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

The result was not an issue for AfD. Merging / redirecting should be discussed on the appropriate talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Symbian

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

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

This article has split the main Symbian OS article, without sufficient reason. This article's content's should be deleted, and replaced by a redirect, to redirect readers to the main Symbian OS article Lester 00:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The nomination is for a merger, not deletion and there is a separate merge discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 10 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) 21:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ditte Arnth

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

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

This article doesn't meet criteria for notability. A Youtube video and one small role in an unreleased 2010 film doesn't meet any of criteria at WP:ENT. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a reasonable mentioning in international media (Google News). The original YouTube video seems to have reached 200'000 downloads a day. — fnielsen (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: According to the news story, the video was pulled and 283 mentions isn't that reasonable. Basically, we've got someone in a video that created a minor YouTube response that is no longer available. The person in the video isn't what would arguably be of interest, it was the video itself. Notability is enduring, this person is not. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(talk) 05:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I came across this on the bbc website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8258473.stm - the only article able to shed some light on the actress in English via Google was Wikipedia.

If the deletionists wants to kill the article, then perhaps a short mentioning of this actress could be moved/made on the VisitDenmark article. As far as I can determine the close to a million downloads on the four initial days seems to be impressive for a viral video, e.g., Numa numa seems not to reach that figure. — fnielsen (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Ysangkok (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Ysangkok (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I agree that she doesn't meet the notability criteria for WP:ENT. However, for good or bad, she probably passes the general notability criteria having received enormous national and international press coverage. The coverage isn't only about the video but include stories and interviews about her in the top Danish newspaper (which includes 10 other stories about the video), and Danish talk shows. Other Danish newspaper stories include "Karen is a Star", "The Woman Behind Karen", "YouTube Mom is named Ditte". Wildhartlivie is correct, she is only a bit part actress who become known for a viral video. But I think the consequence of it probably puts her over the top. (I also suspect her acting roles are going to get larger very quickly). — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per CactusWriter's sources, not too much but it's barely enough. Let's relist this another four times, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Delete after re-analyzing the sources, they are indeed more about the video. Notability isn't inherited. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Most of this article is about the video she acted in, and most of the notability about that seems to be about the content, not the actress.--Derek Andrews (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 23:55, 4 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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peter LaBarbera

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

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

Completely unsourced BLP of someone who is essentially a blogger who has received very little coverage in reliable secondary sources. A search of google news turns up some articles in the gay press, but all in the context of his group/blog Americans for Truth, which does not have its own article. Since the vast majority of his mentions in the news comes from his group suing a hotel, this is covered under BLP1E and a good candidate for deletion. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 14:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep. First off, the fact that he has been a reporter for the Washington Times among other papers means he is not just a blogger. He has been published in actual publications. While there is not currently a wikipedia article on Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, this does not really answer if it is notable. However he has also been connected with two other organizations, which HAVE articles in wikipedia, so you have to consider the full scope of the articles about him. Also, even a search of the homosexual publications will show that LaBarbera has been attacked on multiple occasions. The very vehemence of the hate some throw at him would suggest he is someone of note.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Before any decisions are made people should at least consult how the article differs with its most recent edits. Mr. LaBarbera is not "essentially a blogger", but is in fact hated by many bloggers. The hate does not just stem from his recent actions, he has been hated and denounced in the homosexual press for years.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I keep digging up more stuff. LaBarbera was spoken ill of in a book published as far back as 2000. The hate against LaBarbera is no fly-by-night phenomenon, but has been a perpetual hate-fest on the part of the homosexual movement for years.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Since, as I have demonstated in the article, a death threat against LaBarbera appeared on a blog that has been praised by Duke University 2 and a half years before the law suit against LaBarbera, and there are other issues connected with him going much further back, the biographies of living people rule cited to try and delete this article really has no relevance.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Sources are inadequate. More importantly, subject is non-notable. Rivertorch (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from nom I'm on the fence about this one. His notability is marginal; if you read his website, himself and others publish their opinions on current events in what is essentially a blog (with comments disabled), so I doubt he could be called a legitimate journalist. So, he is a controversial blogger. But, if this closes as keep and is no longer an unreferenced BLP, then I won't be terribly disappointed. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the fact that he has been behind several physical publications. Also, you ignore the fact that he has been a reporter for the Washington Times. Notablity is not just what is going on now. Also, if he is so "non-notable" than why was I able to find two books that denounced him for his activities in the 1990s?Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While many people will mock and attack Americans for Truth, they admit it is an organization. This is one quote "Peter LaBarbera, President of an organization predicated on hate and lies ironically named Americans for Truth," it comes from www.annoy.com. Your attempt to claim that LaBarbera is "just a blogger" is not in line with the widepsread denunciation of his "organization".Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The format for AFTAH is very blog-like (except for lack of comments), not a news website. A person who runs a blog-format website is a blogger. As for your other concerns, not everybody who is a legitimate journalist meets our criteria. According to the criteria laid out at WP:AUTHOR:

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

I contend that LaBarbera does not meet any of these guidelines, and thus does not cross the threshold of notability on Wikipedia. He is not regarded as an important figure, his journalism is not widely cited, he has not created a new concept, his work has not been the subject of a book/film, or multiple independent periodical articles, and his work has neither won significant critical attention nor a spot in libraries. With reference to your above link, a place that has a phrase such as "morons like Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera" is hardly a reliable source when it comes to the BLP subject. Anyway, I have quoted the relevant guideline for this article, so i'll let the rest of the !voters here decide whether or not the BLP subject meets the above criteria. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure "author" is the correct category for him. He's well known as an anti-gay activist. Are there other activists who have their own articles? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning towards delete Marginally notable. See this Google Books result and this one. These sources are not written neutrally but they should be reliable since they are published by reputable publishers. On the other hand, these sources provide little biographical context and are mostly about his role as an anti-gay activist. Perhaps this should be relisted to generate more discussion about the sources? There are many sources on Google News Archive. Many were passing mentions, but there may be some more substantial sources that can be used to construct a balanced biography. Cunard (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep A very controversial for a long time; his mention here and here are enough for me. He is much more than an author so limiting him to WP:AUTHOR misses the point a bit but even if stick to that criteria his work has certainly "won significant critical attention" in that it is mentioned in text books. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - bloggers aren't inherently notable, journalists aren't inherently notable, and lobbyists aren't inherently notable. However, this fellow has apparently been engaged in sustained and extremist lobbying at a medium to high level over a significant period of time, to the extent of attracting ire from those of opposing viewpoints, and as such I think he's able to demonstrate both discussion by peers and independent secondary sources, and an impact (albeit small) on our socio-political landscape. Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep We have long had a problem with journalists and the like, because the profession rarely writes about each other. To some extent this may be relevant here too--but in this case there is some material written about him. The article, obviously, needs a POV check. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if there are more relistings that can be done to generate more information on Mr. LaBarbera. Also, I am wondering if some of the publications mentioned in the article would merit there own articles where they do not currently have such. I am thinking yes, but I am not sure I want to be the one to start such articles.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel like another week of debate might be useful for this article; the sources here need to debated to see if they are enough to exceed the "only-a-passing-mention" requirement for the sources. NW (Talk) 23:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - not only journalist of several headlines, but widely discussed opinionist. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:29, 4 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 per nomination and consensus --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Zach Tuiasosopo

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

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

PROD contested (does that thing ever work?). This man has never played a regular or post season NFL game. He has a notable father and two notable brothers, but notability is not inherited. He fails perhaps the easiest notability guideline to satisfy that there is. This, and other articles on other subjects of similar "notability" have me worried about the advance of the internet in relation to the GNG; used to be newspapers had to pick and choose what they'd publish. Now with physical newspapers fast becoming a thing of the past, pretty much anyone, who would have unequivocally failed the GNG when Wikipedia was first born, can be seen by some as satisfying it. But enough rambling. Delete this article. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep : unless it's me not understanding football, apparently, he played in several professional teams. Therefore the nom rationale (subject does not pass WP:ATHLETE) seems unclear --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Delete per nom - see clarification below. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• As player:

    * Pittsburgh Steelers (2005) *    * Oakland Raiders (2005-2006) *    * Philadelphia Eagles (2006-2007) *    * Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2007-2007) * 

    *Offseason and/or practice squad member only  

Never played in an actual game. Non-notable. Thousands of people have been practice squad members of NFL teams, and since they don't have a familiar last name like Tuiasosopo, they rightfully never had articles created for them. Some are even close to notable in other fields, such as Jason Scukanec (a Portland, Oregon radio host). As Zach T never played in an actual NFL game and is currently a coordinator at a high school, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that he will ever be notable. Delete. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, ok. I understand now. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. A member of a practice squad and getting in a few pre-season games is not notable. If not for his family would not even be debatable. J04n(talk page) 23:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• 'Merge into one of the other Tuiasosopo's articles.. RF23 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete While I believe it is possible for a player to be notable for their college football career, and perhaps even this player is, the article does not mention it very much at all. It could probably be saved and sources found on a significant scale to satisfy even the fiercest pundits of notablity standards. Maybe. Perhaps. But until that is confirmed and done, then I go with delete it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:07, 7 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) 06:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Hendricks

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

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

I'm not convinced this person is notable. I can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources, most mentions seem to be on websites that are run by the subject himself. Also a bit concerned that the article seems to be promotional. Contested prod. Draftydoor (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Some of his books are from major publishers [1], which is rare for authors this "out there". i suspect that a lot of the references will be printed reviews in New Age magazines from the period. within the New Age, he is quite notable. I will try to find refs to show this. i agree the article is overly promotional, as most new age authors articles are. Im not a fan of using google to show notability, but searching for his full name in quotes and "conscious breathing" book title, gives 16k hits. not bad.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep At least 15 books each in over 200 Worldcat libraries. GNews shows reviews of them in LA Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Newsweek and Library Journal & quite a number of other places. I don;t see why the nom couldn't find these--they're right there in the links in the AfD nomination. I would not consider him an academic, but he is notable as a writer. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the article has no sources. WP:BLP recommends the immediate deletion of all unsourced statements in the biography of a living person, which in this case would result in blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There seems to be plenty of sourcing available through Google news search and AfD is not the right way to get an article cleaned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - the policy of "if there's no sources, leave it in case some are found" doesn't apply to biographies of living people for reasons of litigation and defamation. Per WP:RS, "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space." - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep based on DGG's finds. Newspaper coverage of the guy, and he mentioned in books, makes him notable. Dream Focus 03:44, 12 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bo Crese

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

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

Appears to fail general notability guidelines; contested PROD.  Chzz  ►  22:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete For a renowned documentary film maker, there is surprising little that shows up in google. There is no indication that he meets notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, as I can't find any sources whatsoever that even claims that this person exists. The only reference in the article ([2]) doesn't mention Bo Crese at all. Does not meet notability guidelines. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 12 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 04:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] KARK

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

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. A modification to a bike is not notable enough to warrant its own article. In my opinion the modification isn't even notable enough to warrant mention on the individial bike's articles. This article should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - This is simply a howto that is sourced to a self-published website and blogs. Nothing notable about this modification. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as how-to guide, then redirect to KARK-TV as plausible search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to KARK-TV. Don't keep any of the motorcycle-related content.--Dbratland (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, only one other website besides Wikipedia shows up in a search for "Keef's Airbox Replacement Kit"; the blog of the creator of this method. Abductive (reasoning) 03:40, 12 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 per consensus. Only requests to keep come from the subject, who is also the author. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest S. B. Boston

Ernest S. B. Boston (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ernest S. B. Boston" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Completely unsourced; does not pass notability standards for a living person; possible conflict of interest as the main editor's username is Esbboston (talk · contribs). Another editor attempted to PROD this, which was removed by the original editor [3]. older ≠ wiser 21:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Patents are from his day job, and his writing seems largely unpublished. My prod was declined with the note that he is published "on a regular basis in the Follett TX newspaper". That does not make him notable. And the US Patent Office is not an arbiter of notability, as many AfD debates have shown. Hairhorn (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No reason to keep. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying that something is "from a day job" is a bizarre denigration. Practically EVERYTHING important in the world of science and technology comes from peoples 'day jobs'.Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Day job" is a polite way of saying he was working for someone else. If he was running his own company, then the patents might be more relevant to notability. Almost anyone who's worked at a high enough level at a research firm will hold a patent or two. Hairhorn (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The logic of your statement in regards to whether someone is working for someone else or themselves has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of an invention, there is no connection, just a different kind of org chart.Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ernest S. B. Boston has been publishing writings on a blogspot account for only 2 years and has reached a worldwide audience in that timeframe that is growing purely by word of mouth with a current annual readership rate of 1668 people from over 67 countries. There is also IP address tracking that indicates several instances where one reader has told another reader about the writings. The merits of notability should also look at the total contributions of the individual. Ernest exhibits activity across a wide range of subject matter that is in itself not a common thing. What makes Ernest's first two patents so remarkable is that he wasn't even working in a research department when he made the discoveries of a new chemical that had never been created - and he accomplished the feat in only a day and a half. Ernest hasn't bothered to include his work of computer science which "interfered" with two thirds of his chemistry career.Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC) If you examine the patent work carefully you will notice that Ernest is the sole recipient of the patent - there are not part of a group effort as so many patents are in the world of technology research. Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete not notable as a chemist. I can verify the patents, but no indication of significance. When very weak notability is asserted in several completely different fields, the conclusion is not that it amounts to actual notability, but rather that an attempt is being made to piece together a case for a non-notable individual. If he were notable as a blogger, there would be no need to try to emphasize the other aspects. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found other other patents from other chemists who have used the chemical ATHET(antimony tris(2,hydroxyethylthiolate)) that was invented by Ernest S B Boston as a base for further inventions which were patented in the field of metals passivation for hydrocarbon cracking catalysis. The chemical is marketed by Catalyst Resources Incorporated (reference inside patent 5389233) and used worldwide for a considerable length of time and volume in the production of petroleum products.

see: US Patent 5389233 - Metals passivation of cracking catalysts

see: US Patent 5378349 - Passivated catalysts for cracking process Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Another indication of the importance of the earliest chemical product and process patents of Ernest S B Boston was the act of filing for invention protection in foreign countries, besides the normal protection on U.S. soil. The number of countries filed in was revealed to the inventor only "at least 5" in regards to the nominal extra payment paid for the foreign filings to the inventor by his employer. Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Another use of the chemical ATHET is found in a preparation under this patent: Synthesis and thermal stability of antimony tris (thioethyl stearate) for PVC (poly vinyl chloride), where it is used as the feedstock.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/689121l883156233/

There is considerable activity with the chemical ATHET in Chinese reference by Googling the full chemical name, so it should not be considered a trivial chemical invention, being used in multiple chemical applications by several inventors, all dependent upon the original work of Ernest S B Boston. Ernest S. B. Boston (talk) 23:33, 5 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. Nomination withdrawn - improvements seem to have been made to the satisfaction of all. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] De Hems pub

De Hems pub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "De Hems pub" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

One line article. No assertion of notability. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Is now sufficiently improved; another good result from an AFD. Quite why the abuse was necessary is beyond me. AFD's may not be WP:cleanup, but they tend to be more effective than that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another pub... No evidence of notability. Pure advertisement. Wikipedia is not a directory. Nothing indicates that this pub distinguishes himself from the other pubs in the world. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Yet another nomination made without any evidence of research, discussion or consideration of alternatives to deletion per our deletion policy. I find it quite easy to expand this stub and have started to do so. Deletion is not helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another ad hominem attack. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• My point is a general one but if the cap fits, wear it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Go and read WP:AGF. To compound your error is merely crass. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral At the moment when I suggested to delete, the article had only one line and it really looks like a directory. But now, since a user added more info, I take back my suggestion to delete and I'm now neutral. To Colonel Warden: Everybody has his own way of thinking and interpreting stuffs. If you do not agree, fine with me, but please don't attack the others as your comment was clearly attacking me and/or the nominator. Lets keep the atmosphere cool here and not start a fight when there is a little disagreement. Thanks! Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment AFD nominators have a fiduciary responsibility to follow wp:before. Clearly, there was source material that would have been found had that procedure been followed. AFD's are not WP:cleanup.--Firefly322 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

People make mistakes all the time. Hey, I voted "keep" for an author who plainly wasn't notable, and I have had to admit error and change it to delete. I'm sure the nominator acted in good faith, even though I disagree with him or her.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that "without any evidence of research, discussion or consideration of alternatives to deletion" is not an attack, nor is it bad faith. I respect that you may disagree with the assessment, but that doesn't mean it is an attack/bad faith.Ikip (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is clearly a notable drinking establishment with a long history. The one online source provided makes that crystal clear. Let's give this article a bit of time to develop.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Long colorful history. Recent edits have made this an easy call, but please let's keep this WP:CIVIL. J04n(talk page) 00:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep - a very well-known Soho drinking establishment with a rich history. Must certainly stay. Tris2000 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep very well referenced. Will the nominator consider withdrawing his nomination? Ikip (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note to closing administrator This article has gone through significant improvements, since it was nominated for deletion.[4] Ikip (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This appears to be a historic establishment that has received substantial non-trivial coverage supporting notability. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep - easily passes WP:GNG and now an interesting encyclopedic entry to boot. Good work Colonel Warden! Bridgeplayer (talk) 04:01, 7 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] London Buses route 153

London Buses route 153 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "London Buses route 153" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Another random London bus route with no notability at all. Again, Google brings up nothing to establish notability, just a selection of timetables. This is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide. Jeni ^(talk) 20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator Jeni ^(talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete London Transport do a better job of presenting this information (TfL Route 153 map, as well as the ability to get a timetable from a specific stop on the route). This route is not particularly noteworthy. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Changing !vote - see below
• I created the article because I felt this "random bus route" (and I agree it is one) is noteworthy for its operation by an unconventional bus company (HCT Group which operates as a charity) and illustrates the move by the Gordon Brown government to move provision of public services to the third sector. The company operates very few London bus routes, few enough to be worth listing, and I didn't want the list of them in HCT Group to be full of red links. I chose 153 and 394 because they had illustrations available on Commons. I do not intend to create any more articles about routes operated by this company, but I think London Buses route 153 and London Buses route 394 should stay Nankai (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
• Keep. We have articles on every subway line in Manhattan. I see no harm whatsoever with this article and it is clearly a notable transportation route in London. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have articles for every bus route in Manhattan? That is a more appropriate comparison. We have articles for every underground line, and that works just fine. Do you have any sources to prove the notability of this particular route? I'm sure you wouldn't make a comment like "clearly a notable transportation route" without having something to back it up. Jeni ^(talk) 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per JohnnyB256. A London bus line is cleary notable in the original meaning of the word: it is something thousands of people a day deal with. For sure much more notable than thousands of WP article subjects. I see nothing wrong in keeping this article. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep We seem to have much more detailed coverage of London bus routes than of those in NYC -- see for NYC List of bus routes in Manhattan & [[5]] --I am not sure of the reason for the different treatment. The London articles list ever stop. The NYC ones do not. Perhaps our NYC chapter needs to get to work on this. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - there is no logical way to decide if one bus route is more 'notable' than another. If an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic it should aim for as wide a coverage as possible. Once the principle of articles about bus routes is established, it seems perverse to object to additions to the class.--Brunnian (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question for creator Are you planning on creating a history section for these two routes as we have seen on other routes (see for example London Buses route 1, London Buses route 2)? All of the routes I looked at (1-10) had a history section of at least 2 paragraphs. As the article stands, I do not think it would be worth keeping. If this section could be added, I would be happy to change my !vote. Although I live in South London, I do not know this route, and do not think I could provide this section. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Mostly on the notabilty of the article and how it is encolpediceadit, might see the point if it was famous bus route or a something that could justify it notabilty.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Like with NYC, any bus route in a major city like London is notable and it would be a logistical nightmare to analyze and discuss every one of them to ponder if any of them aren't. --Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As there is now the beginnings of a history section, I am happy that this meets the basic requirements that I was looking for in a stub article, so I am changing my !vote accordingly. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete relevant info can be merged to parent article; I don't think a single bus route, even for a busy city, meets our inclusion criteria (not a directory, etc.) Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: A random bus route article rightly deserves a random vote, so I pick keep. Haha, but really, per above. --Triadian (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for now unless reliable third party sources come up. Has anyone else noticed that almost every other keep vote was because there are other bus route articles that exist or because we have articles on Manhattan subways? However, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we have to judge this article on its own merits. I did a Google search and found nothing besides timetables, which proves that the route exists but not that it is notable. Google News turns up absolutely nothing. I would love this article to stay too and would gladly change my vote if I was overlooking something, but liking something isn't a reason to keep, sorry. Tavix |  Talk  08:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled, of Lincolnshire, writes: Surely there are other definitions of "notable" than "it's all over google"?--Brunnian (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The notability guidelines do not show that it is notable only if there are references found via Google. As I have already mentioned, this (as a stub article) is sufficient from what I can see - a start to the history section has been made, and I will be doing some research next week to find more information. Tavik, I know that you weren't talking about me, as I haven't mentioned other articles existing as an argument for keeping the article. However, just because you can't find mention via google of a relatively new route does not mean sources are not available. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I ama bit confussed it seems that the reason for keeping is because it ais a london bus route, whoever i live in scotland and i could add all the glasgow bus rotues with sources etc but does that make it notable? Why is london bus notable? However upon reviewing more about these bus i can see these might be notable but will peopel then create article for ever bus route in london?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can add Glasgow bus routes, please do, and I am not kidding. A bus route in a major city is used by thousands of people every day, which makes it much more notable than most subjects in WP. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

An article on Glasgow bus routes would be greatly useful to visitors to that city.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep If American cities have their bus routes on Wikipedia, why shouldn't other nations? Its notable because so many people use them, public transport shaping the city's development, and showing its decay as routes are abandoned as factories are closed and whatnot. Good for historical overview of an area I believe. Dream Focus 03:50, 12 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] London Buses route 394

London Buses route 394 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "London Buses route 394" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Random London bus route with no notability at all. Google brings up nothing to establish notability, just a selection of timetables. This is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide. Jeni ^(talk) 20:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator Jeni ^(talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This route is not particularly notable, and more detailed information can be found at Transport for London's Route Map for route 394, plus TfL can produce timetables from a specific stop. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC) !vote changed - see below
• I created the article because I felt this "random bus route" (and I agree it is one) is noteworthy for its operation by an unconventional bus company (HCT Group which operates as a charity) and illustrates the move by the Gordon Brown government to move provision of public services to the third sector. The company operates very few London bus routes, few enough to be worth listing, and I didn't want the list of them in HCT Group to be full of red links. I chose 153 and 394 because they had illustrations available on Commons. I do not intend to create any more articles about routes operated by this company, but I think London Buses route 153 and London Buses route 394 should stay Nankai (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
• Keep. Now look. Let's keep this in perspective. As you can see from the graphic at the bottom of this article, there are some dedicated editors who are producing articles on apparently every London bus route. I think that this is a meritorious project, and certainly at least as meritorious as having articles on video games, episodes of the Simpsons and so on. It seems to me that every London bus route, by virtue of being a bus route in this greatest of all British cities, is notable. This one too. I say that as one who has never set foot in London or Britain. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There aren't articles on every London bus route, and there never will be, because a significant number of them aren't notable, and this is one of them. Jeni ^(talk) 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see red links intermixed amid the blue ones, but it's not clear to me that this is a question of notability or rather one of "not gotten around to just yet." I agree with a comment below that these need to be all kept or all deleted. I'd favor keeping.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: how can a bus route used by thousands of people in one of the most important cities of the world be non-notable? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - there is no logical way to decide if one bus route is more 'notable' than another. If an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic it should aim for as wide a coverage as possible. Once the principle of articles about bus routes is established, it seems perverse to object to additions to the class.--Brunnian (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question for creator Are you planning on creating a detailed history section for these two routes as we have seen on other routes (see for example London Buses route 1, London Buses route 2)? All of the routes I looked at (1-10) had a history section of at least 2 paragraphs. As the article stands, I do not think it would be worth keeping. If this section could be added, I would be happy to change my !vote. Although I live in South London, I do not know this route, and do not think I could provide this section. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Given the enormous amount of created stubs, this should be a policy-level decision: keep all or kill all. Yes, most are absolutely non-notable, and so is this one, but singling out two non-notable stub out of hundreds makes no sense. NVO (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As with the toher notabilty and encyolpedic reasons what is special about this line that jsutify a article?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As there is now the beginnings of a history section, I am happy that this meets the basic requirements that I was looking for in a stub article, so I am changing my !vote accordingly. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is, are there any sources apart from corporate and fan/hate sites? There are books on London buses' history, as a system, with some insight into individual historic routes but they don't venture into three-digit numbers, do they? NVO (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As these are relatively new routes (the 394 is only about 6 years old), there would be little hope of finding mention of them in books at the moment. There may well be some though, and if these articles survive AfD, I'll try to look up at libraries some next week when I get a chance to - as for many of us, life is hectic for me at times! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep for now: I say give them a chance to make the article into something. If this suspension of deletion results in nothing worth saving, then I will propose we disclose the truth, admit its a flawed subject, and correct the defect by sending it to meet its maker without any doubt or plea for insanity. --Triadian (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for now unless reliable third party sources come up. Has anyone else noticed that almost every other keep vote was because there are other bus route articles that exist or because we have articles on Manhattan subways? However, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we have to judge this article on its own merits. I did a Google search and found nothing besides timetables, which proves that the route exists but not that it is notable. Google News turns up absolutely nothing. I would love this article to stay too and would gladly change my vote if I was overlooking something, but liking something isn't a reason to keep, sorry. Tavix |  Talk  09:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Bus routes get published in newspapers don't they? For major cities I'm certain they do. It has coverage. And all bus routes are notable, for the same reasons mentioned in other AFD for them. Why not just nominate all of them at once so we don't all have to make the same comments everywhere. You show the historical development of a city, by listing things like his bus routes. Dream Focus 03:52, 12 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 deleted (CSD A9) by Will Beback. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 03:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Men Among Mice

Men Among Mice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Men Among Mice" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• A9 since no notable artists contributed to it. Every artist is a red link or a non-artist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:20, 4 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. Even assuming that it wasn't a copyvio, the consensus here is to delete. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Albanians in Medieval Epirus

The Albanians in Medieval Epirus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Albanians in Medieval Epirus" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete: Content FORK of Cham Albanians, Despotate of Arta and others. Unreadable, irredeemable, SYNTH and OR disaster. Reads more like a partisan high school essay than an encyclopedia article. --Athenean (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete: 95% of this article belongs to (most of that is already part of) Despotate of Arta, it makes detailed descriptions of its rulers, diplomatic relations etc., also specific parts belong to Cham Albanians and Principality of Gjirokastër. It's not the first time the specific editor creates a pov fork article [[6]]. Moreover the existing article is mainly based on estimations by medieval chronicles (don't meet wp:rs).Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Material already found in other articles in proper form, in example Albania in the Middle Ages.Megistias (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, classic POV fork. No need for merge/redirect, as the title (with the wrong article) is not a plausible search term. Block page creator for persistent disruptive fork creation, he was previously warned against doing precisely this (User talk:Guildenrich#Stop forking). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Against deletion: The article need some copy editing and some structuring but overall it looks fully referenced. It shows the presence of Albanians as an signified ethnicity in Epirus during Medieval period, and that is an interesting encyclopedic information. I think we have to keep it, but work together to improve it. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue is not whether the article is referenced, but whether it simply covers the same ground as Cham Albanians, Despotate of Arta, etc., saving us the trouble of tinkering with this. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Paularblaster, however, as I said earlier, this article gives information on a very sensitive period for Albanians and Epirus. It shows that Albanians were present in Epirus during Medieval ages. And that is particularly interesting. On the other hand, the article should be trimmed a bit, repeated material should be removed, all this could go through the discussion page Talk:The Albanians in Medieval Epirus (It could also be called Albanian in Medieval Epirus). —Anna Comnena (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, pick your reasoning: classic POV fork, personal essay, or mix of primary and other sources. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

i think theres a more serious problem here the whole article is lifted STRAIGHT from 'the ethnic composition of medieval epirus' in 'Imagining frontiers, contesting identities'85.73.218.238 (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment:Seems the present form of the article is a bad copy of this book [[7]] (for example page 134 is same with the relevant section). We have copyvio issues too, speedy deletion would be more appropriate. Great job, i.p. editor!Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio.--Yopie (talk) 10:23, 7 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. Kevin (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur H. J. King

Arthur H. J. King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Arthur H. J. King" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article has previously been deleted due to an expired PROD. My concerns with the subject matter are two-fold:

1. Notability: Google News (and its archives) are bereft of mentions of an "Arthur H. J. King". Google Books produces two results: both are the book Awheel to the Arctic Circle by Arthur H. J. King (1940, sometimes listed as A Wheel to the Arctic Circle). Turning to ordinary Google, it seems that both King and his book lack significant coverage in third party sources, having mainly trivial mentions on the websites of antiquarian booksellers or databases of out-of-print books and the like. Thus far, I can find only two potentially suitable sources: Bicycle Travel and Touring Resources (which briefly describes the book) and the Yorkshire Post obituary from 1999, already present in the article (not available online).
2. Possible copyright problem: The article strongly resembles a newspaper obituary, opening with "Arthur H J King, who has died aged 84" and containing the phrases "Son Ian King told the Yorkshire Post" and " Mr King is survived by his wife an eight children". This leads me to suspect that the article may be a direct copy of the Yorkshire Post obituary cited in the article. (I cannot prove this, not having any 10-year-old copies of the Post lying around, which is why I'm bringing this to Articles for Deletion instead of trying another process.) --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. He appears to be notable. If there is a copyright violation, that can be dealt with by stubbifying this article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• How so? Specifically, how does he satisfy the General notability guideline? --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that this just squeaks by WP:CREATIVE, based upon the Yorkshire Post obituary. It seems to me that retaining this article (bereft of copyvio problems) would be harmless, and would be of benefit to the project given our tendency to over-saturate the latest video games and such. If there is a person dedicated to bring this article up to snuff, I say good luck to him or her. We need more articles on authors of books that shed an interesting light on that era. If this does not meet notability guidelines, than I would ask that we ignore all rules. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete On further consideration, this is just too weak to keep.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The only two papers whose obits we accept as definitive proof of notability are the London Times and the NY Times--possibly we would for similar newspapers in other countries if we knew about them. In practice, other papers have a tendency to devote some of the articles to local people who may be well known locally, but not notable. So this needs additional evidence, such as reviews of his book, not just listing of it. The publisher is a minor UK firm that was primarily a printer--the book is either self-published or very close to it. As for copyvio, the article is so clearly a copyvio that I think it could be deleted on the grounds alone. If the person is clearly notable , we'd stubbify, but there is no reason to think that. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. His 1940 book, Awheel to the Arctic Circle does not turn up in the British Library or COPAC catalogues. Aside from the issue of reviews, we don't even seem to have copies on deposit in major libraries. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:28, 5 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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] King's College London Entrepreneurial and Investment Society

King's College London Entrepreneurial and Investment Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "King's College London Entrepreneurial and Investment Society" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable university club. I tagged this {{db-group}} when it appeared, and then withdrew my tag to let the author find sources. However the references are only: (1) General KCL site, (2) The club's own site, (3, 4) student testimonials on KCL site which mention being a member, (5) listing-type mention as a "partner society" whose members get a discount at a conference, (6) listing-type mention among dozens of societies on the Student Union website. This is not the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required to demonstrate notability, nor have I found any more. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I prod-tagged this article recently only to see it deprodded. It is clearly a typical, non-notable student club. Abductive (reasoning) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. We can't have articles on every student society, except for perhaps Skull and Bones and a few others. This one makes no assertion of notability. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into King's College London - as not notable per organization standards. Specifically, this organization is not "national" in scope or scale. Also, I could find zero news articles, and no other reliable sources from some standard Internet searches, to find out if this was otherwise notable. This is a small college group, and is no way worthy of its own article here. We are not a webspace provider for college students' private clubs. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with King's College London I am the author of the article and this article doesn't have enough references, I thought there would be more, but I think its events are not featured in independent enough sources, I thought it would be easier to find them as this is a big society at King's, but I was wrong. It is featured in a number of student papers, for example the London Student and ROAR, the King's student magazine, but I have no way to prove this, and on second thoughts they are probably not independent enough for Wikipedia. I do think it might be useful for the King's College London page, but that might bring up all sorts of issues with other societies, so I'm thinking just delete it. DRosin (talk) 21:42, 6 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 speedily deleted by User:Lid per WP:CSD A7. NAC. Tim Song (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Forum

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

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

Non notable website - just another web forum. Speedy removed by anon user. noq (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• A7 anyway, since no explanation was given for removal of CSD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Coldplay Expert 17:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, A7. Notability isn't established in the article, and -- judging by the number of members on the forum (~150) -- it almost certainly can't be. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. No evidence of notability. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 20:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nikon Jevtić

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

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

Appears to be a non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. He has been on the books of a few clubs but hasn't made a first-team appearance. I know that he has high potential but there is no guarantee that he will play any time soon. Spiderone 16:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; recreate when he actually makes a pro appearance. GiantSnowman 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Has he played a pro game for Velencia or not? Govvy (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he has. Spiderone 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not; a 16 year old Serb playing in Spain? If he had we would be drowning in a sea of media reports proclaiming him the next Bojan! GiantSnowman 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Govvy (talk) 19:27, 10 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 and salt per WP:CSD#G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmed Seddik

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

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

Recreated less than a day after AfD closed with delete, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed M. Seddik, newly registered contributor has removed my G4 tag twice. Time for a bit of SALT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.

Speedy delete per nom.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• G4, salt, and ban creator. I can't think up enough punishments, this guy removed the AfD tag from the previous article more than 10 times from IP accounts. Hairhorn (talk) 15:48, 4 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 Snowball keep Clearly notable, needs fixing not deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Casuals United

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

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

This article takes an extreme racist tone. It presents slurs against British Muslims as unchallenged facts. Most of the sources used don't even mention the subject itself- for instance, there is no mention of Casuals United in any of the sources in the section about the protest against the Iraq War. Quotes from the movement's leaders are allowed to stand unchallenged, despite painting Muslims as "Islamists" intent on a "jihad against Britain". The only criticism is so minimal as to be meaningless - saying that X is opposed by obscure group Y is not enough to make a meaningful rebuttal to the lengthy, quoted hate speech.

While I accept it is possible the author did not intend this, it is nonetheless what this came out as. Unless it can be fixed, top to bottom, this should be deleted from Wikipedia as an attack page. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 15:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Christianity is the only way. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep: The allegations by User:Shoemaker's Holiday appear to indicate a complete misunderstanding of the position, as discussed at Talk:Main Page#Casuals United. The article itself is in no way racist - it reports the existence of a racist group. The slurs against Muslims are not "unchallenged facts" - they are verbatim quotes from its organisers, and, had there been any quotes available by those opposed to the group, they would (or should) have been included. The citation for the quote is not incorrect, as wrongly suggested by Shoemaker's Holiday - it is this article, correctly referenced. The whole article should indeed be improved, based on reliable sources - but the group itself meets notability criteria, and the article itself should remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That violates Wikipedia:FRINGE#Quotations. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying that it "needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view", I would agree. In my opinion, it is. I wouldn't expect that any reader would treat an avowed member of a football hooligan gang as a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears adequately sourced and notable. If the article is POV in any way that can be fixed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It is ridiculous to accuse an article dealing with a group opposed to islamism of being racist. Islamism is a facist ideology like nazism that spans all races. It's true though that there is an Arabian racist attitude towards non-Arabian muslims(and non-muslims of course. 93.161.104.222 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Politically motivated point nom. And I say that a left-winger!  Francium12  17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

it seems to have acquired some extremely pointy keeps as well (I do not mean yours). DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I dont think that contributions such as "Christianity is the only way" require any further comment.  Francium12  19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope I wasn't being "pointy" - but I was annoyed! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The problems are ones that can easily be solved by judicious editing. The nominator's statement doesn't say anything about why this article doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, OR, or whatever else, so the content concerns are not reasons for deletion. If there are problems, either edit them out or just plaster the article with cleanup tags. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - the groups meets the threshold of notability; that is, it is mentioned in multiple, reliable sources. Neutrality concerns are grounds to improve and alleviate, but not to delete. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ready To Rumble 2

Ready To Rumble 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ready To Rumble 2" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

There's no sources to prove notability. Most likely a hoax and if it isn't, it's a non-notable YouTube fan film that's still in production. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Assuming this is not a hoax for a moment, this still fails the future films portion of the film notability guideline. This is a film that has not started filming. The article can be recreated after filming has started if the production is notable. If production is not notable then only if the film gets significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sure it's a hoax, but it definitely is not notable.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Given that the WWE has an actual film subsidiary (WWE Studios) that produces films for theatrical release and that the film is being created by an unknown with action figures, I think there's nearly 100% certainty that this is not an authorized sequel. Fan films on Youtube ought to meet a high standard for notability. Since this one hasn't even been produced yet (and thus has no demonstrated following, I think this is an open-and-shut case for deletion. --JamesAM (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 4 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 BLP problems cataloged by the Delete votes are persuasive. Also those opining Keep have alleged the existence of sources, but have not produced usable biographical ones. This deletion should be considered without prejudice towards a neutral, sourced biography if one can be written, but this is not usable or acceptable as it stands. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Edward Lincoln III

Charles Edward Lincoln III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Charles Edward Lincoln III" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Autobiography, non-notable, fails WP:BIO Tan | 39 14:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is questionable. Possibly COI, per WP:COI and autobiography per WP:YOURSELF as author's username (CEALIV) greatly looks like Charles Edward LIncoln III. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, albeit with a complete rewrite needed. Certainly, as a wikipedia article it is poorly written & contains overblown and unduly promotional claims, and since it is pretty much a direct lift from a (presumably) autobiographical piece from a blog the text as-is has no business here. But article tone and COI concerns aside, there are plausible claims of notability on account of his publications & fieldwork in Mesoamerican archaeology. His publications have been notably and reasonably broadly cited and commented upon in the Mesoamericanist/Mayanist literature, and he did direct digs at Chichen Itza in the 1980s (though only for a season or two I think, not the whole decade). In particular, he might be considered notable for contributions to three proposals: 1)that key Puuc ceramic & architectural styles were cotemporaneous with Chichen Itza's, 2)that the "Mexicanised" or "Toltec-style" architectural phases at Chichen were entirely an indigenous Yucatecan development, and not a product of any external contact with Tula, and 3)that Chichen Itza had a dyadic rulership system, not a multepal or monarchial one. Even though these proposals may have remained minority views they have been part of a significant ongoing debate about the nature and composition of Chichen Itza's political and architectural history. His eventual PhD dissertation proposal was less well received, it seems, and can't comment if there's anything of particular note from his subsequent legal career. His political views & commentary do not seem noteworthy. If it's kept, the article would need rewrite to focus on the Mayanist archaeological contribs, as a few independent 3rd party WP:RS's can readily be found that discuss these. But not I think for any of the other aspects. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, I think that Charles Lincoln's appearance on the Washington Post is very notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CEALIV (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Note. The above user has made contributions only to CEL III pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Fairly limited coverage on GNews; not enough for WP:BIO. As for WP:PROF, an HPoP citation analysis using "Charles E Lincoln" suggests a grant total of 62 citations, a low h-index of 4, and the most widely cited publication with only 20 citations. WorldCat gives a low 17 holdings for most widely held book.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. GS gives cites of 20, 14, 10, 3, 2, 2. That's all. There is a web site at: http://charleslincoln.spiritualpatriot.com/bio.html that references the subject but appears to add little to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC).
• Delete. The claims for notability from the article seem to focus on his thesis (in the lead-in) and on another article he's mentioned in that actually focuses on someone else ("an article based on Orly Taitz"). The substance of this article seems to put it within the jurisdiction of WP:PROF, but GS analysis suggests an h-index of only about 3, which is vastly less than the minimum of roughly 10 that has become the consensus here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC).
• Keep, Charles Lincoln has made very significant contributions to the Mayan field study and in particular to Harvard University and should be hailed as one of the greatest Meso-American Anthropologists of the 20th and possibly 21th centuries if he continues his work at Peabody Museum, I believe that he is one of the great men of the Harvard community and should be put in Britannica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzenderiasan (talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note. The above user has made contributions only to CEL III pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I really don't think that any safe conclusions about notablility can be drawn, based on GS counts, raw h-index calcs, or other bibliometric methods alone. There are very many well-known and evident deficiencies in each of these approaches (documented even in our wiki articles on them). At best, uncalibrated search counts & citation metrics like these are rough indications to be used as a starting point, not a final determination on their own. Like Harzing's Publish or Perish website doco says (paraphrasing), "low" citation metrics do not necessarily indicate lack of impact or notability in a field, as there are numerous other factors that skew the results.

  For example, GS does not do a good job of finding citations in books or contributed book chapters. The great majority of hits in this targeted GoogleBooks search are mentions that discuss or reference his work on Chichen Itza; allowing for false positives and duplicates there'd easily be 400+. And if you skim through the two-line extracts given, you'll see a lot are actively discussing his work, more than just trivial or passing mentions. but

  Citation metric searches are also quite sensitive on the search terms/methodology used. For eg, even if a GS/PoP search on "Charles E Lincoln" turns up only 62 citations total, if instead you search on the title of what PoP says is his most-cited work (the contributed chapter "Chronology of Chichen Itza: a review of the literature") PoP finds 49 mentions for this work alone. Similarly a search for the title of his dissertation "ethnicity and social organization at chichen itza" pulls in 43 mentions.

  Harzing's other caveats apply here too—'small' field size (there are only so many publs. per year on Mesoamerican archaeology, and even fewer on specific sites); under-representation of non-english sources (a great deal of mesoam. archaeology is written in spanish, as are about half of Lincoln's works); publishing mainly in books not journals (half of his publs.)

  Really, the better approach is to investigate and read up on the content and assess context in the literature sources that discuss the scholar and his works. That's what I had tried to do in my earlier 'keep' comment, above. In that I identify three particular contributions to significant and ongoing questions in the research field, that Lincoln has made and which have been reasonably widely discussed and commented upon in the literature. To be more specific, I would suggest that these satisfy WP:PROF criterion 1, and also note 2 ("person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea"). Consider this selection of excerpts from the relevant literature:

  "as early as 1980...archaeological work had begun to revise our understanding of the Toltecs and their role in Mesoamerica. The work at Tula and Chichen Itza (Lincoln), has enhanced our ability to make such a revision.." --Society for Latin American Anthropology (1983)

  "At once the most thoroughgoing and radical discussant of this problem, Charles Lincoln challenges the conventional assessment [of Chichen's chronology].." --Lindsay Jones, Twin City Tales (1995)

  "The work of Charles Lincoln (1986, 1990), however, challenged the traditional sequential view of Chichen Itza..." --Jessica Christie, Maya Palaces and Elite Residences (2003)

  "Por una parte, nos parece interesante la teoría de la contemporaneidad de los vestigios "mayas" y "toltecas" que sostiene el arqueólogo Ch. E. Lincoln..." Piedad Peniche Rivero, Sacerdotes y comerciantes (1990)

  Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Lincoln was a giant of the field by any strech of the imagination, but neither were his contributions merely workaday ones. His work and proposals did attract a fair amount of interest, commentary and debate, & he's been much more widely cited and mentioned than those H-index scores & GS data indicate. The more I've looked into it the more I can find multiple notable RS's devoting some decent space to his ideas, that could be used to construct a reasonable & informative article. The current text would need to be scrapped in the process, and written afresh. But I think as a wikipedia article's subject, WP:PROF threshhold would be satisfied.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• ps. Just for the record, I personally have no association whatsoever with the article's subject, nor with the several single-purpose accounts (SPA) that seem to have recently sprung up commenting here and further adding to the article. The person or persons operating those accounts would be well advised to stop, it is disappointing and only ever going to be counterproductive—those comments and the SOCK-like actions should (properly) be disregarded and focus retained on WP:N eligibility. Those other SPA accounts would also be well advised to read and fully comprehend WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:V and WP:RS.

  And to make my position even more clear, the text of the article as it stands right now should be scrapped. It would be feasible however, to replace it with some much more balanced and reliably sourced text that fairly describes his works & proposals in archaeology (including documented criticisms thereof), as meriting inclusion under WP:PROF. Not that I am particularly inclined at the moment to rewrite the article myself; if it's deleted then can I suggest that the closing admin does so without prejudice for re-creation in future, but only under terms that a future re-write not involve CE Lincoln himself, or anyone directly or apparently associated with him. They should not be contributing to the article themselves, for what I hope would be obvious reasons.

  The other concern as to whether or not it's legitimate to assess WP:N on basis of raw h-index calcs alone, still stands but can be taken elsewhere.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable at all. The only thing about him that has ever been notable is the fact that he was referenced in one Washington Post article about his work with the birthers. Despite that, this article spends 95% of its time discussing his research on the Mayans and his love for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's patently obvious that he wrote the entire thing and is no more notable than your average nut. Leuchars (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• weak keep -- I think CJLLW has nailed it: this guy's published work on Chichen is widely cited. My own targeted search, using "Lincoln, Charles" as a search term to raise confidence that there are actually cites to this Lincoln, gets 150 hits (240 is the predicted figure, but if you raise "results per page" to 100 and then go to the second page, the actual total is 150). I agree with CJLLW that the current version should be scrapped; I don't have the interest or competence to re-write it. But I think he satisfies PROF#1 and it's reasonable for us to have an article on him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and should be kept —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroluslind (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC) — Caroluslind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete not notable and autobiography (WP:BLP contravention removed) Muldrake (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. -- This article appears to have been written by Mr. Lincoln himself. And Mr. Lincoln "forgot" to mention his two disbarments -- in California and Florida -- http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=171793 -- and that he was also disbarred by a U.S. District Court in the W.D. Texas. He resigned with prejudice from the Texas Bar before that Bar Association could also disbar him. The article is unreliable, fails to meet Wikipedia standards, and was written by the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottjtepper (talk • contribs) 2009-10-12
• Delete From the article: "Lincoln worked for less than a full year at the oldest law-firm in the United States, Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, with home offices (at that time) at 100 Maiden Lane behind Wall Street, but he rapidly found himself too much of an iconoclast, too much of an anarchist, and above all too concerned about intellectual substance rather than politically correct form and pretense, to remain or prosper at a large law firm." Translation; he was fired. This whole article is a giagantic puff piece on non-notable person. Abductive (reasoning) 03:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question Where in the Washington Post is he at? I search their archives but don't find his name. How often is this lawyer asked by major sources for comment on something? He did take the crazy seatbelt case to the Supreme Court. But a lot of cases go there, so their lawyers probably don't count as automatically notable. Dream Focus 04:01, 12 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 as blatant promotion. JamieS93 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DMZ Academy

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

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

Plain advertisement

Speedy Delete: None. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing in the article suggests organization is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandra 73 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like an advertisement for an art school. The only thing lacking is the text, "Draw a picture of this adorable fawn and mail it to DMZ Academy of Creative Art, Kuala Lumpur, for your FREE evaluation!" Mandsford (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as blatant advertising. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• G11 as it includes email and blog links, couldn't be more blatant but for Mandsford's idea. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Hurry and Delete!!! We are getting invaded by advertisements! This article of the art school looks like abstract art: it is written like if it was really notable, praises how many prestigious awards it has won... but in reality, it is not. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SpyCatcher

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

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

Very little detail and does not meet guidelines. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — S-J-S-F-M-W (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No coverage. Only external link provided is for the software's website. No notability here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: That is not entirely true as I have found a review from CNET that does show little notability but it does not seem enough to make me withdraw this AfD. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Spycatcher as a likely search term. Current article does not meet WP:GNG. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an advertisement, which annoys me beyond belief. Also very little sourcing and it screams adware spam. I say lose it. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 00:47, 4 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) 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Christos Efthymiou

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

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

These players all play for a team that is in the second tier of a semi-pro league system: They may even be amateur for all we know. They also fail WP:GNG. I have decided to bundle these because the articles are almost identical.

(I will strike those that no longer fail):

• Valantis Kapartis
• Giorgos Costa
• Pieros Sotiriou
• Nikolas Oratiou
• Theodoros Loizou
• Marios Koulloupas
• Andreas Alcibiades Spiderone 12:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all for failure of WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all: I pulled up a load of article on them. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain please Spiderone 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am striking the "keep all" above since the account is a sock puppet. Spiderone 06:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've alerted us to that finding, but as a general rule, we don't edit or strike or cross through comments made by other persons, and I'm unstriking it. The closing administrator will take possible sockpuppetry into account when weighing the opinions. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Under WP:ATHLETE, a player qualifies only if he is playing at the top professional level. The team was First Division up until the 2007-2008 season, but not last season and not this season; some of these athletes may not have played first division. Those that have, I think, would qualify. We had a debate recently on another situation where people were playing in the top division of the league of a relatively poor nation, and the argument was made that if a nation's best league isn't fully professional, then the language of WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply. I don't agree with that. The way WP:ATHLETE reads, the players in a nation's highest professional league get princess treatment, whether that nation is the U.S.A. or Cyprus. Mandsford (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. Firstly, there's no evidence that they have played (a lot of them are teenagers) and even if they have played it wouldn't matter since they still fail as past AfDs have proven. Also look at the number of red links in teams such as Ethnikos Achna FC and Enosis Neon Paralimni FC Spiderone 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all. The articles do not indicate that any of them actually play. To satisfy ATHLETE, they actually have to compete. Lara 18:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all - fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Govvy (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Spiderone and Lara. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hetlem Capja

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

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. He hasn't played in a professional league, just a top-flight one. He hasn't received any significant media coverage either. Spiderone 12:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails both WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 15:21, 7 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 deletion (G11). -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] INFISSMENT

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

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

Non notable software - article creator blocked and immediately after a new user removed the speedy tag. noq (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This is just one of the things that amazes me with Wikipedia being that even good edits from a user that is banned is immediately considered like World War III. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:52, 4 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. Also SALTed for three months. Enigma^msg 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kanthak software

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

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

Non notable company. Article creator blocked, immediately after a new user removed speedy tag. noq (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. Note, user recreated himself as User:Sanghapal25 after the last ban - already put on the noticeboard. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Language doesn't seem overtly spammy to me, but this easily qualifies for a db-corp speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete anyway, meets A7 and G11 as advert for a non-notable company. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good Friday (film)

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

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

Non-notable film. Article concentrates more on the plight Herne Hill Velodrome than it does on the film. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

i have amended the article. hopefully, you find it more acceptable now ? (Jasonbryan1)

• Delete: Not sufficiently notable. Article on creator (also up for deletion) says she just graduated suggesting this was a student project. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete !!: Article has been amended to reflect these concerns Jasonbryan1 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC) — Jasonbryan1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - the article has addressed the subject (i.e. being less about Herne Hill Velodrome) but has not asserted or established notability. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't fit into the notability guidelines for films. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Article never asserts notability for its subject. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - various searches on the Internet can not even verify that this film has been released, much less even find it was filmed. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 5 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 nomination withdrawn Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hajir Darioush

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

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

No indication of notable from reliable sources, none of his films have articles, no refences provided -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn - Could an admin close this AfD please? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Contested Prod. Google Scholar gives no results, Google Books returns 2 minor mentions, no Google News hits. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a few more hits under this transliteration: Find sources: "Hajir Dariush" — search, news, books, scholar, images , and some here: Find sources: "Hazhir Dariush" — search, news, books, scholar, images . Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As winner at a major festival [8]. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I would also add that, contrary to the nominator's statement on the article talk page, there is no requirement for an article to have sources in English. An editor offered some Persian sources there but was discouraged from using them by the nominator. There may be some more reliable sources amongst these, but, apart from the BBC source that I have added to the article for verifiability purposes (it's only a passing mention so not notability-conferring), I'm not really in a position to judge which of them may be reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Response I am going to quote exactly what I said, when the other editor said "The Farsi wiki gives the following reference on his works; مریم آقا شیخ محمد و سعید نوری نشاط ،" گلزار مشاهیر: زندگینامه درگذشتگان مشاهیر"، ۳ خرداد ۱۳۷۸ ،تهران، شابک: ۹ - ۰۴ -۵۶۸۱- ۹6۴.":

Unfortunately, I cannot read that text... could you give the reference in the English language? I am not in a position to know Hajir Darioush's contribution in the field of Iranian Cinema - however, I do know that although I looked, I could not find reliably-sourced English-language citations. As this is the English wikipedia, we really need English-language (or verifiably translated) sources of information. If these can be provided, I am quite happy to see if this article can be expanded. I did look, but was unable to find any reliable ones - apart from the two films on IMDB. Any help you could give would be appreciated.

• • I only asked what the Farsi said, as I can't read it, and said that we need English language or verifiably translated sources of information.That was over 2 months ago, and nothing was added until you added some sources today, Phil! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement for sources to be "verifiably translated", in the same way that I wouldn't ask for English-language sources in articles about, say, molecular biology to be paraphrased in terms that I could understand. In fact, posting a translation of the sources here would be a copyright violation. Verifiability does not mean that sources can be understood by everyone. If the article author had been encouraged to add Persian-language sources and given some guidance on formatting references, rather than discouraged from doing so, then we could have had some sources in this article over 2 months ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • You are quite right, Phil. I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion. (I should point out that I don't agree with your example of molecular biology. Although I would not understand the source completely, I would probably understand a lot of it, and could look up individual words!). You are, however, right that sources do not need to be understood by everyone. I was not asking for a translation of the source, merely the reference (i.e. what is the title in English) - obviously I phrased that badly, and will remember that should a similar situation arise in future! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Another transliteration: Find sources: "Hagir Daryouche" — search, news, books, scholar, images . Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be enough evidence to indicate notability DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, we créu

Yes, we créu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Yes, we créu" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable neologism with no sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - plenty of Ghits but all Twitter and blogs - per WP:NEO we need more solid attestation, and more time, to know if this is really entering the language or just this week's catch-phrase. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Want to speedy on general principle, but there's no such rationale. =) Somebody whipped this one up in light of Rio De Janerio's recent successful bid to the 2016 olympics, but that alone doesn't make it notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Even Barack Obama's famous "Yes, we can" don't even have an article on Wikipedia [9]. Why should this have an article? Also, no references provided. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable. RmSilva ^{can talk!} 22:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. If this gains traction, and if sources present themselves, then a mention at 2016 Summer Olympics might be in order - but there isn't enough here for an article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Créu. This fact belongs somewhere, so I added this to 2016_Summer_Olympics#Bidding: "Rejoicing Brazillians coined the phrase "Yes, we créu" (a play on U.S. President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign slogan) to celebrate the win."^[1]
• --Milowent (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete not even a neologism. Just a twitter trend. --Damiens.rf 18:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for sure, not encyclopedic (even though I'm Brazilian...) Capmo (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kayla Synz

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

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

Disputed PROD. Does not meet notability guidelines of WP:GNG or more specifically WP:PORNBIO. Talk page mentions, as the reason for disputing the prod, Synz work in the MILF genre but the article makes no mention of this. Dismas|^(talk) 08:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 08:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence that contributions to MILF genre are unique to satisfy that criteria of PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given by nom, as well as for being sourced only to imdb and "chickipedia". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep now meets notability required by WP:PORNBIO. Please revise deletion status. Cyrax0875 (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • She still doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO because the awards you added aren't "well-known". Epbr123 (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 22:25, 7 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. Consensus (taking into account also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage) identifies this collection of articles as unverifiable content forks and indiscriminate collections of information.  Sandstein  05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Herb (preparation) and others

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

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

A WP:WALL of many articles created by one editor (Cottonball (talk · contribs)) that is an enumeration of different uses and methods of plant and "materia medica" uses. A previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage) excluded these articles and left the undesirable situation where we deleted Herb (General Usage Part 2) and Herb (General Usage Part 3), but not Herb (General Usage Part 1). In the view of many the last AfD, these articles aren't encyclopedic. See the full list below. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Full list of articles in this discussion:

• Herb (preparation)
• Herb (general usage part 1)
• Herb (Translation of herb names)
• TCM Materia Medica (Bark)
• TCM Materia Medica (Bulb)
• TCM Materia Medica (Flower)
• TCM Materia Medica (Fruit)
• TCM Materia Medica (Leaf)
• TCM Materia Medica (Others)
• TCM Materia Medica (Plant)
• TCM Materia Medica (Plant Part 1)
• TCM Materia Medica (Plant Part 2)
• TCM Materia Medica (Plant Part 3)
• TCM Materia Medica (Plant Part 4)
• TCM Materia Medica (Rhizome)
• TCM Materia Medica (Root)
• TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 1)
• TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 2)
• TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 3)
• TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 4)
• TCM Materia Medica (Seed)
• TCM Materia Medica (Stem)
• TCM Materia Medica (Tuber)

• Keep all, but combine and and retitle. To: Herb use in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and similar. This is a specific topic, and TCM is an authentic tradition with an large literature, some of it in English. It would be good to see traditional Chinese sources added, in English if possible. The various part 1, 2, ,3, 4 etc. should of course be combined. I think that to avoid cultural bias it should be possible to write an article on each of the medicinal preparations independent from the article on the plant of origin, but certainly I'm not equipped to do it. In the meantime, this ids a suitable summary. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I still don't see how these lists, even if combined, would be encyclopedic. Would we allow a list like this comprised entirely of transliterations of traditional herbs used in some remote tribal medicine, all of which is meaningless because we don't know the source plant species often because references are vague. Compounding the problem here, we have lists largely from an unknown source, most of which I assume the editor transliterated with the tools and links included the certainly deletable Herb (Translation of herb names), which includes online translators. WP:NOTDIR #7 seems to apply here. I have nothing against articles that summarize traditional Chinese medicine, materia medica, or anything else that uses many examples to explain what the article topic is, but an exhaustive list the collective above doesn't seem to belong on Wikipedia. --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: To survive this, the lists must be combined and retitled per DGG here and DHowell in the previous AfD as necessary. This is a bare minimum. TCM is not "some remote tribal medicine" but still widely used in China today, so the analogy is not so apt. This needs sourcing, though. Most of these stuff can probably be sourced to China's official Pharmacoepia, but I can't find a reliable online copy for that. Tim Song (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, these were originally content forks of the already thorough Chinese herbology and Traditional Chinese medicine, of which the former already includes a pretty extensive list. Any work from new references like you mention would likely have to start from scratch since these lists, as I noted above, are probably just transliterations from an unknown source. --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm now persuaded that any work on this topic is better off starting from scratch than this unsourced mess. My review of the Latin names also convinced me that at least some of them are grammatically questionable, calling into further doubt the usefulness of the articles. Delete per nom and RDBury. Tim Song (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Most of the articles seem to be simply lists of herbs and their names in English Chinese and Latin. The Chinese herbology article already has lists totaling 126 herbs. I don't think Wikipedia should be a complete compendium of every possible traditional medicine. The preparation article seems to be another list, but this time methods of preparation. The general usage is yet another list but at least this has what each herb is purported to do. Perhaps some of this should be added to the Chinese herbology article but there is no reason to have a separate article for it. Finally, the translation article is simply a list of links to resources help translate Chinese; it has nothing to do with the herbs other than the title. Basically, I couldn't find anything in the articles that would pass WP:IINFO.--RDBury (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Go ahead, Web is wide and some other database will surely publish these important lists, sooner or later. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and do what DGG says. It has EV, just needs work. Thank god there are some refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, combine and retitle per DGG. - Draeco (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, or delete if you want to make WP worse. Of course, the topic broached by these articles is so huge and important that it requires a lot of work to be good. At this point, whole group of articles it's just a stub and it makes no sense trying to decide things such as merges and titles so early. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The subject is perfectly notable, which is why we already have articles on Traditional Chinese medicine and more importantly Chinese herbology, as well as various already existing daughter articles of those. I don't see the need to create an entire set of redundant articles when we already have some perfectly usable articles, which themselves are actually titled and organized correctly, rather than this mess. This isn't an indictment of TCM, but rather on this extensive, and poorly executed, set of articles, which are entirely redundant with existing articles. Expand the existing articles, create properly titled and organized daughter articles as needed; there's lots that can be done, but this entire set of articles probably needs to go. --Jayron32 03:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I wanted to close this but found it a hard one. The topic is indeed relevant but separate articles in their present state are a borderline case of IINFO. Several articles on the topic already exist and this info could somehow be incorporated. A consensus at the moment is that the articles should not stay in this shape. I'm somewhere between delete and redirect to Traditional Chinese medicine for all of them. Will do one of those in some time, if the nom stays open. --Tone 20:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and Transwiki to Wiktionary Wikipedia is not a Dictionary entry.--Enyroad32 (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: I have relisted this AfD because save for a comment by a new user, there has been little discussion after Tone's relist. The lack of participation may have been due to a relisting that occurred at 20:29 (UTC), which is three-and-a-half hours before new AfDs are posted on the next day's log page.

  If any admin would like to override this non-admin relist and close this AfD, I have no objections in them doing so. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Awful. Violates several strands of WP:NOT, such as not a dictionary and not a how-to. Furthermore, the "Latin Names" are meaningless - they're mangled versions of the actual species name, with Herba set in front - this has nothing to do with any identification scheme ever used in Latin, and is pure original research, and, furthermore, makes it absolutely uselesss for the forbidden-on-Wikipedia dictionary use which is the only point of these articles. This makes it unsuitable even for transwiki. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: largely unsourced dumps of WP:IINFO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't want to say merge here because there is a whole lot of data between the pages that I don't forsee being merged into one article necessarily. It's a whole lot of information on Traditional Chinese Medicine - valiant effort, but this is probably better relegated to somebody's web page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect and combine per DGG.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Dennisthetiger and Shoemaker's Holiady. The "latin names" are messed up, the information indiscriminate, the articles poorly named, gross violation of WP:HOWTO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

all of which are excellent reasons for improving this series of articles, but completely irrelevant to deleting it. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per WP:NOT, especially WP:IINFO. Unencyclopedic. It would be great for this AfD to be closed with a result other than "no consensus", so to that end, I'll say that I'd be OK with merging everything together, with significant trimming and condensing, and redirecting the individual articles, assuming someone is willing to take on that task. But my strong first preference is deletion. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced. Indiscriminate. Inaccurate (with regard to the "Latin names"). Already partially deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage). Let's get this over with. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Indiscriminate, unsourced, probably inaccurate and totally redundant. Verbal chat 10:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A huge, sprawling content fork, with organization and naming which we should be avoiding like the plague. Mangoe (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clyde Parkour

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

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

Despite claims of importance, no indication of this found at reliable sources -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, very close to G11 speedy. Zero coverage in reliable sources, and the "criticism" section looks like a very lame attempt to side-step the complaints over bias. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't find enough independent comment to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this team. Joe Chill (talk) 16:29, 4 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ronen Altman Kaydar

Ronen Altman Kaydar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ronen Altman Kaydar" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

fails WP:BIO; "Ronen Altman Kaydar" pulls up next to nothing on google and literally nothing in google news, which is hardly evidence of notability. While ghits aren't conclusive, the fact that they don't show any reliable, third-party sources giving Kaydar coverage is. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

check searches for the name in Hebrew, רונן אלטמן קידר. There are quite a few journalistic reviews of his published works (including this in haaretz. Also, his book is held by the library of congress [11] (published under his name before marriage, as stated in the article). here is his entry in the lexicon of Hebrew Literature (in Hebrew, but the picture and the name in English appear). His work was also put to music and filmed. and this is the news-search for him in Hebrew.

88.134.61.253 (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• No opinion, but I'd suggest that this not be decided until at least Oct. 2. This time of year isn't the best for getting knowledgeable opinions regarding matters relating to Israel or Judaism, simply because many Jewish users don't post during the High Holy Days. --NellieBly (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:ACADEMIC. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The reviews seem sufficient to show notability as an author. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - If his notability only began during the last few weeks, and an outpouring of notable publications will begin on October 2nd, that's not very hopeful in terms of notability. Delete because there's no indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The links in the article were *added* in the last few weeks, but are much older than that. The request to wait till Oct. 2nd has nothing to do with an expected 'outpouring' of publications but (in my understanding) to enable more Hebrew-speaking editors to read the provided links and make a rational decision. 88.134.61.253 (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: I have relisted this debate to allow editors who know Hebrew to take a look at the depth of coverage in the Google News Archive search (with the search term "רונן אלטמן קידר") provided by 88.134.61.253 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems quite notable, having been reviewed and published in nation-wide newspapers. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep Haaretz is roughly the Israeli equivalent of the New York Times and Yedioth Ahronoth is one of the most popular national newspapers. So sources there are enough to demonstrate notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep He gets mentioned in the Haaretz, then as JoshuaZ says, he must be notable. Dream Focus 04:03, 12 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 redirect to Soil (band). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Perfect (album)

Picture Perfect (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Picture Perfect (album)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No indication that this non-released album is already notable per WP:NALBUMS -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep or Redirect Not terribly far from the release date (only 15 days); I'm not finding much in the way of sources beyond this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect: Per TPH. Joe Chill (talk) 19:13, 9 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 redirect to hodology.  Sandstein  06:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Odology

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

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

Spotted a link to here from the AFD for Roadology. The article as it exists seems to be a candidate for deletion owing to that it seems to exist merely as a dictionary definition of the word with little to no reference, other than a dissertation and somebody's homepage related to the subject - in short, lacking notability. It either needs fixing or should not be here. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to be a neologism with little use. --NE2 07:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO - it is little more than a dic-def, and there does not seem to be an agreed meaning or evidence of widespread use. Wiktionary don't have it; curiously, they do have an Italian word odologia, which uses "odology" in the definition, and gives it as "study of roads, or of the fibres of the nervous system." Scholar hits all seem to derive from the word "meth -odology" being broken. Academia.edu shows just two academics who list this as a research interest - in the first case, it's probably the "nervous system" meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary has it meaning "The branch of science that deals with the hypothetical force called Od" which is "A hypothetical force proposed by Baron Karl von Reichenbach as pervading all nature and accounting for various physical and psychological phenomena"; it's marked "obsolete" but one can still find this meaning on the web. Conclusion: not enough agreement on meaning or evidence of use to pass WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's an argument for a redirect to Odic force, surely? Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Golly, how all-encompassing Wikipedia is - when I found that in the OED I thought it was really abstruse. This encyclopedia linked from that article looks a useful reference work. If anything, "Odology" is starting to look like a disambiguation page; but I don't think any of these three meanings is really solid enough for an article. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't oppose a DAB, but there doesn't seem to be much use of the word in the first place, John. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I agree, my !vote is still delete - the remark about a DAB was really in jest because of the number of different meanings that were turning up, but none of them is solid enough for an article, so there's nothing really for a DAB page to point to. Wiktionary-fodder, really, but I don't think it would meet their attestation criteria. JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
          • John, I didn't catch that part. Blame me for not having sufficient caffeine in my system at the time of that post. And you'd think I'd know better.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I have done some work for scientists who studied such things as the spontaneous formation of paths through landscapes through uncoordinated human activity, and they called their specialism "hodology".  --Lambiam 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/REdirect to Hodology, which has the correct aspirate. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Marge/Redirect to Hodology, Although there really should be a specific term for such a science, this one doesn't pass any of the tests for an article. It's basically the same as Hodology which is the more prevalent term. Also, per above. --Triadian (talk) 05:08, 10 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. Whilst the original article clearly had BLP concerns, it has now been re-written so that I believe they are minimized as much as possible. The article has been improved with far more reliable sources and concentrates on the legal issues involved. Black Kite 11:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck

note: page has now been moved to Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy - Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

A WP:BLP problem doesn't just go away just because you don't actually say the name of the rumor. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep [Edited: Note - changed my !vote waay downpage] - Yes, if WP remains very careful not to itself spread the rumor, I believe there to not be any BLP vio here. After all, the subject of the spoof site is a WP:WELLKNOWN person (a guideline that of course is a subsection of BLP) and it is the laws of Florida in the U.S. which would control what legal exposure Wikipedia would chance for its giving its encyclopedic coverage to this notable website's parody of Glenn Beck, with U.S. laws generally granting broad leeway to published commentary about public persons who themselves widely disseminate their viewpoints and commentary. Also see WP:NOTCENSORED. ↜Just M E here , now 07:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Maybe, per Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project, the article should be moved to "Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? See link.

• Move to Beck v. Eiland-Hall per Justmeherenow . There's notability in the fact that a lawsuit has been filed, and this would not last long (nor would it be appropriate) in an article about Glenn Beck in the first place. I can appreciate that the author was unsure how to present the article; I think that an article about the suit satisifes the ideals that (from WP:BLP), "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." and (from WP:NOT) "Wikipedia is not censored". Mandsford (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Consider nominating for deletion the entry Gilbert Godfried, which is a redirect to Gilbert Gottfried. While redirects are cheap, they shouldn't serve to perpetuate misspelling. Mandsford (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep or merge (but not to Glenn Beck article, where it would be a WP:WEIGHT problem. Note: a merge result of an AfD is not binding on the target article or any other as to whether the editors there consider it worthy of inclusion The issue (if not the site itself) is potentially notable per sourcing, and we're not censored. But how? For goodness sake! The name of the website is itself a BLP violation. We're going to have the same trouble the courts will, how to cover the subject without censorship being sensitive to BLP / attack site issues (which mirrors how the courts can honor free speech yet balance that against defamation and other worries). The [[Back v. Eiland-Hall]] idea is a good one, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the name of an actual case. Perhaps we can merge it into another article (but for heaven's sake, not Beck's!). Is there an article on WIPO domain name disputes? Maybe we can make an exception to BLP1E for purposes of naming this, and call it [[Eiland-Hall]]. A redirect from the site name to the ultimate destination for the content should be okay. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - we could also merge this into the Gilbert Gottfried article, regarding his legacy / cultural impact, or an article about scandalous Internet memes. NOTCENSORED does not oblige us to have a stand-alone article about every subject that is nominally notable; other concerns like this one may justify a merge, and organizing information is not censorship. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with Glenn Beck. Has been litigation reported in reliable sources. Facts on that should be merged into Glenn Beck if appropriate per BLP. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the law suit may become notable the website certainly is not; the sources are about the law suit not the website itself . It is up to the editors of Glen Beck whether this is worth a mention in the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Not sure this matters or not, but I'm not sure that any actual law suit has been filed. As far as I know, it's just a compliant. Glenn Beck filed an administrative complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) against the privacy service for the domain. (The UDRP is a policy that website operators automatically agree to when they register a domain name; the policy enables trademark owners to initiate an administrative proceeding challenging the registration of a domain name in "bad faith.") Morphh ^(talk) 16:21, 04 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete 1.) per nom Ricky. 2.) fails WP:WEB 3.) fails WP:GNG 4.) per thinly veiled BLP attack page. — Ched :  ?  16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly exists, but is clearly not notable, not to mention not encyclopedic. If there is a lawsuit and it, for whatever reason, becomes something of note, then it would be appropriate to create an article for that. This article, however, does not satisfy inclusion criteria and it is a BLP issue. Lara 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Glenn Beck. BLP issues non-existent. It is relatively notable, however not by itself. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete -Tripe, not encyclopedic. Himalayan 16:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:POV FORK and merge with Glenn Beck if more reliable sources cover it. --CarTick 17:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for now. BLP concerns are clearly misguided, but the website itself appears to fail WP:WEB (only 3 googlenews hits on the website name) and the controversy itself seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. No prejudice against recreation if the story becomes a bigger deal. Keep or Merge to Glenn Beck. The sources produced by Milowent and Cptnono demonstrate that this topic is notable for inclusion. Whether it's given a brief mention in Glenn Beck or a more detailed treatment in it's own article, I have no opinion on. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no matter how carefully concealed, the website name itself is a BLP violation. It's both less notable and more offensive than Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete - the website would be a BLP violation if on WP, is not notable in and of itself (even if there is a lawsuit, that does not automatically confer notability), and removing this topic will not harm the tabloid encyclopedia. LadyofShalott 00:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - notable parody website about a notable person. BLP concerns are, frankly, vaguely silly. Crafty (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into the Glenn Beck article. Other concerns aside, there simply isn't enough information here to warrant a separate page. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into Glenn Beck: The discussion of whether/when to include this on the Glenn Beck page has been going on for some time, e.g., Talk:Glenn_Beck#Anti-Beck_spoof_website. Every day or so, someone new comes onto that talk page asking why it isn't on the Glenn Beck page. I don't think there's any real argument that it isn't notable at this point. The sources covering the parody & legal proceedings (it is a lawsuit, before the World Intellectual Property Organization) are solid (now). See, e.g., in rough chronological order, Ars Technica, Gawker, HotAir, TheFirstPost(UK), BoingBoing,Citizen Media Law Project, PoliticsDaily, Ars Technica No.2, AdWeek, NPR, Bostonist, Boston Herald, Domain Name Wire. There is a precedent for including such disputes on a biography, see, e.g., Jerry_Falwell#Falwell_versus_Christopher_Lamparello which was a domain dispute over a depraved parody site about Jerry Falwell.--Milowent (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Signifigant coverage from reliable sources has surfaced recently. Merging would be a disaster. The amount of detail available fits nicely into a stub (which might even grow) but would cause huge weight concerns on the Glenn Beck page. Here are some sources: [12] (Andy Carvin fo National Public Radio meets "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully." per WP:RELIABLE), [13](Boston Herald), [14] (Adweek), [15] (Ars Technica). Tons of coverage is available from "bloggish" sites that I have not looked into the vetting process for but don't jump out as being unreliable such as [[16]], [17], [18]. It looks like WP:GNG is taken care of. WP:NTEMP might still be a concern but GNG + not giving undue weight at another article + this article being easy enough to clean (formatting, new title, a few lines here and there) more than make up for that potential concern. EDIT: HEHE, we just duplicated some sources due to an edit conflict.Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Milowent (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs) said it very well, above. Satisfies WP:NOTE, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for now. Non-notable. The website is a one-off gag, and the lawsuit is no more notable than thousands of other domain-name or libel lawsuits filed annually in the U.S. If the lawsuit yields an opinion which becomes notable for breaking new legal ground, or results in an appeal to a circuit court, or generates some scholarly notice, then an article reflecting this content so far as is necessary to explain the facts of that lawsuit can be made at the case name. bd2412 T 03:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Tasteless publicity stunt designed to attack a public figure. WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ATP, WP:BLP. Take your pick. Ray^Talk 04:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete - not encyclopedic, not appropriately notable.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 05:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless article with no encyclopedic value. We do not attack nice people, and we do not attack bad people, and we do not promote each new attack web site. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Given that there are notable external sources, per WP:NOTCENSORED, there is no valid reason to delete it. After all, we do cover notable meme's, parodies and conspiracy theories, for example, we cover The Strange Death of Vincent Foster. The threshold is notability, not who will be offended. LK (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Glenn Beck. Litigation is involved, and internet memes in regard to other celebrities are kept, for example, Chuck Norris discusses Chuck Norris jokes. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe there are some reliable sources, but that does not make it notable or encyclopedic. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Kevin (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge with Glenn Beck. Lawsuits are involved and has national merit based not only on it but its status as a Joke so it is not carried on as truth. --Marlin1975 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Again Several of you have mentioned a lawsuit and litigation as part of your justification for vote, so I want to restate that there is no lawsuit that I'm aware of at this point. I only see that it is a complaint to the administrative complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Eiland-Hall has not been sued. It is arbitration and mediation for the resolution of international commercial disputes between private parties. Morphh ^(talk) 17:56, 05 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It is litigation, its just an arbitration forum. Not unusual for international disputes. Doesn't make it less notable, because this is one of the primary venues for 1st step adjudication.--Milowent (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete if the article was titled "Rumor website parody of Barack Obama," most of the hypocrites above who voted to keep would vote delete. If they aren't voting purely for a political agenda, what would be their reasoning? Lawsuits about websites concerning Glenn Beck are more notable than lawsuits about websites concerning the President? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That was madly offensive. It is not a POV issue or an attempt attack Beck. One of my primary reasons is actually to prevent that since a merge would be detrimental to the main Beck article if we fully summarized the information (weight issue) but it can easily support its own. So I hope people will stop having knee-jerk reactions and realize that not everyone is pushing a POV but actually trying to make this a better project.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - strong stink of WP:NPOV, not notable, etc., and, for the record, I'd say the same thing about Rumor website parody of Barack Obama. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my mind -- based on the discussions here and on the ongoing media attention -- to Weak keep for now. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think this is a content fork due to the lack of consensus to feature this website and the controversy around it in Glenn Beck, see Talk:Glenn Beck#Anti-Beck spoof website. JustMeHereNow is far too fond of "bold" moves in the middle of discussions when they're not going their way. I find it funny that they wanted to create this article but not mention the meme content or website URL; a great way to have your cake and eat it. The meme, Beck's action with WIPO against the website, and the lawyer's response are now getting press coverage in the mainstream media, which it wasn't a couple of weeks ago, so the meme might now be able to be reported carefully in Beck's article. Merge it back in and let normal debate decide if it should be included and how. Fences&Windows 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fences and Windows said, "JustMeHereNow is far too fond of "bold" moves in the middle of discussions when they're not going their way."

('JustMe' here, now): In point of fact, there is not two prongs of a fork but rather but a single metal probe connected to the metaphorical meat thermometer of this AFD's determination of whether the creation of an article on this subject was over-"bold." (As far as my motives, as the article's creator, would be concerned: for the record, I have not once advocated for the spoof to find mention in the Beck BLP nor have I contributed any mention of the meme there; from the beginning I believe it merits coverage in its own article: whereas the spoof may at some point merit mention in the BLP, I just am not convinced it has, yet.) ↜Just M E here , now 06:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep; it seems to have received significant press attention. Everyking (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Sorry, I don't think it has. The legal threats have got coverage, a different matter. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• weak keep Frankly, a paragraph in the main article on Beck simply giving the basic run down may be better. As it currently stands this may be covered in NOTNEWS. However, it clearly needs to be covered here somewhere given that it is very relevant to Beck and the major media attention the subject is getting. I'm not sure a separate article is the best solution. I'm going to wait a few days, see where coverage goes and then make a decision. I do however think that claims that there is a danger of "spreading" the rumor since the entire point of the rumor is that it is a parody which is deliberately so extreme and ridiculous that one would need to be insane and stupid to take it seriously. BLP does not say "make sure imbeciles don't misunderstand you." JoshuaZ (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

However, WP:BLP does say, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment," and this article shows poor judgment in the way that it is written. I view this as a delete under WP:BLP only if it's beyond rewriting, and it may well be if the purpose of the article is to call attention to the website. Defamatory statements don't become less defamatory, simply because someone says "Just kidding!" This is why our articles don't include sections entitled "False rumors". Mandsford (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no way that this article is the primary vector of this statement. Moreover, this isn't even the same a false rumor because this is deliberately false and that is explicitly part of the point (as everyone who spreads the meme points out, repeatedly). And yes, they do actually become non-defamatory in such circumstances. Whether we want to give them prominence is a not the same thing, but that may be worth taking into consideration. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Some recent work done on refs (some awesome, some only OK, some may not be good enough) Some ideas on improvement on the talk page. Please see my comments above on GNG and reasoning along with the others on NOTE. This could also be looked at as spreading the attack, clearing his name, or simply creating a decently sourced stub thats complete erger would cause too many concerns.Cptnono (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs to be renamed, though. Not sure to what, but it has a horrible title right now. --71.255.225.245 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Looks like there has been some great recent work done on the article by Justmeherenow (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Ched. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 21:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:BLP concerns outweigh arguments that this is notable. I saw that it was ranked #110,826 in popularity, may even have moved up to #110,825 as a result of people clicking on the weblink. Though it has been suggested that this be renamed "Beck v. Eiland-Hall", this is not, and never will be, an article about a lawsuit. Sure, it could be rewritten, but I believe that having one's creation altered beyond recognition is more of an insult than letting one's peers vote upon its continued existence. We often talk in jest about murdering or beating up somebody, but there are certain accusations (cruelty to animals, race hatred, sexual crimes) that are never funny, whether they're made in all seriousness or "tongue in cheek". Wikipedia is not a jokebook, nor a vehicle for promoting someone's idea of a joke. But more importantly, Wikipedia takes WP:BLP very seriously, and the concept of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is balanced out by the concept that we don't promote defamation. Mandsford (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Huh? If, by the use of "one's," Mandsford implies the article I "created" equates to its being but my creation, I am afraid I must disabuse of that notion. I moved into distinct article space a paragraph that had been composed by someone else, after I slightly edited it. It wasn't until today that I assisted several other editors in expanding it. So, Mandsford comes along, with an air of a stiff peacock's "tale" (...which type of superiority complex, as always, is more telling of secretly the opposite, in my humble opinion) to offer for our enlightenment: "Sure, it could be rewritten, but I believe that having one's creation altered beyond recognition is more of an insult than letting one's peers vote upon its continued existence."
  --Mandsford! On a Wiki? Do you think you are editing Citizendium?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  (By the way, Mandsford: I also don't care if the article is deleted. But -- and just take this for whatever it might be worth! -- What does bother me, though, is your offputting tone of highly literate Wikisuperiority.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  I change my !vote to delete. Here's my rationale. Playing with the edges of things, finding a way to excuse them, brings society down further and further. Which is OK for society as a whole, but on Wikipedia, we hew to a higher standard. (Sorta like Hebrew National hotdogs.) Let's draw the line!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I do sound kind of preachy, don't I? I don't mean to imply that I think I'm superior to you or anyone else, and I'm sorry that it seemed that way. However, I do think that I would be insulting another author by overwriting an article that someone else has worked hard on creating; I despise those smug "it's-my-article" know-it-alls who revert all changes, and I would prefer to be one of many people debating an article, rather than, as I put it, rewriting "beyond recognition". And, like you and everyone else here, I'm concerned about what goes into Wikipedia, and I get the impression from some people that they think that WP:BLP makes no difference because Mr. Eiland-Hall says, "I'm joking". I think that the closing administrator has to look at this as a WP:BLP issue, and when it comes to that, call me Miracle Whip, but I will not tone it down. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a psychologist so I don't want to speculate as to my emotional ailments, but the fact is, I sometimes am kinda moody. Sorry.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we're good. I don't mind saying that I'm bipolar, but I think that's true of a lot of us type A's. Mandsford (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Those !voting delete who have an affection for Glenn might consider whether they would also !vote to delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resignation_of_Sarah_Palin_(2nd_nomination) which is up for AfD again.--Milowent (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So you are really just going to throw assuming good faith out like that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Recognizing that an article is about a controversial subject doesn't mean one fails to WP:AGF. I didn't intend my comment to be taken that way, so thanks for giving me a chance to clarify. The Glenn Beck article has been the scene of numerous "battles" recently, and even off-wiki discussions in forums about how scrubbed the article appears to be.--Milowent (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Vaguely funny, a little bit viral, and a big huge stinking pile of BLP-mines. Personally, I would love it if we could all just ignore him out of the political discourse, but a) every human deserves better than that, and b) if this becomes more significant (BD2412 has it about right above, though I would add had a lasting material impact on Beck's life as a route to prominence), it should be added to Glenn Beck and then spun out as required. At the moment, I would call this too recentist to merit a merge. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep based only on sources. Also Rename to Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990, name of the website.--M4gnum0n (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sooner or later, THAT was going to happen. The article authors, the people in the discussion, even the press, everybody had avoided mentioning the title of the website because of its supposedly humorous suggestion of rape... until just now. It would have happened eventually anyway. I think it illustrates that it's impossible to maintain an article about the website WP:BLP problems. Sooner or later, someone's going to ask, "why are they being so evasive about mentioning the name of the website" and then post it. Mandsford (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It means that sooner or later, someone just comes up and says the right thing. There is no BLP concern, it is just the name of the website. BLP is for defamation problems, not for already existing website titles. If there is such a website, and it is notable, no reason to censor it. People, let's not mistake BLP policies for a blanket to cover every potentially embarrassing or negative information. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(Not saying that the name should be mentioned on Wikipedia but just pointing out the obvious: of course, with spaces removed and "dot com" added, the name of the site is mentioned in these 2ndary sources Mandsord mentions -- eg @ the 2nd par of an article about it in the Boston Herald, several par.s down in an article about it in the Des Moines Register, and all the rest.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment--to the closing admin, good luck counting all these up (yeah yeah it's not a vote) and reaching a decision--even a non-consensus decision. You have my sympathy. I propose we let one of the newbies do it. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The early !votes were made while the article was under a name referring to the website, and may have addressed a related question about notability under WP:WEB. Also note that many were made at a time when far fewer reliable sources existed than are now in the article. On the other hand, the later !votes come at a time when the controversy is older, so with some benefit of being able to know whether this is a lasting issue or just the day's news. That ought to be factored in. Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Five days is not enough time to determine whether this will be a "lasting issue". My early vote stands as a vote to delete despite changes to the article, which do not address my core concerns. bd2412 T 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I raise my prior !vote to strong keep due to continued improvements in the article, and continued press coverage.--Milowent (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep are we trying to hide these allegations? This is political censorship and should not be tolerated! The world has a right to know whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990! In all seriousness, I'd lean to keep in the form of a lawsuit article. The site itself is notable, and the lawsuit is too... I know there's a BLP issue, but it can be avoided by mentioning everyone's assurances that it's a parody. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:33, 10 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) 05:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brit (Eminem Song)

Brit (Eminem Song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Brit (Eminem Song)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Prod removed by author with no improvements. Supposed new song with no evidence, at all. The upcoming album Relapse 2 doesn't have a track listing. Fails WP:NSONGS. Tassedethe (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Honey, get the hammer... - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 03:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NSONGS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Amalthea 07:40, 8 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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Nationalist Movement of Estonia

Russian Nationalist Movement of Estonia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Russian Nationalist Movement of Estonia" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This is a hoax. External links lead to materials in which there is no mention of this organization. Perhaps the article was created to slander the politicians whose names we find in the article. In the Russian wiki article was also deleted. Gruznov (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 10:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• G3 Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Hoax is unclear - mostly the English name is the issue, I think. This article uses Russian Nationalist Movement of Estonia - which might be Estonian: Vene Kodanike Liit which has Juri Mišin as a chairman. See [19], [20], [21] (mentions also Kogan as previous chairman), [22]. I will look more closely at it tomorrow, short of time right now. --Sander Säde 17:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unreferenced, self-promotion, btw the russian page has already been deleted. New seeker (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any evidence that this group even exists let alone a source that would establish notability.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. I removed the dubious information and added sources to the little I could find. Like I said previously, I think name is the biggest issue. As they don't seem to have an official English name, I found several English versions of the name, Association of Russian Citizens, Union of Russian Citizens, Russian Nationalist Movement of Estonia (gcache) etc. I think the article should be moved to Union of Russian Citizens, as BBC uses it.

In truth, I am not sure if the original article was hoax or not - however, as it is now, it is a valid stub about the movement.

--Sander Säde 07:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I decided to be bold and moved the stub to Union of Russian Citizens. Feel free to undo the move if you deem it inaproppriate - otherwise, perhaps we can have an early close of AfD, as the original issues are now addressed. --Sander Säde 13:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep with the title proposed by Sander. Note that the original was indeed a hoax by a Bloomfield sock puppet. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting note: The article was moved and entirely rewritten during the AfD. More comment is required to determine whether any reasons for deletion still apply.  Sandstein  06:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless English language sources can be found. Possible hoax. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is obviously not a hoax (the original justification for deletion) but a really existing organization - per sources.Biophys (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Now I see that the article includes Cat:Russian nationalism but it seems to be bad idea. Union of Russian Citizens struggle for citizenship rights of Russian-speaking peoples only as far as I know. Gruznov (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - not a hoax. Try searching its Estonian and Russian names (vene kodanike liit / Эстонский республиканский союз граждан России). Lots of sources for both. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 03:50, 9 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) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] World War XVII

World War XVII (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "World War XVII" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Article posted for AFD by an IP user who did not complete step two. It appears to be a ministub about a manga - particularly a war that happens in the cannon of the related story. However, I see problems with this running very much afoul of WP:FICTION. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

IP editor did follow the instructions and included a deletion rationale on the article talk page. "PROD removed by creator with no improvement to article. Fictional event with no indication of real-world notability." 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. See also The Quest for the Sybian andy (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't independently notable outside of the Manga series that I haven't heard of either. I really hate it when anyone tries to focus an article on a fictional term that would be confused with something that does belong in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia that has scholarly articles about "World War I" and "World War II" and even the hasn't-happened-and-we-work-to-avoid-it "World War III" looks bad when it includes a bullshit article entitled "World War 17". Mandsford (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete given that we don't seem to have an article about the manga MAGCannon this storyline comes from. If we did, this content could be merged into that article. (With regard to Mandsford's concerns, if MAGCannon's World War XVII story were notable, we could title this article World War XVII (MAGCannon story) or something like that to show that we recognized it was fiction. But since it doesn't seem to be notable, that won't be necessary.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I think the main article about a fictional work/universe/series ought to be significant enough to have solid development before sub-articles are started about events in that universe. In this case, the manga series apparently isn't notable enough to have its own main article. And I second user Metropolitan on the issue of naming. --JamesAM (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't even find any online references to the parent topic (the MAGCannon series): searching for magcannon manga -deviantart(excluding DA because a user by that name generates a lot of false hits) turns up nothing at all. While this doesn't prove that it doesn't exist, it's a strong hint in that direction. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Possible hoax or from someone's dōjinshi. A Google search isn't even coming up with anything about the alleged manga, MAGCannon, other than being someone's internet handle. —Farix (t | c) 20:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Nom. Does not appear Notable. - Knowledgekid87 21:45, 4 October 2009 (AT)
• Delete Buckshot06(prof) 07:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. It's no surprise to me that the editor who created the page has only edited this and the affiliated pages. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be self-promotion for a non-existant work. clearly not notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:52, 9 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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Quest for the Sybian

The Quest for the Sybian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Quest for the Sybian" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This, too, seems to be related to some manga as a story explanation - I think this may run afoul of WP:FICTION but I'm not sure. Again, the IP user had posted without completing step two. Note, the author has been blocked for removing AFD tags. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

IP editor did follow the instructions and included a deletion rationale on the article talk page. "PROD removed by creator with no improvement to article. Fictional event with no indication of real-world notability." 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable and I'm not even sure it isn't a hoax, given what a sybian actually is in the real world. Anyway googling the title of this article produces some very unedifying results. andy (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't even find any online references to the parent topic (the MAGCannon series): searching for magcannon manga -deviantart(excluding DA because a user by that name generates a lot of false hits) turns up nothing at all. While this doesn't prove that it doesn't exist, it's a strong hint in that direction. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Possible hoax or from someone's dōjinshi. A Google search isn't even coming up with anything about the alleged manga, MAGCannon, other than being someone's internet handle. —Farix (t | c) 20:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per Farix, it appears as there are no sources for "MAGCannon", notability cant be found, and it's being labeled as a hoax. I see no point in keeping these articles unless someone makes one hell of a good point to turn the tide. - Knowledgekid87 21:50, 4 October 2009 (AT)
• Delete as hoax. It's no surprise to me that the editor who created the page has only edited this and the affiliated pages. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be self-promotion for a non-existant work. Clearly not notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like somebody decided to write his book right here on WIkipedia. Debresser (talk) 02:47, 11 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) 05:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Schmitt

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

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

Non-notable musician. Has one self-released album and is touring... Wisconsin. Won a battle of the bands in 2007. Seems to fail WP:BAND. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: It wasn't the Battle Of The Bands (which AIUI is now defunct), but the Hodag Country Festival prize which Jerry and his band won two years running. I don't see why the Wisconsin focus should be a vote against, even though I appreciate the majority of Country & Western bands are based in the Southern States. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

David, I saw your comment on the article talk page. If you can provide the two newspaper articles, and they are actually about Schmitt (not just an article containing trivial passing mentions), then providing them will help you keep the article. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have one newspaper article and should have the other shortly. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete DavidFarmbrough (talk · contribs) has not been able to provide sources that verify the information in the article. My own searches have not proven that Jerry Schmitt is notable. I found articles, such as this one from the Wausau Daily Herald and this one from the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, but those sources fails WP:BAND #1, which excludes sources that provide trivial coverage. I have been unable to find any sources that provide biographical information about Schmitt.

  Hodag Country Festival appears to be a local contest that is non-notable (the article is tagged with a notability tag), so winning awards at the festival does not confer notability.

  I would be willing to reconsider my position if David Farmbrough can list two sources that provide secondary, nontrivial coverage about Jerry Schmitt. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 4 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ameer Zeb Khan

Ameer Zeb Khan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ameer Zeb Khan" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Per another editor's prod: Unreferenced BLP failing to satisfy WP:ENT.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I did a quick search and was only able to come up with this. I don't think that's quite enough for notability... Silverseren^C 23:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - subject won the Lux Style Award for best male model in 2008. (See http://www.magtheweekly.com/29/event.php). He also won in 2007, although I don't have an RS link to back that up at the moment. He has been nominated for the same award again this year. This is a major award & sufficient to establish notability. It is not exactly shocking that a male model in Pakistan doesn't have much English language coverage that is readily available online. However, here are twointerviews he did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: the article Lux Style Award fails to verify any claims to prominence for this award (and coverage of it is thin at best), so does little to establish notability. Lacking any significant reliable independent coverage (per WP:GNG), there is no verifiable basis for establishing notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Correction: English language coverage available online is thin. English is neither the primary language of Pakistan, nor are most of its newspapers and magazines available online. Of course that is not proof of more coverage, but it does provide a reasonable reason to believe said coverage does exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Correction to correction: purported coverage in sources whose very existence is unverifiable does nothing to raise the notability of either award or recipient. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Award notability confirmed: "The Lux Style Awards are 'the' awards ceremony in Pakistan" "The Lux Style Awards ... regarded as the 'Oscars of Pakistan'""the Lux Style Awards, Pakistan's answer to the Oscars..." --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Short, superficial puff-pieces don't confirm notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I know you personally have a VERY different definition of notability than Wikipedia, but based on actual policy it is absurd to argue the award itself isn't notable. After all, two reliable sources with in depth coverage is all that is required. The award itself has beyond that by leaps and bounds (as it hundreds of stories). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Claiming notability on the basis of the vacuous puffery you just cited (which is so far away from "significant coverage" as to be not even in the same universe) is what is "absurd". 02:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
              • I am claiming clear & obvious notability based on the hundreds of English language sources on the award alone. To dismiss hundreds of normally RS stories as "vacuous puffery" is indeed quite absurd. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it not notable - notability requires coverage, nothing more, nothing less. There is no "it isn't scholarly, so it isn't notable clause" to our guidelines. If you think there should be, you are welcome to suggest it, but until that time we should go by the existing guidelines not your judgment about what is or is not worthwhile coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
                • And I'm claiming that the moon is made of green cheese. Lacking substantiation (i.e. links to actual articles containing "significant coverage" -- which can reasonably be considered to exclude "vacuous puffery"), both assertions are equally worthless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • And how exactly do we define "vacuous puffery"? What you don't like? Because that seems to be what you are saying. I say the hundreds of RS stories on Lux Style Award clearly establish notability. You say they are all "vacuous puffery". Maybe we are both right, but according to policy being pop culture crap isn't sufficient reason to delete. Feel free to nominate the award for deletion, but until that time I say it is clearly notable & Pakistan RS seem to agree. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
                    • Material that both lacks a detailed WP:PRIMARY account of events, the serious "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, evaluative claims" that we should have WP:SECONDARY sources for, or a concise 'summary' that we should have tertiary sources for, would be a good first approximation. Material whose primary purpose is promotional rather than informative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional keep. According to the article for the award, it's Pakistan's equivalent to the Oscars... but for fashion I guess. If the award is indeed something of note, then he satisfies WP:BIO. However, the article needs to be cleaned up. I removed a sentence about his personal likes, but the article needs improved tone overall. If this award is not notable, delete. Lara 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough reliable sources from which to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Major Pakistani english language media outlets have substantial online presence. Searches show next to no coverage of the subject in the heavy hitters of Pakistani media The News [23], DAWN [24] and Geo [25]. --Whoosit (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes they are online, but do they have their archives online? As near as I can tell they don't, with only one of the three having any coverage prior to 2008, which makes a huge difference in the amount of coverage you can expect to find. Even given that limitation, one of the sources you provided has this which states "The big names in the history of male modeling in Pakistan include ...and Ameer Zeb Khan ... in the latter part of this decade." which confirms his importance. This story confirms the importance of the Lux Awards. I also found the following interview linked to fro one of those sites: [26]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I disagree. The sources you reference actually prove the subject's lack of notability. You've referred to i) a promotional website for the fashion industry, ii) a gossip piece in an adolescent's magazine and iii) a minor fashion editorial in a major daily. Of those, the only source that could even be considered reliable is the third--the fashion editorial, and it makes a single mention of the subject. I think you are not giving the Pakistani media enough credit. If the guy was notable he would be featured. Try the same search in the same papers with a performer who is proven notable, like daytime TV actor Humayun Saeed. You'll see the difference in the hits. --Whoosit (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have sourced the Lux Style Awards page to make the importance of the awards more clear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep article about a Pakistani notable person who has never made the news in the West. Issues with further sourcing can best be addressed by cleanup and getting input and assistance from Pakistani Wikpedians who have access to sources not available online. WP:CSB allows a reasonable assumption that in light of what English sources are available online toward verification of his LUX award and the award's notability, more sources are likely available for the subject of the article, even if non-English or not available online. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:CSB is a Project, not a guideline or policy, so is a problematical basis for 'allowing' an assumption. Likewise repeated WP:EGG pipes to WP:COMMONSENSE does not alter Wikipedia's requirement that the existence of sources must be verifiable, not merely asserted or assumed. I would suggest that you are conflating common sense with truthiness. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  Taking an argumentum ad absurdum of Michael's argument, it is "likely" that somewhere in the universe aliens exist, it is also "likely" that some of these aliens have written histories of their civilisations. It could therefore be argued that the "likely" existence of these histories would make Histories of alien civilisations notable, and that refusal to allow such an article is "systemic bias". I would not however expect such an argument to stand scrutiny at AfD. This is why we stick to sources whose existence we can verify. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that more sources exist. For example, the subject won a significant award last year and RS attest to that fact. The same subject won the same award previously, but those same RS don't have archives that date back that far online, even though those same RS most certainly did exist at that time. It is quite reasonably to assume they covered the previous wins as well. Additionally, it would be quite odd for those same awards to have only English language coverage considering that essentially all of the country's 172 million people speak a language other than English as their primary language.
  Furthermore, even if we make the ridiculous assumption that the totality of the subject's coverage stems from the last two years and is entirely in English we still meet WP:V easily, so your analogy is utterly flawed. We have three lengthy interviews, several sources attesting to his award, and several other minor mentions such as the source that calls him one of the most important models of his decade. Of course to you these are all "vacuous puffery" and therefore don't meet WP:N, but to argue they don't meet WP:V is absurd. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Based on ThaddeusB's award notability confirmed bit, linking to news coverage proving that is an important award in that country. If t he guy one it, he is notable. Dream Focus 03:35, 12 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 move to project space. This addresses the WP:OR issues and the "it's useful" arguments. Since WP:NOR is core policy, any additional usefulness this might have in main space can't override it. I have to disregard Ben Kidwell's "keep and let's publish it" argument, because AfD does not have easy access to a university press.  Sandstein  07:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Language recogniti