. And two of the sources found by Joe Chill would appear to be blogs rather than reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough reliable, secondary sources to show notability.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 17:57, 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.  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BosWash

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

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

Useless neologism Skrewler (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Snow Keep (or Merge - see below) - I don't even live in the northern hemisphere and I'm still familiar with the term and have used it in conversation. Unless the argument is not about the genuineness of the phrase but rather that the information is replicated or should be included elsewhere? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete well , I do live there right in the middle and I have never heard the term. Everyone I know uses Northeast Corridor, which WP considers just a railroad line (or sometimes the Boston-Washington corridor , said in full) So much for personal knowledge as an argument, in any direction. The lede itself says that the person to whom the concept is due never used the term himself. The first section, says the group who updated it found the term "too contrived". Of the 4 references, three are form the author who never used the word, and the 4th is titled "the Bosnywash megalopolis". I think the best course is to move the present article to Northeast Corridor, and retitle the other article Northeast Corridor (railroad line). But I'm open to correction from someone who does have references. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - actually a merge/rename as described above to Northeast Corridor seems an appropriate solution. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It kind of dates back about a generation, so I can understand if people haven't heard of it, but it's still in use [4] and [5]. Basically, Herman Kahn's point was that urban sprawl was creating a situation where one would drive from Boston to Washington and run into one city after another. It proved to be a popular coinage, and a handy two-syllable descriptor for the heavy concentration of American power and wealth in that particular section of the nation (between Boston and Washington are the metropolitan areas of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc.). The problem with "Northeast Corridor" is that every nation has a northeast, whereas Boswash is unambiguous. Mandsford (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is a pretty famous region of the U.S., and it should be kept as far as content goes, though I agree that it should probably be renamed Northeast Corridor (region), or something like that. (Note: I disagree with the proposals to merge it to the current page about the railroad line, as the two topics are independently notable enough to merit separate articles.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, I've heard BosNYWash, adding 148 more Google Books hits to the hundreds for BosWash. I see one source calling it a "fright concept" The Annals of Regional Science. To me this means that the term itself is discussed/analyzed in secondary sources, and this means we can keep it. Abductive (reasoning) 02:09, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Allied Artists International

Allied Artists International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Allied Artists International" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Nominated on behalf of Cptnono (talk · contribs), who asserts apparent lack of notability. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tcncv. Significant coverage from independent sources has not been provided. There were some legal issues with parent company (?) and/or an executive but that seems to be it.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• UndecidedDelete – The article as it stands is no good. But at one time there was an Allied Artists movie studio. It might be useful to have some kind of article about them. I don't know what the article would be called, and I know you'd have to start over to write it. If the choice is keep the current article or delete it, I'd have to say delete. Rees11 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - This is NOT Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, which was a movie studio. There is no notability at all. Someone is trying to mislead others into thinking that it is the same company as the movie studio, but it has no relationship to the historic movie studio other than sharing part of the name.ChinaUpdater (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Allied Artist International, which has been involved in 3 very minor productions (imdb.com), seems to be trying to piggy back on the historical reputation of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, which has produced over 100 films, and distributed over 400 films! (imdb.com) Allied Artist International is NOT the successor to Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, because that company is still in existence, with productions in development! (imdb.com)icouce —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

• Comment: Allied Artists International, Inc. is the parent company of Allied Artists Pictures and if you have IMDb Pro you can see it here here. It clearly shows that Allied Artists Pictures is a subsidiary of Allied Artists International and shows two films in production and one in development, with a history of releases going back many years. The trademark assignments on the USPTO site show that Allied Artists International has been assigned all trademark rights, as shown here. The "old" Allied Artists Corporation in Delaware was void until recently, when someone filed false annual statements for the years 1979 to the present. Filing false annual reports and paying back taxes for a defunct corporation does not revive that corporation or grant corporate authority to the falsely reported officers. The Delaware Attorney General's Consumer Fraud Division is currently investigating as one of the officers listed in the 1979 annual report (filed in 2008) wasn't even born until 1988 and therefore could not have been an officer in 1979. Also, it is Allied Artists International that is suing for trademark infringement, not the other way around. All counterclaims by the defendants have been dismissed by the federal judge overseeing the lawsuit. There's an overview of that case here, and you can see the actual documents on the court's website if you subscribe. I think Allied Artists International is noteable, but understand that some may disagree. I don't think the article should be based on assumptions or connecting dots that don't necessarily connect. Let's create an accurate and well sourced article that is truly neutral, with no slant for or against anyone. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Note: ChinaUpdater is involved in the current dispute.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unionhawk is correct. I was not at first, but now I am (I just found out that editing at Wikipedia can be addicting when all of your edits, reliably sourced, get deleted by what appears to be an alter ego of the subject of an article). I came back here to sign, after I noticed I was not logged in, and saw my comment was deleted and replaced by Unionhawk with his signed one, which made me angry. But then I noticed that the content seems to be moved to the bottom of the page, without deletion of any of my content, by Unionhawk. I am unsure where and how to place comments, as I am a (relatively) new editor, not a lawyer, and certainly not a wikilawyer, which seems to be the only thing lower than a lawyer (that was supposed to be yet another lawyer joke... yawn). ChinaUpdater (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Retain – This company is the successor to the original motion picture company and you can find proof of that on the United States Patent & Trademark Office website and IMDb, which lists them with new motion pictures in production. Allied Artists International, Inc. is listed as the parent of Allied Artists Pictures. The USPTO shows them to be the only entity holding those trademarks, and shows all of the historical trademarks having been assigned to them. To say this company is not notable is false. I believe ChinaUpdater has a WP: COI and has been involved in an edit war that caused the article to be protected in the first place. I question ChinaUpdater's neutrality and suggest his edit history be reviewed. --TechnicalExcellence (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: TechnicalExcellence is involved in the current dispute.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Cptnono. Crafty (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite. There are a series of complications with this article—mostly because of the edit war. Despite that, I think there is a case to be made for retention, but with some heavy editing to address the obvious shortcomings.

  With regard to notability, as near as I can determine, (and I did quite a lot of determining) this company is the product of the bankruptcy sale of the trademarks of a mid-sized movie production company (the original company has an article at Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, and is notable in its own right). Operating as Consolidated Allied Companies (but also known under several other similar names listed in USPTO trademark records), and using the trademark "Allied Artists", the new company had some trouble in the 1980s when its CEO (Kimball D. Richards, a.k.a. Kim) was convicted of several major frauds. Now going by the name Allied Artists International (one of the original trademarks), it continues to work in the entertainment industry, but mostly as an agent or promoter for singers and bands. It appears that Kim Richards has returned as CEO. Now, when known as Consolidated Allied Companies, it was described as being complicit in the frauds in a series of articles, particularly in the L.A. Times (e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]) and in a series of similar articles in the Wall Street Journal, L.A. Daily News, O.C. Register and S.D. Union-Tribune (published from 1988 to 1990) and some additional information from Dow Jones at other times (all available on Factiva; I can supply citations if anyone really wants to know). The judgment on appeal in United States v. Griffith, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 24314 (LexisNexis) also describes this case. Additionally, there's a recent lawsuit brought by a company also operating as Allied Artists which thought it had bought the trademarks from the aforementioned Allied Artists International, but which is now claiming that the marks were not relinquished as per the contract; court records document this action. So I think that meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP for significant secondary-source coverage, though surprisingly enough, not so much because of Allied's work in the entertainment industry, but rather their legal troubles past and present.

  Now, with regard to the article itself, there has been a rather ugly edit war between Warriorboy85 (talk · contribs) and ChinaUpdater (talk · contribs), involving 3-revert violations, possible conflicts of interest, etc.. The article is currently fully-protected, both editors have been warned extensively, and Warriorboy85 was blocked indefinitely for making a legal threat. On the talk page, I provided an outline of what I think is neutral and well-sourced material that could be added to this article; I think that represents a workable outline for article rescue.

  By way of disclosure, I'm not involved in the edit war directly, but I have acted as an intermediary between the parties and made my own recommendations. TheFeds 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment:

1. TheFeds, what is the source for saying "this company is the product of the bankruptcy sale of the trademarks"?
2. Anyone can get a trademark of any defunct corporation by simply applying, but this does not make it NOTABLE. How does application for a trademark with part of a name make a company NOTABLE?
3. Allied Artists Pictures Corporation still exists, since 1976, per the link I provided you in the State of New York. Why allow confusion to be created by "NOTABILITY BY SIMILAR NAME"? Please withhold your vote until more research is done, as you have done much, but not all. ChinaUpdater (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Kimball D. Richards of Consolidated Allied Companies is the subject of those legal cases between '87-'90 and thus the LA Times coverage not the this new Allied Artists International. Allied Artists International has not received significant coverage. Kimball D. Richards might meet general notability guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: it's rather complicated, but see this USPTO filing (among others) which describes the transfer of trademarks from the old Allied Artists Pictures Corporation to a "Allied Artists Records and Studios" "aka Allied Artists Records" (both names cited as part of Consolidated Allied Companies in the Times and elsewhere), while listing "Allied Artists International, Inc." as the correspondence addressee (i.e. the name presently used). When you factor in things like both CAC and AAI being in the same city, using the same lawyer, managing the same bands and having Kim Richards as CEO, it's pretty clear that these are the same entity operating under several similar names. Now granted, AAI is currently registered in Nevada, but this seems to have been a reincorporation of the existing company rather than the establishment of a new corporation with no association to the old one. (Contrast this with the old, defunct AAPC and the Allied Artists that is suing for trademark infringement; those are both separate entities from AAI.)

  And I agree that Kimball Richards probably merits an article as a result of his coverage in the news. TheFeds 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You seem informed TheFeds, but have one issue backwards. The old AAPC is not suing anyone. The lawsuit was brought by AAI against Robert Rooks and two brand new corporations in Nevada and California that are alleged by AAI to have been named AAPC in violation of AAI's trademarks. Rooks filed a counterclaim alleging that he bought the trademarks, but the judge found that claim to be meritless and dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice. That means that the only entity suing is AAI and the persons being sued are Robert Rooks, his co-defendants and the two corporations he formed and named AAPC in the year 2008. The only side of that lawsuit that can lose is the defendant's side, because the counterclaims have all been dismissed. I found that on the court's Pacer Website. The name of the case is Allied Artists International, Inc. v. Robert N. Rooks, et al, CA USDC No. 08-cv-08116(GAF)-Rz. It is therefore inaccurate to say that AAI is being sued or that they are being sued for fraud related to not turning over the trademarks to AAPC. That claim has already been adjudicated and can't be raised again. I hope this clears up any confusion. --TechnicalExcellence (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If it is the same entity there should only be one article not two (neither Allied Artists Pictures Corporation or Allied Artists International look notable to me, though). If the legal proceedings were against Kimball Richards and not the company then the article should be about Richards.Cptnono (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Allied Artists Pictures Corporation is the historical and defunct movie company—to me, that goes in a separate article because they were sold off in pieces when they went bankrupt, and their notability would be a question for a separate AfD. Are you considering CAC and AAI (with an article at Allied Artists International) as the same company? If so, do you think that listing it as Consolidated Allied Companies would be the more appropriate title, given that during the 1980s, it was referred to as such by the media? Or do you think that it's still not enough coverage of the company, and we should just write an article about Richards (and delete CAC/AAI)? TheFeds 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I started an article about Kimball Dean Richards here[11]75.84.158.222 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment In any case, it seems notability is a moot point if the article is part of a pattern of behavior design do confer undeserved notability for the pursposes of perpetuating fruad and other criminal activity. User:icouce 20:01, 22 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.15.185 (talk)

• Comment I don't know what the fuck is going on here, but ChinaUpdater would probably do better to keep his Wall of Text rants relating to this subject on this page as opposed to my talkpage. And no, I'm not switching my !vote to keep. Crafty (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments not related to AfD issues (by 75.84.158.222, ChinaUser, 99.166.95.142 and TheFeds) are hidden below. TheFeds 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep but Stubify to help resolve the disputes Similar to what we would do if the article was coming off of WP:OFFICE protection and the article was made into a stub as a result of that. I believe this article has some notability and could probably be re-built into a halfway decent article. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring all of the shenanigans between a couple of editors, the problem still remains that there are not any sources.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, unless proper referencing can be provided. If someone wants to save and work on it then userfy it. Otherwise, it seems Kim Richards is notable enough to have an article, per the WSJ articles provided above. Perhaps this one ought to be junked and that one written instead. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:ChinaUpdater's repeated disruption

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ChinaUpdater.27s_repeated_BLP_violations and comment. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He was indef'd in that thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Not Notable. Writer's Cramp (talk) 05:44, 23 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. Editorial discussions should continue on the article's talk page with regard to merging. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Cleveland Show (season 1)

The Cleveland Show (season 1) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Cleveland Show (season 1)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

There is only one season for this show so having an article for the sole season is unnecessary. In addition, all the information in this article is already featured in The Cleveland Show and List of The Cleveland Show episodes. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Delete per reasons in nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Keep the show has already been picked up for a full second season and the season pages contain expanded info such as reception/ratings etcGrande13 (talk)
      • Comment - that's not a keep argument; first of all, WP:CRYSTAL - we don't make or keep pages based on the future. Second, that doesn't answer the question of why this information couldn't be on the series main page. Shows like The Simpsons have individual season pages because their notability and episode-by-episode cultural relevance is so immense; there's no argument made here that The Cleveland Show has that level of social currency. A single show page is appropriate to contain this information. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep It is noteworthy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Below is moved from the episode list discussion page

[edit] proposition to merge pages

I suggest merge The Cleveland Show (season 1) with List of The Cleveland Show episodes. There is only 1 season, don't need to have both pages with same informations. - Rollof1 (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This page has expanded information compared to the condensed main episode list and the show has already been picked up for a second seasonGrande13 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The season page has more details, such as the plot summary. CTJF83 chat 17:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I also oppose per reasons mentioned above. I do have one problem with the two pages though; the production codes for the episodes are not the same on both pages. I'm not sure of the correct ones. Someone with the knowledge please fix it? --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above, and i updated the production codes.Grande13 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as for everything ubove. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Season pages were created for larger television shows because the original List of ... episodes lists were getting too long. We don't have that problem with this list, at least not right now. Theleftorium 17:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:39, 26 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 delete. blanked by author DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Special Award Medal

Special Award Medal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Special Award Medal" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

A medal given out only once to a class of elementary students for perfect attendance. Not notable in any way. PROD declined by author - no reasons given. Singularity42 (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable Jarkeld (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - obviously non-notable, and whoever linked it as a "campaign medal" in the infobox obviously knows it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, there never will be significant coverage of this in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - author has now blanked the page, so G7 applies. Singularity42 (talk) 01:32, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and the discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The gourmet society

The gourmet society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The gourmet society" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Proposed for deletion a year ago, the Prod was removed by an IP. Little substantive work has been done on this stub since, except for tagging. The article makes no real claims of notability; the title format is wrong; it needs extensive copyediting; the sources are not reliable; and it reads like an advert. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7 - this article about an organisation does not assert notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability and can not find any reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:17, 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. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Gontier

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

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

Original research, not notable. This goes for the other band members as well. Skrewler (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This musician has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, the main criterion for notability. He's been substantially covered by Jam! Music, The Hour, Revolver magazine, and Canada's highest circulation newspaper, The Star. Sure, the article's in bad shape and mainly cites a non-independent source, but AfD is not cleanup. Timmeh 21:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  I'd also like to add to my rationale DustFormsWords' mention of Gontier's work in creating "I Don't Care" with Apocalyptica, which did well on the charts and undoubtedly garnered him even more coverage. Timmeh 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Three Days Grace is certainly a notable band, so the relevant portion of WP:NMUSIC would be: "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Gontier's (excellent) work collaborating with Apocalyptica (and to a lesser extent with Daughtry) in my opinion narrowly carries him over the "individual activity" test and makes him a suitable candidate for his own article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I must agree with above two posters - Gontier has an extensive amount of coverage in reliable sources and a small discography pertinent to him and not the Three Days Grace as a whole. The original research you cite can easily be fixed, deleting the article is not cleaning it up as Timmeh stated. Also, no one here is arguing the other band members deserving individual articles, only Gontier. Daniel Musto (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of sources can be found easily online here, and proof of North American touring is here. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - more significance explanation and citation might be needed. Olivemountain (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - needs work, but keep per above reasons, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why Wouldn't You Keep? If it's not too late to chime in, Bearian is correct, as are the rest of the editors: A simple Google (News) search will turn up more than enough places to find attributable sources for him. Yeah, the article has a few issues, but Wikipedia's not always perfect and these aren't hurdles that can't be overcome. Can the article use work? Sure, but with the sheer number of editors willing to chip in to improve the article, this article can quickly ascend the Quality Scale and then some. KirkCliff2 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. I've gone ahead and added the sources I mentioned in my comment above, so the article itself demonstrates that Gontier has sufficient notability. Timmeh 22:17, 25 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. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Quitmeyer

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

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

It appears that the subject requests deletion. The presumption is that we would accede to these if the individual is only marginally notable. The article has only one independent source and a trawl through Google indicates that most mentions are either cast listings or directory entries, I did not find any non-trivial independent sources primarily about the subject. Given that the claim to notability is as an originator of "splatter porn" the number of Google hits is remarkably small. This does look like one of those marginal cases; the article either needs vastly better sourcing or removal I think. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I noted that the IP number that tagged the article for speedy deletion had made a note indicating that he was the subject and that he wanted the article removed, but I am not sure that that's solid enough ground for me to be sure the IP equals the subject. I found three interviews with small online cinemazines [34], [35] and [36] that seem to indicate that he has sought the public's attention in the past. Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual suggests that such an individual is not "low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable", but it means that this isn't a case of WP:BLP1E. I also note that WP:OPTOUT, which was an attempt to generate policy about such a request, did not receive the blessing of the community. I recognize competing interests here, but on the balance of probabilities I want to agree with User:Jayron32, who said (on the administrator's noticeboard area where I asked for policy references, here) that "If a person readily gives interviews to reliable sources, self-promotes their work, or otherwise personally seeks the public spotlight, then there is little ground to stand on when they claim they don't want an article at Wikipedia. For those sorts of people, what they are really after is to control their own message, and not privacy in any way." (And thank you to Guy for taking the trouble to AfD this; I was waiting to hear from the IP user, but I think this is the way to get the community's opinion.) Accounting4Taste:talk 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I would not be averse to this ending early and the article deleted; my assessment seems to be distinctly in the minority. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Quitmeyer is only notable for making Slaughter Disc, and would normally be dealt with on that page per WP:BLP1E. However a quick read of Slaughter Disc suggests that the film may also be non-notable (no independent sources) and it seems likely that the coverage in Rue Morgue, Fangoria et al is limited entirely to reviews. So, in short, Quitmeyer fails WP:N and someone should put his film up for AfD as well. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Only found one newspaper article that may or may not be for the same person (it's pay-per-view and I can't get the details). The article is only about a controversial arrest, not related to his career or anything notable. -- Atama頭 00:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of sources; self-request for deletion is largely moot here, since there does not appear to be much in the way of reliable sources to build an article around, a few marginal bloggy-type interviews online, but not much else. --Jayron32 04:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In interest of full disclosure, I was alerted to this AFD based on a discussion with another user, and based on a discussion at WP:AN. --Jayron32 04:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, just edit conflicted with you for almost identical logic. Huh. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Considerations of his personal preference and how much weight to give his desire not to have an article don't need to be discussed. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet the GNG. RMHED 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Only one reliable source, not enough to establish notability. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:18, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Health Corp

New Health Corp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "New Health Corp" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unambiguous promotional page by SPA. Speedy was declined. Non-notable and WP:SYNTH issues. Basket of Puppies 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7 - this article about an organisation does not assert its notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Inclined to speedy as G11 (spam), but not now, since it was declined. =) Clear cut advertisement with a slight flavor of WP:COATRACK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:40, 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. Allowing for the canvassings, the consensus of uncanvased editors is that this should be deleted. The arguments of notyability are mostly by assertion which is not compelling. The most substantive comment for keep was that from mickmaguire which was very early on in the debate but not compelling for the independant editors coming along later. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Euclid D. Farnham

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

Euclid D. Farnham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Euclid D. Farnham" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Minor author and actor without significant coverage. Yes, there are a few references, but they're not independent, trivial, and local respectively. We need much more coverage than this man has gotten to establish notability. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep - the article asserts notability, and his public service is of a level high enough to be formally recognised by a government body through a medal awarded (as far as I can tell) to a half dozen people in Orange County, Vermont every five years. Combined with his otherwise non-notable acting work and writing and the fact the page is neither defamatory nor obviously self-promotional, I'm inclined to keep it per WP:NOTHING and WP:NOTPAPER. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How does he actually pass WP:BIO? Assertions only suffice to keep an article from speedy deletion, and he's not received sustained coverage nor a notable award: and there's no evidence that he does anything to pass WP:BIO. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm asserting that the Vermont Public Service Award arguably is a notable award; that is to say, it's not obviously non-notable and Google searches turn up plenty of indpendent mention of it. It's borderline, hence "weak" keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you propose that all recipients of this award pass WP:BIO? Not all recipients of all notable awards are notable: the Purple Heart is a notable award, but not all recipients are notable. The point of the criterion is for major awards, not ones awarded (comparatively) en masse, such as this. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Receiving the award creates a presumption of notability and I see no strong reasno to erbut it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As the originator of the article it might be claimed I am biased - however I am (obviously) in the keep camp. If you lived in VT or NH you would likely have heard of Euclid, he is an extremely well known historian and personality as well as an authority on VT in the Civil War. The article on him is merely a stub. In addition to the two books he has in print a third reference work is currently being prepared. What drove me to put the article in in the first place was the continual removal of him from the notable persons on the Tunbridge VT page, even though multiple editors had tried to reinstate him. I thought this might give people who live half way across the country more of a reference for why people in VT and NH keep trying to add him. Though I think he is indeed notable enough to have his own article, my grounds being: He meets the WP:Bio basic standard of " been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He meets "he person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one." He has "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." If the editors decide against this case and the article is killed I move he should be left on the notable people. I would also call reviewers attention to the other notables on the same page for comparison such as John O'Brien - if Euclid doesn't pass muster then some of those wont either (and yes I know this isn't the point <grin> ). Tunbridge is a tiny town (less than 2k inhabitants) and not very much goes on there - in that light Euclid is extremely notable. As an aside and for full disclosure I was one of those who originally removed the reference to him but my opinion on him has changed after reading more of his work and understanding more about him.Mickmaguire (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep He's certainly notable within Vermont and is a living connection to Vermont history and culture. Since Vermont as a whole is a National Trust site, I think that stands for something. I have read about Euclid in connection with the Tunbridge Fair and his books, but I didn't realized that he was in the O'Brien films. Sounds like a keeper to me.H0n0r (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How does this count for Wikipedia notability? Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Given that Wikipedia notability is also conveyed purely by virtue of being Playboy Playmate, I think you're just arguing semantics. There's sufficient evidence to show that Mr. Farnham is a notable enough figure for at least a stub -- and he is far more important a personality, in the real-world terms of lasting and memorable contribution, than your average centerfold. Bruorton (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as one of the more notable small dairy farmers, a threatened occupation. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you propose that all dairy farmers have articles? Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to have a few articles about members of any threatened occupation, and that Farnham is one of the more notable members of this particular threatened occupation. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Has been in actual films, however modest their following.Student7 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep When Euclid announced his retirement as president of the Union Agriculture Society last year many local newspapers, including the Rutland Herald, ran articles on his long service to the Tunbridge Fair and the community at large. He was interviewed on a few radio stations as well. When his retirement was announced it was the talk of area towns for a a long time. As the newspaper articles about him attest, he practically single-handedly saved the Tunbridge Fair, and by doing so it could be said he saved the town of Tunbridge. Not just because of the influx of tourists and money to the town, but because the Fair is a huge part of the culture of the town. And that is just his role as president of the UAS for 30 years. As Mickmaguire mentioned, he has also been the town's moderator for 28 years. He was the Tunbridge Church's treasurer for as many years. He is the president of the Tunbridge Historical Society. He is an author and an actor. Seems notable to me. Rickscully (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notability asserted through print media articles and awards. Article maybe needs to be rewritten as less of a flat bio and more "why is this person notable" off the bat, but I think it meets the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia notability Jessamyn (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I really want to see what counts as notability outside the local area. I see no evidence that he is the most notable small dairy farmer in Vermont , just perhaps one of the more notable ones in one Vermont County. An executive officer for a local fair and a small town, neither of them shows notability. The first step would probably be trying to write an article on the fair, which, if you really trust the local publicity for it, might just conceivably be notable. The other arguments used would get us an article on every dairy farmer in the state. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - See WP:NLI; the fact he's only of interest to a small population does not make him un-notable providing the necessary sources exist. Of course, whether the sources exist is a separate argument. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The Fair really should have it's own page; it is now considered one of the major fairs of northern New England, and it was prominently featured in photographs in National Geographic's Oct. 1997 article on fairs. I agree that this would also lend Wikipedia-type notability to Euclid as the primary architect of its modern incarnation. Bruorton (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I started a little article on the fair and would love some help adding to it with respect to Euclid, and any other information you might have. H0n0r (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The creator of this article asked 6 people to come here: 4 have come & voted keep; 2 have not yet come DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Local perspective would really help this debate and I'd really appreciate seeing views of those who know of the fellow. On the other hand, new contributors should be aware AfD discussions are not a vote but a discussion (and I've added the appropriate template at the top accordingly). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Local perspective is exactly why I asked a few active Wikipedians who are involved with Project Vermont to come along and weigh in. Note I did point out I was not asking them to vote either way, just to add to the debate. Almost all are people I have never met outside of Wikipedia Mickmaguire (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing notability here. The movies he's appeared in are either red links or his name doesn't appear in the article. The Vermont award for town officials he received was given to over 100 people in Orange County (which has a population of less than 30,000 according to the 2000 census) in 2000 and 46 in 2005. Therefore, this award doesn't seem notabile to me. I don't doubt he's been a valuable member of his community, but I'm not seeing anything that passes GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Check http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113758/fullcredits#cast if you question whether Farnham actually appeared in Man with a Plan. Better still, go rent it; sources need not be on line. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd add watch Vermont is for Lovers too as he has a much more major part in that one, being a key character in the story. Mickmaguire (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not saying he wasn't in the movie, I'm still questioning notability. Being in a movie doesn't make you notable--I've been in a martial arts movie but wouldn't claim notability from it. The entertainment criteria says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" and I don't see that. The town officials award, given the frequency it's given out, doesn't strike me as particularly notable either.Papaursa (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As a life-long Vermont resident, I can attest that Euclid is indeed considered notable throughout the region, including much of VT and NH. It is in fact absurd that the debate should be whether his acting or his awards merit sufficient notability, although I understand that stems from the notability criteria. This seems, in part, a conflict of media. Wikipedia must depend on external sources for credibility, but Euclid's most significant accomplishments include turning the Tunbridge Fair into one of New England's half-dozen most significant fairs and being one of the only collectors of a vast amount of Vermont history, especially Civil War correspondences and oral history about its transformations over the last century. Neither of these are documented per se, and yet he is widely known in the region, he is a walking repository of knowledge gathered and known by no one else, and he is likely the leading expert in these fields of Vermont history. That said, although there are naturally far fewer online sources to show this than those in print or in person (round up a random group of prominent Civil War historians, for instance, and see how many know him) the sources which are available, as Jessamyn noted, are entirely sufficient. Bruorton (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You stated my problem--"neither of these are documented". The references in the article show him as M.C. at a Vermont Civil War event, quoted on covered bridges, stepping down as president of the Tunbridge World Fair, and as recipient of a pretty common award. His book on the world's fair has an Amazon rank below 2,500,000. I'm not asking for online documentation, just some documentation of his notability beyond being a local celebrity. Sorry, but rounding up a "random group of prominent Civil War historians" is beyond me. If he's a prominent historian there should be some record of that--writings, citations by other historians, etc. He seems like an interesting guy and I'd be happy to see him stay if you could provide some documentation.Papaursa (talk) 00:34, 27 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 consensus is that the sourcing issue has not been adequately met at this point. Recreation of the article may be viable when such sourcing arises. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ProjectVirginia

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

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

This is a political action committee that was founded this year. The article cites a Mashable post which mentions it briefly, and there are some posts about it on conservative blogs, but there's nothing in google news archive. I don't think it's notable. Prezbo (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Age is not a relevant consideration for notability. The Mashable articleis located on the Google News Archive. I would like to red flag Prezbo's use of the term "conservative blogs" as a possible root of personal bias in these matters. In addition, Prezbo put the article up for AFD after I removed the PROD tag which I negated with the added reference.Phenry09 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I see no issue with the mention of support from conservative blogs. As mentioned below, the Mashable entry is not a significant article is more about social media than ProjectVirginia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 October 2009(UTC)

- Please Sign This Comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenry09 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - perfectly serviceable stub. The article asserts notability and has a source. Needs cleanup and improvement but that's not an AfD issue. Delete - good faith searches return no news, scholarly or general Google references - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The AfD issue is that reliable secondary sources devoted to the article subject don't seem to exist.Prezbo (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well pointed out, vote changed above, thanks - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete – Lacks GHits of substance - mostly blogs, facebook, etc. No GNEWS except the Mashable entry (read this as lacking multiple entries). The Mashable entry is not a significant article is more about social media than ProjectVirginia. ttonyb (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I have to agree, there's no evidence to suggest that sources are available to show how notable this organization is. Whether the group was mentioned in conservative blogs, liberal blogs, or slightly silly blogs, the fact is that blogs can post whatever they wish. In some cases, they are reliable for what they say (X made a statement on their blog saying Y), but in most cases they don't work as reliable sources, whatever their leanings. This group may prove notable, and sources may emerge from future coverage - and, if that's the case, great, we can have an article then. This one might be premature, though. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep After a small amount of research I found a great deal of information about what this organization is doing. Google News is not the be all, end all source for notability verification, or else it would be listed as so. At least one of the blog posts is in Alexa's top ten blogs. The article should be allowed to persist as it stands so that other members of the community can add to it. In addition, I would contest that if these standards were applied equally to every organization listed in the Political Action Committee category, the category would be liquidated. Perhaps it should be, I cannot know for sure.Phenry09 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Press releases and blogs are generally not considered as independent, verifiable sources. Please show us where the in the criteria it states that, an article should be left to stand "...so that other members of the community can add to it." I am not sure what you are getting at with regards to the category, but this is a forum to discuss this article's merits. ttonyb (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – I would not contend that a press release is an independent source, that would be just ludicrous. However, a cause and effect relationship can exist between the former and the latter blog posts. The category was presented as a source for similar articles. Many organizations somehow have maintained articles with lower levels of notability. The merits of this article should be judged independently, I do not contest that. However, it would seem that in order to make an honest assessment of this article's notability, it would be helpful to analyze the competition so to speak.Phenry09 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – See WP:WAX. Notability is not judged by comparison to other articles, but rather to the applicable notability criteria. There may well be other articles that should be deleted; however, this is a forum to discuss this article's merits. ttonyb (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Be that as it may, I contest that the organization is notable because of it's wide prevalence in the blogging community. You and I have exhausted our material in the discussion and I would hope that others will now have the chance to input their vote. Also please make an effort to assume good faith on the part of this editor, as a new user I obviously cannot be aware of every policy, as such please be respectful as you continue to guide my article development.Phenry09 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I've looked through the sources currently in the article; they're almost entirely not independent (being ProjectVirginia itself) or not reliable (being blogs and forums). The exception is the Washington Examiner, which doesn't make any reference to ProjectVirginia. You can argue that some blogs SHOULD be reliable sources, but per current policy (WP:RS) they're not, and wishing doesn't change that. Without reliable sources the article is unable to pass WP:N and neither my good faith searches nor any of the comments above have been able to demonstrate any evidence that those sources exist. (Also, there's no evidence of a "wide prevalance in the blogging community" as the total lack of ghits shows - are you accusing Google of filtering right-wing blogs from its searches?) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Could you please post the sentence from WP:RS that specifically outlaws blogs in every instance from serving as reliable sources?Phenry09 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - sorry, it's not all blogs, it's THESE blogs. The Next Right may or may not be reliable but the cited source is an opinion column that name checks the project without attesting to its notability. SWAC Girl is a sole-blogger unedited unverified blog hosted on Blogspot. The Washington Examiner is certainly reliable but doesn't actually refer to ProjectVirginia. Pajamas Media is a (commercialised) aggregation of opinion blogs that as far as I can see makes no claim of editorial oversight and doesn't cite its sources, and again it's only a namecheck rather than an attestation of notability. Right Wing News may or may not be reliable (certainly not independent, given its tagline) but the cited article is a straight unedited repost of something sent in by the community. So, yes, the sources are a bit rubbish. What you need is even one article from a reputable news source making the claim that Project Virginia is notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment –I am pretty sure that the Washington Examiner went so far a to directly quote a member of the organization in their article. In addition, I am sensing that no criteria has been ratified by the Wikipedia community that guides the determination of the credibility of blogs of any type. Therefore, it seems as if your opinion on credibility is guiding your recommendation, and that hardly seems appropriate.Phenry09 (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – A quote from someone that is a member of an organization hardly makes the article about the organization and it hardly makes it significant coverage of that organization. Most blogs lack editorial oversight and simply put are unreliable as independent or verifiable sources. The basic notion that references need to be independent and verifiable has been agreed to by the Wikipedia community. Can we also please remember this page should be a discussion of the merits of this article and not as an discussion of the merits of existing Wikipedia polices. If you wish to discuss items not related to the article, please take them to talk page - it will save the reviewing admin from having to wade through non-related a discussion. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment –I contest that this discussion is relevant to the proceedings, especially if people voting for deletion are citing policies which are not explicitly stated by Wikipedia. In a debate as crucial as an AFD inferring the existence of a policy which questions the reliability of a source is of the utmost importance.Phenry09 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment –And correct me if I am wrong, but national media outlets are not generally in the habit of directly quoting those "non-notable" crackpots everyone seems to be worried about.Phenry09 (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – I am not sure what this has to do with the price of cheese in Chile - yes, this is humor. As I indicated above, "A quote from someone that is a member of an organization hardly makes the article about the organization and it hardly makes it significant coverage of that organization." ttonyb (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment –Weak attempts at humor aside, quoting your previous posts does not give additional weight to your argument because you cannot provide a reference for your "opinion" in Wikipedia policy.Phenry09 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Phenry09, the relevant policies are WP:RS and WP:Verifiability. I've outlined above why I feel the sources cited in the article don't fall within the reliable sources policy. If you feel that they are, indeed, reliable sources, I'll confess to not having understood your argument to that effect and would politely invite you to re-state it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (OUTDENT) – Discussion moved to Phenry09's talk page ttonyb (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Overt political canvassing. Deb (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment –This type of reasoning is precisely the problem with this afd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenry09 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – - To those who would choose to delete this article. Number of references has been doubled since inception of this AFD. In addition, Politics Magazine has printed a hard copy feature on ProjectVirginia. This piece will be available online at some point. Perhaps this AFD should be extended for a time to allow for me to finish establishing notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenry09 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – - The feature article is linked on the Politics Magazine Blog as well. I included this reference as well to increase notability. I believe it is the fourth or fifth reference.Phenry09 (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - my vote is still delete on the grounds that (1) none of the sources constitute "significant" coverage - I can't find any that rise above a single line mention but feel free to correct me, and (2) none of the sources attest to the notability of ProjectVirginia, only its existence. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The Politics Magazine article is a feature article, perhaps you should read that one.Phenry09 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• The blog entry is here. This actually does make a difference, it's much more in-depth than previous sources. Is the article in the magazine actually about ProjectVirginia exclusively, and how long is it?Prezbo (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Not sure on length, asked a friend of mine to steal it from his professor and send it to me. In addition, the blog will be doing a follow up next week with some sort of post election roundup with data from the group.Phenry09 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I am pretty sure that the blog post alone warrants notability.Phenry09 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Upon reading, the article makes no claim of notability for this PAC. It is not backed up by reliable sources, but by many unreliable ones. Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 27 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. Consensus seems to be that this character, while most likely fictional, passes WP:N and there are sufficient sources to write an article. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] William Crawford (Scottish knight)

William Crawford (Scottish knight) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "William Crawford (Scottish knight)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Minor fictional character, not notable. PatGallacher (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We are having some difficulty separating fact from fiction in relation to the life of William Wallace on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Loudoun Hill (1296) for a previous discussion. This person appears to be an unhistorical character, I can find no mention of him in reliable sources about Scottish history. There is no mention of him in A.Fisher's "William Wallace", Peter Traquair's "Freedom's Sword" or Black's "Surnames of Scotland". (Some of them do mention members of the Crawford family, one of who died fighting for Bruce, but there is no mention of this person.) The Clan Crawford website is not a reliable source since it repeats clearly unhistorical material e.g. the mass hanging of Scots nobles at Ayr.

So it seems that at most this person is a fictional character in Blind Harry's poem "The Wallace". I am aware that we can have articles about fictional or unhistorical characters e.g. Pope Joan, but there are not the independent third-party sources to establish notability. It is not clear that this person figures as a major character in Blind Harry, or even that everything in this article appears in Blind Harry. The only book I can find that mentions him, "William Wallace: Braveheart" by James MacKay, which looks like far too uncritical a regurgitation of Blind Harry, just mentions briefly that he accompanied Wallace on a trip to France, there is no mention of him fighting at Stirling Bridge or taking part in an invasion of England.

See the talk page for further criticisms of this article. PatGallacher (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep - it seems to me that it's not appropriate to delete the article. Rather, it should be rewritten in the style "William Crawford is a historical figure mentioned in Blind Harry's poem 'The Wallace'. Whether or not an actual William Crawford existed is a matter of dispute...". That would provide an appropriate forum for editors to provide arguments for or against his existence. If after some period of time no arguments emerge for his existence, the article would then be appropriate to be deleted as non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC).
• Keep Fictional (as is most likely), a significant figure in one of the classic works of Scottish literature. There are additionally discussion of this character in all the books about the poem--and about the disputed historicity when discussing Wallace. Rewrite as Dustforms suggests to show the proper nature of the character. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you actually point us to these books about the poem you are referring to? PatGallacher (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. My understanding is that Blind Harry's poem is one of the chief sources of the life of William Wallace. Whether or not this character existed historically, there would appear to be enough about him to support an article, even if he is entirely Blind Harry's invention. The rest would appear to be cleanup. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we do decide to keep this article, unless someone comes up with better sources, it would have to be cut down to a couple of sentences, since that is all that is verifiable. PatGallacher (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep – I was able to find some references in scholarly books such as “The Life of Sir William Wallace” published in 1841 and shown here [37] page 91 which states that Crawford was in charge of 400 Calvary. Also I was able to dig-up a reference to Crawford sailing with Wallace to France as shown here [38] on page 112 of a book published in 1825. I’ll throw them in the article for inline cites and references. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a place for fact and fiction in Wikipedia as long as it meets WP:N and WP:V. If there is doubt that he truly existed, then let the article state that, however, I think this one squeaks by on the relevant policies and guidelines. Location (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are a whole series of problems with the 2 sources which have just been added. I find these online books very difficult to read. They both look like uncritical regurgitations of Blind Harry. The first describes Wallace as governor-general, which he was not. The second repeats as fact the fictional Barns of Ayr incident. Sources from the early 19th century are virtually worthless. If Crawford was even a significant fictional character it ought to be possible to find better mention of him than this. PatGallacher (talk) 22:16, 23 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 parent article. It's clear there is a strong consensus for deleting these pages, and the keep votes were not able to counteract that. I am, however, cognisant of the amount of effort that was devoted to these pages, and will hence close as 'merge to parent article: eg 'Outline of [State]', so that any useful material can be saved. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Outline of Louisiana history

Outline of Louisiana history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Outline of Louisiana history" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I am nominating almost all of the Outline of U.S._State_Name history articles for deletion. (Outline of Texas history was deleted over the weekend after an AfD discussion.) These articles are not truly outlines of the history of each state, but outlines of the Wikipedia coverage of the history of each state. Wikipedia's coverage is neither complete nor noteworthy; the article titles are very misleading.

They appear to full of WP:Original research; in many cases irrelevant links are included based on the personal interpretation of the wikipedia editor(s) who created this, regardless of whether those topics would be included in an actual book on the subject. (As a minor example, a history of the U.S. state of Louisiana would likely not include information on Los Adaes-the first capital of Texas-, which is linked in Outline of Louisiana history).

The applicable links contain no context, and without context a history article can quickly slip into WP:NPOV. (Using Louisiana again, including a link to Spanish Texas supports the French perspective that Texas was part of Louisiana; the Spanish did not hold this opinion.) Even if this is not NPOV at this time, it is incredibly confusing; as a reader I have no idea how half of these links/topics are associated with the overall topic and would have to click every wikilink to figure it out.

If the links were trimmed to contain only that that were applicable, and if the appropriate context were added to make sure that they were NPOV and not confusing, these articles would essentially be stripped down versions of the articles History of U.S._State_Name. That makes these outlines content forks. The table of contents of the History of U.S._State_Name article should make a good overview of the topic, and readers are welcome to follow main or further templates at each section to find out more.

Furthermore, as they exist these articles are essentially outlines of outlines. The Outline of U.S._State_Name articles already contain history sections with outlines of the history.

I don't believe these articles can be salvaged into anything approaching a comprehensive, useful, neutral, article that is not a content fork, and as such I think they should be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Outline of Alabama history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Alaska history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Arizona history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Arkansas history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of California history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Colorado history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Connecticut history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Delaware history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Florida history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Georgia (U.S. state) history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Hawaii history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Idaho history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Illinois history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Indiana history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Iowa history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Kansas history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Kentucky history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Maine history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Maryland history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Massachusetts history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Michigan history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Minnesota history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Mississippi history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Missouri history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Montana history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Nebraska history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Nevada history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of New Hampshire history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of New Jersey history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of New York history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of New Mexico history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of North Carolina history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of North Dakota history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Ohio history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Oklahoma history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Oregon history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Pennsylvania history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Rhode Island history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of South Carolina history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of South Dakota history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Tennessee history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Utah history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Vermont history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Virginia history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Washington history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of West Virginia history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Wisconsin history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Wyoming history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of District of Columbia history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of American Samoa history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Guam history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Northern Mariana Islands history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of Puerto Rico history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outline of United States Virgin Islands history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Karanacs (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Some of these articles are useful, are widely used, and should not be summarily mass-deleted in one lump. I'm not even sure nominating so many articles for mass deletion is appropriate procedure. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletion nominations are preferred when the articles are similar. Can you please address the points in the nomination (WP:OR, lack of notability, WP:POV, and WP:FORK), or elaborate on what makes these useful? Karanacs (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Are preferred"? Not by me, they're not. On whose behalf are you "appealing to authority"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation continued at User_talk:Til_Eulenspiegel. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge all As a matter of principle, I think that all of these need to be merged back to the "Outline of ______". In this case, a mass nomination is appropriate, because a random sampling suggests think that these have been created in the same manner, which was to take the section of one outline, and then use that as a template for creating what strikes me as an outline of an outline. To the extent that any of these contain some relevant information that isn't in the parent article, then the parent article can and should be improved by the addition of that information. In addition, since this could be viewed as a suggested rewriting of each "History of ______" article, perhaps those could (perhaps) from the placement of some of these entries as headings for sections. To me, however, it seems to defeat the purpose of the outline project if an outline article no longer provides all of the relevant information at a glance. And to me, if the "History of Louisiana" (or any other state) needs to be improved upon, then it should be improved upon. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The outline project has no consensus for any of its activities, and one of their main goals has been the disruption of wikipedia recently. These articles are poorly thought out and executed. It would be better, after looking at a sample, to restart from a clean slate. Verbal chat
• Delete I agree with the nominator that these articles are neither complete nor noteworthy, and that the entirety of the "Outline" section lacks a strong justification for inclusion in Mainspace. There is no criteria that informs editors what should be included in the Outline, and how the outline should be grouped. To the extent the article becomes a valid use of mainspace, it is little more than History of Louisiana. As it stands, Outlines are not compliant with How We Do Things Here. Appropriate locations for the synthesis that is the Outline project is Wikiversity, which I am positive would be overjoyed to host all of these (OR is permitted at Wikiversity). Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that Merge is second choice to prevent the dreaded 5keep 6merge 4delete = no consensus close, I should note that I prefer merging to keeping in the current state, as merged there are less outlines to check for redonculous changes. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge (Outline of x history --> Outline of x) - This has been discussed at depth for the last few weeks, if outlines are to be deleted, we need a central discussion/RfC, not AfD. As for the WP:FORK, the issue is countered here. On the other hand, I feel that state history outlines may be a bit too much to keep (WP:NOTABILITY). If that is the case then maybe these should be merged with Outline of Louisiana etc. Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I had actually suggested an RfC before, but User:The Transhumanist, who has been the chief cheerleader of the project, recommended that instead the articles be discussed at AfD [39]. Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I am also not suggesting here that all outlines need to be deleted; just these, and for reasons that may apply only to history articles. Just as an RfC is unneeded to delete a specific "regular" article or list, neither should an RfC be needed to deleted a specific "outline". Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Move to project space/Delete Incomplete, non-notable, lists without justification for existing in mainspace. I agree with tall the problems noted by the nominator. Without some context, which they lack, they are a NOTE, NPOV, FORK, and OR mess. Despite the the activities of outline project members this format and style has not achieved anything approaching consensus, and these are poor examples of wikipedia articles. They should all be deleted or moved to project space where project members could work on them and establish some consensus for what to do with them (many of those pro-outline seem to favour their own space "outline" space). Remove from mainspace and centrally decide what to do with this project. Highfields essay doesn't address any of these concerns. Verbal chat 20:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered reading it it deals with WP:FORK in detail but I won't argue with you. Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't deal with the problem at all. Verbal chat 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It does, it clearly says what we have outlines in addition to and why Highfields (talk, contribs) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• • They should be moved to project space until some form of consensus for their existence in mainspace is established, such as the RfC others say we should wait for. They are not valid articles per all the concerns above.Verbal chat 21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is to be an RfC, then surely maintaining the status quo would be better until there is an outcome? Highfields (talk, contribs) 21:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you voted twice - please strike one of your votes. Thank you. The Transhumanist    02:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I have only !voted once, and wikipedia does not work on voting, which you have been told repeatedly. Verbal chat 05:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to respective parent outlines - I'm generally a supporter of the outlines project, and I do think an RfC is needed before we start deleting the main outlines, but merging these to their respective parent outlines seems an uncontroversial and reasonable solution for now. These are simply redundant and unnecessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it you mean Outline of x history --> Outline of x, if so then I probably agree Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge all per Juliancolton. These are not true "outlines", but merely a series of what ought to be hatnotes within the respective History of X State articles. NW (Talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, or merge each one into the corresponding parent (state) outline (as each of those have a history branch). - Note that the rationale for the deletion nomination is faulty, as the word "Outline" in the titles refers to the type of list these are, not the subject of each list. It is normal for lists to have a list-type designator in their titles or path names - it is common practice; thus we have:
  • Glossary of architecture
  • Index of architecture articles
  • Outline of architecture
  • Timeline of architecture
  • Portal:Architecture/Topics
  • Category:Architecture
  • and Table of years in architecture

Even the titular phrase "List of" is an article type designator - almost every list on Wikipedia is an article in list format and not an article for which the subject is a list (such as a list published under that title that's out there on sale at a book store for instance). So we also have:

• "List of architecture whatever"
  • List of architecture prizes
  • List of architecture firms
  • List of architecture magazines
• "List of whatever architecture"
  • List of Baroque architecture
  • List of Gothic architecture
  • List of Romanesque architecture

And even though a list may include only links to articles, the scope isn't limited to such and is subject to expansion (with topics that aren't yet articles) at any time by any editor. Just because a list is an article list, it doesn't mean it isn't a topic list at the same time! (Although probably incomplete - but incompleteness isn't a valid argument for deletion either, as every article on Wikipedia is a work-in-progress). The Transhumanist    22:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This AfD is not discussing architecture, but outline of <US state name> history. Please don't construct straw man arguments. Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom and don't upmerge to "Outline of State" since I hate the whole premise of these outline "articles" per "That's not how we do things around here". Our category system is perfectly useful. If moved to project space, please please please get the related state WikiProjects on board for clean up and expansion, they will know much better what should go in each outline. Katr67 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. Love the Outlines in general but I'm not sure state history outlines are necessary. They can easily be merged into their parent "Outline of X" state articles. Nothing lost. And if one gets too big later on, it can be spun off as well. For now though, the main outline articles seems to be able to accomodate them. Tiamut^talk 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination is based on a misinterpretation: All these outlines are part of the hierarchical outline of knowledge navigation scheme, they are not "normal articles" as the nominator assumed. Great and active efforts are currently made to distinguish navigational outlines from normal articles, e.g. by using a prominent header template to prevent such misunderstandings in the future. Minor mistakes are no reason whatsoever to delete outlines, this is a wiki and mistakes can easily be corrected. I have no opinion about the usefulness of this particular class of history outlines, but the appropriate place to discuss these issues is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge (or the individual talk pages).
  I would also like to point out that (in sharp contrast to what some users have suggested above), the WikiProject Outline of Knowledge has a wide support on Wikipedia. It creates and maintains one of the main (and arguably the most user friendly) navigation scheme on Wikipedia which is prominently linked to from the main Wikipedia sidebar (second link from the top!) Cacycle (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• No way! Sorry, but this is not a part of a hierarchical naviagation scheme. At first glance, it might look like there's an "official" endorsement of all these historical outlines of the 50 states, but what's clear is (a) The "history" section of the hierarchy is the only one that contemplates "regional" outlines (on the other hand, in the Geography section, when you click on "Alabama", you go straight to "Outline of Alabama" and (b) The idea that these 50 articles are part of some master plan is ludicrous. "History, by region" seems to stop at these 50 articles. Strange that I can find historical outlines for Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, etc.--- but not for places like Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc. (c) The "history" part of the hierarchy is so "All-American", there ought to be a picture of the Stars and Stripes thrown in there. Anybody can look at this and see that this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Mandsford (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if we could complete such a project overnight, but reality prevents it. Throughout Wikipedia, individual editors develop articles of subjects that interest them. It is no different with the OOK. What are we supposed to do, force them to work on things in a specific order? That's not wiki-like. This is a work-in-progress and is incomplete. I'm sorry we're not developing it fast enough for you. The Transhumanist    01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I have added the new outline header template and infobox to this article. These templates clearly distinguish outlines from normal articles and provide the hierarchical outline context. Cacycle (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That template violates several Wikipedia policies. We should never ever be linking to project space from article space. If we need to do that, then these "articles" should be placed in project space. Karanacs (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • The namespace for outlines has been discussed extensively, past discussions are linked to from WP:OOKDISC. Cacycle (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• The appropriate place to discuss articles that should be deleted is here, not a wikiproject talk page. Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Cacycle said it nicely. Also adding on to him, if a subject is inadequately represented in Wikipedia, outlines provide the job of displaying redlinks to link to these unfinished parts to and assist in their creation. -- penubag  (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that there are plans to mention every region in the entire world in that little hierarchy? I don't think so. Mandsford (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to those who want to merge into the main outline article for each state. That solves the problem of having articles that are full of OR and NPOV but moves all of the OR and NPOV stuff to sections of other articles. This is not good practice. Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I find these outlines (we're talking about a specific bunch) to be redundant and useless; the contents mainly exist of rather arbitrary lists of events. Nom makes a cogent argument for deletion as opposed to merge. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep or possibly merge into the Outline of State articles. (I think better not, since these can serve as expansions both for the States scheme and the history scheme), . I don't myself work on the Outline of Knowledge scheme, or use it, but every possible organizational device that people are willing to support in Wikipedia should be encouraged. (After keeping, we can resurrect the Texas article, which does not seem to have been adequately noticed.) I don;t see how this is misleadingly official, or POV. That these are major events in the history of each state is not really all that doubtful, and if ones should be subtracted or added it's easy enough to do that. Any individual disputed sequencing or identification can be discussed at the talk page. It's nonsensical to delete a major series of navigational articles because some of them need editing. Probably every one of the articles in the encyclopedia needs some editing. That we only have them for the US states is also an criticism I do not understand--the response is to make them for other countries too. If the people interested in American history made these, the people interested in other areas should do likewise. That we have not yet done everything necessary is no reason to throw out what we do have. As for confusing titles, anyone who goes to the article will see easily enough the nature of it, and Karnac's templates help considerably--and I fail to see how anyone who thinks the title relevant in any possible meaning will not be helped by the contents. To delete an article because of POV needs a showing that the POV is inescapable, and considering the topics we manage to write reasonably NPOV articles on, we can handle these. There will always be some disagreement about what to include in a group, but that doesn't mean that grouping articles is useless. I do not see any OR problems, not any more than in assigning categories. That involves judgment also. We use judgment in organizing the encyclopedia. The basic problem, of saying what events belong in what states and arranging them chronological, is just the assemblage of obvious information. I challenge Drmies: find an article more than half the content you can dispute. (we might do that on the talk p. here). Actually, if this is to be a group deletion, I should be challenging him to do that for every one of the articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • DGG, I am not sure I can accept the challenge, since I am not sure exactly what you mean--do you care to explain? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You say " the contents mainly exist of rather arbitrary lists of events" I challenge you to find an article where more than half the content is inaproriate listings of arbitrary events DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the whole lot The whole OOK project needs a long hard look at and there doesnt appear to be any academic basis on which the articles are based Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)*Delete per nom. There is definitely a lot of controversary over these and I've been doing reading to try to understand all POV. It's nice to see some of the discussions in one place at least. As for the outlines being listed on the sidebar, if I am correct, Transhumanist put it there around 1/09 replacing something else that was there. It's hard to keep up with a lot of this because changes are being done by a selected group and I can't seem to find any place where a wide group of editors have been discussing these. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• delete as blantant WP:CFORKs. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Changing vote from merge to delete all Since it has come to light that there is a master plan to have both a "history of" and a "historical outline of" article for every state and province in the entire world, this is even more ridiculous than I had first imagined. Folks, feel free to think of "Outline of Louisiana" and the other state outlines as articles that you have a right to edit. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete These "articles" are inherently broken and can the history of state topic is better covered by the actual history of state articles...Spiesr (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not sure what purpose these outline articles are serving, and as others have mentioned, the individual state history articles tell a lot more. For example, Outline of Minnesota history doesn't mention anything about Fort Snelling, Saint Anthony Falls, the Mesabi Range, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Hubert H. Humphrey, or other important topics. Outline of Iowa history, by contrast, is a little better, but I'm still not convinced that the "outline" organizational structure is useful when compared to individual state history articles, existing categories by state, or other organizational schemes within Wikipedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or at least Merge into Outline of States. A case of WP:DEMOLISH if ever there was one. Deletion nomination and most deletion supports here are based on a misunderstanding or at least lack of awareness of the role these outlines will play within a coherent navigation system. Considering the amount of effort these have taken and the lack of any demonstrable obstacle to the proper functioning of the encyclopedia, an RfC would be much more appropriate forum to address user concerns. mikaul^talk 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I understand what role it would play in an unwanted and unnecessary navigation system...Spiesr (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And let's be really clear on this, since this is the second comment I've read that implies that only a select few people know what's best for Wikipedia. All navigational aids-- whether they are in categories, or templates, or in this case, in the form of an article-- are subject to deletion review, and there is no inherent superiority for an outline as a form of navigation. In the case of navigational articles, some are in the form of lists, some are disambiguation pages, and some are outlines. What does the hierarchical organization of an outline represent? "Hierarchical organization" sounds very important, but is it the product of a council of wise elders? No, as with nearly anything else on Wikipedia, it starts with one person having an idea about how information should be arranged and then putting it into action, at the risk of disapproval by the community. I think that the amount of effort put into these is grossly exaggerated--- compare any "outline of ____ (Alabama, Alaska, etc.)" history to its parent article "outline of _____ (Alabama, Alaska, etc.)" and see what I mean. I think that the consensus is that most people do not like the direction that this project is taking; and most see no reason why this information can't have been placed into the original outline articles. No, I think everyone here has a good grasp of how an encyclopedia should function. Mandsford (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep or possible merge. I see 2 arguments for deletion. 1) They are not perfect. So edit them! 2) They break policy, e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:FORK, WP:OR, WP:NOTABILITY. I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF but will bring it up anyway, if you are offended by that just stop reading. There are a number of policis that can be used against outlines today, but there are also a number of accepted pages that break these same polices, with our without policies that allows those exception. See e.g. WP:DPAGES for notability. As many above have stated any navigational system should be encouraged, I agree to that and therefore to keep these outlines, and maybe some policies has to be adjusted, then lets discuss that and adjust them. --Stefan ^talk 00:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

They break policy is actually a pretty good argument for deletion. I think this is more of a case that some editors believe them thar articles called "Outline of Alabama", "Outline of Alaska" are not perfect... "so edit them"! Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep\merge I am torn on this, because I agree in large part with nominators statements regarding the quality of these articles. However, it was my impression they were sub articles of their associated outline, like Outline of Indiana. It was also my impression that the purpose of these articles was to help build a site map for wikipedia, not actually produce articles of any quality. I think the best thing is is for clarity to come on the site map issue. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:NOT. This amateurish, childish, utopian and pointless group of forks (together with the whole "outline" series) is about what one set of Wikipedia users find really important about a topic; I trust our readers will be able to discern that from actual articles, not distillations thereof. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  Please elaborate on which section of WP:NOT specifically you are referring to. I could not find anything that relates to these outlines. Cacycle (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all These, like all other "outline" articles, are ridiculous POV forks - they group whatever some editors found "important", and establish an absurd precedent. You've all seen this fallacy at work in the past: "don't read that article, it's too difficult; read my 'summary', until it too gets too difficult to read, then we'll start a summary of a summary of a summary". Bear in mid that articles such as, say, History of Louisiana are already distilled from the topics they cover. Dahn (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep:Notable and there are some references to (a least enough to establish that Louisiana does have a history). See Transhumanist above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, excuse me, but have you seen History of Louisiana? I think it does the job of "establishing that Louisiana does have a history". Dahn (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Some history articles are even more developed, like History of Indiana and History of Minnesotta. But these outline articles are driven from Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge, right? And are sub, sub, sub.... sub article of that are intended to serve as a site map. Not an informative article and not leave anything out, but to be all inclusive. (which to me seems to be redundant with categories) but if we are going to attack these pages as useles in the sense that we are, I think the root cause should be addressed. I have brought this thread to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge all into the broader outlines for the respective states (i.e. Outline of Louisiana history to Outline of Louisiana); the links here are useful in my opinion, and the chronological order (in some) is valuable, but these links alone don't warrant their own article in most cases. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have been involved with the OOK Project, but mostly automated or semi-automated work.) Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 03:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all. History overviews are done by Timeline of.... These do not aid in navigation. Abductive (reasoning) 04:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge all of the state-specific information into the "Outline of State" lists, but do not include the non-state specific links (Cold war, Vietnam war, etc). -- Quiddity (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  (Disclosure/pointer: I'm a part of the Outline Project, and have suggested to Transhumanist and Buaidh a few times previously that these particular outlines are a step too far, and should perhaps be renamed/merged into "Timeline of X" lists (as should Territorial evolution of California). Also, I am contributing to the RfC draft concerning "navigational pages" and "outlines" at User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft‎, currently.) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and transfer less relevant portions: I started these articles as the "Historical outline of state" with a very limited scope of providing a brief outline of major topics impacting the history of each U.S. state. The WikiProject Outline of Knowledge incorporated these articles and expanded the scope to include all articles relevant to the history of each state. I think it would be a shame to scuttle this entire series. I hope these articles can instead transfigure into a more useful series that provides easy access to important and relevant historical articles. (P.S – As a school boy in Texas more than 50 years ago, I learned that La Louisiane has an ancient and impressive history that does not end at state borders.) Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete sorry to say this to those who worked on these, but I think they should all be deleted, per nom, since they are content forks. DVD 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete just looked through some of these and they are awful. A complete mess, full of errors, mistakes, bias and omissions. They should take people to the actual "history of" articles which include discussion and context--Teaearlygreyhot (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you provide an example of your claim? The ones I've reviewed have no discernable bias, and the omissions are mostly likely from a lack of knowledge of the state history by the author. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd just like to point out that "lack of knowledge of the state history by the author" seems like a pretty good reason not to create an outline in the first place. Katr67 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • What if knowledgeable authors fixed them up? That can certainly happen in a place like this... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all or transform into navboxes. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge all to Outline of <state> for the same reasons listed above. Tavatar (talk) 04:28, 26 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. Sufficient secondary, reliable sources have been uncovered to confer notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mayer Hawthorne

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

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

Pure weapons grade vanispamcruftisement containing nothing but links to their publisher's site to purchase their recordings … the only potentially WP:RS is a {{Dead link}} — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep — Though the article is really quite annoying and should be cleaned up, the guy may actually be notable. There are several search hits, including these from reputable sources [40], [41]. Favonian (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - even if there are reliable sources, those sources need to attest to the notability of the subject. None of the claims in the article pass any of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This artist has been featured in The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and The Village Voice, among others. Meets Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

you guys are crazy. he's notable. how notable you can debate, but not whether or not he's notable. their are far less significant articles on this site, and mayer hawthorne is a significant cultural phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.59.226 (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Maher-shalal-hashbaz but clean up. There are plenty of reviews I found at Google News - from such reliable sources as note above, and at the Washington Post and the Boston Herald. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 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 in favor of non-delete alternatives. I am personally redirecting the article to Demographics of Mexico#Emigration from Mexico as a realistic target, which will not preclude further discussion on the eventual outcome of the article's content. lifebaka++ 19:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mexicans in the world

List of Mexicans in the world (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Mexicans in the world" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This is a badly referenced, inaccurate and ludicrous list with zero encyclopaedic value. failing policies at WP:VER and WP:NOT. The figures quoted are out of date and/or misleading and I fail to see how this problem could ever be fixed. For example the reference given for there being 107 Mexicans in New Zealand is to an official site that refers to 450 Mexicans registered with the local embassy rather than how many actually are bona fide immigrants. Other figures are based on out of date references and have spurious precision - e.g. exactly 2,327 in Costa Rica almost a decade ago. This is not a "List of Mexicans in the world" but a "List of recent guesstimates of Mexican expatriate numbers" andy (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Andyjsmith, no real inclusion criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no informational value that couldn't be included under Mexico. It's almost comedic in its ridiculousness. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now The list is two days old and written by a new editor. I think at least a bit of discussion with the editor should occur before deletion. Gruntler (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• The editor is an infrequent visitor to WP and hasn't been back since I originally prodded the article. I doubt if we'll hear from him. Anyway, what would he say - it's either a silly list or it isn't. andy (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, maybe the creator hasn't been back because he's discouraged about his contributions being up for deletion two days after he made them. Anyway, I don't know what *he* would say, but I could see several paths for improvement to WP standards. For example, it could serve as the nucleus for an article on Mexican emigration, like the article on overseas Chinese and the list contained therein. Gruntler (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• That list was added to an existing article, not the other way round. But the field is all yours - if you'd like to have a go at creating such an article I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. This AfD still has a while to run so there's plenty of time. andy (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The title is clumsy, but the data is correctly referenced. At the very least, merge it with the article on Mexico. Warrah (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly what value would this list add to Mexico? But if you'd like to do this then I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. andy (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep by the same reason as Warra says or transfer to another article. The information there is valuable. Dentren | ^Talk 23:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but rename "Emigration from Mexico". There is an article with similar scope titled "Emigration from the United States". There are many others that appear to be similar in Category:Emigrants by nationality, and the content here (assuming it's well referenced or can be referenced) is significant and encyclopedic. Ecphora (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If some of the reference are misleading, then fix it. The emigration of Mexicans around the world is an encyclopedic topic, and I don't see a valid rationale to delete valuable information. --Jmundo (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• The topic of Mexican emigration is encyclopedic. This out of date and innacurate list is not andy (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Old references are not a valid reason for deletion These might be the most current information available; if not, more current sources can be substituted. In either case, the lead can and should explain the state of the data. Ecphora (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is directly copied from the Spanish Wikipedia, Anexo:Mexicanos en el mundo, and so can be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 05:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's standard Wikipedia practice to translate articles from foreign language Wikipedias. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Translation. There's even a Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week for articles translated from the Spanish. So, how does the fact that this article is on the Spanish Wikipedia support deleting it here? Ecphora (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be deleted if that is consensus, without fear of loss of information. For example, if renamed, the new redirect can be deleted without violating the GDFL, since it is a copy. Abductive (reasoning) 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and rename - as per Ecphora AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:17, 27 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood

An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

As per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOTPAPER, this article reads like a high school book review, relying heavily on plot summary and "Author said this" type sentences. Frmatt (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – Based on the following write ups in such publications as the New York Times – Boston Herald – Time – Los Angeles Times – Chicago Sun-Times – Washington Post – Jerusalem Post and on and on and on as shown here [42]. By the way, nice job to the author of the article, very nice job. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Could you please provide links to the actual references and not simply to their wiki pages? This would allow us to see whether they are simply reviews or something more indepth. WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep a WP page. Frmatt (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did as shown above under [1] , but no problem here they are again, [43]. P.S.: especially with books, one of the ways to judge notability is if they are reviewed or not and who does the reviews. In fact, that is the primary area to establish notability with printed material. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've removed the rewrite of the book (the "Chapters" section) of the article. No opinion on keep or delete at this time. Hipocrite (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Hippocrite: can you help me understand the "plot summary" policy? The reason I put a "chapter by chapter" description in this article is because I saw that in a couple of other non-fiction book articles, such as God is Not Great. I was not aware of the WP:PLOTSUM policy, but I just read it, and it says "plot summaries are okay for works of fiction" but it appears to be silent on non-fiction books. Im willing to admit that _this_ article was poorly written, and too quote-heavy (which I deliberately did to remove any hint of bias due to editor's own paraphrases), but what is the general rule on chapter-by-chapter descriptions of non-fiction books? --Noleander (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Title sounds racist. Rewrite from a NPOV - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The title is the actual name of the book. I think you may have misread? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ret. Prof: Thanks for proving my thesis that many of the "Deletion" recommendations are worthless because the editors did not read the article :-) --Noleander (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the book but, I have read the article...A very very unhappy Keep - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Anyone with a photo of Ghandi on their home page is all right by me. --Noleander (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Please remember that we do not delete articles because they are poorly written; we delete articles because the topic is non-notable. This book is a winner of the Los Angeles Times book award for history and was the basis for a television documentary. I believe this book easily meets the notability criteria for books. Problems with the writing style of an article are never an appropriate reason for deletion. Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The book is an excellent history book, on a topic (the early years of Hollywood) that is of widespread interest to Americans, in fact, to much of the world. The book was so well accepted, it was turned into a documentary movied that aired on A&E, which is where I first saw it. As I created the article, I thought "gee, this could be perceived as antisemitic", so I structured the article to simply capture the authors thesis in his own words (he _is_ the secondary source, by the way, the primary sources are the Hollywood figures that he quotes directly). Perversely, that decision to avoid using my own words (and risking the accusation that I put my own bias into the article) is being used to support deletion of the article (using the logic that "the article is just a bunch of quotes from the book"). Sigh. Can we agree that the book and movie are notable? That the subject is of broad and longstanding interest? If so, can we focus on improving the article, rather than just deleting it? --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• A very very unhappy Keep: Sounds more than a little racist but it easily meets the notability criteria for books. Ret.Prof (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• weak keep. I am not concerned about anti-Semitism here -I know of no notable figure who has accused Gabler of being an anti-Semite and the book got a decent review from the New York Times - this is a book published by a respectable press. But it is the work of a film-critic (whose argument is that the men who made Hollywood had fathers who were failures, and who wanted desperately to buy into the American dream and be treated as Americans and not Jews, and who would be seen as contributing tsomething of value to their new home). My problem with this article is that ti does read like a high school book report. I'd like to see more context, how the book as been reviewed or used by scholars in different fields, and so on. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article could be made much, much better. I am not the editor to do that: I am not a historian, nor an expert on Hollywood. I was hoping to just jump-start the article and let other editors take it from there. --Noleander (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand. It is a shame that Wikipedia, however much it has grown, still lacks the editors to help out with something like this. perhaps we need a new stub template leaving room for specific suggestions about what further help we need (or maybe that can be the outcome of a rejected RfD). It would be great if a sociologist or historian with appropriate knowlege could read this article and fill in the gaps. Great, but I am not holding my breath ... Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Having seen the removal of most of the book excerpts, and seeing the possible addition of scholarly criticism, I'm starting to re-consider my nomination...but I will continue to watch this AfD and see where the conversation leads. To Ben Kidwell: I didn't nominate it because it was poorly written, I nominated it because as it was written when I looked at it, it failed the guidelines that I quoted. It still only sources itself and has no third-party sources, which is a continued major issue. Frmatt (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep Book is clearly notable. Any claimed issues with the presentation and description in the article can be dealt with by standard editorial means. Whether anyone likes the content of the book is also irrelevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the only assertion of notability for the book is that it was adapated into a (non-notable) documentary. Therefore not notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The notability of it is shown by the 250 GNews items, [44], almost all of which are primarily about the book, or the book in combination with the film. just looking at some of the major reviews, there are full books reviews in the NYTimes[45]--which gave it an award [46] reported in the LA Times (and a full NYT review has almost always been considered by itself to make a book notable, as they are very selective) , TIME [47], the Washinton Post [48], the Jerusalem Post [49], the LA times [50], and even a prepublication article on the book in the NYTimes [51]. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Numerous book reviews indicate notability. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• keep CLearly notable. No good reason to delete given. Paul B (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a significant and reasonably influential book about the history of the Hollywood film industry. It's frequently mentioned in popular and scholarly works about Hollywood. (300+ GScholar hits <Gabler+"Empire of their own">) --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• keep to have a page dedicated to a book does not mean it is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivemountain (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As above, plenty of reviews for this, make it notable. Dream Focus 11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The book's apparently large readership and the reviews about it make it notable, as per the comments above. The article is missing descriptions of the book's critical reception, any controversies it caused and overall influence, which might blunt the charges of racism in the article. --AFriedman (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep terribly written article, but it's a notable book.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep highly notable book, article can be easily improved and given enough references.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Legitimate well researched publication and article, although the Title is a little shrill--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 13:31, 25 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. Although the additional sources and improvements have not convinced everyone, it is clear that the debate has changed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Nicole Lee

Jennifer Nicole Lee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jennifer Nicole Lee" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable 'celebrity'. Article has been deleted once before - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Nicole Lee. Borderline claim to notability, and the sources listed are sketchy at best. This website also indicates that the woman's PR agency are offering free gifts to anyone who edits the article, a crass violation of the conflict of interest policy, and tantamount to paid editing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable person, creating user's entire history consists of three edits to this page. Frmatt (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Having seen Fred's links, and Sinneed's offer to incorporate them, I am changing my vote. Fred is obviously a much better searcher than I am! Frmatt (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Suggest speedy close and protect. With the rewards posted, it will just be created again.- Sinneed 19:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I am happy to build in the sources found by Fred.Frank (Thanks Frank) They seem more than adequate to show notability... but I fail at searches. I types pretty good thow. (sic) - Sinneed 20:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I added her book and one of her videos to source the lead bits showing what she does that *MIGHT* make her notable. This does NOT show notability... just gives us sources for statements. I still stay with Delete.- Sinneed 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - OK, my searches show she has been on Oprah... I just don't see anything reliable yet. She really does have an IMDB profile and credits... it was just borked in the article. I have fixed it. I have a personal Oprahtest... if Oprah invites someone to her show that is a huge bump in notability-credibility (for me, not WP, just saying).- Sinneed 19:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• This article needs major help, no doubt about it, but I must reluctantly opine weak say Keep because there are hits in independent sources, and her book is available for pre-order. Plus she apparently won some bikini contests, so there's always that bit of notability :-) We should caution COI contributors against WP:PEACOCK and remind them of WP:CITE, however.  Frank  |  talk  19:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - No reliable sources to verify or establish notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Good job Sinneed and Frank in rescuing the article. Reliable Sources establish notability--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Her book may meet the base criteria for inclusion when it is released but currently there is nothing to suggest notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• snowball delete per lack of reliable sources, maybe salt to thwart the PR agency. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Frmatt; protection probably not necessary if the subject will attain notability in the near future. No prejudice against recreation with proper sources. GlassCobra 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't meet notability standards, and few, if any, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - also note that some of the article is a copyvio of the PR page. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• I am surprised at the "lack of sources" arguments I'm seeing here. I've only linked ones that are freely available; there are plenty more, plus her book which I linked above. I agree the canvassing and practically-paid editing are reprehensible, but that doesn't argue against her notability.  Frank  |  talk  20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Frank a bit here, there are some OKish sources. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• And four DVDs too...  Frank  |  talk  20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - already have one of the DVDs in the article... but that helps with facts (is an actress/model), not with notability. The other stuff helps with that.- Sinneed 20:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank, I've checked LexisNexis, and it seems to think that most of those sources are 'pay for an article' sources, sadly. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with that. I provided links above that are all freely available. However, it isn't a requirement that sources be publicly available with no impediment to access in order to consider them suitable, reliable sources. I just linked them because they are easy to click and to provide quick evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. There are most definitely more sources that aren't PR sources but are in non-publicly available places. They only strengthen the notability argument.  Frank  |  talk  21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should be clearer: not 'pay to view the article' sources, but 'pay to have an article (which your company has written) published' sources - borderline self-published sources. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reuters, Daily News (New York), CBS News, and SmartMoney?  Frank  |  talk  21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reuters? *cough* - I just don't see a notability issue at this point. I have the youtube Oprah and such... these show clear notability, as I see it. We can't put them in the article (well I won't, I have copyright concerns), but they are there. The problem I had before was I could see her fans yapping about these things... but not the things. I think the main problem is going to be to keep the paid editor fluff out. I am substantially @#$%ed at the promo. (edit conflict)- Sinneed 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent):Comment - OK, rework done... built-in some sources... though I left the eBooks in and did not source them... they each have their own sites which are also sales sites and some have ANNOYING sound-tracks. These can be sourced if needed but... why? I don't think the names of the ebooks are going to be disputed.- Sinneed 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per terrific work by Frank during the course of this AfD. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Non notable person. The numerous edits show that the Wikipedia page is used for promotion only with "gifts" being offered by third parties for editing the wikipedia page. Deletion is the way to resolve the conflict.Kerr avon (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The non-notable horse is very dead, please see the article, and above.- Sinneed 04:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The fundamental issue is that this wikipedia article is being abused by people to get higher search engine hits by adding links, getting incentives for adding dubious content etc with rewards being offered openly for editing it by promotional agencies. This makes it difficult to identify editors motives regarding this article. One method is outright permanent speedy deletion of the article, I am sure that the world want fall down cause wikipedia is missing her biography, but its important for wikipedia to avoid the issue of being used as a promotional tool. The second alternative would be long term semi protection.Kerr avon (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If we killed articles because they attract problematic edits the Encyclopedia would be pretty quiet, but much smaller. I have built whole articles by picking up debris from edit wars: Rama Nand, South Asia Terrorism Portal. You might join the semiprotection discussion on the talk page, or even comment on the topic at ANI. As to the promo-pagelinks... they are being killed out pretty quickly. I suppose the blog at AOL may be getting a few hits... but I really expect one of the other editors to kill that. None of that seems to speak to deletion, only editor workload.- Sinneed 04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The debate here should be about notability. Suggesting that the article be speedily deleted or deleted through AFD because of the promotional editors is flawed. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: People are welcome to make money flogging ebooks and DVDs telling people how they became less fat, but until the method, the fat loss, the ebooks, the DVDs or the profits verifiably get more than token mentions in newsapers or similar, such people and their enterprises don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. (And although Hill of beans records has an [unreferenced] article, Hill of beans does not.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  The mentions in newspapers above and in the article are definitely "more than token".  Frank  |  talk  13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  One source, the Reuters story "Busy moms can get physical with new DVD series", is cited five times. But actually it's not really a Reuters story, it's a Reuters recycling of a Hollywood Reporter story. This story lazily and credulously repackages PR guff for the product, and much of the content about Lee comes straight out of the mouth of one "Dan Gurlitz, GM of Port Washington, N.Y.-based Koch", Koch being the outfit hawking the DVDs. Underwhelming. -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  wp:BLP, wp:SELFPUB - the sources seem to be used appropriately. Clearly the self-published sources do not establish notability, and I don't think anyone here is claiming they do. The number of times a ref is used has nothing to do with anything except article layout... it is one source. I don't see a reason for deletion in your post, Hoary.- Sinneed 22:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  There's nothing wrong at all about using a single source for five or even ten or twenty assertions. That wasn't my point, and I apologize for poor phrasing that suggested that it was my point. Rather, I was underwhelmed by the mass media coverage of this person, who's in the kind of business that normally gets a large amount of attention (and disproportionately so, in my irrelevant and perhaps worthless opinion). Lacking the energy to go through the list of references cum profiles in the mass media, I picked on the one that was used more (five times) than any other. And it turned out to be pretty feeble stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Based on improvements[52] since nomination. This article is crying out for a pic, tho. --Milowent (talk) 17:58, 26 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. Valley2city^‽ 20:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chrissie Bixler

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

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

Unremarkable actress (see WP:NOTABILITY). I was unable to find an entry in IMDB, but perhaps others will have more luck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as as-yet un-notable. My research found Christina Connell on IMDB, with an aka of Chrissie Carnell. This person doesn not have the career nor the coverage that meets WP:BIO for notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - relevant criteria are at WP:ENT and she doesn't satisfy (1) "significant roles in multiple television shows" as her roles are only bit parts, (2) "large fan base", as the lack of Google hits attests to, or (3) "prolific contributions to a field of entertainment", in assessing which I usually refer to something of the level of Martin Sheen's 200+ film and television credits (counting all of the West Wing as a single credit). Therefore she's non notable and should be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:19, 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. NW (Talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Geminola

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

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

Unremarkable clothing store (see WP:NOTABILITY). Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I was going to say the Weakest of Keeps, but let’s be realistic. Either an editor expresses a Keep or Delete opinion as there is no Semi-keep or Semi-Delete unless we are talking merge/redirect and this piece does not fall under that catagory. The Keep opinion is based on the references I was able to find here [53]. Those include several articles in the New York Post – Time – New York Times – plus international coverage. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - An assertion of notability backed up by independent reliable secondary sources. Textbook WP:N, even if I personally couldn't care less about it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep the vintage movement seems to be a part of this decades' subculture, and this store has been covered in many notable publications, and the clothing has also been in the popularSex and the city show Pumkinhead001 (talk) 21:55, 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. Valley2city^‽ 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vishal kandukuri

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

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

This was a contested prod, but notability is difficult to determine with this article. No sources beyond the freebase article. Leivick (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – At this time. The only information I was able to find was the freebase site. I am sure one day we will be reading about the young man here at Wikipedia. Just sorry, it is not today. Good Luck to him. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for now. There is a clear indication that this young man become notable in future. Good Luck to him! Salih (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - The version of this article at the time of nomination was unreadable, so I've just had a go at tidying it up, and now it looks a little more like he's a genuine academic. However, even accepting the truth of the (fundamentally unclear) assertions in the article, the guy still seems to fail WP:PROF and as such he is non-notable and should be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Additional comment - wait up, if the birthdate given in the article (1990) is correct, the guy's only 19 and would have been 15 when working for Aero India and 17 when his academic paper was supposedly the subject of lectures. Much more likely that this is a hoax than that he's a genuine prodigy, especially given the quality of the original article text. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete If any of the claims in the article were true, we'd see at least a bit of coverage in The Hindu. Right now there's nothing at all except the freebase link and a few random blogs. Clearly doesn't pass WP:BIO. -SpacemanSpiff 00:06, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK criterion 1. Nominator is now desiring a redirect, and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Merging/redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Moulay Ismail of Morocco

Prince Moulay Ismail of Morocco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Prince Moulay Ismail of Morocco" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

person does not meet notability requirements Pevernagie (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep – Based on Notability (royalty). I know this is a contentious opinion, with both sides making valid points. However, when we look at individuals with notability, we typically do not look as attained through achievements but rather through birth when regarding Royalty. If that was not the case, how could we justify articles about Prince William of Wales or Prince Harry of Wales or even Prince Charles. In that Prince Moulay is both legitimate and recognized by Morocco as the crowned prince, who are we to say no. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability (royalty) failed to reach consensus and is thus not an argument. Pevernagie (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That is why I stated that it was a; “…contentious opinion”. However, that does not disqualify the argument. Opinions are just that, Opinions, and all are taken with a grain of salt. Mine especially. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - titled member of a reigning royal family. Name of article needs to change though. Edgepedia (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I was wrong about the name of the article. It seems that Prince and Princess titles are allowed.
• Keep per Edgepedia above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Shoesss. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – All the information on this page can easily be put on his father's page. At the moment the article does not provide enough material to justify keeping it. Pevernagie (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Are you sure you mean delete? Not merge/redirect? The reason I bring that up is that a delete erases any and all references to the individual. In other words, if a visitor to Wikipedia typed in the individuals name, there would be no article or a direction to an article that addresses that individual. However, if we merge/redirect, that same visitor would be taking to the father’s page where the information would be available. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, redirect. Pevernagie (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per Shoes and Edge. Warrah (talk)
• Strong Keep: Shoesss, You have been doing great work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:12, 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 A7 Closure by someone who will never be an admin. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Aqua ape

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

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

Fails WP:BAND. PROD denied by author with no reasons. Singularity42 (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: A7 - They exist - but failes WP:N - only claim to fame is an unreferenced claim of being high in mp3.com's charts. RandomTime 18:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 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. Whether or not this article is "useful" is irrelevant, so arguments focusing on that were given less weight in my evaluation of the discussion. The arguments that the scope of the list is too broad and unmaintainable aren't necessarily pertinent to a deletion discussion; such issues are dealt with via standard editing, except in extreme instances. However, those arguing for retention seem to provide more substantial and relevant arguments than those in favor of removal. Considering all this, it seems consensus is safely on the side of keeping –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of sea captains

List of sea captains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of sea captains" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

same as List of naval commanders, especially because that resulted in a deletion which makes this list very odd to keep. PDBailey (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• general request I proposed this deletion because an essentially identical article, "List of naval commanders" was deleted (please familiarize yourself with why). I would like to think that if two identical articles are proposed for deletion, it shouldn't be that one gets deleted and the other doesn't because of who shows up to discuss, but this discussion looks to be going that way. I would therefore request that those who want to keep this article address the list of naval commanders article in their comments (i.e. "that should not have been deleted", or "once you become a flag officer you no longer deserve a category", or something). I guess the point is, I would like to think that there should be some method to the deletion/keep madness and Wikipedia is nothing more than we make it, so why not make it sensical? PDBailey (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As you say: one gets deleted and the other doesn't because of who shows up to discuss. Unfortunately, last time 9 came and 5 said 'delete'. Decisions should be based on consensus wp:CONS not Tyranny of the majority. Wikipedia has many shortcomings, this is one, incomplete lists is another, however it is up to us to overcome these shortcomings. Is it valid to conclude that you want this list deleted to "make it sensical", irrespective of its merits? I hope that, this time, the article is kept - not because more say "keep" but because those who say "delete" are persuaded in discussion to reconsider their position. ClemMcGann (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You asked, "Is it valid to conclude that you want this list deleted to "make it sensical", irrespective of its merits?" I answer: No, you miss my point. I am asking for those requesting a keep to request it in light of the previous deletion and say something about that prior deletion. This might be, "it was a travesty, we should undo it", or, "no, the other list was irrelevant to the article." My request is only that the two be considered together in some sense. I would further request some sort of knowledge of why the previous article was deleted, which i.e. DGG did not appear to, and his comments appeared to be irrelevant to. PDBailey (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

PD asked say something about that prior deletion. This might be, "it was a travesty. I have already described it as "regrettable". John said "probably a mistake to delete". I find the word "travesty" a bit strong, but is was wrong, an error, should not have happened. As to why the previous article was deleted, I have already speculated that it was a reluctance to address the issues with the list and that deleting the article was despair. Lists are difficult and time consuming to get right. I advocate trying to solve the issue rather than ignoring (and deleting) it ClemMcGann (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ClemMcGann, I think you still haven't addressed the central reason for the previous deletion which was that the idea could be taken care of with categories, and that any such categories should really by more specific. Under the widest interpretation, the previous list could have contained Agamemnon and this list could contain JFK (who's time spent as a captain has numerous secondary sources regarding it). The focus is lacking. I am not saying that this is a bullet proof argument, I'm just saying that it is what you should respond to. PDBailey (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pdbailey, I asked the closing admin to put a copy of "List of naval commanders" in my userspace. Anyone who wants to can see it at User:JohnWBarber/List of naval commanders. That list gave names, birth and death years and nationalities. It wasn't much better than a category. This list for sea captains is a lot different, and that may explain the greater support for this one (the last AfD closed with 6 Deletes, 3 Keeps by my count, and that looks like a delete consensus to me). Using categories just doesn't work for this, and lists are supposed to overlap with categories, as WP:LIST states, so Wikipedia loses out if we lose this article. JohnWBarber (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is here -> [54] <- ClemMcGann (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it. If it gets too long, it can be split up by country. One of the "Keep" votes in the discussion about the "List of naval commanders" article mentioned that that list was helpful in looking up a name. This one would be, too. It's got more information in it than names, so something would be lost if we only relied on categories. JohnWBarber (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

question: do you think that List of naval commanders should be undeleted? If not, how is this list different? PDBailey (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was probably a mistake to delete that list. Then this list might be distinguished from it by including non naval captains. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Categories are useful, are a lot easier than list easier to set up, and have their place. Portals are great to introduce a subject. However the advantage of lists, such as this is that there will be a short précis, there are headings to sort the entries, assisting in the location of an entry. Lists, such as this would make the encyclopedia more user-friendly, more accessible, more useful. Nonetheless lists are not without issues. In the initial stages they will be incomplete, the same can be said of wikipedia itself. In the later stages they can become too large and unwieldy. I suggest that it is up to us, as editors, to address these issues rather than deleting articles in despair. By "despair" I mean the arguments "the criterion are too wide / undefined / lack clarity / too broad ... " It is a list with entries pointing to aticles. Its like an index into the book. It helps readers find articles. These arguments were used in the regrettable "List of naval commanders" deletion. 5 of 9 wanted it deleted. I hope that they will reconsider their position ClemMcGann (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - non-useful list. Seriously, do we expect anyone to come across a sea captain and go, 'Ooh, I wonder who some other sea captains might have been?' - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

sorted by era, location, merchant/navy etc - yes - ClemMcGann (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd expect someone who is searching for a sea captain and knows or remembers vaguely something about that person (except for the name) to find a list like this very useful. Take a look at what User:Brad said in this similar AfD. [55] That's the classic way these lists are used. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To JohnWBarber - Well, the result of that AfD was delete so I'm not sure it's a good precedent argument. To ClemMcGann - would it not be more appropriate (and useful) to instead have "List of Sea Captains in [x] Navy" or "List of [nationality] Sea Captains" rather than a purportedly exhaustive list of everyone who's ever captained a boat at sea? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no precedents -- that is, there are no binding precedents so there's nothing about the last AfD that prevents us from keeping this article, and the article is at 34K bytes now, so there's no rush to split it, but it shouldn't get much bigger without a split. Wikipedia lists are for items that are articles already or should be, so there's nothing inherently unmanageable about the subject. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In answer to:To ClemMcGann - would it not be more appropriate (and useful) to instead have "List of Sea Captains in [x] Navy" or "List of [nationality] Sea Captains" - yes, once the list is big enough, for the time being we could add nationality as a sort field, and it is good to see that you are considering improvements rather than giving up in despair, keep the ideas coming! ClemMcGann (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete much too broad of a generalization. Navy captains? Merchant captains? Cruise ship captains? Private yacht captains? What constitutes a "sea captain"? This isn't broken down by type of captain, country, or any criteria other than sea captain, which is a vague criteria. It says it include merchant and naval captains, but doesn't exclude anything. Much better handled by categories.--Monkeybait (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept that the list has shortcomings. Would it not be preferable to add criteria rather than giving up? ClemMcGann (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The obvious meaning is about captains notable as such in Wikipedia terms and about which we have articles A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. And we should undelete the other list also. We might do well to have more detailed lists also, but that can be worked on--that this list is not as good as it might be is no reason to delete it. I don;t see the problem about the scope:as the article clearly says, it includes naval and merchant, & if any of other types are notable as such they can be included also. . If any Personally, I dislike this list's format because of the space it takes to display the photos in the table--they;'re all tin the linked articles in any case; but that is fixable. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

question did you read the naval commanders deletion page? Do you think that should be reinstated? I proposed this deletion because I was looking for parity (it makes no sense to me that one list be deleted and the other kept but I believe it is possible to undelete the other list too. PDBailey (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

DGG, by your logic, any list that links exclusively to Wikipedia articles should be kept. Your requirement isn't that the logic of inclusion make sense, only that it be clearly stated. This point may seem a little pedantic, but when your premise is wrong your conclusion is essentially uninformative. PDBailey (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as the list itself is notable and therefore fitting for an article, although I have to say that I strongly disagree with DGG's interpretation of the function of these lists, which I view as overly indiscriminate. Here's an example of a publication regarding a very similiar topic, just with a focus narrowed by date. Here's another example where the subject is described. ThemFromSpace 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, care to explain "the list itself is notable" how? They drive boats, I drive a car. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Each list entry (should have) has a wp article - and therefore (should be) notable. If there is a wp article on your car driving then a case could be made for your inclusion in another list. The list is a navigational aid (if you can excuse the pun) ClemMcGann (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So then you agree with me that the entries on the list are notable, but the List itself is not. Saying "the list itself is notable" implies that it was reprinted over and over again in other sources for some reason, thus making the List notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that??

I said that lists are an aid to navigation

Different readers have different ways of navigating their way through wikipedia. Some start, as they would with a printed book, with the contents Portal:Contents where they will see not just lists - but lists of lists Wikipedia:Featured lists. We have lots of lists, persumably because they are useful. We have lists on just about every subject under the sun - provided its not a maritime list. Why not? ClemMcGann (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with the navigation bit wholeheartedly. But saying the List itself is notable is not true. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad that you "agree with the navigation bit wholeheartedly". I hope that we keep this article not because more vote "Keep" but because those who said "Delete" reconsider their position (which implies that the keeps have to be open to persuasion as well) ClemMcGann (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- This list could become endless. However, it has some potential merit, in that is is providing some Brief biographic data. Furthermore, it has a list of redlinks for needed articles. My criticism of it concerns its enormous scope. I would be happier if it were split by nationality or arranged by date (probably of death) or provided something more that categories cannot provide. I also suspect that the otehr list should be undeleted. If so, this list should be limited to merchant captains and the other to naval commanding officers, but not limiting it merely to those with the rank of commander. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept your criticism. Soon, very soon, it will have to be divided, initially probably by nationality.

I do not like red-links. Recently I noticed that Peter Campbell, founder of the Uruguayan Navy, was missing, then I discovered that we had no article for him! so I created a stub and put some sources on his talk page. In short, I prefer stubs to red-links. (anyone care to do cone copy-edit? - if so, please help Peter Campbell (naval officer). Question to consider: when (not if) we split this article by nationality would he be Irish or Uruguayan? - I suggest that in such instances we say 'both' and duplicate the entry. ClemMcGann (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ClemMcGann, can you please address why this article is better than a category? Categories can be hierarchical, which could be very nice for these naval leaders. PDBailey (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, PD, I never said that a list is 'better' than a category. In my first post here I said that lists, categories and portals all have their own place. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. I posted that categories are much easier to set up. However lists have advantages, (as well as disadvantages). The (usually) have a short précis to help identify which article is of interest. If the sort headings are judiciously chosen they will assist in the location of an entry. while categories by (say) date of birth are possible, I suggest that a list along with its précis would be more user-friendly. ClemMcGann (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so the claim is then that

(1) there is a role for a list of naval commanders/captains because the vignettes add value.

(2) eventually this list should be broken down by country of origin (I would do this by flag they flew under when they did their notable work).

If this is your claims, then I have two questions:

(a) Why don't the leads to the article provide sufficient vignettes?

(b) Assuming this list is kept, why not just add the commanders back to this list, is the distinction between a commander and a captain so important? If a captain is notable for their role as a captain and then gets promoted, which list do they belong on?

I also wonder who exactly is the target audience that wants to read vignettes of naval officers on one page but can't bother to click on the links and read the leads, but I figure there are probably always more readers than editors, so it must be there. PDBailey (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(a) the leads should provide the info, indeed a lead and a précis/vignette could be identical. Its just to make life easier and more convenient for the reader. (b)- good idea - lets add the commanders back. ClemMcGann (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

okay, I still don't understand the draw of this list, but I don't think that is a compelling reason to delete something from Wikipedia. I really did propose deletion because I thought, "if the wisdom is that we don't want commanders then why keep the captains." it is fine with me if the wisedom is, "that was a bad idea, lets fix it."

Would you agree to the fact including commanders means that the list will be renamed to something like list of naval officers. PDBailey (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why all this talk of adding the list of naval commanders back? The gist of the other discussion was that naval commander was a meaningless criteria. Stop talking about undeleting an article you have never seen.--

Monkeybait (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a simple list - not that different from a category - it wasn't a table - no précis/vignette - no sortable fields. Nonetheless it would have been better to improve it, admittedly a lot of work, rather than giving up and deleting it ClemMcGann (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - too broad, potentially covers bathtubs to Oil Rigs. What next List of Pilots? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia has articles about captains of bathtubs and managers of oil rigs, then a list of them would be justified. If there were too many of them for one page, we might divide the bathtub commandants by Hot, Warm and Cold, or perhaps Lion-claw footed, Installed. There are a limited number of captains with Wikipedia articles, and we should be able to break up the list, when it needs breaking up, by creating new lists based on nationality. If the British or U.S. lists get too large, they can be further broken up by century of birth or even decade of birth. Some lists break up names alphabetically. It can be done. There's nothing inherently too broad about the concept that simply splitting off part of it couldn't fix pretty easily. JohnWBarber (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should someone make a new list, this one would cover it according to the title? Fyodor Konyukhov, Charlie Barr & Charles J. Moore (and lets not forget about Richard Phillips (captain) ) would currently fit the Article. There is no distinctions made. Thus the "to broad". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as the article says It is limited to those notable in this role, and about which Wikipedia has articles which means it should be a category. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as the article is useful to those interested in naval history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As useful as it may be, as it stands, there is no reason why the likes of Sig Hansen are not included. The Article is currently to broad. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and add Sig. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 26 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 SNOWing hoax Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Harding (character)

Lee Harding (character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Lee Harding (character)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Nonobvious hoax, so ineligible for speedy. Hoping someone very familiar with the movie(s) and/or Kurt Russell can verify that it truly is a hoax. tedder (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as Vandalism / Hoax. This article is just a cut & paste of the Snake Plissken article with the name Lee Harding substituted. As far as I am aware, the name Lee Harding has no connection to the "Escape from New York" series of movies. Dlduncan2 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an obvious hoax. Scog (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:26, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Seavus Project Evolution

Seavus Project Evolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Seavus Project Evolution" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable software product first released four months ago. Article by SPA. Haakon (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Delete, and get Seavus project viewer while at it as well. More non-consumer software using Wikipedia for free publicity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - (possibly speedy delete G11 as obvious advertising) - this article does not assert notability and is fundamentally unencyclopaedic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:56, 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 delete. NW (Talk) 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GRR (software)

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

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

Contested PROD While very minor open source non-consumer business software packages seem to have a number of fans here, I have found very little independent coverage of this package. The somewhat difficult name may be part of the problem. At any rate, this is apparently another minor open source "project management" software, and per comments on earlier AfDs I've been weeding through the packages on the list; and a preliminary search found nothing useful on this. News search yields only blogs. Books search, one trivial mention that may be about something else entirely. Article cites no other sources. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The arguments of the prod-contesters are extremely weak. I can't find significant coverage to indicate this software is notable. Haakon (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - article does not assert notability. Were significant sources to be found they would not save the article unless the sources asserted notability. (See WP:EXIST and WP:MILL) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails to establish notability and references. --GreyCat (talk) 01:03, 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. NW (Talk) 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Doubles extensions

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

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

Delete unsourced article per WP:MADEUP. Article creation said "a very popular game based on tennis. Created by two bay area tennis players." I couldn't find anything outside Wikipedia mirrors with Google. It's 3 years old so there are many mirrors. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete as an unreferenced guide to a game. Also unreferenced assertion in nom, "A very popular game" should have a cite. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The quoted text was removed in 2007.[56]. I only quoted it to give some background which I think supports a theory that this game was made up by the creator or his friends and has never been covered by reliable sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the correction! I have struck out the secondary issue accoringly. The main issue stands, and I'll expand to: Lack of sources means the article is not verifiable. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I think this is a real game, but no sources, no notability, and no real information beyond the rules of the game. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources and no assertion of notability. Appears to fall within WP:MADEUP but would be deletable in any case unless notability is asserted and sourced. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - No sources, no available information; and appears WP:MADEUP - Mjquinn_id (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I believe this is a hoax. -- ISLANDERS27 06:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - You've got a point. The creating editor, Desiman925, has an edit history that consists of (1) nonconstructive edits, and (2) this article. It is possible e made this up out of whole cloth. And if so, it'll be very hard to satisfy WP:V for this article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:49, 26 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 22:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Snyderman and Rothman (study)

Snyderman and Rothman (study) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Snyderman and Rothman (study)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This is an article about an article. The news coverage I found about the article amounts to 12 stories that mention it (none that are about it).[57] According to scholar, it is cited 106 times. When looking at the first page of results of the articles that cite this one (again, according to scholar), all 10 of the first results are cited by others more than 106 times (and they are all younger; four are younger by over 12 years). Fails notability in popular press and notability within scientific community. Topic of the article is the perceived state of media bias in 1987. Better used as a source for some media bias article rather than this wp:COATRACK. T34CH (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: While this article has several issues regarding WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV, I think it could be improved in all these respects. There is also the matter of WP:COATRACK, but this can be quickly eliminated in conjunction with the outstanding WP:SYNTH issues. I found slightly more coverage than the 12 stories reported by the nominator, but agree that, while quite a few works quote or reference this work, nothing has been written solely on this report. Nonetheless, I think the report is notable in its own right and worthy of an article. Aryaman (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you found significant coverage specifically about this article? T34CH (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• delete. Non notable. Alun (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. While this study may not get much coverage in scholarly articles, I believe that the attention it's received in non-academic literature (particularly in books) is enough to establish its notability. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you found significant coverage specifically about this article? I showed above that there are none in the popular media. I already asked Varoon for this, but he claimed this request was some sort of provocation. It's actually the standard for establishing notability. If you have references, please list them. T34CH (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

T34CH, try using Google Scholar and search for "The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy", or "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing". I think you'll find slightly more coverage than 12 stories. --Aryaman (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How many times are you willing to prove to the world that you don't actually read what I write? T34CH (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this really the place for you to continue your belligerent behavior towards me? I have tried to keep our personal differences off this page, but you insist on making personal attacks. I've said I've found slightly more coverage than 12 reports, and that I think this report deserves its own article. I'm allowed to voice my opinion on this page, whether you like it or not. Take your personal problems elsewhere and let others voice their opinions without your incessant hounding. You wouldn't be the first person to suggest an AfD and have it denied. At the same time, if it's deleted, it's not exactly a personal victory. Please try to remember that we're writing an encyclopedia. --Aryaman (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's recap:

• T34CH - There are 12 incidental sources which mention this briefly in popular media[link]. Also scholar shows the report is relatively rarely cited[link].
• Aryaman - There's no coverage on the subject, but I think it's notable.
• Occam - Even though there's not much coverage on scholar, it's popular in pop-media.
• T34CH - ??? I already showed it's not. Anybody got a linky?
• Aryaman - Did you check scholar.
• T34CH - Pretty sure we already covered that.
• Aryaman - THIS IZ PERSENEL ATTAXXXXX!!!!

Personal opinions are not actually valid arguments here. Try something from WP:PGL. - T34CH (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete non notable on its own, as per search in Google scholar mentioned above.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:13, 25 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. NW (Talk) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PSNext

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

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

Non-notable software product, article written by SPA. Haakon (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - article does not assert notability. Significant coverage would not justify the article unless it asserted the notability of the subject. (See WP:EXIST and WP:MILL). - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Sorry to answer the notability and coverage questions, a quick search of google will net a Reuters^[1] article that is a reproduction of a press release from Business Wire about PSNext which should meet both Notability and coverage as mentioned unless having press releases being carried by 2 major international publications is not notable or significant.Chuglur (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Press releases don't normally meet the "Independent of the subject" part of the notability guideline. Spiesr (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep: Press releases. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete press releases don't count towards meeting the notability guidelines as they aren't independant of the subject. We need independant sources for reliable verification. ThemFromSpace 02:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, non-consumer software. Only a handful of such packages, if that many, will ever be worthy of encyclopedia articles. This isn't one of those. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, I can find no independent coverage by reliable sources which could establish the topic's notability. Self-publicity does not confer notability. Guest9999 (talk) 20:40, 22 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. NW (Talk) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ladder Pong

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

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

Non-notable drinking game. Lacks GHits and GNEWS. WP:ONEDAY applies. Author removed PROD. ttonyb (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete typical made up college hijinks, no notability established, basically spam/hoax/advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clear WP:MADEUP Violation. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I appreciate the investment of time and thought on behalf of the creators (as expressed on the talk page) but unless/until this is a well-known game it cannot be included in the encyclopedia. Buy some webspace, print out booklets, but Wikipedia is not the place to spread the word about your game. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Remain I am one of the creators of the game... and i have wrote a few paragraphs under the "talk" portion of the Wiki entry. I have noticed that the main reason for the deletion is the game not being "notable." I would just like to state this in my defense: there are plenty of Wiki entries that bear nearly no notability what so ever. Now, the definition of what is notable comes into play. Among the most basic of definitions, notable means "worthy of notice, distinguished, unique." Although Ladder Pong combines aspect of other games, it is a unique entity of its own. Clearly, if it has spread to other places, then it is worthy of taking notice. Lastly, i have elaborated on the Wiki, the game is developed and distinguished. From WikiAnswers (i am not sure if there is an affiliation or not) but WikiAnswer defines an encyclopedia as "The word or term encyclopedia means a book or set of books that cover an extremely wide range of topics they a usually sorted in alphabetical order encyclopedias are seen as the most comprehensive reference book ever." Dictionary.com defines an encyclopedia as "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia... thus, part of an encyclopedia is to bring knowledge forth or enlighten people who are not familiar with a topic into familiarity, regardless of the subject perceived notability or renown. As for the notability of Ladder Pong, it has been played at a total of 4 Universities that i know of for sure, as well other cities and suburbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estones6 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: there are plenty of Wiki entries that bear nearly no notability what so ever is an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, and Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia... thus, part of an encyclopedia is to bring knowledge forth or enlighten people who are not familiar with a topic into familiarity, regardless of the subject perceived notability or renown. is WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Neither is a valid argument on Articles For Deletion. — Gwalla | Talk 18:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete but be open to e-mailing the author a copy. It doesn't meet WP:N and the references cited are a stretch at best. Hobit (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT More elaborate and plausible than most, perhaps, but no more notable. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Its creation is a clear conflict of interest and the citations have nothing to do with the topic. The "there are other non-notable entries" argument is insufficient, as already noted. The author's definition of "notable," "encyclopedia," etc. doesn't override the policies that are in place. Perhaps in the future this will meet the notability guidelines, but at this time I do not believe it does, as per WP:ONEDAY. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- ISLANDERS27 09:04, 23 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. NW (Talk) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ste's mam

Ste's mam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ste's mam" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unremarkable cocktail (see WP:NOT and WP:NOTABILITY). Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete no coverage, not even an assertion of notability, this hsould be speedied.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - there's an assertion of notability ("following on Facebook") but, given a lack of sources, it's not enough to get it over