Misplaced Pages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 |  18:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Chamillionaire's third studio album

• Articles for deletion/Chamillionaire's third studio album

Chamillionaire's third studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No title, two tracks confirmed. Not much confirmed on the album. Weak_Willed 13:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NALBUMS - another one for the WP:HAMMER. JohnCD (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NALBUMS , no verifiable information, textbook example of WP:HAMMER. --RadioFan (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: no title or tracklist. Hammer time. talkingbirds 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is exactly why I wrote WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - You should see Glasvegas studio album II if you haven't already done so. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete here; merge/redirect discussion can continue at the article talkpage.  Skomorokh  23:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Treatments for chronic headaches

Treatments for chronic headaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost entirely lifted from a non-reliable source, redundant with headache and its subarticles. I see no merge potential here. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Since there seem to be 73 citations to nine sources, my only concern is identifying which of those nine is the non-reliable source referred to above. The other eight would probably suffice. Mandsford (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I'd, too, like to know which source the nom. considers nonreliable. If the nonreliability of a major source is proven, I probably will change my opinion to delete. Currently, I think that the article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Misplaced Pages is not a complete exposition of all possible details, or a medical manual. If we have this, then we'd have to permit a "treatment" article for about every somewhat widespread chronic disease with all the glorious details this one has. Consider this:

In testing, gabapentin was found to reduce the number of headache days a month by 9.1%. Tizanidine was found to decrease the average frequency of headaches per week, the headache intensity, and the mean headache duration. Through studies, Fluoxetine resulted in better mood ratings and “significant increases in headache-free days.”

Do we really need to know, in one article, all the pharmacological intricacies? Isn't that what the links to other articles are for? We need cover only the essential information here, and I have little problem concluding that, stripped down to the essential details, we don't have enough content to justify a standalone article. Any useful and non-redundant material can be merged into headache, and this page made into a redirect. Tim Song (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge - there is useful information in there, but Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This exceedingly well-referenced and highly encyclopedic article handily meets WP:GNG. "pharmacological intricacies" are of great value to medical professionals and other readers with sufficient interest the subject matter; I have little patience for editors who seek to "dumb down" our science coverage through the exclusion of technical detail. The description of therapeutic methods in a neutral tone does not constitute instruction in violation of WP:NOTHOWTO: only when an article abandons neutrality, and offers specific advice and suggestions does it run afoul of the policy. For instance, Treatments_for_chronic_headaches#Analgesic_and_abortive_medications is written in an acceptable tone, but the following rephrasing would be inconsistent with WP:NOTHOWTO (and would likely be construed as "medical advice" contrary to Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer):

  While you may be tempted to seek pain relief from analgesic medicines such as aspirin, acetaminophen, aspirin compounds, ibuprofen, and narcotics, and abortive medications such as ergotamine (Cafergot), triptans (Imitrex), and prednisone (Deltasone), abuse of analgesics and abortive medications can actually lead to an increase in your headaches. Instead, you should limit your use of analgesic and abortive medications to headaches that are not chronic in nature.

  Erik9 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on sources I assume that the disputed source is "Duckro, Paul N., Taking Control of Your Headaches: How to Get the Treatment You Need. ISBN 9781572304710". Three-quarters of the article is cited to this book, the most recent version of which is now a decade out of date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If this particular source is questionable (though most of the sources listed in Treatments_for_chronic_headaches#Sources appear to be of excellent quality), then citations to it should be replaced with better sources. As this subject matter is covered extensively in peer-reviewed medical journals, medical textbooks, etc, there's no question that hundreds of additional high-quality references can be found. We don't delete/merge/redirect articles on obviously notable subjects because of easily correctable editorial deficiencies. Erik9 (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This is almost all tertiary sources from a single viewpoint. Secondary sources are barely cited at all and the article cannot stand on them. A few sections may have some salvage value, but this is a badly weighted how-to guide. Novangelis (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that, per Misplaced Pages:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, if we delete the article, thereby destroying the author information contained in the page history, we cannot use the text anywhere else in Misplaced Pages, since the "Attribution" clause of the license will not be satisfied. Of course, mere reassertion that the article is a "how-to guide", without responding to my argument above as to why it isn't, is not convincing. Erik9 (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it might be better to close this AFD as "no consensus" now than to permit it to drag on for weeks, thereby becoming a chronic headache... Erik9 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This topic is too rich in potential for deletion, there being thousands of sources specifically discussing treatments for this common ailment. If the current version is unsatisfactory then it is our editing policy to improve it, not delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:04, 14 August 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. Shown to be a valid topic. Mergers or suggested improvements should be discussed separately from deletion discussion at the articles talk page. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

At-risk students

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

In my entire life, I have honestly never heard of this phrase. I have heard of kids referred as having special needs. This phrase is just offensive towards the special needs population. Eivmeidwl (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 21:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep 500k+ ghits: Triplestop x3 02:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Although Google at first says there are 522,000 hits for "at-risk students" (with the quotation marks), if you go to page 8 (with 100 per page), it runs out at #778. The rest are "entries very similar to the 778 already displayed" (in Google's words). So it would be best to look beyond the number of matches. Fg2 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That said, it gives up after only 508 results if you search for Misplaced Pages. I know for a fact that they've indexed more pages than that. Basically, I think Google gives up after a while.
  • Google will only present the unique web sites that come in the first 1000 hits, so paging down will never show you more than 1000 pages however many hits there are for a particular search argument. That is one of the many reasons why the number of Google hits found is not an indication of notability: what matters is the content of the potential sources found by search engines, i.e. to use Google web searches to find evidence for or against notability you actually have to make the effort to read them and evaluate their reliability rather than just go by numbers. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It is a real term that I'm very familiar with and I'll keep it on the basis of the context that I know it from, I know there has to be plenty of academic sources for it. The term is used in federal grant applications I've contributed to. But don't read this as a promise to go find them. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Merge/redirect to Alternative education. No significance on the school community. Schools rely on gifted students for their name to be notable. If the majority in a low-income school were at-risk students, would the public really care? No, they wouldn't care. They would just move away and go to a better school district that has high-achieving students. Esthertaffet (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment As the nominator correctly states, it is offensive to the special needs population. It is not only stigmatizing to the special needs population but it also has negative connotations about alternative schools. Alternative schools have students who are at-risk for academic failures. Is it really necessary to use the term "at-risk students"? It is more commonly accepted to refer this population as "special-needs". That being said, I think it would be best to have it merged/redirected to alternative education. Esthertaffet (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep commonly used term in midwest US education circles, never viewed it as offensive. It recognizes that some students are at risk of immediate harm.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep We are not "Politicallycorrectpedia," so we do not make articles go away solely because, by someone's understanding, the term might be offensive, if it is the term used by reliable sources. The term "At risk students" is used in the titles of reliable sources cited in the article asa references. Additionally, a Google Book search shows 713 results for "at risk student," compared to only 624 results for "special needs student." I have understood "special needs students" to have "particular learning disabilities" "neurological impairment," or "motor impairment," as described in "The student teacher's handbook" by Sara L. Schwebel, page 144. They include among others those formerly called "retarded" who once would have been institutionalized, but in recent years were "mainstreamed." "At risk students" is a larger group, including those with no identified specific impairment, but who are "at risk" of dropping out or worse. They might attend only sporadically, be disruptive, "hang with the wrong crowd," skip school or engage in drug abuse. "Using educational technology with at-risk students" by Roxanne Mendrinos, p 17 defines "at risk students" as average or below average students who are in danger of dropping out, or who do not have the job skills needed in the job market (paraphrased). I have known a number of "special needs students" for whom "dropping out" was never even considered, even though they had brain damage from birth trauma, severe injuries or birth defects which required a motorized wheelchair, or were autism spectrum and had severe social interaction problems. I have known "at risk" students who dropped out though of high intelligence and possessed of charisma and gifted at interpersonal interactions. A merge to Alternative education makes as little sense as merging Student to School .Edison (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment There are "special needs students" that have "particular learning disabilities" as well as emotional issues that cause them to attend only sporadically, be disruptive, "hang with the wrong crowd," skip school or engage in drug abuse. Some of these students do not get the opportunity to attend an alternative school due to the fact that alternative schools for "at-risk students" do not exist in every single community. In some cases, alternative schools are used as a "dumping ground" (I don't even approve of this term) for any kid that misbehaves without considering all options first in the "least restrictive environment" (The US term). And also there is no "special needs students" article on Misplaced Pages because it is something readers already know. The same applies to "at risk students". Readers know about it and know how offensive it sounds. Exactly, why should we have an article on "at risk students" when it has negatively impacted the special-needs population? I have wanted at risk students' article at first to be deleted but it was needed to let people know that it is a term that people use, unfortunately. To clarify, I do not want "at-risk students" deleted, but to merge/redirect to the appropriate article. Esthertaffet (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton |  18:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Austria–Colombia relations

Austria–Colombia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

whilst the 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations mainly multilateral. . Dominican embassy siege incident is covered in its own article. the 2 agreements are minor .1 contract doesn't make for notable relations. and for pure WP:SYNTH, this article clearly is not evidence of relations. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Another Groubani article. What information there is can be mentioned in the "FRO" articles (Foreign Relations Of...) for Austria and Colombia. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not this again. Created by a banned sockpuppet with a history of creating these articles. Little or no valuable information in the article. If the hostage incident is notable it can be merged into Austria or Columbia--RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete OMG will these things ever stop coming? It's like the zombie corps of Misplaced Pages, bilateral relations articles between countries with no real relations. Did any Austrian Nazis flee to Colombia? Gee. Delete. Topic certainly is not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I tracked down and added a bit of content, maybe marginally relevant. The two countries do about $24 million of trade - not much - and Austria is affected by the cocaine trade, as is almost every country in the rich world. That is all I could find on a quick search. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There appears to be enough reliable info. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No independent coverage of topic as a whole. Ergo, topic is non-notable per WP:GNG. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Aymatth2's additions have demonstrated verifiability and notability. In response to Mandsford's comment above, the fact that the creator of this article was later blocked from editing for sockpuppetry is irrelevant to the value of this article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment it seems the biggest section on this article is cocaine. I'm concerned that synthesis is being used to somehow say things like "Authorities estimate there were 10,000 Austrian drug addicts in 1994." are related to bilateral relations. In fact the article says that a lot of drug addicts were addicted to MDMA from Netherlands, this is pure synthesis. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

given that 60% of world's cocaine come from Colombia is it no surprise that some of the money/drugs has ended up in austria? LibStar (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• The cocaine connection is relevant as an aspect of the relationship. Presumably any other rich country would have a similar connection with Colombia, also relevant, in the same way that oil supply would be relevant to most articles about relations with Saudi Arabia. But the main part of the article should be on official relations, and so far there is no evidence of anything notable about those relations - not even one independent source commenting on one meeting or agreement. Hard to defend keeping the article unless some fresh material is dug up. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment perhaps thats true but Misplaced Pages isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. This section looks well researched at first glance but dig a little deeper and some synthesis and unreferenced claims show up. Claims that Austria is a transit country are not backed up by the source cited. In fact the State Department material cited shows Austria as a money laundering site. Looks like a case of writing then quickly looking for sources rather than the other way around.

• The first sentence of the State Department source (which is in the public domain) says "Austria considers itself primarily a transit country for cocaine and heroin destined for larger West European markets." Aymatth2 (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• My comments stands as the article describes the Austria's primary role here as one of laundering, not trafficking.--RadioFan (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• The State Department article discusses all aspects of narcotics usage and control in Austria. "Foreign criminal groups dominate the illegal drug trade destined for and transiting Austria. Cocaine traffic is primarily via South American couriers. ... in 1994 Austrian authorities seized ... 53 kgs. of cocaine (compared to 84 kgs. in 1993). ... The arrival of South American cocaine via Central European airports was a new route. Also in a change of pattern, cocaine couriers were more often Europeans than Nigerians. Cocaine is destined partly for domestic markets, and partly for transit to Italy and Germany." What is the issue? Obviously Austria is affected by the cocaine traffic, as is every other European country. There are plenty of sources. The fact is relevant to the relationship with Colombia, but only peripherally. If that is the only connection, there is not enough to justify this article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Article makes credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The sourcing is sufficient to show notability. The same can probably be done for every pair of medium-sized nations. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I just can't see stretching the meger amount of relations enough to call it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The current version shows clear notable relationships between the two nations. Dream Focus 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• The article has improved considerably since nomination. Good job, gang! Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:37, 13 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Saint Vidicon

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

non-notable fictional saint from a book we've no article on. Info box reads like a hoax; such lulz. delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Preserve If the book itself had an article, it should have been deleted as an advertisement for pulp fiction; however, the character is relevant. St. Vidicon transcends the book and the author, providing relief, in the form of humor, to the multitude at the mercy of the gremlins. 10 August 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelley Reid (talk • contribs)

• So, because in your opinion even though an article for the book itself should be/have been deleted the character "transcends the book and the author" you feel that's good enough a reason to keep? I don't follow, eitherway I doubt your attestation to the relevance of the character is good enough a reason to keep, gremlins be damned. treelo _radda 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Lesse, less than 100 edits since creation in 2006, only two mainspace articles link to it, one of which is the author's article and the other a throwaway mention in a "X in popular culture" section. I don't see much in the way of notability given the book the character comes from doesn't even have an article, bin it. treelo _radda 13:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Found a review on book in SFRevu and one by Harriet Klausner. Also its page on LibraryThing and Scifan. Google Book link too. Cover page also seems to suggest that Analog Science Fiction and Fact might have reveiwed the book, but unable to find link. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  This AfD isn't about the book; it's about the character. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, my bad. Links to the novel go here though. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, because the book itself doesn't seem to be notable per Notability:Books. Any material about it should be added to the author's article. The main character of a non-notable book is non-notable. GreetingsEarthling (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: A non-notable character in a book without an article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm really sorry there's not a notability point for outright humor on Misplaced Pages. We take this stuff much too seriously.
  While this AfD is about the article for the character Saint Vidicon it appears some contributors are also addressing notability for the book meaning it may not be too much topic drift to discuss here if the book is notable enough to merit a move of this article to Saint Vidicon to the Rescue. The book was reviewed by in the July-August 2005 issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact. One concern is that it is one one of three reviews on page 233 meaning it's likely one to three paragraphs leaving little room for critical commentary if that review includes a plot summary. The web-reviews found by Zombie Hunter Smurf focus on plot summary meaning the sufficient critical commentary test on WP:BK is unlikely to have been met. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Move and rescope to Saint Vidicon to the Rescue. It looks like there is may be enough notability for an article about the book itself. LadyofShalott 20:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Warlock of Gramarye or do what User:LadyofShalott has suggested. It should certainly not survive as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The target that I suggested (looking at the article) is actually a link to the author, so that perhaps he should be the merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I created the article not knowing whether or not Saint Vidicon to the Rescue itself would be considered notable, but had assumed that the repeated references in the rest of Stansheff's work and the external urban legend would qualify the character as notable. Overall, I have no problem preserving some of the information via merging. As the article creator, though, I would prefer to abstain from the formal voting here. --KNHaw 18:00, 14 August 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. clear consensus here JForget 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The list of one-artist genres The list of musical artists who coined a term for their own music

The list of one-artist genres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unmaintainable list based on information from the bands themselves (primary sources) RadioFan (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Different facts require different kinds of sources. Claims like "this band is the best example of foobar" or "this band virtually founded a new genre" surely cannot be based on primary sources. But claims like "this band call themselves barfoo" can.Netrat (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And what do yopu mean by "unmaintainable"? Netrat (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly entry. Calling your band's music "barfoo" does not somehow mean that there is a musical genre called barfoo; this is marketing more than anything else. (Also, I'm pretty certain there are lots of dub-metal bands, so your list is down to two....) Hairhorn (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly! This is the list of genres that are not actual ganres, but terms coined by a particular artist. This list does not make a cliam that such genres do actually exist. It's introduction clearly states that critics usually do not consider such term to be real genres - that's why we don't have articles for "genres" like SID Metal. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And clling this "marketing more than anything else" is the classic case of original research. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• LOL, you're supposed to do research in an AfD discussion. Hairhorn (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Categorise This is something a category could hold better than an article. treelo _radda 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I don't see this task can done by a category. If there would be Category:Musical artists who coined a term for their music, it would not show the reader the name of the "genre". I don't see why a categoy would be better than a list. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'll agree than an category wouldn't do for this but not for the reasons you state. I will take issue however with how these genre-definers need a list, I'd figure that if they were notable in their own right it could be mentioned within their articles. I'm thinking that the rename doesn't really help with the idea this is a means of collating a easily limitless list of non-notable genres and the bands which created them. Consider my !vote switched to Delete as this article is little more than an exercise in ego-stroking and low level advertising for a given artist(s)' shtick. If a genre becomes notable then an article can be created regarding it, this seems to be jumping the gun a touch. treelo _radda 12:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 13:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. If there is such a thing as one-artist genres then they need to be verified by reliable independent sources, which this list doesn't have. Quantpole (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why, there's a 3rd party source for wizard rock. In fact, this is more "artists who coined a genre name" rather than "one-artist genres". The later is informal term, but I guess everyone understands what it means. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly and unprovable (or at least very difficult to maintain). Was pleasantly surprised to see one of my favourite bands listed however! Rehevkor ✉ 15:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Silly" is not a valid argument (sounds more like protest). And why do you call it "unprovable"? If a 3rd party album review or the band's official web-site states "they prefer to call their genre foobar, a term they invented themselves", than a band is included. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not provable because they may not be the first or only band to use the term. There is more than one SID metal band out there for example. Rehevkor ✉ 00:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a clear example of listcruft to me. If not that, it's difficult to verify. --Tckma (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The very nature of the word "genre" requires more than one. So the statement that a band has established a new genre is something said for effect, not literal meaning, and so can not be the basis of an encyclopedia article. Borock (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but have you read the actual list? It clearly states that it lists terms that are not actual genres. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not verifiable, made up, etc. Triplestop x3 20:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note Would renaming the list to "The list of musical artists who coined a term for their own music" help? Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Renamed. Hopefully this clears things up. Netrat (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, all the confusions are gone, but the newly named list is simply not notable. Re-affirming my delete vote, sorry. Hairhorn (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe this is not notable? Such coined terms are usually mentioned in the very introduction of corresponding article. Check Machinae Supremacy for example. Netrat (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

These are names the bands made up themselves. Sources are primary ones, and the terms are essentially made up and is the list is approaching an advert--RadioFan (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Such coined terms are usually mentioned in the very introduction of corresponding article, and thus are notable. Netrat (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - It's snowing Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This sounds like "other people are saying "delete", so I would say the same". Do you have your OWN arguments? Netrat (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Retain - for what purpose do you need different kinds of sources-look at the name of the article who coined a term for their own music - what other sources in addition to primary ones are needed in this case??? The article is not very big but it will be in some time. --Slav9ln (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not just WP:NN & WP:NEO, but frankly, silly. Not sure why this isn't speedy as per WP:SNOW. Ben Aveling 10:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Silly" is not a valid argument. As for WP:NN & WP:NEO, let me read it... Netrat (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't see what these rules have to do with this particular list. This is not a violation of WP:NEO, since I'm not trying to classify these bands with the terms they invented. My list cleary says it lists terms that are not real muscia genres. Netrat (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• There are many "silly" things in this world. And many of them are realy important. So, it's a "silly" argument. Also I can't realise any difficulties to find 3rd side sources: reviews, interviews and so on. Keep --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A "genre" of one isn't a genre at all. Re-titling listcruft doesn't make it more legitimate. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 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 |  18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

VeritOS

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unnotable. The only 'source' is the home page, which has not been modified since 2006 according to HTTP header, and contains nothing except the notice 'The site is down for repairs and updating.' I did not find a way to download the software or did not find any references to it via google except the defunct home page, this article and a similar entry at allexperts.com. Jiri Svoboda (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 13:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - definitely not notable and possibly already dead. Website is just a few dead links. Greenleaf (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - non-notable product. Furthermore, has been stub-like since 2004. --Tckma (talk) 18:18, 7 August 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.  Skomorokh  23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tin Tsz Estate

Tin Tsz Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable apartment buildings. News articles in Chinese turn out to all be police blotter type stories. Abductive (reasoning) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no notability. Misplaced Pages is not a directory or guide and does not need an article on every housing estate. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I could provide enough sources to support the articles, but you said the sources are not reliable. It is just your thought, not fair. Please help find your "reliable" sources. No one could reach your "ideal" target.Ricky@36 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per NN. No offense ricky, but I don't see any claim to notability in the first place to be supported. It looks like just a housing estate like any other. Greenleaf (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I strongly disagree with this deletion at this point. Abductive, please stop making single RfDs for HK public housing estates. Can we have a general discussion instead to decide whether we should keep them all or not? Making repeatedly spot RfD on various such articles may look like an under-the-radar deletion operation of these articles, and I will report your behavior if you do not even try to seek consensus for the fate of the whole set of articles. Please also check Public housing in Hong Kong for some background on the subject and the importance of Public Housing and public housing estates in HK. Just cutting articles is not the solution. Abductive, please be more constructive, rather than a systematic destructor of other people's work. Thank you. olivier (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC) (also contributing as User:Underwaterbuffalo on these articles)
  • As I have previously stated, I am not trying to get all of these deleted. Just the clearly non-notable ones. This sort of thing happens every now and then; a small crew of editors create articles for all the members of a class of entities. After some time, these become numerous enough to attract attention. The proper venue for discussion is here, at AfD. As I mentioned already, I have even added a reference establishing notability to the article on Telford Garden and removed the notability tag placed there by another user as a demonstration. Abductive (reasoning) 08:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The proper place to discuss things like this is not only RfD. It should also be discussed with people from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hong Kong. I am rightfully tagging Ricky's articles as part of the project and you cannot ignore it. This kind of single-article discussions are diluting the overall discussion (we are talking about a set of ~200 estates) and only attract a very small number of people, and virtually noone who may have any knowledge of the subject, or is member of the relevant WikiProject. Ricky has created stubs that mostly look useless taken individually, and people coming to RfD seeing that will of course always agree with you. I would do so as well if I did not have knowledge of the subject matter. If your purpose is truly to improve Misplaced Pages, then please try to get a consensus from a broad range of people, not only from the occasional visitors of your RfD discussions. olivier (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      • oliver, as an adminstrator, you should have encouraged the editors you have been working with to look for reliable sources, and explained to them the guidelines and policies of Misplaced Pages, rather than letting them waste time making an article on every apartment complex in Hong Kong. The reason these articles attract few editors is that their subject matter is not that important. I have tried to explain to Ricky@36 and Underwaterbuffalo (when I was unaware that it was your sock) the need for sources. I also note that other editors have on tagged the articles for sources and for notability, and some have redirected them only to be reverted. A few days ago, you convinced Gordonrox24 to withdraw his nomination of Model Housing Estate using this sort of argumentation. So it is clear that when editors stumble upon these articles, they are not instantaneously convinced that all housing estates in Hong Kong are notable. Instead they run into a team of an earnest content provider and a stealth admin. Abductive (reasoning) 09:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Underwaterbuffalo is not a sock. It has never interfered with the discussions of Olivier. I have created this for rightful reasons that I do not feel the need to explain to you. I know that you have created alternate accounts as well, so please label mine properly. I was not acting as a stealth admin at the time but as a regular user. It is interesting to note your change in attitude now that I have decided to use my admin credibility to continue this discussion. Gordonrox24 was convinced by a normal user account, using regular user arguments. Maybe I have been with Misplaced Pages since too long, but a practice that I have seen over time is that pathetic stubs are in some cases written first, and sources and interest grow over time. The act of creating the pathetic stub is no waste of time by itself, and I respect your efforts to push editors to provide reliable sources once these articles have been written. Still, I disagree with the practice of not treating a set of articles as a set. Taking them separately make them look useless. You never addressed my point about the French communes: many people have tagged many articles as non notable, until it was agreed that the set was useful, as a set. Why don't you follow your logic and tag Bretx for deletion, and see what happens. olivier (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A topic needs secondary sources to justify an encyclopedia article on it. This estate hasn't got those. Therefore I have nominated it for deletion. You and I can post back and forth on this forever, and the closing admin will completely ignore us, because it consists of the nominator arguing with an article supporter, without resolution. Please allow the AfD process to run its course, and if people put forward convincing arguments for keeping it, the article will not be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 09:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As for your argument that an apartment building is an inhabited geographic place and is therefore automatically notable, all I can say is that I don't see many articles on apartment buildings in other cities, and when I do, they are usually notorious ones like Pruitt-Igoe or architectural award-winners like Aqua, Chicago. Abductive (reasoning) 09:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine, let's see what other people have to say. Thanks for your positive attitude in the discussion. olivier (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You just point the buildings in your country, and restrict other country's buildings. It seems that you do not really obey the regulations of Misplaced Pages, but really delete articles rather than United States. Ricky@36 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: More sources are added in the article. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Umofomo (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Public housing in Hong Kong

I have started a discussion about this topic and what we should do about the related articles at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Please feel free to add your comments! olivier (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Just a non-notable building. Fails WP:GNG. Esradekan (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute!. Failing WP:GNG means that the topic does not satisfy the criteria for a stand-alone article. It does not mean that the content should be erased. It could be merged into another article. So your conclusion NO WP:GNG => delete is not appropriate. 14:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep pending the outcome of the broader discussion about public housing in Hong Kong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• keep as with many other articles on Misplaced Pages in all cities. Large housing developments on this scale are always be notable--and there will always be references if they are looked for. The Googles are not appropriate for this sort of subject. Printed newspapers are. There is always enough steps in the planning to get articles in the appropriate general and specialized news sources.DGG (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Prove it. Abductive (reasoning) 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Umofomo (talk) 21:07, 14 August 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 - the article meets WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Andrew long

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Australian geophysicist; I don't see any assertion of notability per WP:BIO in the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO. Weak_Willed 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think the indications of notability are pretty strong. Is the award insignificant? Is the article hyping things that aren't accurate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, asserts notability credibly, SEG honorary lectureship is not to be sneezed at. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to have made significant contributions to his field, though the refs in the article are not that helpful. Awickert (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Week keep I think notability is there, but needs to be pared down from the resume-style writing that it is now. --kelapstick (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. GS cites of 7, 4, 3, 2, but GS may not be relevant here. If article is accurate then probably passes notability. Needs assessment by a geophysicist. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:43, 12 August 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.  Skomorokh  13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Insemtives

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organisation. All Google hits are Misplaced Pages mirrors or self-published. Notability tag removed with terse claim of third party sources, but no third party sources were added. Article "written" in the peculiar gobbledygook found at the interface of academia and government, by people with a clear COI. Abductive (reasoning) 08:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep Nomination appears to be confused between "interesting" and "notable" (according to strict WP:N). Whilst I cheerfully agree on the first and certainly the point about "peculiar gobbledygook found at the interface of academia and government", neither of these give us cause to doubt WP:N. This organisation is part of the EU-funded squillion-euro Seventh Framework Programme and has a vast footprint in the world of the eurocrats (a smaller but still notable one in SemWeb geekery).

If this isn't obviously and immediately clear from the article itself, then that's a problem, but it's a WP:SOFIXIT not a WP:AFD. The sources are all there on Seventh Framework Programme and if someone sees their absence on this specific page as reason to delete for lack of WP:RS, then I guess muggins needs to do the copyediting as necessary. Really though, how about editors being smart enough to read around and understand the difference between less than perfect articles and non-notable topics. We've got bigger glitches to worry more about before this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• No independent sources at all means it is unfixable. Many FP7 programmes are notable; I have not nominated them for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 10:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Many FP7 programmes are notable; I have not nominated them for deletion."

Apart from TECFORLIFE FP7 Project and The Large Knowledge Collider, which you speedied. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Many" does not mean "all", or even "most". Abductive (reasoning) 11:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So your assertion is that "There are at least some FP7 programmes that are non-notable".

Re-read WP:N. Now this doesn't mean they're interesting or that I would personally bother to write them up on Misplaced Pages, but I cannot find the wiggle room in WP:N such that any behemoth the size of an FP7 programme could sneak through without leaving enough footprints big enough to meet WP:N. Maybe I haven't seen them, probably they're not added to the article(s) as they ought to be, but it's not credible to believe that would be so invisible as to fail WP:N. Working so hard to prove the opposite is just being tendentious. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I researched this Insemtives thing very carefully before nominating it. It has zero, none, nil, nada reliable sources for notability. Therefore I met my obligation under WP:BEFORE, and I nominated it in GOOD FAITH. Now it is up to those arguing for keep to provide sources demonstrating notability. Abductive (reasoning) 11:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Whatever else this is, it's content that is so irredeemably confused that no reasonable person should be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever: The objective of Insemtives is to bridge the gap between human and computational intelligence in the current semantic content authoring R&D landscape. The project aims at producing methodologies, methods and tools that enable the massive creation and feasible management of semantic content in order to facilitate the world-wide uptake of semantic technologies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• A reluctant Delete. At least some of the partners are notable in the field, but this particular project doesn't seem to have any claims for notability. Almost any project has very ambitious statements and press releases on what it aims to do. Greenleaf (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - a perfect example of the static nature of notability. Lots of entities notable in their own right come together to form something that isn't. When people start writing about the group's projects, then this will change. That the article's content looks like something spat out from SCIgen doesn't help. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge on the basis of the material at which cover at least some aspects of the project, the STI Innsbruck part. A good deal of the article can be summarized, some of it drastically--it's a list of partners, not a list of projects. I share the nom's impatience with this group of articles , but I suppose a translation is possible. But a merge is the alternative. DGG (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment here's a how-to guide on how to spam Misplaced Pages with these non-notable projects: http://aksw.org/SoerenAuer/HowToDescribeResearchProjectsOnWikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Are those articles about the group, or the work of one of the members? This is an important distinction, since my reading is that this isn't a specific research project but a loose "umbrella" group or fund for some organizations doing research into semantics. Given the nature of the article content, I can't be sure that I've understood this correctly. I'm unable to find a transparent and unambiguous statement of what these people are actually doing. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to primarily discuss their plans, not their accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 12:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are a mix of press releases and articles about some of the work done by the partners. Only one even mentions Insemtives, and it only does so as one of three urls given at the bottom. Abductive (reasoning) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge: Clearly notable — as per Abductive's comment. Perhaps it should be merged into an FP7 related article? Billbowery (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ? Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 10 August 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 |  18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pill Hill Press

Pill Hill Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had half a mind to speedy this, as it doesn't seem to even assert notability, let alone establish it, but in an effort to not WP:BITE the new user who contributed this and another article which I did speedy, this is coming here by way of also skipping the formality of PROD. A whopping 246 ghits, which seem to all be either self-sources or something else entirely that shares the name "Pill Hill Press." No indication of any notability. Nosleep 08:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: No indication of notability — which makes sense, as it was founded in June 2009 Billbowery (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 11 August 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 |  18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How to Cut & Paste: 80's Edition

• Articles for deletion/How to Cut & Paste: 80's Edition

How to Cut & Paste: 80's Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• DELETE This is a non notable mixtape. Excuse me, "mix cd". JBsupreme (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A K-Tel collection disguised as a "new album". Not incredibly notable in any sense, and few links outside of mirrors, purchase links, and very basic discographies which just say 'this album exists'. Nate • (chatter) 08:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - definitifly not notable in any sense. At all per above. The sources say only that this exists. Barras || talk 10:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable recording. --Tckma (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Two reviews from reliable sources mean that this is notable and should be kept.--Michig (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Depends on who you ask. Joe Chill (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't, it depends on our notability guidelines.--Michig (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It isn't multiple so yes, it does. There are people that are fine with two sources and other people that are fine with multiple. You stated should like a fact. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Are you serious? Multiple means 'more than one' - we even have a dictionary where you can look these things up.--Michig (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm serious. Two is a couple and three or more is multiple which is what many users go by. So "it depends on who you ask". Joe Chill (talk)
          • And Michig, look up couple in the dictionary. Joe Chill (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Linguistic discussion taken to dictionary corner.--Michig (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, passes notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums for the sources, as in plural, as in more than one, as in multiple. Esradekan (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Just being reviewed doesn't make it notable. Lack of charting, however, does make a strong case for being non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7, with a pinch of salt added. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Giovanni Mascellaro

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any second party sources for this guy, although Google does turn up lots of spammy stuff. Can't verify the significance of the contest that he claimed to have won, the book he claimed to have published, or the claim of being a "renowned astrologer." Sixtysixstar (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G3, A7, heck even a G11 why not, it seems to cover all those bases. This isn't likely to yield much given my own searches don't give much else than what the nominator was able to gather. treelo _radda 13:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Article creator removed my speedy nom yesterday, and has since blanked the page and left a nasty parting note. Article previously speedied three times, and most recent version was essentially the same as the previously deleted versions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per the claim 'you don't deserve to have in your wikipedia very good people like G.Mascellaro' in addition to usual reasons. Greenleaf (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment it already was speedy deleted three times before for three different reasons in the last four months. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wah Ming Estate

Wah Ming Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:EXIST. There are no sources which attest to this subject's notabilty. So far, this article is but a directory listing. Without sources, it is likely to remain so. Move to delete. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I strongly disagree with this deletion. Please stop making single RfDs for HK public housing estates. Can we have a general discussion instead to decide whether we should keep them all or not? You have substantially contributed to Public housing in Hong Kong (which I have moved from "Public housing estate" to broaden the scope of the article), so your opinion is certainly valuable. Nevertheless, making repeatedly spot RfD on various such articles may look like a under-the-radar deletion operation of these articles. Thank you. olivier (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC) (also contributing as User:Underwaterbuffalo on these articles)

Comment: Public housing in Hong Kong. I have started a discussion about this topic and what we should do about the related articles at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Please feel free to add your comments! olivier (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) this comment reformatted by Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep pending the outcome of the broader discussion about public housing in Hong Kong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• keep as with many other articles on Misplaced Pages in all cities. Large housing developments on this scale are always be notable--and there will always be references if they are looked for. The Googles are not appropriate for this sort of subject. Printed newspapers are. There is always enough steps in the planning to get articles in the appropriate general and specialized news sources. DGG (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment DGG is wrong; sources are readily available online about this estate; translated by Google, or this one; about a Swine flue case. Also, there are some lurid crime stories. I think the first source is actually about the Wah Ming Estate, and so I would not have nominated this one for deletion. The ones that I did nominate do not have any such sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep: I am from Hong Kong, but I am not the creator of this article. Wah Ming Estate is a large and famous public housing estate in Northern New Territories, Hong Kong. In fact, no public housing estate articles needs to be deleted except that such estates do not really exist. However, the format of Wah Ming Estate article is not the same as "standard" wikipedia format. The format may need to be changed soon. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Commment: I think someone may have political aims to remove the articles which are not from Western countries, by using certain leaks of the articles to delete them. I hope I am too sensitive to see this phenomenon, although this always happens in English Misplaced Pages. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ricky, I certainly don't think that there is any conspiracy against Hong Kong estates articles. At the very least these discussions are pushing for the improvement of the quality of the coverage of the topic in Misplaced Pages, and hey, some people may even become more interested about the topic in the process (and yes, this is including myself). olivier (talk) 09:31, 10 August 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Kimberly T. Matthews

Kimberly T. Matthews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged this as speedy A7, tag was removed by someone other than the creator, so I'm bringing it here. Self-published author seems to fall far short of WP:N Deville (Talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete it anyways who cares if someone removed it. JBsupreme (talk) 08:13, 7 August 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} 09:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fatshionistas

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined an A1 CSD on this article. Non-notable neologism. The only two sources I found were an opinion piece and a press release. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It did make me laugh though. But who cares. JBsupreme (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NEOlogism. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable neologism. I can find only one passing mention in a mainstream media outlet, an opinion piece in the Belfast Telegraph from July 2009. (A search of NYT archives does not find the article that piece claims to quote from.) Cnilep (talk) 15:22, 10 August 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. Opinion on whether Ms. Hamilton meets WP:BIO standards is split, with a slight favoring to Keep the article. The article's supporters are invited to strengthen the references for the article, while its opponents are welcome to revisit the AfD later in the year if no effort has been made to improve its contents and references. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Hamilton

Sarah Jane Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Opposed Prod, subject doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. Gasta220 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @186  ·  03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not apparent, and doesn't seem likely to be established. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notability? Being in 135+ films kinda says it all. Needs expansion and further sourcing through regular editing, not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I made that exact same argument before I read WP:PORNBIO. That was when someone pointed the criteria out to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but WP:PORNBIO is not meant to be a limitation nor straightjacket (no pun intended) toward notability. When looking at the "additional criteria" we're allowed to also consider WP:ENT's stating "Has had significant roles in multiple television, stage, radio theater, films, television or other productions." 135 films can be considered significant, no matter the content or genre. And too, as has been pointed out below, we can go rightly climb back up the ladder to WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:N to consider her being written of in such books as The X factory... itself not exactly a trivial mention... or her being quoted in others such as Skinflicks. PORNBIO was designed to address the fact that porn actors rarely get the same coverage as might actors in mainstream films, and so shows methods to govern genre-specific notability if they fall a bit short of the more commoon parent guidelines of BIO, GNG, and N. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Really, are we considering straight to video "films" as notable? This almost sound like counting google hits and inferring notability from them. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

        Gudeline has no automatic caveat that says direct-to-video cannot be found notable. On a case-by-case basis, any film can have its notability determined. I personally care little for porn films, and am loathe to seek AVN reviews for 135 films to find which ones might meet or which ones won AVN awards or might otherwise be notable. Even if only a dozen of the 135 can be found notable for its genre, that would be enough per WP:ENT. And no, I did not myself count g-hits. I did research... I do not and will never have a copy of The X factory in my bookcase. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom, no alternative basis for inferring notability. 71.235.38.171 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:N due to her coverage in books. 86.142.164.55 (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep She is also covered in the Ian Glitter book, "Pornstar", which for obvious reasons I don't have at work with me. Web Warlock (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I am going to agree that she has enough coverage to satisfy the general WP:BIO guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 06:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I originally closed this as a delete given the lack of sourcing in the article but I was asked to resconsider the sourcing on my talk page. I asked the IP editor to expand on the sources and this is what they stated " The X Factory book devotes a four-page section to her, and the Skinflicks book has a paragraph on her. I don't have access to the Pornstar book that also apparantly covers her. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 1:31 am, Today (UTC+2) " Clearly I have not given the sourcing proper weight so the close is void but I don't think the sourcing is quite there so I am relisting this for the wider community to comment further. The pronstar references would be most useful but we need to know how extensive thecoverage of her is in that book. Spartaz 06:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep she barely skates by the requirements for notability, but skates she does. (AMONGST OTHER THINGS AMIRITE?) JBsupreme (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:BIO and WP:ENT. WP:PORNBIO is additional critera, not a limitation. Chuthya (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No sign of significant coverage in independent third-party sources. The "X Factory" "coverage," accessible via Google Books, turns out to be a superficial/promotional interview that wouldn't satisfy WP:RS as originally published and doesn't acquire any greater weightjust by being compiled into a book of similar fluff pieces. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  The X Factory coverage included more than just the interview. It's rare for a porn star to receive coverage in top sources, such as books, so that fact that Sarah Jane Hamilton has been in three books probably makes her one of Misplaced Pages's most notable porn stars. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - passes WP:BIO. Dismas| 13:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete In the "Skinflicks: The Inside Story of the X-Rated Video Industry" book, the only mention in the whole book is one sentence: "These are the ladies who try pornographers' imaginations. The diminutive Fallon spurted "G-spot" orgams at will. So did British carrot-top Sarah-Jane Hamilton" (page 294). The other book sources seem to be also collections of anecdotes in the porn industry that are also make passing mentions of many actress, and this person seems to be mentioned in short mentions and not in actual coverage of her biography and her carreer. So, these sources show no significant contribution to the field, or significant coverage of her person, so I'm not sure of how she is supposed to be passing WP:BIO or WP:ENT. As for WP:PORNBIO, she doesn't fullfill any of the points there. Also, no coverage from mainstream media.

And doing a lot of direct-to-video certainly looks like the "has lots of google hits" argument, as does not seem to fullfill the "unique contribution " in #4 of WP:PORNBIO (if all other actress had made many less videos then I would understand, specially if some secondary sources remarked on it as something significant, which is not the case here.) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 9 August 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 22:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Star Chandler

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable adult film star. While Chandler certainly has a large body of work, her notability is not substantiated through third-party reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficiently notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:49, 18 August 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 Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception. (If you think the redirect should be deleted, feel free to nominate it at RfD.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Federal Republic of Aurelia

Federal Republic of Aurelia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe exposition about a fictional country that appeared in one video game. The content in the article isn't even worth merging to Ace Combat X because it has no bearing on the plot and fails several of the points under WP:GAMECRUFT. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak merge Surely can't hurt to merge the current information to the main Ace Combat article, or Ace Combat X JRA_WestyQld2 08:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Which parts would you consider merge-worthy, keeping in mind WP:GAMECRUFT (point 5)? Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the current image with a brief summary of the information on fictional country? To be honest, I just think whoever made the map has gone to a lot of effort, I've done a couple of maps myself and they're not easy :p JRA_WestyQld2 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Non-Notable — Strong Delete. regurgitation of plot summary; no evidence of independent notability. rather ripe with the OR, too ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception. Bunch of regurgitated plotcruft. --EEMIV (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable fictional country. I don't think that the redirect will serve any practical purpose: the article is nearly an orphan and Google returns 69 unique results for the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. nn fictional country from a single game. Resolute 03:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception. That will preserve the history and any details worth including in the main article can be added. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Copernic. I'm not entirely sure I've chosen the correct target article, so this should be worked out on a relevant talk page. –Juliancolton |  17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Copernic Agent

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

The only "sources" are online software reviews (I'm assuming solicited reviews?) and the company's own websites. WP:PRODUCT says "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy". This company does not meet that standard. The article was written by someone who apparently works for the company. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Copernic Desktop Search. B (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge this article into the company's article, this doesn't seem like it needs it's own article. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @929  ·  21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge - I agree with the original solicitor of this deletion review, the software has a lot of press (165 hits on Gnews) but they seem to be solicited reviews and press releases, no significant coverage in articles of substance. It's possible that I missed something significant in there but that's a lot of stuff to wade through. It might be worth a mention in the main company's article, as mentioned by Irbisgreif, but I wouldn't be opposed to just deleting it outright. -- Atama 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. to parent company article. Topic fits WP:N, but not by it's own. -- RUL3R 04:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - the product is covered by coverage from multiple reliable sources. Examples include Detroit free Press, SearchEngineWatch, Computing Canada, PCPro. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 05:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - agree with Whpq, it appears notable enough. ComputerUser. "Deletion" is definitely inappropriate, merge would be ok. --George100 (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge Notable, but not enough material to merit article separate from company. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:34, 10 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Branded environments

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Article has not been cleaned-up or had any significant strides towards cleanup since 2007. From what I can see, this article is an ad, but has failed a prod.keystoneridin! (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep That isn't a reason to delete. Gbooks seach clearly shows that the subject is notable and a well sourced article can be written, the article as it is today is a valid stub. -SpacemanSpiff 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Agree that it's a poor AFD rationale, but not knowing what "Branded environments" are and not really learning much from the article says to me that cleanup/wikification and context improvement by someone who knows what they're writing about needs to be done sooner rather than later. It's kind of hard to vote keep or delete when it's hard to tell if the subject is notable.Nosleep 09:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. There are scores of Google Scholar hits for "Branded environments" and for "Branded environment". If article is kept it should be moved to Branded environment. Abductive (reasoning) 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I would very rarely say to delete an article because of low quality, but this is almost useless. i think I can guess what is intended, but it really should be done over. DGG (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: And I would recommend that those who are suggesting to delete it instead put effort into making it better Billbowery (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - the article is in dire need of a tidy up, but I don't think it meets the requirements to be deleted. I know nothing about this area, so I would be unable to tidy it - but it definitely needs work, so that it makes sense to an everyday Joe like myself! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:02, 14 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Jasen Walker

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I left this one alone for quite a while hoping the tags would be addressed. The subject has a significant amount of published work but it does not appear to be at all covered outside of his small field. It is very much a resume and has no third party sourcing and appears to be an auto-bio. Beach drifter (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep for now: This person does appear to be notable in their particular field, and a look at the list of his published works includes reputable professional journals and at least one state Worker's Compensation Guide. The tags were only posted a little over a week ago, and a look at the main author's contributions shows that they haven't edited anything since the tags were posted. I agree with the statements that it appears to be a resume/CV and has some sourcing issues, but unsure about the auto-bio tag. Let's leave this a little longer and give the author more than a single week to fix the issues this article has been tagged with. Frmatt (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Article reads like professional puff. Negligible impact found in Google sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
• Delete. If WP:V is the standard, then he fails WP:PROF. Location (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No sign of significant coverage in reliable independent sources to meet WP:BIO. Style of article smacks of WP:PROMOTION of his business, CEC Associates. I note that the article was written by User:Dmcafee while the office manager of CEC Associates is Dina McAfee according to their website, suggesting a WP:Conflict of interest. Qwfp (talk) 16:58, 14 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @239  ·  04:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Omnidirectional painting

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable technique by one artist. There are no sources and google searches reveal zero hits, other than wikipedia and mirrors. Note that the article on the artist is also up for deletion. freshacconci talktalk 03:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 03:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per my talk page exchange with the author, after they removed a merge tag I had placed on the entry. Not notable; essentially branding for a single artist. Hairhorn (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Note that the article on the artist is also up for deletion," says Freshacconci ---who seems to be partly responsible for the proposed artist deletion if I'm reading the article history right. Please see the discussion about deleting the artist Terry Ward. Keep.

Cramyourspam (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)cramyourspam

• Yes, I !voted "delete" on Terry Ward and listed it at list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions to generate further discussion. What, exactly, is your point: that you're !voting "keep" on this article because I !voted "delete" on the other one? I think you'll find the closing administrator will need a more convincing argument if you're hoping to keep this article. freshacconci talktalk 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This is a concept of only one artist and has only one reference. It is essentially the same info as on the artist page, including the same images. Clubmarx (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism that so far has few mentions in reliable sources. --CliffC (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism. OhNoitsJamie 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• 'KEEP Clearly Hairhorn and Freshacconi have axes to grind. Sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramyourspam (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think you'll find making personal attacks in an AfD (and on talk pages) is futile and counter-productive. This isn't about you. Or me, for that matter. Hairhorn (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete non-encyclopedic, nn, theoretical art movement...Modernist (talk) 04:33, 10 August 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.

This AfD has been closed as Speedy delete all - A3 hoax. --Michael Greiner 00:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Lil Brotha

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax. Early Life section is a modified version of Lil Waynes Early Life section. Album articles are modified versions of other articles. Luv Swangz of True Story (BGz album) and Diary of Souljia of Too Hood to Be Hollywood. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Da Block Burnaz, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/V.L. Boys and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yung Ent. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, the two album articles and a collegue of Lil Brotha with a similar modified version of of Lil Waynes Early Life section:

Luv Swangz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diary of Souljia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A.E. (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also My Gurl A Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Lil Brotha single, modified version of For a Minute. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all. Fake url on the Lil Brotha page, and fake quotes on several pages. The quotes are genuine, but are from other artists, eg B.G. (rapper). This is a walled garden of hoax entries, presumably the work of multiple socks. The main editors of each page have only a handful of edits each. Hairhorn (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all the sooner the better. JBsupreme (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Reference is a parked domain. Weak_Willed 15:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all: Hoaxes. Joe Chill (talk) 23:46, 7 August 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} 09:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ESP LTD EC-404

ESP LTD EC-404 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't show notability. Too many specific guitar articles being made these days... Weak_Willed 15:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable product. --Tckma (talk) 18:19, 7 August 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 Hoax. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yung Ent

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax. Is a modified version of Chopper City Records. The reference does not mention Yung Ent but does mention Chopper City Records and the title has been changed. Article suggests they started in 2009 and relocated after a 2005 hurricane. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Da Block Burnaz and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/V.L. Boys Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax/unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. A young Ent is an Enting, and there aren't any because the Entwives left. Abductive (reasoning) 04:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment "I am no tree, I am an Ent!" Weak_Willed 16:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Weak_Willed 16:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: A hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 7 August 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 Hoax. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

V.L. Boys

V.L. Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax. Is a modified version of Chopper City Boyz. The Billboard refernce (does not work for me but here is an alternative link) does not mention V.L. Boys but does mention Chopper City Boyz. The other link does not work for me but has the same path as on the Chopper City Boyz article but with a different title. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Da Block Burnaz and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yung Ent Duffbeerforme (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax/unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: A hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 23:42, 7 August 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 Hoax. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Da Block Burnaz

Da Block Burnaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax. Is a modified version of Chopper City Boyz. The Billboard refernce (does not work for me but here is an alternative link) does not mention Da Block Burnaz but does mention Chopper City Boyz. The other link does not work for me but has the same path as on the Chopper City Boyz article but with a different title. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/V.L. Boys and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yung Ent. (There is an older band called Da Block Burnaz or Block Burnaz, see this, with different members and different releases). Duffbeerforme (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax/unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a likely hoax. JBsupreme (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 23:42, 7 August 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) 00:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On wheels

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

delete on Wheels! this disambig page title is neologism and Willy on wheels page move vandals' target list. Nosmle (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: as three year ago been deleted. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/On Wheels--Nosmle (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC) — Nosmle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes, and it was a single-purpose account, Ninomy (talk · contribs), that nominated it for deletion that time around, too. Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, list of partial title matches (not a dab page), see also In space, List of phrases including breaking (successfully prodded without AfD), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of placenames containing the word "new", Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of places beginning with Costa, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Designated before it. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - although not officially tagged as a dismabiguation page, it certainly appears to be the intent. As a DAB page it fails as there is nothing to disambiguate with all entries contain a partial phrase match. As for it being an actual article, what? -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Salariya Book Company

Salariya Book Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod, created by and only major contributor has COI. Lacks 3rd party references demonstrating notability. RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the division Scribblers should be included in the AfD. At the very least the two unreferenced articles can certainly be merged. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Publisher of notable series of elementary children's books. In general, having books translated into multiple languages, as these books are, is an indication of notability. I'm a little less sure, as it is apparently a mass production operation intended to do that from the start. Had the nom searched just under the term "Salariya", they'd have found a number of reviews of the company's books, though most of them are not significant coverage. I think one article is appropriate--"Scribblers" should clearly be merged. I note there are also articles for many of the series from the publisher, and they are going to be a bit of a problem. My usual sources aren't working well for these--they don't cover books at this level except in the US. DGG (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Notability is demonstrated through 3rd party references, this article has none. All google book hits appear to be on the company's products. Google news is bringing up a single press release which is not a reliable source. Just not seeing notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - a publisher that produces books that are covered in reliable sources is notable. That said, the company isn't all that notable, so one article for Salariya + Scribblers + the various series should be sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Forgot to mention that most of their books aren't release under the "Salariya" name, but rather "Book House". Searching for the titles by name helps turn up more sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and merge per ThaddeusB's suggestion. Favonian (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Assassin's Creed. Since it's already been merged, deletion is not possible per WP:MAD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed: The Invisible Imam

Assassin's Creed: The Invisible Imam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested. Unreleased cancelled novel, not enough sources to develop the article further. I propose to either delete or merge info Assassin's Creed --> RUL3R 01:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like already merged but without attribution to the original page. Such attribution should be added in the edit history of Assassin's Creed and then the article deleted per WP:Notability and lack of WP:Reliable sources. --Izno (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge : To Assassin's Creed (series)--SkyWalker (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: The info isn't notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:41, 9 August 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. Notability has been established and the arguments for deletion have been refuted. NAC—S Marshall /_Cont 16:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Five themes of geography

Five themes of geography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication that this method of teaching is notable. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a textbook. ÷seresin 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom., or merge with Outline of geography. JJL (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• This is not a textbook, it is an encyclopaedia article about a model used by teachers to teach geography, that is widely documented in many places, from page 127 of ISBN 9781599424057 through page 259 of ISBN 9780805855364 to the whole of chapter 5 of ISBN 9781593857158. There's also Salvatore J. Natoli's article "Guidelines for Geographic Education and the Fundamental Themes in Geography" in volume 93 of the Journal of Geography.

  This is an encyclopaedia for readers who want to know about educational models and standards as much as it is an encyclopaedia for readers who want to know about The Simpsons. There is no reason not to serve such readers. Nor are we short of sources documenting the subject to use in writing an article for the benefit of those readers. The PNC appears to be satisfied even for this sub-topic alone, let alone for the umbrella topic. Seresin and JJL, you clearly didn't use that new "find sources" link that is being added nowadays to AFD nominations. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I see you've ruled out the possibility that I might simply disagree with you. I searched and saw that most of the links were about lesson plans. While it's been a widely used approach, being in Guidelines for Geographic Education doesn't clearly rise to the level of independent notability for me. Looking at what little links to the page, a merge seems quite reasonable. JJL (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You ruled out that particular possibility yourself, with a simple echoing "per nom" rationale. I'm not buying that you "saw that most of the links were lesson plans" for two simple reasons: First, you wrote no such thing at the time, but only now, retrospectively, when your "per nom" rationale is pointed out as faulty. Second, actually searching reveals no such thing. I suggest that you actually do the research and read the results that come up. Here's a hint: It didn't take long, or a great deal of imagination, to turn up the three books cited above, and they aren't the only book sources in existence. And that's just one possible search to run. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It's a legitimate article about a method of teaching that had been recommended by the Joint Committee on Geographic Education of the National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE). Not surprisingly, there are geography textbooks that follow these recommendations. A simple Google book search demonstrates that this method of teaching is notable "five+themes"&btnG=Search+Books. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This appears to be an extremely notable pedagogic concept.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DlSquDMlf18C&pg=PA265&dq=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=NR9m_fRkNEYC&q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/1d/3d.pdf

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22+site%3A*.gov

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22+site%3A*.edu

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22&cf=all — Rankiri (talk) 18:08, 14 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @239  ·  04:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dancing Banana

• Articles for deletion/Dancing Banana
• Articles for deletion/Dancing Banana (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Dancing Banana (3rd nomination)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing but a list of appearances, not a single source beyond knowyourmeme.com which doesn't look notable. Source 2 doesn't even mention it. Last AFD was no consensus due to a flood of "but it's notable, I like it, it's cool, blah blah blah" by people who don't understand the meaning of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NN, WP:NONSENSE, and a gazillion other policies and essays that exist to prevent this kind of articles. Also, no point on covering every single emotion/animated gif in a separate article. --> RUL3R 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No nonsense Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Ring ring ring banana phone is calling and wants his redirect back. JBsupreme (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notability? PBJT is one of the best known, early "Internet memes" that spread beyond the Internet, and lives on with numerous meme-variations, including those animated emoticons. Why wouldn't Misplaced Pages keep an authoritative history of this influential (and yes, silly and maybe even annoying) piece of Internet culture? Taking on these obscure topics is a great part of Misplaced Pages's allure. Don't kill it. : 71.126.54.28 (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Where are the reliable sources then? Just saying it's notable doesn't make it so if you can't back up your paper-thin argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• This article already has more sources and citations than plenty of others (e.g. Fixation_(psychology) (hint intended) ) -- especially within this category of popular Internet memes. Is this third, redundant attempt to wipe out this article truly an attack on the article, or it really just an attack on the category? Notability is relative by category, and within its category, the Dancing Banana holds up just fine. Use your energy to document those sources and improve the article rather than rage on about why it should be deleted from this fine paperless encyclopedia.71.162.87.77 (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I see claims from the previous AFD that this is important but I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. Just for the record, the outome of the last AFD was "Keep", not "no consensus" (the first was closed as "no consensus"), and I don't feel it's helpful to describe 'keep' contributors from the last discussion, largely experienced and respected contributors, as "people who don't understand the meaning of notability".--Michig (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are reccommending to keep something on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT and not policy, I think that is an accurate assessment of their interpretation of our guidelines with respect to notability. JBsupreme (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not recommending keep, and I don't believe that either User:Mazca, User:Dhartung, or User:23skidoo's comments from the previous AFD could be described as WP:ILIKEIT. Stick to discussing the subject of the discussion rather than casting aspersions on other editors.--Michig (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      • LOL @ U. Seriously, I just read Mazca's comment and it is the most backhanded motion to "keep" I've ever read. In fact I think it could safely be interpreted as a veiled delete. JBsupreme (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Which part of "Stick to discussing the subject" do you not understand? We're not here to analyze the previous AFD.--Michig (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Then don't. JBsupreme (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, per comments made above. Greg Tyler 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - It's stupid, but notably so. See , , , . -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. nn and anecdotal. should have been speedy deleted.--camr 22:03, 11 August 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 |  17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Singles Chart

• Articles for deletion/Israeli Singles Chart
• Articles for deletion/Israeli Singles Chart (2nd nomination)

Israeli Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AFD closed as no consensus for lack of !votes; only "keep" was an "It's notable" !vote. No sources found, article has been a stub forever, clearly fails WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: as per my vote in the last AfD, there's nothing suggesting this chart is notable. All I can find out about it is that it's a radio station (network?) chart. SKS (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment it could possibly be included on WP:BADCHARTS. It doesn't appear to be there already, unless I skipped over it somehow. I also !vote delete because not only does it not appear to be notable enough, but the reliability of the chart doesn't seem good enough either.--_{Sky Attacker} 01:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that it is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 14 August 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Search for Alan Goulden

Search for Alan Goulden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. The main concerns here are that the article is trivial and that Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. The person/case only seems notable for the fact that it took so long to find somebody who's body was so close to their place of residence and this does not pass WP:BIO/WP:N (whichever you chose to apply). Yes, there is coverage by reliable sources, but trivial news pieces attract this sort of attention all of the time (see here) and we need to use common sense. ] says: "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope". An amusing read, but now worth a Misplaced Pages article - possible merge with Lothian and Borders Police if the closing nominator feels necessary. DJ 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep; I think the nominator's arguments are wrong:

• WP:TRIVIA does in no way apply to this article, trivia applies to article which basically have a list of facts, without any other content. Compare this article to Misplaced Pages:TRIVIA#Example and hopefully you will understand why this is not trivia. Besides which, even if it was trivia, that would not be a reason to delete, rather, a reason to expand.
• WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply either. The web defines "memorialize" as "commemoration: a ceremony to honor the memory of someone or something" which this page is clearly not, it is a page with details of their death rather than to honor it.

Regardless of what your dictionary says, the policy decrees that Misplaced Pages doesn't create articles for every Tom, Dick and Harry who dies. DJ 07:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the policy doesn't say that, it say's that Misplaced Pages does not include articles which are to honor people who have died. I fail to see how this article is "honoring" Alan. - Kingpin (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BIO, since this page is not a bio (it is about an event), we should the general notability guidelines (although I believe the person also passes WP:BIO, this is just more appropriate). So: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.", I believe the subject of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for example: BBC, TimesOnline & stv (see References for more). Each one of these sources (a) addresses the subject directly, and in detail (each has a whole article about it), (b) are reliable, can't get much better than BBC, and each one is a trusted news reporting site, and (c) are independent of the subject, obviously.

The mentions in the WP:RS are trivial mentions. Doesn't count. DJ 07:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how 5 articles of which the main subject are this event is trivial coverage. - Kingpin (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, I think each of the arguments by the nominator are incorrectly applied, and therefore (as the article is notable, not trivial, and not a memorial) I believe the article should be kept - Kingpin (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously not TRIVIA. Obviously not a MEMORIAL. The article is titled Search for Alan Goulden, so it does not need to establish that Alan Goulden is a notable person, so BIO is irrelevant. The only argument I can see that Search for Alan Goulden should be deleted is good old general notability. Given that the failure of the search resulted in an investigation by another force, and this has been the subject of third party interest both on its announcement and conclusion, and has resulted in long term consequences for the force invovled, then it is imo a notable event beyond NOT#NEWS. MickMacNee (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• And after his late and un-noted addition to his nomination reason , no, this is not a criminal act either, so WP:N/CA is also irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete While I agree with Kingpins summary I do not agree with his verdict. Someone entirely unnotable dies. A group of equally unnotable people search for him and don't find him. They get disciplined. So what? The entire event is still totally unremarkable, such things happen all the time. And our reliable sources report on the weather, traffic jams, fire, the Armani Spring Collection and dam water levels on a daily basis without making any of these worthy of inclusion in WP. --Pgallert (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  Could you please explain which part of WP:NN this page doesn't pass? Please note it's about the event, not the person, so it doesn't matter if the person is non notable. Also, please explain how this is routine news coverage, (e.g. a weather report, or sports report). I will explain why I think to opposite: event is clearly notable per WP:NN (see my keep !vote for a more detailed reason). And this is not a routine news report (e.g. it's not an announcement, or sport/weather report, or tabloid journalism). Under that logic you could delete every single page about a murder, death, or anything else which happens more than twice a day (e.g. you could say, yes, the Death of Michael Jackson is notable, but it's just a routine news report as there's a news report about someone dying everyday), so I think it's important to use common sense here, and not say we should delete this page just because someone dies every minute. Cheers - Kingpin (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you really are suggesting that Michael Jackson is equally as notable as Alan Goulden, then you need a reality check. NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: User:Kingpin13 recently nominated this article for WP:DYK, meaning that WP:ILIKEIT may be in force. DJ 09:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, I nominated it for DYK before this AfD. ILIKEIT is about users not providing logical arguments (e.g. "Keep - I like it"), not about whether or not the user actually likes the page (please make sure you read the pages you are linking to, rather than treating them as if the page title is policy). It would be similar to me saying "DJ recently nominated this page for AfD, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT may be in force", which is of course, incorrect. As to my Michael Jackson example, I'm not saying they are of equal notability, but they are both notable per WP:NN. - Kingpin (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't pass WP:N. I'm saying that many things technically pass the notability criteria that have no place in an encyclopaedia. So my conclusion is reached by applying the very common sense you feel I do not have. If you want me to point to a rule that suggests deletion of this article I'm afraid IAR is all I can come up with.--Pgallert (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly a weather report. If this happens in police forces all the time where you live, I'd be really worried personally. MickMacNee (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It does happen where I live. Maybe not every day, but blunders are really order of the day.--Pgallert (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I think that this is notable due to the unusual case of the police spending weeks looking for someone and them then being found so close. I don't think that this is trivial either. Smartse (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Unusual" isn't "encyclopedic". DJ 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is notable then it is "encyclopedic". Smartse (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is not notable, therefore it is not "encyclopedic". DJ 23:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey DJ. Please explain why it's non notable, using parts of text from WP:NN, and references to the sources, or the article (as I have done). Rather than "just not notable". It's very difficult and frustrating trying to argue against someone who just keeps stating what they, personally think, without providing any backup from policies. Please explain, specifically, which part of WP:NN this event fails Also, is your issue with the article that it is non notable, or that it is "unencyclopedic"? Best - Kingpin (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:1EVENT. WP:N/CA. DJ 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by linking to two policies which don't apply to this.... The page is about an event, so WP:1EVENT does not apply. And the page is not about a criminal act, so WP:N/CA does not apply. - Kingpin (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems to pass the general notability guideline by having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but that's only because it's a news event, and all news events have significant coverage due to the number of news websites. Misplaced Pages articles should not be news reports. I agree with Pgallert. Perhaps move it to Wikinews, though. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  That's not what that policy is about. It's not "if an event has been in the news, it's not appropriate for an article", it's "if an article is actually a news report itself (e.g. weather, sports), then it's not appropriate for an article". I fail to see how this article is about a common news report (e.g. weather, sports). - Kingpin (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  The article is not a news report and therefore citing WP:NOTNEWS is not appropriate in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Reading this article (and lacking independent awareness of the incident -- I didn't see it reported here in the states), I see no indication of anything that makes this particular missing person case sufficiently different from the commonplace to make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mr. Goulden was not a notable person in his lifetime, and there's no indication that this incident has significance beyond the event itself and special discipline for 7 policemen. This incident is not identified as a symbol or symptom of some broad societal trend, there's no indication of a conspiracy or other criminal activity that makes this bigger than one man's disappearance, and nothing important is likely to happen as a result of this incident. This is interesting, but it is all too commonplace. Unfortunately, human disappearances are not uncommon, and all too often the remains of someone who disappeared are found belatedly, but astonishingly close to the site of the disappearance. --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Again as I said to our Namibian user, I find it highly unconvincing that this sort of failure is commonplace in any police department, it is certainly not common in the UK. If it happens all the time, then please, give me an example in the UK in the last year or so which led to third party notice, outside investigation and long term changes to search procedures. MickMacNee (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I also agree with MickMacNee's point. Orlady's amounts to "I've never heard of it and therefore it should be deleted" - hardly a sound argument. I've certainly never heard of this happening before and I would request that if Orlady's judgement that this is "commonplace" to please back it up with a link - I'll be more generous than MickMacNee and allow it to be anywhere in the world, not just the UK. Smartse (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - If someone other than a Misplaced Pages contributor (i.e., a reliable source) has commented on the unusual nature of this case (what it is that makes it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia), that should be added to the article. With the non-relevant parenthetical removed, my comment said "Reading this article, I see no indication of anything that makes this particular missing person case sufficiently different from the commonplace to make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia." That is still the case. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Newsworthy, but not notable. Apply the "10 year test" and see. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "the 10 year test"? This does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources to remain notable. And this is not a news report, it is an article about an event which has happened to have been in the news. If this event had been reported in a book for example, WP:NOTNEWS would not be an issue, which shows how misunderstood it is, IMO. This event is notable per WP:Notability because it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Please exaplain how that is not true. - Kingpin (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This is the event about a non-notable individual who doesn't warrant a page of their own. Sorry, but I feel this article fails BLP requirements for inclusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 14 August 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) 00:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

MFTU

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hairhorn's prod was contested. The reason that Hairhorn gave was "Non-notable neologism". Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, for the reasons I gave in the prod. Hairhorn (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, please, for the reasons provided above. -SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete un-needed acronym for neologism for something a DJ made up one day on the air. Not notable. I was so disappointed, I thought it would have something to do with MILF. ;-P Drawn Some (talk) 18:57, 7 August 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) 00:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ninja Cop

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was removed. This film fails WP:NF and is obviously self-promotion (look at the username of the page's creator). POKERdance /contribs 00:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: A non-notable home-made film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Homemade movie, doesn't fall within WP:NF. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete nn. JJL (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete although it may be a Nice film it is just not notable enough.Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ninja delete. JBsupreme (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - tagged for speedy, called on WP:SNOW. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ...aaaand speedy was rejected. OK, we'll let this run. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:07, 11 August 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. Tone 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Martha Stelloo

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-orphaned, minimally-edited article created by her grandson. Fails V, N, and OR. Assumes inherited notability as well, and even the Guinness entry is dubious - at the least, it was subsequently withdrawn from their records, probably with good cause. Another editor's more copious research into the notability (or lack thereof) can be found on the article's talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. I should have made an "articles for deletion" page myself instead of going on and on on the talk page, but it was meant as a short note and grew longer the more I learned about Lord Sydney. Afasmit (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Delete- this appears to be a hoax.--keystoneridin! (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Claims for notability are flimsy at best. McMarcoP (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced article about actress and rewrite as article about the record-breaking documentary. Guinness World Records 2005‎ (page 175) confirms film as "longest film documentary" ISBN 1892051222, no matter that later versions removed the entry to add records about other items. Seattle Times confirms the Guiness entry. Suggest new article title of Grandmother Martha (1996 Dutch film), as the film has the sourcable record notability, not {apparently) the film's subject. I just sandboxed (above) my suggested alternate article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Guinness shelved the claim, and the Seattle Times article merely recapitulates what it was - it isn't independent coverage (not that this would be needed - the Guinness book itself is source enough that it was once a record). In any case, it's long-standing precedent that a Guinness record is not notable enough in and of itself. There is absolutely no record I can even find of this having played anywhere or received any reviews - essentially the only evidence that it exists is a Guinness record which the book's publishers have subsequently declined to reprint, mostly likely for a reason. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. When a record is broken, it is replaced by a new record. On a related sidebar, the filmmaker, Sydney Ling, himself set and kept for 23 years, the Guiness record for being the youngest youngest person (at 13) to direct a professional feature film. The record was broken in 2006 by a 10-year-old. Perhaps in not only honoring his grandmother, Ling wanted to set another guiness record, and this might well have received coverage unavailable to me. Perhaps French or Dutch Wikipedians will come forward with non-English sources. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ernesto Miranda

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated with:

Clarence Earl Gideon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miranda and Gideon were litigants in two very famous and notable cases, Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright, but it's the cases bearing their names that are notable, not (without more) the litigants themselves. As WP:NRVE explains, the "notability of a parent topic ... is not inherited by subordinate topics," and WP:SINGLEEVENT makes clear that a separate article would only be warranted if they had done something else that makes them notable. Put another way, for these litigants to merit inclusion, they would have to be sufficiently notable to have an article even if the cases bearing their names didn't exist. Otherwise, they should be handled in our article on the case, and there only to the extent relevant to the case.

Neither of these articles meet that standard. They are a tailored fit for WP:SINGLEEVENT. I propose deletion or, in the alternative, merge and redirect to Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright respectively.

Lastly, George W. Bush was a litigant in a famous and notable case, but if that was his sole claim to notability, we would not have an article on him; John Terry was a litigant in another famous and notable Warren Court criminal procedure case, but we don't have an article on him. Anyone remember the names of the named plaintiffs in Brown v. Board? Not only do we not have a separate article on them, our article on the case doesn't even name them. I realize that not many editors share my disagreement with WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I mention this for those who do. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep nom. is strictly correct but these are such very famous cases that interest in who the plaintiffs were is natural; Miranda's name is synonymous with the outcome. Hence, I propose to err on the side of making WP useful by retaining these articles in a mild application of WP:IAR. For lesser cases I would concur with nom. JJL (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Assuming for sake of argument that you're right about interest in the plaintiffs, is there a reason that such details can't be provided in the articles on the cases? I wonder if it might prove instructive to borrow an analytic structure from another context. WP:NSONG tells us that we should only have an independent article on a particular song "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"; if not, we should at most redirect to an article for the album containing the song, and there provide whatever coverage is warranted. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pull Me Under, I argued that we should understand NSONG as justifying a standalone article only when it can present well-sourced information that would violate WP:DETAIL if it was included in the article for the album on which it appears.

    Now, of course, I'm not suggesting that NSONG applies to these two articles. I wonder, though, if similar reasoning can help untangle WP:SINGLEEVENT's concern that "hen an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Assuming that there are no other justifications for a standalone article (WP:SPLIT, for example), I would suggest that when an individual is notable only for their role in a single notable event, and there is an article about the event, we should only have a separate article about the individual when it can present well-sourced information that would violate WP:DETAIL if it was included in the article about the event. Is that framework a good fit in this context, and if so, how do Mssrs. Miranda and Gideon fare by it?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

    • I'm in basic agreement with your overall position. In the case of C. Gideon, given how the two articles are currently structured, I think the detail about his personal life and aftermath of the case might detract from the flow of that article. In the case of E. Miranada, adding to or splitting the "Effects of the decision" section at the case's article might make a merge workable. I do think someone looking up the names of these individuals should be redirected to a basic biography that includes their personal post-trial outcomes, which is not necessarily a natural part of the articles on the cases. JJL (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep These were very big cases, big enough that there is ample material on the litigants. And for whatever reason, these two were made famous by these cases more than most major Supreme Court litigants. Hundreds of gnews hits on each of them, it was news when they died. There is certainly enough reliably sourced info on them that all the details would be inappropriate for the articles on the cases, Anthony Lewis's Gideon's Trumpet foremost on Gideon. I don't think it is ignoring rules to keep them, because "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." John Z (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Either the people's lives and works are only documented in the context of the court cases, and a redirect is appropriate from these titles to the cases (per Misplaced Pages:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?), or there is enough documentation of these people's lives and works separate from the cases that involve them to warrant proper biographical articles about them. Either scenario is enactable via the ordinary editing tool. An administrator does not need to push a delete button either way. This is not a matter for AFD. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, it's a matter for AFD because I think the articles should be deleted, as the nomination explains, and that isn't "enactable via the ordinary editing tool." I will accept merge and redirect as an alternative to deletion, if the community disagrees with me that deletion is appropriate, but obviously we can't know what the community thinks until we've had a nomination. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Then you aren't using all of the tools in the toolbox, you haven't absorbed Misplaced Pages:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?, and you are mis-using AFD as a big hammer. If a person is dealt with in the context of a court case, we redirect from the person's name to the article on the court case, just as we redirect from sub-topics to articles on the enclosing topics. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox, and isn't even required to enact a redirect. If one wants to discuss redirecting something, one doesn't use AFD as a big hammer to start that discussion. One either boldly performs the redirect, or suggests it on the article's talk page to start discussion, using (say) RFC or the Misplaced Pages:Content noticeboard (or the Biographies of living person's noticeboard, or even the target article's talk page) to bring attention to that talk page if necessary. AFD is not RFC, nor a noticeboard substitute. It's not a big hammer, and it is not the only tool in the toolbox. Witness Talk:Conrad Murray#Redirect for an example of an article talk page discussion of redirecting a title to the enclosing subject. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep both. Not only were these cases leading cases in criminal procedure; these cases were so well known that they became household words and political issues. This level of attention, which rose well above the norm for parties in important cases, generated curiosity about the individual litigants. As such reliable sources stepped in to feed that curiosity. Thus it came to pass that these two drifters and petty crooks had the sort of attention paid to their lives that meets the basic standard for biography even if their chief claim to fame was only as parties to those cases. Note also that the "one-event" standard only applies to biographies of living people, and therefore not to either of these articles; BLP is at any rate an exception to the general standards of both notability and sourcing, and as such should be strictly confined. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to address the last point: I think you're confusing WP:SINGLEEVENT, which is a part of WP:BIO and applicable to all biographical articles, with WP:BLP1E, a similar policy contained in WP:BLP that is applicable only to BLPs.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:N, and I reject the notion that this long-running and very important case is a "single event" any more than, say, being a federal judge is a single event. Hobit (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Then you should think again. This isn't about single events, this is about people who are only known about in the context of the court cases that surround them, and whose lives unconnected to those court cases are not documented. That we don't try to shoe-horn every subject in the world into individual biographies of the people involved in the subject, making those biographies one-sided and incomplete accounts of the actual overall subject, is one principle that underlies the BLP1E policy, and it is a principle that is not by its nature restricted to merely living people. The Glasgow Ice Cream Wars are not a "single event", as can be seen from the article, but many of the people involved in them are canonical examples of people who are solely known about in the context of the overall subject, and whose biographies, if written, would be nothing more than partial and one-sided accounts of the actual subject. And, conversely, some of the people involved in them are also known about in other areas.

    So the notion that you refuse to address is the notion that is actually at issue: whether these people are known about outside of the landmark court cases that involve them. And of course the proper venue for discussion of that, since the choice of outcome in such situations is between an article and a redirect, not involving deletion at any stage of the process, is the articles' talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    • I don't see deletion as a reasonable outcome (100+ book cites, 70+ news cites, and *I*, random joe-blow. know who he is) which is what we are doing here. And this isn't a BLP, so BLP1E doesn't apply (and I don't agree with you that it should reach past living people). Nor was there a short flurry of coverage. As such I don't believe there is reason to delete this article. Now if there isn't RS information needed to write a reasonable biography (as you indicate), that would be different. But I, like you, believe that the article's talk pages are the right place for that discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hobit, like Smerdis of Tlön, you're confusing WP:SINGLEEVENT, which is a part of WP:BIO and applies to all biographical articles, with WP:BLP1E, a similar policy contained in WP:BLP that is applicable only to BLPs. I cited the former, so your argument that the latter doesn't apply is a strawman.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Is the event highly significant? Yes. Is Miranda's role in the event large? I'd say yes though I could see that as debatable.

Further, please note that the argument I'm replying to specifically refers to the BLP1E policy and argues to expand it. Thus I argued against a real argument by someone I respect (quite a lot actually) and therefor it isn't a strawman I'm arguing against... Hobit (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

May I remind everybody that we're not in a court of law and that the guidelines are not prescriptive? We're not trying to win a court case here. There has been no rationale given as to why the biography of Miranda or Gideon, both of which have been well-documented, should somehow be cleared out of the encyclopedia. Yes, there will be some redundancy between these articles and those about the cases but that's part of Misplaced Pages's structure and is not a problem per se. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an outright lie to say that "here has been no rationale given" for deletion. You may not agree with that rationale, but it is given in the nomination. They are not notable independent of the cases bearing their names, and we should not have articles about non-notable subjects. Policy reflects that common-sense judgment, both generally (the purpose of WP:N and its derivatives is to define circumstances for inclusion; its mere existence accordingly demonstrates that exclusion is the default condition) and specifically (SINGLEEVENT). As Uncle G said above, "we don't try to shoe-horn every subject in the world into individual biographies of the people involved in the subject, making those biographies one-sided and incomplete accounts of the actual overall subject, is one principle that underlies the BLP1E policy, and it is a principle that is not by its nature restricted to merely living people." He's right.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying there has been no rationale given for the removal of well-documented biographical information about Miranda from the encyclopedia. Miranda's life after the case would be out of place in the already very long article on the case. So if you delete Ernesto Miranda, that biographical information simply vanishes and you have not indicated why that net loss is a good idea. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Borderline pointy nomination based on a misinterpretation of WP:SINGLEEVENT (see here for the origin of the nomination). The policy says among other things that "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". Surely Miranda's role is significant. Biographical details of Miranda's life after Miranda v. Arizona would obviously be out of place in the article about the case. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep both. A significant number of readers will be interested in the "human side" of these landmark cases, so the information about the defendants should be available on Misplaced Pages; but a significant number of readers will want to know only about the legal issues, so the article about the case should omit such biographical detail. A standalone article is the best way to present the information. JamesMLane t c 20:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've edited each article to add information about the retrial that followed the Supreme Court decision setting aside the initial conviction. (Miranda was convicted again, but Gideon was acquitted.) This information will be of interest to many readers but would have no place in the article about the Supreme Court decision. JamesMLane t c 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep both. These people have become namesakes to such important law cases that I think there's a high likelihood of readers wanting to know more biographical detail about them that would be off-topic for the articles on the cases themselves. And there's plenty of reliable sourcing. I don't see why we can't keep separate articles on the people and the cases. As for WP:BIO1E, I think the line that "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" fits these two cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 12 August 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. Though many of the keep votes are a bit lacking, there is quite clearly no consensus for deletion. Editorial decisions should be discussed at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton |  17:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Worlds of Ultima

Worlds of Ultima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a minor spin-off "series" that is already covered within the fourth paragraph of Ultima (series)#Overview. There is no actual content here anyway, especially due to the fact that there are only two actual games within it. TTN (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It is a perfectly notable series, two of the games made, and a third canceled. The number of games made in a series, doesn't determine whether or not the article is valid. I have added information to the article, finding an interview a developer did, and using that as a reference. Dream Focus 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• If a spin-off series can fit within the main article, then that is it. It would have to take up a lot of space in order to actually warrant an article. If you don't agree with that, I suggest that you bring it up with the video game project. TTN (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Policy is not determined by the video game project. The games are Ultima only in name, using entirely different artwork and a totally different feel for play. They aren't just a spin off, but notable in their own right. Dream Focus 01:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No, but they do determine the proper way to manage such articles. The same thing was done with the Ultima Underworld "series", so this isn't any different. You do realize that you are arguing over absolutely nothing, right? It's the same exact content as what's already in the main article. TTN (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I see you took it upon yourself to go around replacing articles for notable characters in the Ultima series, with redirects as well. Do you believe that all those who have worked on these articles, for the years they've been around, will agree with your opinion they should be eliminated, replaced with redirects? Why not discuss it on those talk pages before acting? Dream Focus 01:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The articles are completely dead and badly written. Such a "long lived" characters have only had thirteen edits this year. There is no reason to believe discussion is necessary (though I did ask if the Lord British article had any potential) with articles in that state. I'll get the number consensus at some point tomorrow, so you won't have to worry about that. TTN (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
          • If the games stop being made quite a number of years ago, then chances are, there isn't a lot of things that needed to be edited, nothing new coming out. How active an article is, does not determine where or not it should be deleted. Dream Focus 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Disruptive nomination. Nominator wanted to redirect page (meaning he believes the name is a plausible search term), but two users disagreed and restored the article. Now he's arguing for deletion without redirect, contradicting the belief that there's a plausible search term involved. There seems to be more spite/pique here than is warranted. And the discussion regarding the Ultima Underworld seres doesn't line up with the nominator's comments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• The amazing thing about redirects is that they do not need to actually contain old, useless content. They can be recreated afterward, so there is nothing wrong with wanting such content deleted. TTN (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And your redirects can be reverted as well, so there is nothing wrong with wanting such content preserved. Dream Focus 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep if it's a minor series then why do two of the games of the series have articles of their own? 76.66.193.221 (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but explaining why the nominator's claim appears inaccurate is. --Kizor 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply to my argument. I'm not pointing to other stuff I'm pointing to the same stuff If you read my argument, it should be evident. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You argument is still invalid - minor series are not necessarily non-notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, as was stated as a reason for the revert to the redirect, the main article for Ultima does not contain more detailed information about this topic, and it would be best for page sizes to keep this article as if it were a split article from my point of view. It seems notable enough, and arguing that an article has little content is not a reason for deletion. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, we should not delete pages because they are not complete. --Taelus (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect To Ultima (series) - contains barely any content and is unnecessary as a standalone article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:PERNOM is not a valid reason for deletion. Please stop copy and pasting WP:PERNOM, WP:ITSCRUFT, and WP:JNN votes rather than arguments in rapid fire fashion across multiple AfDs. We expect participants in these discussions to review the actual individual articles under discussion and the comments made by those above. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. The topic is notable, though I'm not sure how to best handle this particular instance. I'm not sure if there's any reason to keep a "sub-series" as a separate article when the main article could pretty much do. In any case, I don't see why this should be deleted. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:22, 10 August 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, there is consensus that this individual passes notability guidelines. JamieS93 19:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ogi Ogas

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

Not Notable Person Patchy1Talk To Me! 05:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep at least two claims to notability are made, which are also confirmed by reliable references. The notability standard is achieved by the number of independent references also. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak Keep Using science to win game shows is quite extraordinary and would make the person notable for me. Unfortunately, this claim I fear is totally unverifiable. That he indeed made this claim is well referenced but, well, a bit weak for an encyclopedia. --Pgallert (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:29, 31 July 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) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep High ranking at a series of major national competitions.DGG (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Is also publishing a book with a major publisher . You can also google the phrase "ogi ogas dutton" to see various links to the gated announcment. Epigrammasai (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• No Opinion I'm Ogi Ogas. I've always tried to avoid editing my own page, since I find it somewhat distasteful and self-serving when others do so (though I confess I added a Dr. to my name when I received my PhD from Boston University). I'm quite content to leave a determination of my notability to others, I merely wanted to point out that my Millionaire appearance is frequently referenced as an all-time favorite by fans of the show (for example, in today's Buzzerblog discussion). Also, my battle with Ken Jennings on Grand Slam was voted the "Best Game Show Moment" in the 2008 Game Show News Net Awards. (Ogi Ogas) 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.19.240 (talk)
• Keep - notable as a gameshow contestant as estabished through coverage in reliable soruces. , , , , . -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ben Zeskind

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

Former minor league baseball player, no longer active, no particular reason to consider him notable. Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @752  ·  17:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a "let's delete all former minor league pro ballplayers" policy? If so, I guess it has to go, but if not I would keep it. Why destroy good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not poorly written, but minor league players are not inherently notable, as per WP:ATHLETE. While some minor league players who never made the majors are notable, I don't see anything special about this one. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). GiantSnowman 13:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is that the test? Well, the baseball minor leagues, where he played, are a fully professional level of the sport. And as to significant coverage, there seem to be over 2,000 web entries on him ... see ... and over 200 new articles ... see --Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 7 August 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) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Epeefleche - I'm not a baseball afficianado, and thought minor league was semi-pro. Therefore, if you can provide a source which proves it is a fully-pro league he played in, I'll happily change my vote. Regards, GiantSnowman 08:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Has played at the fully professional level. The minor league system in baseball all fully professional from rookie through to AAA, a player affiliated with a Major League club must sign a professional contract that will apply until the contract is renewed regardless of what tier of professional baseball the player plays in. I can't provide a source to verify that, but the only semi-professional baseball leagues in America are some independent leagues. I hope this helps clarify :) JRA_WestyQld2 08:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't really use Misplaced Pages as a reference, but from minor league baseball: Even though minor league players are paid considerably less than their major league counterparts, they are nevertheless paid for their services and are thus considered professional athletes. Also see Professional baseball. JRA_WestyQld2 09:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep on the explanation that the minor league are fully-pro; this player therefore meets WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 09:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yep ... here is some more background on the minor leagues ... ... for these purposes, I imagine you would have preferred their original name: "The National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues"--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

K-99 Wamego Bridge

K-99 Wamego Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• I do not see the importance of this bridge. If it was something like the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Manhattan Bridge, I would understand.keystoneridin! (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this article serves as much importance as K-7 Bridge, 222nd Street Bridge and the Interstate 70 Bridges. Plus, it expands the Crossings of the Kansas River category. Bhall87 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @900  ·  20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @900  ·  20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded, otherwise merge to K-99 (Kansas highway) as there is not presently enough for a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- Articles such as this one arise from having succession boxes for bridges on rivers. I have grave doubts as to their merits, but if we delete it, some one will one day re-create it, and perhaps worse. Stubify. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 1 August 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) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. From the photos on the web it's a quite substantial & apparently important bridge over a major river , and warrants a proper article. But there is no justification making stub articles as weak as this one. DGG (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• keep needs expanded, yes... but there is no deadline on Misplaced Pages.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 7 August 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 seems to be that the article lacks sufficient real-world notability. –Juliancolton |  17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Marone Industries

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

A plot device from a soap opera. Unreferenced with no real world importance. Magioladitis (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Seems that Google News has plenty of instances in soap opera summaries. I could care less about the soap, but that seems to indicate it's more than a simple plot device. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  The links you give are all referring to B&B and not to Marone Industries independently. We are dealing with... 37 references to short plot summaries given by the channel and in which Marone Industries are referred just as a place. (example: "Felicia visits Nick at Marone Industries.") -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable fictional plot regurgitation; no real-world significance. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:30, 1 August 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) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Jack.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton |  17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dennis R. Wraase

Dennis R. Wraase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A user contested the prod. All that I can find is trivial mentions of him in articles that are about the company. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong Delete - if properly formatted, this article would be nothing more than a list.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notable chief executive officer of major U.S. corporation. Has testified before Congress. I would be okay with merging to the company's article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not all CEOs are notable, not even all people who testify in front of Congress. Minimal independent third party coverage. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Craig R. Smith. Hairhorn (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. CEOs of Fortune 500 companies generally meet the GNG, although coverage is not necesarily in easily accessed online sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:14, 3 August 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) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• keep remember, there is a difference between "verifiable" and "verified" -- this information is all verifiable and certainly notable on GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, if it is verifiable, where are the sources? We can't keep this article simply on the presumption of sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 13 August 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jules Williams

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

Biography of a psychologist. Claims notability based on television appearances; however, I can't find any external sources confirming this, and the person's own site refers in a vague way to Sky TV, specifically Psychic TV which does not look like something that would make the subject notable. The external sites used as references are not all about the same person - the first site belongs to a female therapist called Jules Williams, in Nottingham, and the second site to a male therapist by the same name, in London (and he appears to be the one the article is about) ; the third site advertises him as well. Neither of the references qualifies as a reliable source as they are all advertisements. The article's author created two articles about Williams' methods and concepts, both of which were deleted in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Intuitive Counselling. I believe there may be some COI here, and in any case I find no evidence of notability. bonadea contributions talk 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete sounds fairly non notable, I attached a prod earlier. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I deleted the external link to the other Jules Williams, which only served to confuse the issue. --bonadea contributions talk 15:17, 2 August 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) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO through a lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and btw I certainly would not call someone who advertises as 'an exceptional Intuitive Investigator and remote viewer" and "past life regression coach" a psychologist. Whatever his profession is, I see no indication he is notable in it. DGG (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment You are right, I ought to have written "therapist" or "counsellor" instead of "psychologist". I don't think he calls himself a psychologist either. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems to be not notable and fails WP:BIO. --Barras || talk 10:14, 7 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @240  ·  04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

North Am

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

The topic of this article is non-notable future North America, and the title of the article is likely to cause confusion with a lot of other terms that begin with the same characters. Abductive (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 10:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an unremarkable fictional element that does not assert any real world significance or importance. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:32, 1 August 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) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would normally say, merge as usual, into a list of locations. This is unreasonable as a separate article, and it would also be unreasonable to remove mention entirely. But the problem of how to word a separate redirect for this is a little troublesome, and I can think of no solution myself. DGG (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be only applicable to the story as indicated in the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Deserves a mention in the related article, but that already exists. No evidence that it is notable enough for its own article.--SPhilbrickT 14:27, 11 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @240  ·  04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

2008 US dollar Speculative Attack

• Articles for deletion/2008 US dollar Speculative Attack (2nd nomination)

2008 US dollar Speculative Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

1. Joe Nocera, "The Reckoning: As Credit Crisis Spiraled, Alarm Led to Action", New York Times, October 1, 2008

• Procedural keep. If the only concern is accuracy (not a hoax, and the article is verifiable and notable), then AfD is not the proper venue. Tim Song (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't claim it is a hoax, I believe it is a mis-read of the news. What is the procedural alternative to deletion? Re: The comment below, there is already a NPOV discussion of this event on the Kanjorski page.Verne Equinox (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Be bold and edit it. But given the circumstances, I'm persuaded that the current version is totally worthless and that the title is PoVish and misleading. As such, delete. Tim Song (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. Perhaps a mention in Paul E. Kanjorski's article would be okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see this is the first, not the second, nomination for deletion of this article. __meco (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: It was proposed for deletion on February 14, 2009 Verne Equinox (talk) 01:33, 4 August 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) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The article is original research and POV. The title itself is a creation and very misleading. The article implies that someone launched some sort of electronic attack or purposefully engineered an attack on the financial markets on that day and it simply isn't the case. Not much there to salvage even if the title were good. An article on the money market "crisis" in fall 2008 would be better started from scratch than from this stub. Drawn Some (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Just add reliable sources (if you can). Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The term "attack" is POV and was not used by Kanjorski. As Verne Equinox points out, Kanjorski's page already discusses this, and the title of the present article isn't even a plausible redirect. ReverendWayne (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete

• The lede refers to 11 September. Wrong date
• The body references 150 billion, but the source said 105 billion.

Both of the above are correctable, but go to show the editor(s) haven't taken any reasonable care to be accurate

• The title uses the term "attack". Not warranted.
• The title and text call the attack "speculative". No a scintilla of evidence supporting this significant claim.
• Only two references, and I cannot find evidence that the second is related to this incident
• No evidence cited that this was an attack on the dollar per se as opposed to a general financial action, leaving the only accurate part of the title that something happened in 2008--SPhilbrickT 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Per WP:OR. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Sphilbrick Little Professor (talk) 20:48, 13 August 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.