Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 27 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Nja 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Someone whose film/TV credits consist only of two roles total, both characters so minor to the plot that they never got names, clearly fails Knowledge (XXG) notability requirements. DreamGuy (talk) 23:51, 27 April 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. This is a close call in terms of !votes, but the arguments on the delete side are far stronger than those on the keep side. –Juliancolton |  00:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

another random combination from the obsessive creator. 1 minor bilateral agreement, non resident ambassadors. in 2008 Indonesia only had 1.7 million EUR of investment in Estonia. http://www.vm.ee/eng/kat_176/2485.html LibStar (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems a sensible compromise. Give it its own article as and when there is a significant relationship. HJMitchell You rang? 06:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete the alleged sources in the article now are not about a relationship between these two states. To mention that an estonian traveller visited and wrote about Indonesia in the 19th century, 50 years before the modern state of Indonesia came into being, as evidence for some kind of bilateral relationship is beyond laughable; it's embarressing to whoever put it their in the thought it was relevently placed. There are no reliable, indepdendent sources that discuss and establish notability for this relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:50, 4 May 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. Nja 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Albums that Planet Sound has rated 9/10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Too specific and non-notable. Not even worth merging to Planet Sound. See WP:NOT#STATS. ~EdGl ★ 23:46, 27 April 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) 11:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Winning the Gloria medal doesn't seem to be especially notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 14 April 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) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. Additionally, the article appears to be lifted from this page with enough of the content dropped to avoid being flagged as plagiarized. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep – I know this sounds as if I am being contrite, however, did anyone do a Google News search. In just a few minutes, I was able to reference his gold medal, which he won from the National Sculpture Society, and by the way, that is a big deal, and found quite a few references from third party – creditable – reliable and verifiable sources, as shown here ]. Thanks. ShoesssS 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow how "California Art Club" = "National Sculpture Society." Perhaps you misspoke or perhaps I am missing something? In any case, I don't see enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I see now you wrote "gold medal ... National Sculpture Society" but you meant "Gloria medal ..." That clears up my confusion at least. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 23:46, 27 April 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 deleted by Nyttend, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grace Lutheran Church (Ridgecrest, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not establish notability or importance. No reliable sources, only primary ones. ~EdGl ★ 23:37, 27 April 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 Charles Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Spencer, Countess Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Having been only a wife or/and a daughter of a peer doesn't establish own Notability. Note also that most of the content is already avaiable on the article of her husband Charles Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer. Phoe (talk) 23:26, 27 April 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 Cheers. I' 12:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Zaremba (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination per decision to list at AfD at Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2009 April 21. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 27 April 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. Nja 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Audiophonic visual isolation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination per decision to relist at Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2009 April 21. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 27 April 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 deleted by Orangemike, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy! set evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article contains an extraordinary level of intricate, non-encyclopedic detail. Additionally, the formatting within the article is inconsistent or improperly coded, especially where pictures are supposed to appear. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt. Pure trivia, unable to be sourced. Was already redirected twice and undone. Let's quit playing whack a mole with it, eh? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • KEEP!!!! Do you people even have a freaking life?!? This article contains very useful info, and you freaks deleted it on purpose! Knowledge (XXG) is seriously screwed up when they delete game show releated articles.--Tomballguy (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Chris
    • Besides, erasing the article again would be upsetting for several Jeopardy! fans as well. Please consider thinking about what Jeopardy! fans might react to if this article is deleted. Be well aware that you, the person who nominated the article for deletion is responsible for all information lost in the article if it is deleted/redirected again. Plus also, the Jeopardy! article is too long.--Tomballguy (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Chris
      • Dude, calm down. You're basically saying WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. Do you have a real reason, or are you just going to insult anyone else who calls for deletion? "Be well aware that you, the person who nominated the article for deletion is responsible for all information lost in the article if it is deleted/redirected again." Yeah right. Nowhere does it say that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If they don't exist then I concede the point, however, I am not aware of the millions of entertainment articles published through the years. Video documentation is just as good a source.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete That article is nothing more than a fansite, and the arguments here for keeping the article further solidify why the article should be deleted. Keeping it because "erasing the article again would be upsetting for several Jeopardy! fans" is not a valid reason. Knowledge (XXG) is not a fansite. The article is hardly notable and not well written. There are multiple errors in the coding that prevent pictures from showing up! The evolution of a game show set is not notable and is not remotely an important part of Americana. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete First off, let me thank the above user who said that we should "get a life". That was a supremely ironic remark. Anyway, I checked out the alleged sources of this article, and they are not what Knowledge (XXG) considers reliable. A collection of blogs, Jeopardy promotional materials, and other fansites are not appropriate sources for an encyclopedic article. This article is mostly original research seemingly based on having watched Jeopardy for several decades. It is not a proper subject for an article in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. While the information is exhaustively thorough, and some of it is fairly interesting trivia...in the end it is just that, trivia. Some of the information should be salvaged for the Jeopardy! article, and the rest simply isn't encyclopedic. While it is acknowledged that the show is well-liked among Americans, how the set has changed over the years seems to lack a historical context that would warrant such an article. There are plenty of places on the web where such information is welcomed, and it is good information, it just isn't encyclopedia information. And just a side note, I don't really feel that coding errors should be counted as why a page is or is not deleted, as these can be remedied by an astute editor. JogCon (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note Just for some history, here are the previous AfDs for this:
  • Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution
  • Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (2nd nomination)
The first was closed as "keep" although it looks more like consensus was leaning towards merging, the second is quite long and closed as merge/redirect whatever was not original research and delete the rest. If this closes with a similar outcome, this should be salted or, if left as a redirtect, permanently fully protected from editing or we'll just be back here all over again in a few months... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So you believe it is more important to prevent AFDs than to discuss what is acceptable?--Lost Fugitive (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? No, I don't believe in wasting everyone's time. This is the third time this article's fate has been debated here. If consensus is to delete, it should not be re-created without proper sources, because it will just end up here again and will get debated again, and will get merged/deleted again, and what will have been accomplished by that? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Consensus changes, and there has yet to have been a strong consensus established to delete.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Possible future protection is a fairly minor point, really, but anyway, I believe there is a very strong consensus that 'all articles must be based on verifiable, reliable sources so that Knowledge (XXG) does not become a collection of unsourced "observations" and other original research. As a matter of fact, the five pillars of Knowledge (XXG), the core policy page of this entire project, states " Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. ". Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
But observations can be made from a primary source such as video. If it is descriptive then it is permissible under the original research principle.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 as repost of article previously deleted at AfD which has not been changed to address the reasons why the article was previously deleted. To take one example, in the previous AfD I expressed concern about the unsourced sentence in the article, "Instead of a 3-inch border surrounding 30 19" TV monitors, the new gameboard consisted of 30 25-inch TV screens encased in a half-inch frame." That sentence is still there and still unsourced. I don't know how anyone managed to measure the monitors and frame without doing original research; another participant in that AfD claimed he had measured the old monitors when his high school bought three of them, which is blatant original research (and doesn't explain how the old border, the new monitors, or the new frame were measured). Or to take another example, the original Jeopardy! board in 1964 is described as follows: "A Daily Double was indicated by a blue-and-yellow diagonal-stripe-patterned card between the money card and the clue. The categories above the clues were printed in cream color on cards with a somewhat darker shade of blue." Unfortunately, four paragraphs later, the article mentions that even though the show was broadcast in color from the start, no episodes from before 1972 are known to exist in color; the few remaining episodes from the show's first eight seasons exist only as black-and-white kinescopes. No source is provided to support the claims about the various shades of the Jeopardy! set from 1964 to 1972. In general, the article is barely sourced at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - as lacking sources from reliable sources, and not meeting notability. If actual sources writing about the evolution of the set can be found, I can be convinced to change my mind, but I've found none in my own searching. -- Whpq (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Metropolitan90's G4 suggestion and have tagged as such. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:57, 28 April 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 The Grim Grotto. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Queequeg (A Series of Unfortunate Events) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable element of A Series of Unfortunate Events. No secondary sources available. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 22:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: the page has now been flagged for rescue, but it is not "perfectly notable" as such a flagging would suggest. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:37, 28 April 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. JamieS93 18:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. On a professional team roster but has never played in a game. No significant media coverage to otherwise pass WP:N Grsz 21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep per Chris and Giants--Yankees10 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets the general notability criterion. - Mgm| 09:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • While I don't agree with local sourcing as "significant coverage" for WP:N, can we please stop with all the nominations of players who just got drafted please? Also stop with the article creation of unsigned free agents? That seems like a simple compromise, as AFD is a annoying place for nominating these. Secret 12:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Johnson was drafted last year, and hasn't played in a game. Grsz 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply The fact that he hasn't played in a pro game is irrelevant. The one-pro-game test is a supplemental test for automatic inclusion -- not a basis for exclusion. Remember that pro football wasn't popularized until the 1950s, whereas college football was already a widely-covered sport in the 1880s. Even today, college football is one of the most viewed sports in the USA -- far exceeding many "pro" sports (such as pro hockey and soccer). Accordingly, a college football player who has received significant, non-trivial media coverage is notable -- regardless of whether he ever goes on to play in the NFL/CFL. Folks should not be nominating college football players simply because they haven't played a pro game. Before making a nomination, they should investigate to determine whether notability is established by general standards. In this case, notability is clearly established by numerous feature articles about Jaymar in the mainstream media, including one of the country's leading newspapers, the Chicago Tribune. Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree with Cbl62's reply here. I think it is disingenuous to hold that an ice hockey, lacrosse, curling, or Gaelic football player who plays in one game as a professional or Olympian is automatically notable passing the lax WP:ATHLETE, but dismiss as "local sourcing" college football players who pass the more stringent WP:GNG through having significant media coverage (in papers that have hundreds of thousands of readers). The other sports are all great sports (okay, except curling), but they have no where remotely near the fanbase size, media exposure, or revenue-generating ability of American college football. (See: WP:CFBATHLETE). Strikehold (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Passes WP:BIO; The Chicago Tribune is a national, not local paper, and it is at least as respected as The New York Times and The Washington Post. If Jaymar Johnson's article in it is "local" coverage, it belies the argument (presented in another similar concurrent AFD) that local coverage is somehow of inferior quality. The Star Tribune is currently the 14th largest newspaper by circulation. I second Cbl62's appeal to nominators to please do a Google News search for media coverage before nominating more of these similar articles, as this recent glut of American football-related nominations is bordering on disruptive at this point. I'm not assuming anything other than good faith, but I think it is a reasonable expectation that nominators ensure for themselves that the nominated article does not (first and foremost) meet the General notability guidelines. Only if they fail that should additional criteria, like WP:ATHLETE or WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:MUSICIAN come into consideration. Strikehold (talk) 21:40, 29 April 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 |  00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE: has never played professional American football. No significant independent media coverage to otherwise pass WP:N Grsz 21:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - WP:ATHLETE is an additional criteria of the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Not meeting WP:ATHLETE in itself isn't a valid rationale for deletion any more than not meeting WP:POLITICIAN. Strikehold (talk) 00:58, 29 April 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) 02:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Without references, this is about as blatant a WP:BLP violation as it's possible to get (the sole reference is to Black Flag, which I'd venture isn't a reliable source). Even if it is referenced, I'd question whether there is anything notable about this particular case.  – iridescent 22:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak delete – even if it is varifiable and referenced, Knowledge (XXG) is not a collection of new reports. Simply mentioned as a criminal doesn't pass notability guidlines. TheAE talk/sign 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep 2 Major BBC references as well as Black Flag, and they were there when the article was nominated, though miscalled external links. " the first lawsuit to be brought against the Home Office and London police officials." From the nature of what's there , probably many more. His multi-year career clearly in not single event, and I think passes not news easily. DGG (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as it has major effects on the Home Office and Metropolitan Police. Criminal acts are notable when they have lasting effect, and this has already led to a lawsuit (less common in Britain than the US) and it's likely to lead to new rules about informants. It needs fixing though. It appears to be heavily biased against law enforcement and the lawsuit is not the first one against these parties altogether, but "the first case where the police and Home Office were being sued for failure to protect members of the public from dangerous criminals." That leaves open the option of them being sued in the past for some other reason. - Mgm| 10:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  21:15, 27 April 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) 02:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete disputed prod; fails WP:GNG; claims awards from redlink organizations but no showing that the awards are notable much less the conferees. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  21:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Week Keep on balance, though its a field where it is very hard to tell--only one criterion in WP:PROF has to be met. This is a little below par in individual items, but I think the sum is just sufficient. DGG (talk) 02:32, 28 April 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. Renata (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as notability.

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. Nja 09:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Article is about a company but gives no indication of the subject's notability. Appears to be half encyclopaedic, half spam. Cites only its own website, previously tagged as advert. HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: Not sure if I am doing this right but: The EI Group is NOT owned by FirstEnergy. Never has been, never will be. Might be another company with a similar name. The EI Group is privatly held. So a merge and redirect would not make sense, plus it would be incorrect. Also how do you describe a company without it being a "spamfest worthy of their PR department"?User:Zallen82 —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC).
  • Comment: What relevant information? OK maybe the lead sentence, the rest is a spamfest worthy of their PR department. – ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree - merge and redirect. Deb (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment perhaps it should be merged and redirected, but even to do so would require a total re-write. I'd be inclined to agree with the G11 but, being an inclusionist, I'd rather put it to the community. My worry is that to merge it could diminish the receiving article. As for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the article is almost all bathwater and no baby- if it had substance to it, I probably wouldn't have nominated it, it gives me no pleasure to see an article deleted. HJ Mitchell (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I' 20:54, 27 April 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. G12: Copyvio of Black Kite 22:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How to bypass blocked websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed, thus listed here as unencylopedic how-to-do guide Passportguy (talk) 20:51, 27 April 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) 02:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Music festival that fails the classic definition of Wikinotability. Sceptre 20:40, 27 April 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. Nja 09:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Elementary Drug Abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced essay that complete ignores WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Delete. Yintaɳ  20:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am working on this page for a school project I am new to creating on wikipedia so I am not yet used to everything. Much of my information is from books on education in schools, but I have not yet cited them, but will be shortly.The article is clearly not finished and was only posted so that my fellow group members and classmates could view the progress. All necessary information will be added to comply with wikipedia standards shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMarq (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC) --EMarq (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)EMarq

For your information, Knowledge (XXG) is not a webhost for schoolprojects and such (see WP:NOT). Furthermore, original research is not accepted (see WP:OR) and articles have to carry a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). In short, I see your point but I don't think your article has much chance of surviving here, sorry. Maybe you should host it on Facebook or a similar social networking site? Regards, Yintaɳ  21:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The information that is going to be provided in this article are taken directly from published educational research books. Therefor they are not original research. I am adding the proper citations for the various books that will be used. --EMarq (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)EMarq


Just a comment; do not copy exactly what the books say, that would nullify any chance the article has of surviving deletion, as copyright violations are strictly forbidden under Knowledge (XXG) policy, see WP:COPYVIO. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The writer admitted to using information, not the exact wording of the source. Information can't be copyrighted. Still, Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to publish opinion pieces. Be nice and send the creator a copy before deleting. - Mgm| 09:29, 28 April 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. Nja 09:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Apparently this is a substance that's known in Kingston upon Hull, but I'm not finding any reliable sources that would satisfy the notability requirements. Note: When searching the Web, watch out for irrelevant juxtapositions of "chocolate chip" and "spice." Deor (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, but very weakly, and without prejudice. A "chip+spice"+paprika+garlic Google search with a few limits seems to yield a number of relevant entries, and confirm the product's existence in several catalogues of spice blenders, but I don't see anything like a reliable source to confirm any of the recipes. Then again, I always include paprika and garlic in chocolate chip cookies, too. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep For now at least. A quick search on the usual web engines provided me with an email address and phone number of the manufacturers. Perhaps if the article is given more time it may evolve with images and references. Trevor Marron (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Additional comment. A further search found a supplier of the product Trevor Marron (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I never doubted that the stuff exists, merely the existence of sources that would support an article. By the way, the manufacturer (I think) of the product you cite seems to be experiencing some problems. Deor (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, their product is in such demand that someone took the domain name and was using it to sell their products. So they had it shut down. lol! Trevor Marron (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There are any number of french fry seasonings. According to the french fry article itself, Old Bay Seasoning is served on french fries in some areas of the USA. Perhaps this is the origin of the "American" name? At any rate, "french fry seasoning" is something much broader than what this article is apparently about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Established how (reliably, that is)? Deor (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Give it a fixed period of time and a revamp. If, after that, we're in the same position as now, it should then be deleted.
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. Nja 09:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This is a very borderline case. Being a student assoc pres, clearly isn't notable. Most of this, especially negative claims, is based on a student newspaper. Most items covering him aren't indepth, That which is in-depth, such as this is a highly bias attack, and casts doubt on the source. I was relectunt to nominate, as this meets technical requirements of WP:BIO (as far as having multiple non-trivial sources), but only barely, and seems to be a creation of a single-purpose-account, set out to attack somebody within the letter of the rules of Knowledge (XXG). Rob (talk) 20:24, 27 April 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 and redirect to Characters_in_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events#Snow_Scouts. Cheers. I' 13:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Article is not notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) entry, and stands out markedly from other articles in WP:LEM. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The project has been somewhat inactive for a while. I am not certain who runs it now. I myself am a member. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:41, 28 April 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) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes, she has been knighted. No, I do not believe this person to be notable. The subject also lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications which reinforces my belief. JBsupreme (talk) 19:21, 27 April 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. Nja 09:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No references support notability. Only claim to notability is that he was a drummer for Kenny Chesney. No individual notability. -- Mufka 18:55, 27 April 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. Nja 08:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Think the article maybe fiction. In the United Kingdom "Freeway Cola" is a own-brand (store brand) cola from the Lidl supermarket, The Dutch Knowledge (XXG) indicates the same applies in the Netherlands, I've looked up the trademark database and Lidl own the trademark Can't find anything on "Mark Leham" which is surprising considering he is supposed to be "the 321th richest person in the UK" and CEO of a London company I can't find anything about and decides to release profit figures in dollars. It can't speak for the United States, South Africa and New Zealand which also are supposed to have this cola with a "special ingredient" Holkingers (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Freeway Cola is sold by many local restaurants and has won a People's Choice Award recently in Food & Drink for value. Yes, Lidl is the main seller of it but it deserves an article as it has been in the press on more than one occasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.97.190 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 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. After considering the points in the XFD, I contend this was the best option. Nja 16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Bislig City. Redirected, article not deleted thus some merger of relevant information can be undertaken by a willing editor Nja 08:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Article recently created with the opening phrase "Land of the Ebnex and Cooldudes the locals call this place". (Also created as Sug- ubon with most of the content copied from Baton Rouge.) Unreferenced. A Google search turned up no English-language hits indicating this was a known place. Declined Speedy and contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:24, 27 April 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 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. Strong views on each side, with no clear consensus Nja 08:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Broda Otto Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article on a physician who appears most notable for the fact that some of his more idiosyncratic ideas have been warmly embraced by the modern alternative medical community. There has been a persistent effort by anonymous IPs to insert The Truth into this article. Most recently, in response to my request for actual reliable sources, one of these IPs responded by essentially blanking and stubbing the article. While I was first inclined to view this as obviously WP:POINTy, I got to thinking that maybe the IP was right.

So for the record: I believe that we lack independent, reliable third-party sources dealing with this subject. Therefore, it's impossible to write a useful, neutral encyclopedia article on him, and the subject fails the notability criteria set forth in WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:FRINGE. MastCell  17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Note to the newly arrived: Some editors seem to be voting without reading the debate. Please don't do that, or consider the article only in its present state of progress. Granted that the article was lightly referenced before one complaint about it was suddenly escalated to an AfD in less than 14 hours. Things have changed. The nom's stated case against notability, and claimed impossibility to write with reliable sources, has been steadily chipped away toward the vanishing point. Milo 07:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD, as I understand it, is not a process of "voting." Good advice here is to read the entire discussion (blechhh!!!) as suggested above, then express your recommendation and support it with your stated rationale and/or evidence. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Only in Knowledge (XXG) can you have a vote that isn't a vote, its a delicious wikioxymoron. Everyone casts a vote similar to a jury proceeding based on presented evidence, then the closing administrator can ignore consensus and make a judicial decree based on their one true vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me repeat. AfD, as I understand it, is not a process of "voting." Good advice here is to read the entire discussion (blechhh!!!) as suggested above, then express your recommendation and support it with your stated rationale and/or evidence. Please engage in the spirit of "what's best for the encyclopedia" instead of "this is what I desire." I realize I am violating my own advice by weighing in here. All I can do is contribute in good faith, and hope that others do the same. That is all. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD consensus is properly done in three parts: a counted popular vote (keep, delete, or neutral), a judged intellectual debate (the reason given and replies), and a reconciliation of the vote and the debate. Milo 01:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


You didn't look at the references before Mastcell removed them: There is an article on him and his research in Time magazine. I am surprised you didn't do a search and find it yourself in Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
A reference to some research he was a junior co-author on in 1936? I don't think that speaks at all to his notability. I'll say again, Barnes (not some old research) is not discussed as the subject in reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Notability doesn't expire. He is listed as the first author in the paper published in Science. I don't know where you got "junior co-author" from. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, Gale's Biography and Genealogy Master Index turns up zero hits (so this is searching print resources that might not be online). Also, Credo Reference online turns up zero hits. Agree his subject matter as expressed in his books might warrant some attention (I'm not sayin') but other than writing them, no hint that he is notable. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think being excluded from a single reference work has ever been a Knowledge (XXG) criterion for exclusion. The rule has always been two or more reliable sources so that all the material in the article is reliably sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Response. These aren't "single" reference works, rather, they are online conglomerations of a larger number of traditional print volumes. BGMI is an online database of 12.7 million entries in over 3,400 volumes. Credo is a collection of standard reference sources, including biographical ones, of 3.2 million entries in over 414 standard reference titles. I'd hazard a guess that most of the material in these copyrighted sources won't show up in a Google search either. That's why I search them and add this information. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Either way, exclusion from a source, or set of sources is not a Knowledge (XXG) rule for non-notability. Inclusion isn't a guarantee for inclusion. Who's Who wouldn't count since it is a "pay to play" system.
I'd rather not wikilawyer regarding "rules" for notability. Rather, I'm searching for evidence to bolster his notability using standard reference sources and not finding any. For the record, when you cite Who's Who you should indicate which of the many titles to which you are referring to by that phrase. Marquis Who's Who has traditionally NOT been "pay for play" (though I have my personal doubts). E.g., I am actually in a recent volume of the Marquis Who's Who in America and I never gave them a cent. In any case, my point is to present supporting evidence to justify my opinion that the gentleman is not notable. The hive mind will decide. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
While you may not be wikilawyering you did vote to delete the article and gave as your reason: "Gale's Biography and Genealogy Master Index turns up zero hits ..." You didn't talk about the strength or weaknesses of the existing references that are used to support notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me note that we're not "voting" here. That's not the purpose of this process. As far as the strength or weakness of the existing article's references, that case is being made quite directly in other parts of this discussion. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Previous AfD was here (don't ask me why the talk page doesn't link to it). Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO from available evidence. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As even the nominator says, " some of his more idiosyncratic ideas have been warmly embraced by the modern alternative medical community. " In other words, notable alternative medicine. The test for notability is not whether they're mainstream, or likely to be correct! The books were of widespread significance also at the time published: From WorldCat Identities: His main book, 3 eds. in english and chinese, still held in 423 libraries. For popular medicine books from the 1970's , that's significant. Review in the Townsend Letter, a major source for alternative medicine--unreliable for the actual state of medical knowledge, but a good source for what's notable within its field; Modern reference to it it in a reliable journal. Kent, S. "Hormones and heart disease.: Geriatrics. 1979 Jun;34(6):97-102. PMID 447079 (abstract refers to him). I see from Web of medline that, besides the books, he published in major medical journals--Medline lists 12, WebofScience some additional ones. the journals include : several in JAMA, 2 in Science (journal) one in Lancet, several in American Journal of Physiology. I have added them to the article. (to be exact, I've restored them: they were in earlier versions, but were deleted, though they're certainly RSs. Though undoubtedly not intended by the nominator, the apparent technique of letting the article be reduced to a stub and then nominating it for AfD is often seen in attempting to discredit material relating to alternative medicine and some other fields also. (My own view of alternative medicine could not be more negative; I think most of it indistinguishable from quackery--but that does not affect notability).DGG (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC) (I added some material in italics here; I did not intend to make other than a general comment, and I apologize to Mastcell if my wording implied otherwise.) DGG (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note:there is an earlier AfD one year ago at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Broda O. Barnes, withdrawn by nominator as " Seems to be a notable subject, although their views appear nowadays to be outside the medical mainstream." The nominator this time apparently did not find it. DGG (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Keep And please look at the article before Mastcell and an anonymous IP did massive trimming: here is the article when Mastcell nominated it. Here it is before the massive trimming for the AFD. I am restoring the article to the previous point. I cant think of anything more deceptive than deleting the TIME magazine article on him and his research, then claiming there are no mainstream references on him. A simple Google News Archive search turns up this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of those articles in the Google News search relate to random people who share one of his names, the rest are in the quack publication Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, which is not a reliable source for anything. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You math is a bit off. Of the first ten all concern him, and four are from the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients is a reliable source, even if the theories they are expounding are not "true". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing "truth" with "verifiability". His theories don't have to be true to be in Knowledge (XXG), or we wouldn't have articles on contradictory religions and philosophies. Google News archive references are inherently reliable, even when the information isn't true. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
random people who share his name, including his very rare first name, and happen to be working on exactly the same topic during the period he was active and promoting the same eccentric non-mainstream theory?. I've now put in his earlier papers, where he was working on basic physiology, and one can see the trend in his work to his later peculiar practical theories. Which of the ones I put in do you challenge? Yes, there was at least one later person with the name, and I did not include those few papers in my list. Neither did I include the about 20 abstracts of symposium presentations. The Townsend Letter, which is indeed a major quack publication, is suitable for showing what he said & what sympathetic people thought about it--but certainly not for showing validity of the work DGG (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG) only requires two reliable third-party references to be notable. Time magazine isn't a quack publication. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The Time article is not about Barnes, it is about the effect of hormones on fish sex organs. It mentions him once, in passing, as a junior member of a research team. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yet it still counts toward notability according to Knowledge (XXG) rules. It isn't a "directory" listing which would be excluded from notability. The article discusses his research in the most popular of the popular press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral. A fairly thorough and NPOV article, but the lack of useful biographic sources makes this difficult. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for reminding me why I avoid AfD whenever possible. Look at the references in the current version. No, really, look at them. One to the Townsend Letter, the definition of an unreliable source. Seriously - the Townsend Letter literally warns the reader: "Information presented may not be factually correct", yet you're pillorying me and defending this as a suitable source for a supposedly serious encyclopedia. One to the Broda Barnes Foundation, which promotes his claims. One to an 80-year-old TIME article mentioning him in passing - the definition of "trivial coverage" which does not establish notability. Four references to obscure alternative-medicine tracts, which are used to substantiate most of the facts in the article. A reference to an article in a non-indexed alt-med journal which asserts a counterfactual view of hypothyroidism. A letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer - let me repeat that - a letter to the editor. Maybe I'll write a letter to the editor of my local paper about Barnes, and we can cite that as more evidence of notability. A low-quality popular-health opinion column from a newspaper. These sources suck. Any article built from these sources will suck. Most of all, people who restore this crappy sourcing along with aggressive implications of bad faith, who really have no excuse for not knowing better, suck. MastCell  21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, as it should be, verifiability and notability wins out over "truth". Truth only exists in mathematics. Knowledge (XXG) only concerns itself with verifiable facts. The only question to ask is: is he notable based on the available references that are independent of him? The answer is yes. Are his theories correct? It doesn't matter. Newtonian theories on alchemy were incorrect, the Nobel committee recognized people for discoveries that were later discredited, yet they are notable. If encyclopedias removed articles that weren't true, we would have no articles on religion or philosophy. Mastcell writes: "Maybe I'll write a letter to the editor of my local paper about Barnes, and we can cite that as more evidence of notability" The difference here is that a newspaper used its editorial power to decide to print or not print the letter. Authoring a piece of writing vs. being published is a quantum leap. "People who restore this crappy sourcing along with aggressive implications of bad faith, who really have no excuse for not knowing better, suck" is a personal attack and has no place here in Knowledge (XXG). As a reminder of Mastcells "trimming" the article it went from this to this, judge for yourselves. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't really discuss "truth" in my post, which makes your response a bit puzzling. I discussed verifiability and reliability of sourcing, as well as the "trivial coverage" exceptions in WP:N - all policy-based arguments. I don't think you're actually addressing the substance of these arguments. I have no problem covering incorrect claims; I do have a problem covering claims which have attracted no useable reliable sources. If you truly believe that letters to the editor of a newspaper are good sources, then I don't think we're likely to come to common ground - but I would suggest you are way outside the mainstream of this community and would be happy to solicit outside opinions on the use of such sources. You're also making a sloppy and incorrect assertion about my edits to the article - please check your diffs, fix them, and be a bit more diligent in the future. I left the article in this state; the stubbing you erroneously ascribe to me was actually performed by an IP. Judge for yourself. MastCell  23:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Then I apologize to crediting the stubbing to you, you approved of it, didn't reverse it, and used it to bring the article to AFD. The sources used meet all criteria for reliability by Knowledge (XXG) and by Google. You seem to be looking for "scientific validity" of some sort. I know of no rules that exclude letters to the editor. Choosing to publish or not publish a letter is the essence of editorial control. Paid reporters don't have a monopoly on information, and aren't always correct. The New York Times prints a paragraph of corrections in every issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    No, I didn't "approve" the stubbing (in fact, as the nomination statement makes clear, I considered it borderline disruptive), and if you're holding me personally responsible for every edit that I fail to reverse... well, does that sound reasonable to you? And then you mention what I call the Jayson Blair fallacy: the New York Times sometimes prints errors. The Townsend Letter sometimes prints errors. Therefore, the New York Times and the Townsend Letter are equivalently valuable encyclopedic sources. That doesn't make sense. MastCell  03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I have made no such statement or used any such logic. Again you are confusing "scientific validity" and "truth" with Knowledge (XXG)'s notability and verifiability. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't care if his theories are right or wrong or if the New York Times or the Townsend Letter wrote about him. It requires at least two independent sources. Google decides what is a news source and what isn't. Once in a while Knowledge (XXG) blacklists a source, I have not seen Townsend Letter on that list. Alchemy is just as valid as Chemistry; and Astrology is as valid as Astronomy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • These arguments strike me as deeply flawed - Google doesn't decide which sources are "news sources". Knowledge (XXG) does draw a distinction between the New York Times and the Townsend Letter, or at least any Wikipedian with a basic understanding of WP:RS draws such a distinction. Alchemy and astrology have no relevance here; both are supported by numerous reliable sources and so are clearly notable and not liable to deletion. I'm not aware of what "blacklist" you're talking about; there is a spam blacklist, but it is not really intended to deal with questions of source reliability but only with editorial spamming and abuse. MastCell  17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep As the creator of the topic, I would like to remind everyone that this article was previously considered for deletion--and voted to be kept! This is a very interesting biographical article about a medical doctor with a minority view that is experiencing a modern revival of sorts. Look at the dates of the recent books and articles about him--all after the year 2000 even though his seminal work was in 1976. Dr. Stephan Langer M.D. in his recent book based on his work: "Solved: the Riddle of Illness" said that Dr. Barnes should have received the Nobel Prize (search inside the book on Amazon, page 166). Dr. Jacques Hertoghe M.D., 3rd generation from the world renowned Hertoghe family of endocrinologists spoke at his foundation multiple times:Videos of Dr. Hertoghe at Barnes Foundation and called Dr. Barnes "a real pioneer" Dr. Hertoghe M.D.: 2:50 min mark and furthermore asserted that "Dr. Barnes was right". Hardly unnotable! If there are concerns about the quality of the references or style of the article, please give us time to find better sources or fix them-thanks. Mkronber (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Instead of just pointing me to reliable sources and telling me to read it. Quote something in reliable sources that gives reasons why the sources used in the article are not reliable. Your using a straw man attack, picking out what you think is the weakest reference and using that to denigrate the entire article. You aren't making a distinction between references used for notability and those used for verifiability. Remember, only two references are required for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I think other contributers have already made more than adequate answer to that, and many of the references to his peer reviewed publications in mainstream medical journals have now been added to the topic. I am simply pointing out some additional highlights of his notability, and the fact that he was held in high regard by other world renowned doctors. Deleting someone in that catagory of notability and who has published so widely, is not appropriate I think. Your objections in your previous comments in the topic have been more related to what his views were and whether they agree with the mainstream thinking, but that is not an appropriate reason to remove someone from Knowledge (XXG). That being said, I do appreciate your push for better referencing and that has been substantially improved thanks to other contributers. Mkronber (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, indispensably notable in the field of marginal hypothyroidism and low body temperature disorders. The article currently doesn't even mention Professor Barnes' academic career, which can establish notability through his established academic expertise as combined with the many citations to his best-known popular book.

Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(academics): "Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study."

Barnes' best known popular book, Hypothyroidism: The Unsuspected Illness cites many journal references, and according to Amazon.com has 77 references to it in subsequent books .
A biographic subchapter devoted to Broda Barnes, "A salute", was requested by readers, and is written by Stephen E. Langer, a Berkeley, California, physician who was personally acquainted with him. (Langer, 2000,2006).
Broda Otto Barnes was an undergraduate chemistry student at the University of Denver. Barnes became an instructor of physiological chemistry at Western Reserve University for two years and received an M.S. there in 1930. Barnes received his Ph.D. at University of Chicago in 1931 and taught physiology there for five years. The thyroid gland was an unwillingly assigned subject for his doctoral thesis that ironically caused him to become well-known in later life. Barnes completed his M.D. in 1937 at Rush Medical College, and for two years was Assistant Professor of Medicine at University of Illinois. "The brilliance of his research papers on thyroid function led to his being named chairman of the Health Education Department at the University of Denver" (Langer, 2000,2006). Later, Barnes was appointed professor affiliate in the department of physiology at Colorado State University, 1963-1968. During the nonacademic periods of his life Dr. Barnes was a practicing physician after 1937. Over 100 of Dr. Barnes' publications on the thyroid gland and related subjects appeared in leading scientific and medical journals and three books. See p.xvii; Solved the Riddle of Illness; Stephen E. Langer, M.D., James F. Scheer, 2000,2006
Barnes' method was introduced to a wide audience in Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach by Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw. This book was an NYT #1 best seller in 1982. As described in that book, Pearson apparently used the method to successfully resolve his case of low hand temperature.
Much of Dr. Barnes' scientific career biography and major research findings are contained in his book with technical details for physicians Heart Attack Rareness in Thyroid-Treated Patients. This rare and valued book currently sells used for $118-195, so it is difficult to find for citations.
Note to those who wonder why the Barnes methods didn't become mainstream - it has nothing to do with quackery. Barnes' seminal study of normal body temperature, based on a nationwide sample of military inductees, was published in 1942 just as everyone ceased paying attention due to the onset of WWII. As a result it was never introduced into the medical school curriculum. Later, he pointed out that the Barnes Basal Temperature Test costs nothing (and by my inference, there's no industry profit in it). It has the disadvantage that the physician must rely on accurate awaking temperature chart reports by the patient, which isn't necessarily easy or possible. Finally, Barnes pointed out that despite the observed advantages of thyroid extract over synthetic levothyroxine (T4) and synthetic levothyronine (T3), there simply isn't enough natural thyroid extract available to treat all the patients who need it. Milo 00:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • These lines of argument are neither here nor there, but they seem misguided. WWII did not cause people to "stop paying attention" to medical developments, as anyone familiar with penicillin or the entire field of cancer chemotherapy is aware. Claiming that a major discovery was "suppressed" because it threatened "industry profits" is the hallmark of quackery - thyroid function tests cost very little, often < $20, and are much more accurate than temperature measurement, so it's ridiculous to assert a conspiracy when common sense dictates the use of blood tests. Finally, it's ridiculous to assert that the "difficulty" of relying on patient measurements precluded widespread use of the test. How do you think diabetes is managed? And, of course, there is no scientific evidence that natural thyroid extract is superior to levothyroxine - quite the opposite, since levothyroxine dose is standardized.

    But to go to the Knowledge (XXG)-specific arguments: these are not appropriate encyclopedic sources. The fact that a book cites a lot of references may be impressive to a superficial reader, but it's hardly an indicator of significance. By the way, you describe one such source as "rare and valued"; others might describe it as "obscure and out of print." MastCell  03:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

On side notes about educating you on this subject: Thyroid blood tests are always misleading when the problem of low body temperature and accompanying insufficiency of replicated protein synthesis in many body systems is not due to low thyroid hormone. Rather the problem may include, or be entirely, difficult-to-blood-test marginal hypoadrenalism. Historic confusion resulted from the fact that some of the four major (but 50-some minor) adrenal hormones contribute (IIRC) about 15% of body heat, rather than all heat being generated by thyroid hormones as classically assumed. When all thyroid blood tests are normal, some additional thyroid hormone apparently has an adrenergic replacement effect of raising low body temperature. Dr. Barnes discovered this factor later in his career when he began co-prescribing with thyroid, adrenergic low-dose daily prednisone in what he called the "combination treatment" (See Hypothyroidism: The Unsuspected Illness).
Please be more careful with use of quote marks, attribution, and representation. I didn't use that sup-word nor claim a conspiracy. Stupidity usually beats conspiracy, the medical-industrial complex has both, but this is neither. Methods that are overlooked, inconvenient to manage, and as well, not profitable, aren't likely to be used except when foreground methods fail and patients insist on using the alternative (as thousands have).
I didn't generalize by saying that WWII caused people to stop paying attention to all medical developments; penicillin was in any case a war necessity. It's only common sense that some research and its researchers were overlooked due to attention focused on the sudden war emergency. The 1942 date coincidence for Barnes' research being overlooked has to be considered as a persuasive explanation.
...there is no scientific evidence that natural thyroid extract is superior to levothyroxine - quite the opposite, since levothyroxine dose is standardized. IIRC, natural thyroid extract is also standardized. However, the superiority of thyroid extract treatment is a clinical observation of outcomes, not a scientific research result. That doesn't mean it's wrong, and it is biologically plausible. It's probably related to a combination of factors, say, better control due to the inclusion in natural extract of reverse T3 (rT3), or, perhaps that the minor included hormones are better replacement adrenergics when thyroid and adrenal together enter the cell nucleus to initiate protein transcription.
...it's ridiculous to assert that the "difficulty" of relying on patient measurements precluded widespread use of the test. Well, find a genuine mercury basal thermometer (1/10°F increments), follow Barnes' instructions and keep a chart for one month, and then we'll discuss your revised opinion after you have actual experience. Milo 08:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, here's a list of the Barnes Basal Temperature Test management issues: (1) Forgetting to shake down the thermometer the previous night (can't exercise before a basal reading). (2) Forgetting to do the test due to morning fog (can't go back to bed to get a basal reading). (3) Can't read the thermometer or write the chart due to eyes blurry or not adjusted to glasses at awaking. (4) Can't stay in bed for 10 minutes due to urgent need to urinate (typical with BPH). (5) Don't want to stay in bed for 10 minutes for enough days due to restlessness. (6) Thermometer shaking too tiring for fatigued or older people to keep up for enough days. (7) Falling asleep during the test and being late for work without a second alarm (and a snooze alarm is often only eight minutes). (8) Potential risk of breaking the armpit thermometer by rolling over on it while dozing. (9) Dropping the thermometer and breaking it due to morning incoordination or age. (10) Sometimes daily basal temperatures are so erratic that a month of measurements is needed to determine an average, which compounds the other issues.
Those were issues with mercury basal thermometers in Dr. Barnes lifetime. Digital basal thermometers do abate some of them. Diabetic glucometer use may be painful, but is easier to manage than BBTT because patients are fully awake. Milo 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You'll forgive me if I decline to be educated on a medical topic by an anonymous editor citing "IIRC" as their source. MastCell  19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Says one anon to another?? You forgot to thank me for reporting integrity, by flagging as memory-conditional an obscure but possibly useful physiology statistic. Milo 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Think past that facile response for a second. The reason we insist on reliable, third-party sources is because we are all anonymous here. I'm not asking you to believe anything on the basis of my personal authority; I'm referring to scholarly sources, or the lack thereof. You, on the other hand, keep throwing out vague and far-fetched claims backed with "IIRC", or "According to user review #21 on Amazon.com...", or your personal credibility on the topic of thyroid hormone replacement. This is why we can't do without verifiable, reliably sourced material here, and why this article is going to be poor and unencyclopedic unless we find some. MastCell  19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources is for the article. Talk pages consensus forms from many other sources as well, notably including reasoned hypotheses which distinguish the plausible from the mythical. Educated opinion is not binary. It forms gradually from the weight of accumulating evidence, and incremental judgments as to the value of debate arguments. A talk page debate is sometimes like conversation in an academic hallway. Not everything worth contributing to a discussion among reasonable, educated people is worth documenting, but it's only fair to provide one's collegues with a hint as to how certain one is of the contribution. You asked (MastCell 07:47) "perhaps someone will enlighten me with a reference". Since I didn't recall it either, and wanted to know, I charitably assumed that you also wanted to know what Starr claims "type 2" to be. Pardon my assumption that you were actually interested in learning a reasoned alternative theory as opposed to mere reference triumph over infidels. Milo 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd still like to know whether there is any evidence of the existence of "type 2" hypothyroidism in the medical literature. Your lecture doesn't really answer that question. I'll make it easy for you and ignore the personalized rhetoric above; just drop a source here or on my talk page if you find one. MastCell  05:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, we agree about that. Milo 12:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I did the research. See Origin of "Type 2" below: Milo 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Origin of "Type 2" According to Hypothyroidism Type 2: The Epidemic, Dr. Barnes and Dr. Lawrence S. Sonkin MD, PhD, believed that "Peripheral Resistance Syndrome" was responsible for the vast majority of hypothyroidism (p.59).
According to a review of "Thyroid hormone resistance syndromes" (McDermott MT, Am J Med. 1993 Apr;94(4):424-32. Abstract), "Selective peripheral resistance to thyroid hormone (PerRTH)..." had been identified in one patient with "normal serum thyroid hormone and TSH levels but was clinically hypothyroid and improved with thyroid hormone administration. All of these disorders are probably more common than is generally recognized and are often misdiagnosed and inappropriately treated."
L Wikström, et al, (EMBO J. 1998 January 15; 17(2): 455–461. Abstract) "developed mice lacking the thyroid hormone receptor TR alpha 1." ... In addition to abnormal hearts, "The mice have a body temperature 0.5 degrees C lower than normal and exhibit a mild hypothyroidism, whereas their overall behavior and reproduction are normal."
"Type 1" and "type 2" hypothyroidism were defined by Dr. Mark Starr, MD, and Dr. Thomas H. Boc, DDS (p. 45). They were each other's patients. Dr. Boc had weight gain with fatigue, normal thyroid blood tests, basal temperature of 2ºF low, and a positive response to thyroid hormone within three months (p. xv). Dr Boc's two school age daughters also had a positive response to treatment (p. xvi). "Around 7% of Americans suffer Type 1 hypothyroism." "...blood tests do not detect Type 2 hypothyroidism . Type 2 hypothyroidism is usually inherited." (p. 45). Add 7% to the about 33% diagnosable only by symptoms or low basal temperature, and that gives about a 40% figure according to Dr. Barnes' survey research, which justifies Dr. Starr's use of the "epidemic" term in the book title. Milo 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments to closing admin I think this AFD is being based on whether Barnes ideas from the 1930s have an any scientific validity and are relevant today. I don't know, and Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't care. The inclusion of biographies is based solely on notability and verifiability, and this article meets both criteria easily. Some deception was involved in the AFD since the article was vandalized down to a stub just before the AFD and all the references were removed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • In the AfD nom, I specifically noted that the article had been stubbed by an IP, and even provided the diff so that people could easily see the before-and-after. You erroneously ascribed the stubbing to me and called me "extremely deceptive", suggesting you didn't read the nomination very carefully and have no qualms about assuming malice despite the fact that you haven't done basic due diligence about the facts on the ground. You then repeat these accusations despite the fact that I've corrected your erroneous assumption. You then lectured me about personal attacks. I won't even get into your charge of "vandalism."

      Mostly, I'm bothered by the misdirection. I have consistently made source-based and policy-based arguments for why this article should be deleted. You consistently assume that I'm arguing correctness of Barnes' views; that is not the basis of the deletion nomination. The closing admin can do what they like; this process has significantly depressed me with regard to the current state of Wikipedian discourse, and I'll unwatch the page now. MastCell  18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you have expressed your opinion on reliable sources and denigrated the existing sources. You have not quoted any Knowledge (XXG) rule that excludes any of the references that I have restored to the article. It is a big difference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The proper thing would have been to restore all the properly sourced material, instead of using the now-stubbed article as an excuse to AFD based on the then-current condition. You also didn't include the link to the previous AFD on the talk page. Everyone who clicked to comment saw a one line article with no references, and that is very deceptive. And, as I have wrote many time before, you denigrate the current references as not being mainstream, which I interpret as you are looking for scientific validity. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't care about scientific validity, and has not declared any of the publications used in the current article as non-reliable, or has Google News. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Anyone actually reading my nomination would be aware of the circumstances surrounding the stubbing; presumably, if deception were my goal, I would not have provided a handy diff in my nomination. Anyone in too much of a rush to vilify me to actually read the nomination probably shouldn't be commenting here. I didn't un-stub the article because I thought people might look askance if I put the article into my "preferred" state immediately before AfD'ing it. I thought that might lead people to accuse me of being - what's the word you keep using? ...deceptive. Silly me. MastCell  22:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There's a whole lot of posturing in this discussion but noone has addressed the concerns raised by MastCell. Frankly, there are no reliable third-party sources with non-trivial discussion of the subject, and this whole debate reeks of an attempt to make everything look 'all too difficult' so that the article is not deleted per policy. Hazir (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The notability issue was addressed about 22 hours before you posted. Notability seems to be completely satisfied per Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(academics)#Notes_and_examples #15 – see my post (Milo 00:55, 29 April) below. My Reliable source check 0 post below addresses the claimed lack of reliable third-party sources. Milo 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reliable source check 0: Hypothyroidism Type 2: The Epidemic by Mark Starr, M.D. (2005)
Since the the notability issue seems to be adequately addressed (see Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(academics)#Notes_and_examples #15 quoted above with fulfilling sources), I've looked into the nominator's claimed issue of lack of "reliable third-party sources". Nom's claim is "impossible to write a useful, neutral encyclopedia article on him," implying not that the editing work hasn't been done, but that such sources don't exist.
Langer, 2000,2006, was referenced in the article last year, yet there was no mention of Professor Barnes' academic career until I researched it above: a routine notability citation having not the slightest controversy. It was possible; it just hadn't been done.
The substantial number of 77 citations at Amazon.com (see above) are likely to included nontrivial mentions and reviews of Barnes' research and practice methods. Sure enough, I clicked on Amazon.com Hypothyroidism Type 2, did a search inside for "Barnes", and got 103 hits. The author is board certified in both pain medicine and physical medicine/rehabilitation. His endocrinology credits are as a patient and then a student of New York Cornell endocrinologist Lawrence Sonkin, MD, Ph.D., with involvement in clinical studies on the relationship and treatment of hormone imbalances.
Three references to one page of Starr, 2005 (p.174) existed last year, but given the nom's complaint of lack of reliable third party sources, Starr's 103 mentions are clearly underutilized. In over 250 pages, there's a pretty good chance that Barnes' name will be visible anywhere the book is opened. I'll make a reasonable deduction that 103 mentions is not only collectively nontrivial, but is a major theme of the work.
The result of my check appears to be adequate reliable secondary source references, which have simply not been utilized to back up the statements in Barnes' own sources. Per Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion#Editing:

WP:ATD: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

Milo 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I still don't think notability has been established, nor do some other participants less verbose than I, but I've already argued that to death. But let's be clear: the sources you're citing are not reliable sources, and they're not really independent of their subject, either.

Let's take Starr's book. You've omitted some key facts that may help to determine whether this is a reliable source as Knowledge (XXG) defines the term. First of all, the book is published by New Voice Publishing, which appears to be a one-person operation (). His book blurb repeats the claim that 40% of people suffer from "hypothyroidism type 2". Not only is the 40% number widely at variance with current understanding, but there is to my knowledge no such medical condition as "type 2" hypothyroidism (perhaps someone will enlighten me with a reference). So the book makes claims which are widely viewed as incorrect. That is not to say that the book or the author are "wrong", but it is to say that this is an inappropriate source for an encyclopedia aspiring to be a serious, respectable reference work.

Since people apparently think that I'm just making things up, I'll quote some of the relevant passages from WP:V, which is a core policy here:

Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.

I don't see any sources meeting this definition here, or in the article. The Broda Barnes foundation is not third-party, and you might be hard-pressed to demonstrate a reputation for accuracy in their claims. Starr's book is published by an obscure one-person publishing operation, and makes claims which would not stand up to third-party scholarly scrutiny. The Townsend Letter fails on all counts.

Maybe you don't understand my objection, or I haven't phrased it clearly enough. I don't want more Google hits on Barnes' name. I want more... reliable... sources - more reliable third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But when I ask for them, I get more video links from the Barnes Foundation, or self-published books making questionable medical claims, along with a bunch of not-so-veiled abuse. I did actually do a Google search; I saw those sources, but they don't meet the criteria set forth in this site's policies. Do you understand? I made a real effort to find "reliable third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I didn't find any, and I don't think you have either. MastCell  07:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again it seems its gets down to "scientific validity". You deny it but everything you write denigrating the sources gets to that point. Google requires two sources, there are more than two sources, both under editorial control, the requirement from Knowledge (XXG) for reliability. Is it your premise that Mcgraw Hill has no editorial control with their two page biography of him, or that the biography at the University of Chicago is a sham? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Again you are also using the straw man argument by picking the weakest publisher of the dozen references and ignoring The University of Chicago and McGraw Hill. Knowledge (XXG) requires two independent, and there they are. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm well-studied in WP:V/WP:RS. I just don't agree with some of your claims under it.
Absent evidence of fraud or wild implausibility, it doesn't greatly matter for reliable sourcing whether anyone at WP thinks the 40% number is widely at variance with current understanding, or whether there is or isn't any such medical condition as "type 2" hypothyroidism. Starr says there is, Starr is a licensed medical doctor, and doctors historically name the conditions they discover.
Btw, according to a Amazon.com reviewer found on a page I cited previously, "type 2" is a thyroid hormone resistance phenomenon. Without reading the evidence, it seems biologically plausible as a third category of conditions causing low body temperature that might respond to additional thyroid above population normal blood level.
New Voice Publishing claims to have a team, albeit headed by one or two Ph.D.s, offering a substantial list of publishing services. There are some indeterminate number of people involved, possibly part-timers contracted by the job. I think NVP makes it clear that they intend to prevent censorship by the medical system, but it's difficult to determine the difference between insufficient fact-checking and avoiding censorship. I'd say send this one to the Reliable sources noticeboard.
Until then, 76 more sources to go...
What's your objection to Langer, 2000,2006? Milo 09:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
We're clearly not understanding each other. I'm not talking about what I think; I've presented actual, peer-reviewed, reliable sources demonstrating that 40% is ridiculously high. Regardless of what you, personally, find "biologically plausible", there is no such condition as "type 2 hypothyroidism". Is this term mentioned anywhere in the reputable medical or scientific literature? If you're seriously going to cite Amazon.com user reviews, then I don't think you have any respect for this site's policies on verifiability or reliable sourcing, and I'm wasting my time. A low-profile book from an obscure (vanity?) publishing house which makes outlandish or extreme claims is not an appropriate source for this encyclopedia; it fails the criteria I've listed above.

You've dumped a bunch of Google hits on the page without performing the most basic evaluation of whether these sources actually meet encyclopedic standards, and now you're demanding that I "refute" each one of these in detail. Then you tell me I'm arguing my personal opinions, when I'm citing actual reliable sources and you're pointing me to Barnes Foundation video clips, Amazon.com user reviews, and your personal views on biological plausibility. You don't seem to understand that 103 mentions in an unreliable source is no more useful than 1 mention in an unreliable source. Why don't you explain how a one-line mention in a 1932 Time article is anything other than "trivial" coverage? Or how Langer's book qualifies under WP:V and WP:RS? MastCell  19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be partly confusing my posts with those of another editor.
"reliable sources demonstrating that 40% is ridiculously high." No problem. The data are what they are using two different diagnostic methods. Provided it's placed in context, I've consensed to that entry at the article talk page.
The next few comments I've addressed in previous theads.
"You've dumped a bunch of Google hits on the page..." Perhaps you're referring to the Amazon.com 77 citations list here.
"...demanding that I "refute" each one of these in detail." There isn't much more chance to do this after an unfairly successful AfD, especially one bearing an odious resemblance to the anti-alternative medicine technique DGG described above.
Assuming your good faith, I guess you should have done more research before you brought this article to AFD under the claim that "we lack independent, reliable third-party sources dealing with this subject. Therefore, it's impossible to write a useful, neutral encyclopedia article."
Ok, you screwed up and made a hasty generalization that you can't readily prove, so the intellectually honest thing to do is withdraw the AFD, as I've already asked you to do. Milo 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The closing admin will draw their own conclusions. I suspect the article will be kept; the sheer weight of verbiage here is probably enough to guarantee that. You haven't actually convinced me of your correctness or my wrongness, so withdrawing the AfD would be intellectually dishonest of me and, at most, a concession to the aggressive bullying tactics that you and a few others are employing here. MastCell  05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't speak for anyone else, but you've been treated fairly by me. Declaring yourself a victim doesn't improve your position of being in denial about your superficial pre-AfD source analysis. Using the absolute term "impossible" makes your hasty generalization transparently obvious.
Much more importantly, this isn't about placebo water, structural integration, or even the merits of supplemental antioxidants. I'm disappointed that Dr. Barnes, an honored allopathic medical researcher, was unable to convince you that his basal temperature discoveries could save many lives at very low cost, into the foreseeable future. Milo 12:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Reliable source check 1: The Townsend Letter, the Examiner of Alternative Medicine (published since 1983)
(DGG 16:49): "a major quack publication"; (MastCell 07:47) "The Townsend Letter fails on all counts." With over a dozen mentions here of the Townsend Letter reference, I decided to take a look at it. With the "major quack publication" talk I was expecting something awful. (IMHO of the treatment articles, some do quack, others are reportedly useful to many people but I'm not a responder, while perhaps half of them appear to be serious discussions of unproven yet biologically plausible healing alternatives.)
To my surprise Townsend Letter is a nominally peer-reviewed publication, has a staff of nine including two MDs, 20 additional columnists including four medical doctors and two Ph.D.s, plus another MD and Ph.D. as advisors. I recognized one columnist's name, Jacob Teitelbaum, M.D., as a respected specialist in the frustrating chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia syndromes, where the mainstream allopaths dropped the ball.
It's not fair to call Townsend Letter a quack publication – it's an alternative health and medicine publication, for treatment proponents that may/do include some quacks, and activist opponents of mainstream treatments. The latter might be wrong, but they're not quacks, and the mainstream press also criticizes risky medical treatments. Occasionally, letters are published with feedback from persons who can opine whether treatments are cures or quacks. As noted above, Townsend Letter disclaims: "information presented may not be proven or factually correct".
For Knowledge (XXG) articles, Townsend Letter has adequate staff for routine fact-checking to avoid libels, like the proper attribution that x really did say y. Townsend Letter is a reliable source for notability, as well as statements reported in the proper context of claims and counterclaims. Curiously, due to the disclaimer, an MD/PhD-quote from Townsend Letter has no greater status than a seeming quack-quote, because the MD/PhD's claim might also not be proven or factually correct. To make this point clear, note that an otherwise credible MD/PhD might have misspoken, but Townsend Letter disclaims that they will necessarily rectify the error. Milo 04:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Definitely does not qualify under WP:PROF unless citation indices for old articles are even less complete than I think they are. The library holdings bring me close, but without reliable sources describing Barnes or the work ... - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"Definitely"? I suggest striking that statement. You overlooked Knowledge (XXG):PROF#Criteria #7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. ...¶ For people who have made substantial impact outside academia but in their academic capacity, the appropriate criteria for that sort of notability apply as an alternative—as for a person notable for popular writing in her subject." I didn't cite WP:PROF #7 earlier because I think #Notes_and_examples #15 better states the same notability case. Really, we're well past the notability issue; Barnes is substantially to widely cited for seminal academic and practice work in his field.
Your concern about sourcing has more validity, but it's too soon to draw closure at this early stage, with dozens of potential sources still not vetted for reliability. Milo 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Milomedes (talk · contribs), have you ever considered the advantages of not badgering your fellow debaters? I respectfully suggest that, as notability is precisely why we are having this discussion, the point is moot rather than settled. There is plenty of potential for disagreement among rational, well-informed editors ... please consider that potentially others have exercised due diligence before expressing their conclusions. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 08:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Impressively over the top. Dilligence accepted, you still made a mistake. Because mistakes can wrongly influence other editors, I pointed it out and asked you to fix it. That's how AfD works and it's not badgering.
If it's your position that you did not make a mistake, feel free to explain how "Definitely does not qualify under WP:PROF" squares with the fact that Professor Barnes' cited popular writing did have substantial impact outside academia per #7. Milo 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It appears to me that while the article lists sources, that ones that are actually reliable sources independent of the subject don't address the subject in the proper detail to count towards establising notability, they are more just passing mentions and whatnot. Spiesr (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The Knowledge (XXG) rule is that every fact has to come from a reliable source. What fact, or facts, in the article are not reliably sourced? I think you are confusing reliable sources and sources used for notability. Notability requires two sources independent of the subject and we have a biography from Mcgraw Hill, and one from the University of Chicago. His autobiographical material sources all other facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Reliable source check 2: Solved: The Riddle of Illness ; 4th edition McGraw-Hill (July 20, 2006)
Amazon.com search inside: 68 hits for "Barnes"; the nontrivial mentions are possibly a major theme of the book. McGraw-Hill is a major publisher, per WP:V: "books published by respected publishing houses".
Author's credentials: Stephen E. Langer, M.D., received his medical training at New York College of Medicine in Buffalo, New York sometime prior to 1982. He has a private practice in Berkeley, California. He had become a well-known thyroid disorder practitioner sometime prior to 1988, when he shared a speakers platform with Dr. Barnes at a "symposium for medical doctors in Texas on the subject of hypothyroidism." (Page 67)
The following is a list of cited quotes covering some major discoveries and issues for which Broda Otto Barnes is notable:
• Notability:
Page 4: "I am thankful that I stumbled across the monumental research in this area of Broda O. Barnes, MD, PhD, one of the world's foremost authorities on the thyroid gland."
Page 244: "A clinical researcher in hypothyroidism for half a century, Dr. Barnes published more than a hundred papers on his investigations in the most reputable medical journals."
• Not an alternative practitioner:
Page 47: ... "Barnes never thought of himself as a maverick."
• Significant minority of professional medical consensus:
Page 23: "This is not my finding alone. Dr. Barnes and more than one hundred of his physician followers have discovered the same phenomenon."
• Accuracy of Barnes Basal Temperature Test:
Page 244: "An accurate way to diagnose hypothyroidism is by means of the Barnes Basal Temperature Test. More than a hundred years of research has established a definite relationship between subnormal temperature, no matter how slight, and hypothyroidism."
• Mainstream listing of the Barnes Basal Temperature Test:
Page 12: "Out of these experiments came the Barnes Basal Temperature Test, which, for many years had been listed in the Physician's Desk Reference (the PDR)."
• Typical superiority of natural thyroid extract treatment:
Page 44: "In the medical practices of Dr. Barnes and myself, natural thyroid hormone worked better in almost all cases."
The nom has stated under his WP:V quotation above: "I don't see any sources meeting this definition here, or in the article." By my inspection (Langer 2000,2006) Solved: The Riddle of Illness is satisfactory to meet the quoted reliable source requirements. Furthermore, it has been an article source since last year, so I request the nom to strike "any" as being an error of his inadequate sourcing research prior to bringing this AfD.
Milo 07:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Milo and DGG. John Vandenberg 08:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as significant variety of sources presented above and incorporated into the article demonstrate that the article's subject is verifiable; the shear number of sources and their nature as discussed above by DGG and Richard Arthur Norton further suggests that the subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion in a paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Per DGG. I doubt that there is not significant third-party coverage of someone who seems to be fairly notable in AltMed. I can't read the WashPost article. Seems to be the progenitor of several even currently-popular AltMed thyroid methods like the underarm temp. and iodine skin absorption. Also, clearly he published in Science in 1936 and in a variety of mainstream journals later. At least 153 books mention him. Just because these books aren't scholarly doesn't mean they don't demonstrate notability. And even if there isn't third-party coverage on him, there is at least mainstream coverage of his views which can be added. II | (t - c) 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
the quality of the science is not this issue. Knowledge (XXG) is neutral about that. But in any case, he had publications in JAMA and journals of similar orthodoxy.DGG (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Wow. What an incredibly looooooong discussion. I see it boiling down to this: Notability IS notability, and we are not here to decide if its quackery {which could even then be notable). In this case we have a well-written, encyclopedic and well-sourced BLP about an individual who was a noted author and who was in numerous peer reviewed journals. Even if his views are not well-received currently, they were in the 30s, and Notability is not temporary. Also, I am quite concerned with the deconstruction done by an anonymous SPA immediately before the nomination, leaving nothing but a stub. Doesn't seem quite cricket, and feels like the SPA was stacking the deck. Schmidt, 22:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not qualified in medicine but I have read the article and the comments above and while some of the comments following both "keep" and "delete" votes are thoughtful a lot seem unthinking. ¶ The meat of the article appears to be in two sections, titled "Diagnosis of hypothyroidism" and "Treatment of hypothyroidism". There are a couple of respectable-looking sources between them, but these are for the accepted view and not for anything about Barnes. Most of the other sourcing for both of these sections is Barnes or his foundation. True, the article is worded fastidiously here, with Barnes's claims labeled as such within the main body text (and not only the notes). This sourcing seems to me adequate for supplementary purposes, inadequate as anything more. As for the other sourcing in these two sections, it's from the Jamaica Gleaner (a newspaper, not a medical journal) and the books Living Well with Hypothyroidism (Harper Collins), Your Thyroid and How to Keep It Healthy (Hammersmith Press), and Hypothyroidism Type 2 (New Voice Publications). Let's look at each of the three. ¶ Harper Collins has a biography page for Shomon, author of Living Well; this doesn't mention any medical qualification. It points to thyroid-info.com as her website; this again says nothing about her, though it has a load of stuff that you can buy. Indeed, the WP article on her says she has a BA in international finance: again, no mention of medical training. ¶ Your Thyroid -- from a publisher whose current bestseller appears to be Magic in Practice: Introducing Medical NLP: the Art and Science of Language in Healing and Health -- is by somebody who was previously a GP; there's no hint that he's received any Barnes-unrelated training in the thyroid. (There are lots of ads for stuff you can buy, though.) ¶ The amazon.com page on Hypothyroidism Type 2 (subtitle: "The Epidemic") sports a product description announcing this is An astonishing book revealing the cause and successful treatment for the plague of illnesses affecting western civilization; including obesity, heart attacks, depression, diabetes, strokes, headaches, chronic fatigue, and many more. "Astonishing" indeed: Why haven't we all heard of this book? Google suggests that "New Voice Publication " has published a grand total of three (3) books, the other two being a pair (by one author) on hysterectomies. ¶ So the meat of this article has very dubious sourcing. Yet the article ends with a list of publications whose relationship with the main text is unclear but that serve to make Barnes look a lot more substantial and that therefore make his ideas about the thyroid -- whether or not related, whether or not today worth even a passing mention in the medical literature -- look a lot more credible. ¶ In short, delete in view of the low probability that reliable sourcing will be found for Barnes's main claims to fame. -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW Mr.Z-man 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 swine flu outbreak/Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is not actually an article, it's a table intended to be transcluded in another article. It originally was a template, but got moved to the article namespace during the templates for deletion discussion. I'm afraid that was not a very good solution, as it just created a new problem. The article namespace is only for articles, not for subpages, see Knowledge (XXG):Subpages which says "Except in "main" namespace (="article namespace"), where the subpage feature has been disabled in English Knowledge (XXG)..." and that a disallowed use of subpages is "using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia". This is just that - using a subpage for content that's meant to be part of the encyclopedia (article namespace). This should probably be a template, or just put back into the main article... it's unfortunate the TFD was closed early in favor of a poor solution. Chiliad22 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 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. Nja 08:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This article is a non-notable colloquial term. A quick Google search shows that no reliable results are to be found that pertain to the subject at hand. The article was nominated 3 years ago unsuccessfully when Knowledge (XXG) was young, but I feel the situation has changed as it has been demonstrated this article cannot be improved. Ismouton (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I simply do not see how an article when there is not even scholarly consensus on the definition of the term or even what appears to be discussion on the matter. I look at the description of said books posted by Vodello and it mentions the God Complex to describe the subject in passing. I can see how this article could be merged with Narcissistic Personality Disorder as god complex would be said to simply be a symptom; although, no scholarly source would describe a symptom as such instead opting for the more apt term delusion. Ismouton (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, one interpretation of "god complex" actually is that it's an old name for NPD: . It could be redirected on that basis. Even if people have meant several things when they wrote about a "god complex", a Knowledge (XXG) article could still in theory deal with multiple meanings and just explain them all in context. Still, until that article is written, maybe redirecting to NPD makes sense. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 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 Cheers. I' 13:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Minor festival, no real claim of notability, no reliable sources cited, part of a walled garden of articles relating to the record label. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 13 April 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, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, needs reliable resources for notability. Drawn Some (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be covered in reliable sources (), but they are in Ukrainian. There is probably more in Ukrainian papers not listed on Google News. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment' Are you sure that the link provided actually shows reliable sources and that they actually refer this event in the detail needed to count towards notabilty? Becuase not everything on Google news will satisfy these criteria and it looks like the only way to chack would be to read Ukrainian. Spiesr (talk) 22:33, 30 April 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. Nja 08:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Symphony No. 1 (Jan Juham) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable composer & symphony, for which there is no evidence, per WP:RS, that either passes the standard elaborated at WP:MUSIC Eusebeus (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC) (This AfD also covers the composer as well):

Jan Juham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete (both); unverifiable, and no reliable sources of any kind; indeed there are zero Google hits on the name (Jan) and zero on '"Yang Yunhan" composer'. To the author: this may indeed be an excellent piece of music, but it must become notable and achieve coverage in reliable mainstream sources before we can write about it on Knowledge (XXG). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eusebeus & Antandrus. --Jashiin (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apologies to the author of these pages, but sources are needed here. I don't have any proof that this person or this work even exists. How about a link to the program notes of the premiere (was there a premiere?) A review of the piece. Does the composer hold any positions or have they won any awards? Add references for these types of things and I can change my mind.DavidRF (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 10:38, 26 April 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. Nja 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Declined speedy. An editor and reporter for a small town paper(circulation of 8000/month), fails notability guideline. The one source seems to be the paper he works on. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 27 April 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. Nja 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lee Robinson (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ATHLETE, no significant media coverage to pass WP:N. Grsz 17:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What does signing have anything to do with playing? Grsz 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they signed him to hand out the Gatorade cups. --bender235 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, this argument fails WP:CRYSTAL unless you can demonstrate that drafted players in the NFL are almost certain to play in the NFL, which is the requirement clearly laid out. Can you? And if not, why are you making up arbitrarily new guidelines for notability on the fly rather than opening a discussion where bright lines for notability can be discussed?DSZ (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
He wasn't drafted, yet he was signed. Did you read that? S-I-G-N-E-D. Unless he suffers a career ending injury in training camp, he will play in 2009. --bender235 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Which, of course, is false. A significant percentage of players drafted, especially in later rounds, do not go on to play in an NFL game. Randomly spelling out letters in all caps does not have an effect on facts. After all, there are 864 more roster spots in training camp in the NFL than on active rosters. DSZ (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - In this case, there's a good argument for notability, but again, he's not notable simply because he was taken in the draft. If you don't like the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE or the more general standards for notability, start up a discussion about changing them, don't simply decide to ignore the ones you don't like. I would suggest you do your homework, which involves going over the standards for notability and reviewing the guidelines from WP:ATHLETE. DSZ (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

*Keep Plays professional football and last I checked the NFL is the highest level.--Giants27 /C 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I could find thousands of such articles about high school players. Are they notable too? One or two doesn't cut it; significant coverage is needed. Grsz 20:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, I don't see local newspapers to be "significant coverage" Secret 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Changing back to keep, per Cbl62. Being a "local newspaper" does not preclude it being a reliable source. "Significant", as used by the guideline, refers to the extent of coverage, not to the source. Strikehold (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My point remains.►Chris Nelson 21:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It means you need a new and better argument. ;-) ►Chris Nelson 21:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Why? Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines take precedence over Chris Nelson's Ad Hoc Rules for Notability. You haven't presented a cogent argument how this article is notable under any existing policy or guideline. You haven't made any effort to open up a discussion or debate of reasonable changes to WP:ATHLETE that you feel would improve Knowledge (XXG) and would make your argument valid. Either actually make a point that argues notability, which you have not done yet, or it's going to become increasingly difficult to assume good faith. Complaining that you don't like the guidelines or policies is not an argument. DSZ (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Neither have you, since WP:ATHLETE is a guideline not a policy and we can choose to follow it if we want to.--Giants27 /C 21:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Correct, you can choose not to follow it, provided you can demonstrate a reason based on discussion and consensus. Since nobody's involved is bothering to go to WP:ATHLETE and improve the guidelines, it's hard to believe that there's any effort being made to reach a consensus on new guidelines. There is no WP:ANYARBITRARYTHINGCHRISNELSONPULLSOUTOFHISBUTTISOK that has been developed by consensus. DSZ (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The discussion misses a key point. A college football player doesn't have to play pro ball to be notable. If a college player wins a major award or receives significant, non-trivial coverage in the press, then he meets the general standard for notability -- even if he never plays a game in the NFL or CFL. Playing a game in the NFL is an automatic ground for notability, but a college player can be notable without it. In Robinson's case, there is non-trivial media coverage in the form of feature articles about him in three or four newspapers. Not a slam dunk, but enough in my view. And that won't change if he gets cut from an NFL team. Cbl62 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 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. This is a close call in terms of !votes, but the arguments on the delete side are stronger than those on the keep side. –Juliancolton |  00:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete appears to be a bit part actor, fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Subjects should be worthy of inclusion at the time we have the article. Speculating based on what happens in the future, especially when that future is not certain is prohibited by WP:CRYSTAL. - Mgm| 09:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is the bad kind of unreferenced BLP. It's already attracted the kind of "dossier of links" kind of nonsense that can easily be harmful to the subject. I'm willing to be moved if we can find substantial sources, but right now, we only have a university paper reporting on an alumnus and a dossier site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "dossier of links", and why do think it is harmful to the subject? decltype (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    Punch a name into Google, list all of the things that come back regardless of how trivial or how personal. This is a dossier of links, so-and-so lived here at some point, so-and-so graduated here, so-and-so worked here, etc. It borders on an invasion of privacy, and if we're going to write an encyclopedic biography we should be using sources that are about the subject, not random bits of data scattered all over the internet. A number of people have been embarassed or harmed because, say, their arrest record happened to be one of those bits of data. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  16:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. No Boundaries (2009) (completed) .... Border Patrol #1
  2. Made for Each Other (2009) (completed) .... Chinese Husband
  3. Tenure (2009) .... Steve Kim
  4. The Happening (2008) .... Passenger #3
  5. A Certain Darkness (2008) .... Rich Hampton
  6. Leaf (2008) .... Roman A. Smith
  7. All Along (2007) .... Larry
  8. The Departed (2006) .... Translator
  9. Ice Cream (2004) .... Grocery Store Owner
  10. The Push (2004) (TV) .... Chen
  11. "Interpol Investigates" (2004) TV series .... Detective Ming Li (Episode - One Way Ticket, 2004) (unknown episodes)
  • The roles where the character have a name, are the ones worth investigating. Some of the films are notable by current wikipedia standards, since they have blue links to them. Anyone who played a significant role in them, in a notable film, is therefore notable. Dream Focus 15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    That's a very nice job of copy-pasting IMDB, but I did investigate each role. I was challenging you to back up your claim of "notable role in enough notable films" by pointing out a notable role or a notable film. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet the guidelines for inclusion at this time. The role he is best known for isn't even mentioned in the cast or plot summary of The Departed. That's not a significant role, as required by WP:ENTERTAINER. decltype (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete fails entertainer. Clincher is that he's best known for a role that didn't make it on the cast sheet for the movie he was in. Sound more like "not known at all."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This clearly isn't being deleted here. There are some decent arguments to merge, but they are clearly chiefly arguments to retain the bulk of this article and transplant it to some other. Feel free to open an appropriate merge discussion if you'd like to pursue that further. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This article is attracting a lot of undue attention, have clarified the result. Ottre 12:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability in Knowledge (XXG) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable Scott Mac (Doc) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Seriously, whilst this is notable to the average wikipedian, we avoid self references. So we'd need great sources to show that this topic was really a topic, and not just an aspect of wikipedia, best dealt with in that article. We have no such sources. The writers of this have tried hard, but just about every second sentence requires a {fact} tag, and the obnly obvious source would be a wikipedia page. Sure, some sources discuss this but as someone has already noted on the talk page: we don't have articles on ""reporting standards for CBS News" or "editorial inclusion policies of the Wall Street Journal"" despite the fact that we could find commentary on these issues. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Doc has it right. Anything useful here would be better off merged into the main Knowledge (XXG) article. So, delete and/or redirect. Friday (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • aye →AzaToth 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. I know we have The Economist editorial stance and there may be others. The article has only just been born and there is plenty of academic work on Knowledge (XXG), probably on notability too. I can't believe that I'm having to argue that Knowledge (XXG)'s concept of notability is notable! This is 2009, not 2001; we just killed Encarta... And may I say that it's uncharitable at best to argue for deletion on grounds that it's not notable (when there are sources showing some notability, and the article is less than 24 hours old) and on grounds that better sources aren't findable (when there is plenty of academic work on Knowledge (XXG) which covers it I'm sure. WP:BEFORE.). Rd232 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the excellent nomination rationale. Coverage of in reliable sources seems to be sparse and generally done as part of an article about Knowledge (XXG) more generally - the discussion of notability should probably also be done as part of another article. There are already a few sentences about this in Knowledge (XXG) and that's all that's really warranted by the low level of specific coverage; this article seems to be excessive navel-gazing. ~ mazca 17:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    I submit that our navel is not uninteresting. Rd232 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    Comment I beg to disagree. The navel is one of the more interesting parts of the human anatomy, being the only visible reminder of our former physical attachment to another human being. But navel gazing is being lost in a state of self-absorption. One article on a problematic and central issue of encyclopaedic taxonomy does not make us omphaloskeptics. This is navel glance, and surely an important one.--Moloch09 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    Once written, there wont be much need to keep gazing at it. Except by people who want to understand the concept. John Vandenberg 06:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not entirely convinced most of those sources represent an actual discussion of notability in Knowledge (XXG), most of them seem to be more general and happen to mention it. But it seems many people think this can be expanded and sourced properly, and improvement seems to be underway already - I'm happy to retract my "delete" opinion given how many reasonable editors seem to think it can be improved; though the article does give me something of a bad taste of our own self-importance. Cheers for the source link, anyway! ~ mazca 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter how obscure a topic is, or how uninteresting (to you) it is. If it is encyclopedic, verifiable, notable, and there is enough material to expand it beyond a stub, it deserves an article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    Hmm, was this reply intended for me? My comment mentioned neither the interestingness nor the obscurity of the topic, merely the appearance of a lack of substantial sources. ~ mazca 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    It was aimed at my interpretation of your "navel-gazing" comment. I apologize if it was off-target. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. If any other on-line encyclopaedia of the size and reach of Knowledge (XXG) had the kind of deletion debates Knowledge (XXG) has, based on a weird notion of notability, there would be an article about it on Knowledge (XXG). -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you give any evidence for that assumption?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
No. Can you to the contrary? -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course not. Knowledge (XXG) is sui generis, therefore your argument by analogy makes no sense whatsoever.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Still !voting keep. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Fine, if you don't want to discuss it, but this isn't a vote.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Rephrasing: Keep per David Gerard -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete (and possibly redirect to WP:Notability). The only information that features in this article and wouldn't appear on WP:N is the "controversy" section which only serves as a way for people who are upset at missing the inclusion criteria to complain about it. If people want to know about Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policy, it's there for them to read. Perhaps a redirect here would help direct people's curiosity. Greg Tyler 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    I feel I should point out, actually, than I'm not against an article entitled Notability as some sort of discussion about what notability is and how it can be measured in a wider perspective. My sole problem with this article is its duplicity of WP:N. Greg Tyler 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    An article on Notability as an independent concept is probably also warranted. This is an encyclopedic article about the editorial stance/inclusion policy of the world's largest encyclopedia and is backed up by independent reliable sources. How can you make an argument that is should go? If Encyclopedia Britannica wrote an article on it, it would also probably duplicate some material from our actual notability guidelines. Where is the problem? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Soctt really does have the SELFREF point correct, and actually I wondered why this did not have an {{essay}} tag on it to begin with. I'd be perfectly fine with it being "userfied" (is that even a word, or perhaps the next in a new series of articles?). Even the Deletionism and inclusionism in Knowledge (XXG) article which seems so popular among our readers, really does fly in the face of the whole self-ref guideline. Unless we're going to establish a new "wikispeak" category, I think this is better left in user-space, or placed in our Essay Catagory. — Ched :  ?  17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, that isn't the point here. The sources are fine, it's just that I don't see the subject matter as a wise idea. It's merely rewriting the policy but allowing for opinions to creep in. Greg Tyler 18:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't be (and I think isn't, but the article having <24 hrs to develop it's hard to say) a rewriting of policy. It should be an explanation of its significance (1 academic source) and of its genesis (1 academic source) as well noting media coverage of it (4 sources). Isn't that enough to distinguish it from a summary of current policy? It would be slightly ironic for Knowledge (XXG) to apply a higher notability standard to an article about Notability in Knowledge (XXG) merely because it's about Knowledge (XXG). Rd232 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I fear - we are a top 10 website, and the clash between the Knowledge (XXG) jargon sense of the word "notability" and the conventional English-language sense of the term is a frequent topic in third-party coverage of us. The self-reference aspect means it obviously needs careful consideration, but, bluntly, we're a top-10 website, we're mainstream famous by any measure and this is an aspect of Knowledge (XXG) that people go "wtf?" at. All the article on Citation needed needs for mainspace is enough mentions in serious third-party discussion and not just geek culture ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, much per Tnxman307 and David Gerard. Discounting the fact that the article is about an aspect of Knowledge (XXG), it includes multiple reliable sources and seems to be the subject of discussion outside of this project (it has even been a reason for other projects to be created). A distaste for self-reference is not a reason for deletion. --auburnpilot talk 18:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, Per Tnxman307 and David Gerard. It is well covered by outside reliable sources, so definitely notable, leaving no grounds for deletion. --Falcorian  19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The appropriate place to discuss what wikipedia means by notability is WP:N. I see this as potentially confusing a great many new editors who think that this article is the guideline they should be looking for, and we run the risk of having this page and the notability guideline itself be out of sync. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but do you think this could be addressed by the hatnote at the top of the page? There is a currently a link to the policy page, which could always be made bolder/more attention-grabbing. TNXMan 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the hatnote will help with the navigation much, and if we have to go to any extraordinary measures to differentiate the two then we have a bigger problem. In general, I have a problem with mainspace articles on wikipedia policies/guidelines. It's another place to extend the battleground over some of this, and, if the sources don't keep up with changes to the policy/guideline, we end up with out-of-sync information that is going to royally confuse new editors. Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the appropriate place for us (Wikipedians) to discuss our (Knowledge (XXG)'s) notability guidelines is WP:N. The correct place for Knowledge (XXG) (the encyclopedia) to have an article discussing X publication's (Knowledge (XXG)'s) editorial standards/notability guidelines/inclusion criteria is Notability in Knowledge (XXG). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, since there are numerous secondary, reliable sources that cover the topic. Any concerns such as potential confusion and inaccuracy shoul be dealt with via editing, not deletion. –Juliancolton |  19:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Knowledge (XXG)'s concept of "notability" is in itself a notable topic for an encyclopedia article, as demonstrated by the multiple, secondary reliable sources in the article. The self-referencing argument doesn't stand. Read Knowledge (XXG):WAWI#Writing about Knowledge (XXG) itself, and note that articles about Knowledge (XXG), such as Knowledge (XXG), are acceptable, and only have to meet our notability/encyclopedicness guidelines for inclusion. The argument that we don't have articles on ""reporting standards for CBS News" or "editorial inclusion policies of the Wall Street Journal"" is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and can be discarded as such, or can be countered with the fact that we do have articles on the editorial policies of certain publications, such as The Economist editorial stance. The nominator needs a trout slap and a reminder of WP:BEFORE, since if there isn't enough material here for a stand-alone article, it should be merged and redirected to Knowledge (XXG). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP well referenced article along the lines of Deletionism and inclusionism in Knowledge (XXG) many more articles could be added to this article to. Ikip (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic has been discussed in reliable third party sources. --Bill  20:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Navel-gazing at its worst. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    Comment: to be accurate, navel gazing of even the mildest kind is technically an absorption in self. A few articles among a million hardly constitutes the worst kind. --Moloch09 (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as Wkipedia's ever-changing definition of WP:N is covered (usually disparagingly) in numerous reliable sources. It meets wiki's own inclusion guidelines as an article, and lends itself brilliantly to explaining the ins and outs and controversies of WP:N to the unschooled, thus informing and educating the reader. It is itself not a guideline or policy, but simply an article covering a guideline that is itself often in the press. POINT: The article about Notability is NOT intended so much for Wikipedians (we have the policies and guidelines themselves), but is rather for the uninitiated to increase their understanding of the subject. Nice article... and kudos to all who have worked to improve it. Schmidt, 21:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Knowledge (XXG) or the inclusionism/deletionism article (which the controversy section is redundant to) per Doc and Friday. I find much of the article be rather WP:OR-y, especially the lead section. The sentence "Knowledge (XXG) is the first encyclopedia to openly discuss criteria for inclusion." is misleading. Knowledge (XXG) is the first encyclopedia to discuss anything openly; inclusion criteria are not special here. I don't see why the focus of this article is on notability when most of the content and many of the sources could easily apply to Knowledge (XXG) as a whole, which we already have an article on. Mr.Z-man 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep there are by now enough sources. I agree we do not want to go too far in self-reference, but this particular article is reasonable. DGG (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Navel gazing. There are enough other spaces to discuss this, it doesn't belong in article space. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's notable. ;) It's notable because the debate has been going on for so long, and so heatedly, and has affected so many articles that it has received coverage in multiple articles and sources. It's not perfect - I just killed some POV, and we could use more positive criticism to balance out the negative criticism - but deleting this one just seems like "making it go away" rather than covering a worthwhile topic, even if some may find it embarassing or inconvenient. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The worst kind of self reference and navel gazing. This article is ridiculously recursive. What is notable is not that we have a notability policy, but that it has been debated publicly by the press and other sources. Since, according to the third party source coverage, it's the debate and not the concept itself that is notable, this should all be covered in History of Knowledge (XXG). Steven Walling (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • (1) This is not a self-reference. The avoid self referencing guideline asks us not to refer to "Knowledge (XXG)" in articles unrelated to wikipedia. For example an article on Apples shouldn't start out with "This Knowledge (XXG) article is about apples...". Avoiding self-references has nothing to do with having articles about Knowledge (XXG), which are most certainly allowed. Read WP:SELF.
      (2) This is not excessive focus on ourselves (navel-gazing), it's encyclopedic treatment of a topic that independent, secondary sources first decided was notable.
      (3) I don't think you can really separate the debate about Knowledge (XXG)'s notability from Knowledge (XXG)'s notability. But if that is the case, then the article can be renamed (maybe Controversy over Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines?), but merging to the history article is not really appropriate, since there is already too much material to fit in the history article. By the way, you !voted "delete", but at the end of you comment you suggest it be merged with History of Knowledge (XXG) since the "debate" is notable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      @Steven Walling, @Who then was a gentleman? - I apologize that my comments were perceived as "berating" and "disruptive". I will assume the assumption of good faith on your part. In way of explanation, I was only trying to point out how certain arguments are not based on Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and policy. I choose to reply individually because in large discussions things can get quite disjointed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The subject is sourced with a suitable amount of references. There could be many more added in my opinion. Besides the general notability of this subject, I believe that it's very important that this article be well maintained as I believe many sources outside of Knowledge (XXG) will find this page. It also important that this page not simply reflect the WP:N as there would be no reason for it. I believe that it shouldn't just explain the rules of notability because one article never could. It should give a simple definition (which it does) and then cover the controversy covered by outside sources on the subject. OlYeller 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't buy the selfref or navel-gaze arguments (would anyone lobby for the deletion of Knowledge (XXG)?) and so we're left with judging the coverage of the subject of this article, Knowledge (XXG)'s notability standards, in reliable sources. While reasonable people can disagree, I haven't seen anyone argue that the topic of this article is not notable and I believe that the topic is notable based on reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. A pretty well-referenced article. Self-references are things like "see the Knowledge (XXG) article on..." or "edit this page" or "this website". This is an encyclopedia article, perfectly acceptable per WP:WAWI as long as it meets the same criteria as other articles, which I think that this does. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Reliable sources indicate the presence of a legitimate off-Wiki discussion and coverage of this topic --Ryan Delaney 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. My default for all notability-related AfDs as notability is strongly biased and often abused rule on Knowledge (XXG). --millosh (talk (meta:)) 03:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: As per Ryan Delaney, this is discussed off-wiki and thus is a notable topic; and, as per millosh, "keep" is pretty much my default for all notability-related AfDs due to notability being often abused at Knowledge (XXG); also because bandwidth is cheap. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • keep: Has anyone else read Nicholson Baker's essay on why card catalogues are themselves reference works, found in Size of Thoughts? 75.87.174.58 (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC) — 75.87.174.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Notability doesn't actually exist. The article is actually talking about verifiability and editorial control. - Mgm| 09:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    Editorial control in respect of whether articles are included in Knowledge (XXG) or not is now handled via the concept of Notability. This involves talking about Verifiability too since we don't accept unsupported claims. By the way, you could try stubbing your toe on this. Rd232 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    Can we quote you on that one? ;-) --Falcorian  17:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Now seems to be a well sourced and notable article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The talk page lists 10 RS that cover this topic. That is more than suffient for any article. Also, WP:SELFREF is about not mentioning Knowledge (XXG) in articles unrelated to Knowledge (XXG) and not using it as source. It does not mean articles can't be written about Knowledge (XXG). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, a fairly important aspect of Knowledge (XXG). However, I think the longer Deletionism and inclusionism in Knowledge (XXG) should be merged into this article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    That's probably a good idea, but would require renaming, maybe to Inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). That might be a good idea too. Rd232 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, the two could be merged to Inclusion standards of Knowledge (XXG), Knowledge (XXG) inclusion standards or something like that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per IAR — Ched :  ?  18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

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. Nja 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A non-notable record company who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the criteria in Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies). I've searched but can't find any. Has been tagged since July 2008 with no improvement, so I'm putting it out to the community.  Esradekan Gibb  13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per lack of reliable sources publishing substantial content on this record company. The only articles I can find that mention the company more than in one sentence are from its hometown's newspaper. Timmeh! 23:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A record company putting out records doesn't automatically make them notable, it's kinda like what you'd expect them to do. If you can show me they have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Please refer to WP:CORP.  Esradekan Gibb  05:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep RRRecords is responsible for some of the most unusual music listed in Wiki. Kim Cascone's "The Flickering of Sowing Time" and the group known as P16.D4 immediately come to mind, but there are many others here. If judged by their success as a business, RRR is not notable, but their impact on experimental music is very significant.

Cormacs (talk) 22:58, 30 April 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. Nja 08:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In the words of the Nostalgia Critic...where do I start? POV? Spam? COI? Where!? DodgerOfZion (talk)

  • Keep Whilst I agree with the noms sentiments, they are arguments for improving the article, not for deleting it. The main issue is, does it meet notability requirements? I believe it does (here). Feel free to chop out/tag as necc, but I think there should be an article on the topic.  Chzz  ►  16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a copyvio. Material is copied directly from the website. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete as spam. Note that the article's author has expressed a desire to donate the material from the orgnsiations website to Knowledge (XXG), but without allowing change. "Copyright © 2009 Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation (NatGreene) - All Rights Reserved unless expressly stated, Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." from . This is a clear indication that the goal is purely promotional in nature with an advancement of the organisations viewpoint without possibly of changing the text to suit a neutral point of view. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. ... discospinster talk 13:58, 28 April 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. Nja 08:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

...And The Ever Expanding Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable future release per WP:CRYSTAL BigDunc 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 1—nom withdrawn with no "delete" opinions registered. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Notability and inability to find reliable sources Letsplaydrums (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - this is my first nomination for deletion, so my explanation there may have been a little brief. In a nutshell, this article covers a videogame which certainly wasn't notable in its own sphere, generating only a couple of poor reviews on industry websites such as IGN.com and Gamespot.

There is very little information available on the game itself - particularly from sources I'd describe as reliable - and the article as it stands consists of minute descriptions of the game's various playable characters (against the guidelines for articles on video games), based presumably on the editors' own experiences (they certainly can't be verified). Although this could be corrected, it would involve deleting 95% of the article and I'm not sure what it could be replaced with. Letsplaydrums (talk) 16:27, 27 April 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 Dancing on Ice (UK). No consensus to delete. Reasonable arguments for both keeping and redirecting. IMHO the arguments to redirect are slightly stronger. No prejudice against restoring if cleaned up (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The skater is only notable due to appearances on "Dancing on Ice" or variations of the same show. The skater does not have any real notability. There are many Ice skaters that would deserve more recognition for example those who participate in recognised national or international competitions or tournaments. The "personal life" section is completely irrelevant too. The article is also written very subjectively almost like an advertisement or promotional page

  • Keep Notability established through appearances in various national newspaper. Article needs a lot of tidy-up - removal of the selfref, removal of unreferenced facts - but, seems more thatn a single event, and seems notable.  Chzz  ►  16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dancing on Ice and merge a reduced amount of text. All the sources I could find related to his work on DOI. Keeping an entire biography with duplciate material gives Dancing WP:UNDUE weight compared to his supposed professional career which I have been unable to verify. - Mgm| 08:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dancing on Ice then merge with reduced text. Agreed, though would be a good solution. Just because "Pavel Aubrecht" appeared in a national newspaper does not give him notability, many minor celebrities appear in national newspapers (tabloids) as do contestants of well known game shows. None justify an encyclopaedia entry. The individual has no professional career outside the show "Dancing on Ice" and is merely a contestant who has auditioned. The article is created by a single person by the looks of it and seems to be a "fan page". - User:Williamtildesley| 15.29, 28 April 2009 (GMT)
  • Keep because he has been in many national sources and none of the other professionals are being deleted. Passes WP:N quite easily. A bloke called AndrewMy Messies 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the creator of this article. I am sorry if some people are not happy with it. I don't see much of a problem with it. I am happy for anyone to edit the page to tidy it up a bit but i don't see why it should be deleted. Other Dancing on Ice professionals have similar articles on Knowledge (XXG) and they are not up for deletion. I just think Pavel deserves some recognition for what he does. I am always updating the site and Pavel himself said i could start the site. He will provide more infomation for the site, including more information about his artwork. So the article is not just all about Dancing on Ice. - User:tomo359| 15.29, 28 April 2009 (GMT)
  • Keep Sufficiently referenced. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:00, 3 May 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. Nja 08:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable athlete per WP:NSPORT, non-notable musician per WP:MUSIC, non-notable businessman per WP:BIO, remaining claims to notability lack reliable, third-party references per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY MuffledThud (talk) 15:45, 27 April 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, defaulting to keep. One (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kim Campbell (Waterloo Road) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT, along with others in Category:Waterloo Road characters. No real-world information either featured or likely to be added. All are written from an in-universe perspective (other than the occassional nod to the actor saying if they're coming back or not). The JPS 15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What aload of bull this is. That article can only be worked on when something happens with the character - something i suspect JPS doesn't understand. He is only nominating it for delation because he doesn't like the fact that another user is disputing his actions for changig it. The article should not be deleted. Ignore JPS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.148.178 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and be civil. The above editor is referring to my attempt to utilise the 'series' field in the template. However, as I was trying to fix the article I realised that it was ultimately pointless as they all fail our guidelines for inclusion. The JPS 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge It's impossible to write an article about a fictional person without significant amounts of in-universe information included. It is a problem when in-universe material is presented as real. What is really the problem is the lack of independent third party sources to establish notability for a separate article. The source is fine to verify facts, so it could be merged somewhere instead of being included as a separate entry. - Mgm| 08:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Nothing can fail (or for that matter pass) WP:FICT because there is no agreement on what WP:FICT says. it would be nice if there were some, and we didn't have to do this every time. DGG (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep / Possibly Merge? The article may not be up to scratch in the sense it is not well written, sourced or referenced, but surely that could be rectified. It would be silly to write off the article and delete it entirely as the character in the long run is quite central to the show. Maybe if the article, and all individual character articles for Waterloo Road were to become merged into one article with a layout similar to the List of minor & recurring Waterloo Road characters article, it could be properlly maintained and worked on to standard Newtree21 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • A merge, at best, might be OK. There's no way all of these dreadfully crufty fan articles that have absolutely no potential to come up to standard should remain as they are. None of them follow our guidelines about writing about fiction. Any merge should not simply be a copy and paste of all of this rubbish into one massive article, either. The JPS 15:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree. I think if someone were to take the time to bring them up to standard, they would be fine. To pass them off as having no potential and having them deleted seems to much of an easy way out. I would propose a merge of articles into, for example, two seperate article: Waterloo Road Current and Waterloo Road Past, with both articles in a similar layout as the List of minor & recurring Waterloo Road characters article. The an overhaul of the written content to bring it up to wiki standards Newtree21 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
        • The point is it has no potential to be brought up to standard. There is no evidence of independent reliable sources. That seems to be the convention. We tend to accept lower standard articles on the likes of The Simpsons and Doctor Who because there are masses of RSs around, and a track record of editors systematically improving those articles up to standard. Where is the critical commentary or independent coverage about these individual characters that legitimate their articles? I haven't nominated this because it isn't up so standard: it is nominated because it never will be.
          Do a partial merge, but with significantly less detail, so that it doesn't violate WP:PLOT The JPS 17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete due to the lack of real-world notability outside the context of the show. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 5 May 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 WP:SNOW delete, no need to continue this any longer. Fram (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a POV fork with extreme WP:FRINGE views from sources that fail WP:RS rules quite dramatically. It was created after the claims were removed from the main Imhotep article as not meeting our criteria and for violating the WP:UNDUE weight clause of the WP:NPOV policy. It's completely unsalvageable.

this article was deliberately created as a separate subordinate page linking to the other articles so as not to hijack the theme or purpose of the other articles and so as not to repeat info that is in them. It is not misleading or unintentional. --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is about Biblical characters and so it is important to be able to quote the Bible.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

many of my comments have been erased or reverted. --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Please see older versions.

maybe wikipedia is not the best place to look for information if you believe in God--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How dare you, sir? Many of us here are strong in our faiths. That does not give us license to disobey all the rules and principles by which this project operates and continues to operate! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I am just wasting my time--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is written with the claim that the Bible is true (on Talk:Imhotep, the editor who created this article made the argument that "the Bible is the most reliable source there is") and that his interpretation is the only reasonable one. There is a huge long list of supposed sources and links, but the vast majority of them have absolutely nothing to do witht he claim that these two people were the same: they jst have background knowledge on the topic in general. The only source making the claim that these two are the same is an obscure fringe author whose book was published by a small press whose works all fail WP:RS. DreamGuy (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article creator was well aware from discussion on Imhotep that if he created an article with the content he was proposing that it'd be deleted, and he was already aware of and responded to the speedy deletion tag and was active on the article so would have seen the new tag. He was well informed of what all was going on even if I didn't place a template on his talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - for reasons expressed above. Article is WP:OR by synthesis. With the exception of a few non-reliable web pages, the article is drawn from a single source from antiquity which makes no claim similar to that presented in the article. It is POV, and given its history, a POV fork. Cleanup is not a viable option, as the topic itself is WP:FRINGE. Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's actually an interesting read and probably would make the start of a freshmen year comparative religion paper, but it's not an encyclopedic article. Falls under WP:OR and related rules.Mattnad (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Lady (UTC)ofShalott 15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Why not put it in the list of Islam related deletion discussions too. You are insulting them aswell when you say that the Bible, the Torah and the Koran are not a reliable sources. --Drnhawkins (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2009
    I'm sorry you are offended then. When you come to Knowledge (XXG), however, you follow our rules. Our rules do not consider a book that 1) is filled with stuff that makes no logical sense, 2) has been edited tons of times over the years and 3) isn't even in its original language, causing translation errors, to be reliable. In addition you can't say that the Koran, Torah and Bible are all reliable sources as they conflict on many points. Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I have been telling the editor all along it is original research/synthesis. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, this article is about correlating the Joseph of the Bible with Egyptian historical figures. Surely, I should be able to quote the bible and reliable sources of Egyptian history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnhawkins (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Clearly the article at present cannot be kept, but a quick search indicates there is a lot of debate about this theory. I don't know enough about the subject, but are there any reliable sources that talk about the theory? Because there are so many results when I search, it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. (Even if it's just to say "Some fringe theorists say Imhotep and Joseph were the same person, but they're not. Here's why.....") In other words, just because something is a crackpot idea, doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about it, provided adequate sources can be found. Quantpole (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. --Folantin (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The Case for not deleting

this is my third and final attempt to justify this article - it is 2:30 in am and I have to work tomorrow - so please do not delete

I do not think I need to justify the notablity of this article. I think most people will realise it's significants.

As regards to the reliability of sources, I contend that the Bible can be used as the historical records of Israel and there is no other document of that age that has so many copies in circulation. The Book in question is Genesis which is the first book of the Bible. The chapters in question are not mythical fictional or symbolic. They are concern the patriachs of Israel.

Many of the Egyptian heiroglyphic records have been lost of destroyed and are incomplete. They have been peiced together like a jigsaw puzzle and there are many missing pieces. There are however many reliable sources about what does exist.

In trying to decide whether Imhotep and Joseph were the same person, I would ask you, what are the implications for Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Egyptian history if the answer is yes or no.

If the answer is yes, then the Egyptians have to rearrange the Jigsaw. Will they like it? Who knows. If the answer is no then Christians, Jews and Muslims will have to keep trusting that Genesis is true without knowing why Joseph never made it into the history books in Egypt.

The bottom line is, do you rely more on comparing credentials of Joseph and Imotep for which there are many reliable sources or on the somewhat unreliable guestimates of various historians as to how old this person or that pyramid is.

sorry but have to go to bed. Please please do not delete. May not be able to continue for a few days.


Will be happy if article is incorporated into another but structure should stay the same.

Maybe best to stand alone until there is more concensus

--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't given any Knowledge (XXG) policies. How important this "topic" is isn't the question; the reliability of the sources is. The bible is not considered a reliable source, as you have been told. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

give me an example of something from that era that is more reliable than the bible. --Drnhawkins (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment The reliablity of the Bible is absolutely irrelevant to the subject of this article. The Bible does not even mention the central claim of this article, nor do any ancient sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think Drnhawkins does not yet understand the difference in meaning of "notability" as used in standard English and notability as used in Knowledge (XXG) jargon. In Knowledge (XXG) jargon, "notability" has very, very little to to with importance. LadyofShalott 17:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I will add that the editor is working from a translation, and not the original texts. So this article is based on an interpretation of a derivative bible, and not the original. This article is interpretation of interpretation and therefore highly speculative OR. Hence the need for an external, authoritative/expert, and verifiable source supporting the points made in the article.Mattnad (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

please give me some time to answer -

It comes down to comparison of credentials / achievements etc vs guestimates of dates. The discussion will be profitable.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • The bible is not considered a reliable source. Most books that talk about big beardy men in the sky are classified as "fiction" to start with. A reliable source is one published by a reputable publisher and reputable author, not one published because lots and lots of people believe it was written by said beardy guy or one of his chums. To quote WP:RS; "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The bible doesn't fall into this; its been rewritten a dozen times, and unless you believe that the bible is the True Word of God (tm) and the most reliable source in the universe (a belief that isn't counted as fact by Knowledge (XXG)) it isn't a RS. Ironholds (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

what then is a reliable source for that era? why don't we just leave it open so other people can consider the facts and decide for them selve which way they want to lean? --Drnhawkins (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This AfD is "leaving it open"; editors can consider the facts and decide whether this is a load of synthesised garbage. There are very few reputable sources from that period, although there are a few that are thousands of years old; Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, for example. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The Bible can never be used as a source for history, that isn't up for debate. I'm sure you know many Biblical scholars think it was written after the period in question in any case, but that's another issue. Knowledge (XXG) isn't some sort of web forum, it is an encyclopedia reporting what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about a subject, and you've been pointed to the relevant policies and guidelines. Those sources need to discuss the subject, in this case your claim that Imhotep was actually someone named Joseph. You can't put together various sources that don't make the comparison the way you might do in a thesis. And until your arguments that this article should be kept are based on our policies and guidelines, they are more or less invisible for all practical purposes. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What you need is a reliable source that draws the connection you're making in the article. That's what we're asking for. The bible does not explicitly say Joseph was Imhotep. Therefore it's not a source that supports your article's central theory. As others have already mentioned, we need published scholarship, and not a fringe viewpoint. By the way, even if we were to allow the bible as a source (and we cannot under Knowledge (XXG) rules), for a reliable source from the era, you can do a lot better than an English translation. Most scholars prefer going back to the earliest texts they can find. That said, I personally like the Oxford Annotated Bible which tries to explain the sources. Mattnad (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete POV Fork and OR. The justification in the paragraphs above not to delete was itself OR and not the required citations from other external works.--Jayrav (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - A prime example of original research and synthesis. Unsalvageable POV, and I concur with the nom that the sources are not reliable. — neuro 00:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete the interpretation of the Bible for historical purposes requires research. The extrapolation in this article is very far from the sort of combination of obvious facts that is acceptable as part of a Knowledge (XXG) article. If by any chance some actual person has discussed the similarities, then it might be possible to write an article, but it would need to be based upon the sources found. DGG (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per original research and synthesis. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


  • He has devoted much of his life to archaeological expeditions and has made several important discoveries. His work was recognised by the Turkish Government after he varified that the huge petrified boat shaped object on found near Mt Ararat was not only man made but had the right dementions and the right constituents to be the remains of Noah's Ark.

He was recognised by the Israel Government for his finding the true Mount Sinai in Arabia and the site of the Red Sea Crossing at Nuweiba Beach, Gulf of Aqaba. (And hence the route of the exodus). His team was and is the only archaeological team that the Israeli government has permitted to excavate the rather sacred Calvary Escarpment. The Israel Government, department of antiqities has allowed the Wyatt museum to reopen Ron's previous explorations some 20 years after he claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant. His team has also been privilaged to conduct investigations at the Garden Toomb. Why would the Israel government do this if his works have been discredited? --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Ron Wyatt and his two sons were imprisoned by the Jordanians for taking photos of what is now recognised as Mount Sinai. Ron Wyatt identified the important artifacts in this area that prove the Isralites occupied the surrounding valley. This was before it was fenced off by the Arabian authorities. --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would you regard a man with these credentials as an unreliable source?--Drnhawkins (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because he was an amateur hack, most of the academic world things his claims were essentially bullshit, and even his own religious group think largely the same way? Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC) +

You are violating wikipedia etiquit. Could you please quote a reliable source for this--Drnhawkins (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not violating any etiquette. Check out this, this, this and this. Now that I've provided a reliable source, would you mind doing the same? Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure these are reliable sources that are well referenced?--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment No real need for all this I think. Drnhawkins probably knows that Joe Zias (who I've just been chatting to by email about this) who was working for the IAA at the time has discredited Wyatt's claims as a hoax. The Standish's document a lot of Wyatt's frauds in their book Holy Relics of Revelation. There is no point discussing whether Wyatt can be used as a RS as the case against him is crystal clear. If anyone wants to continue this, please don't do it here but go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard at WP:RSN but there really is no point. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So much for WP policy about being respectful and polite and not defaming people. --Drnhawkins (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I am not puting together information from various sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. I am not violating the synthesis policy of WP. To do this, I will have to cite Ron Wyatt and justify why he is a reliable source on this topic.
  • At this point in time, this article may be considered a WP:FRINGE but this in itself should not justify deletion given the article itself acknowledges this and there are no other eminent egyptian historical figures that match Joseph's credentials and achievements and that given Joseph's achievements, one would expect to find such a figure in the Egyptian History. Nobody to my knowledge is offering another Egyptian Personage to be Joseph's equivalent.Drnhawkins
  • Anybody who maintains that Joseph was not a real person is not quoting a reliable source WP:RS.--Drnhawkins (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    When has anyone said he is not a real person? Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This article is written in the neutral point of view WP:NPOV. It basically says that the candidates for Joseph include Imhotep or an unknown figure in a later dynasty and goes on to discuss the problems with each of these views. --Drnhawkins (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I maintain that this is a neutral artical that represents all considered opinions. It is not in violation of the WP:UNDUE policy. It contains links to the Imhotep articl and the Joseph (hebrew) article to save repeating information that is in these articles but not central to the topic. The article indicates that Joseph's egyptian equivalent is either unknown or he was Imhotep. The fact that Joseph existed is based upon using the Bible as a reliable source WP:RS of historical events and genealogies. --Drnhawkins (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to argue that Ron Wyatt is a reliable source WP:RS. He is an eminent archaeologist who is ridiculed because he believes in God and believes the Bible is True. He has made important discoveries that have been acknowledged by the Israel government and the Turkish Government and event the Jordanian authorities. (see below) His discovery of the True Mount Sinai is even recognised by Google Earth. Just look it up on google earth and you will be at Jabel Lawz (the one that Mr Wyatt found and documented and went to jail for photographing). If you go on tours of the middle east and Egypt, you will be find that even the commoners are coming to accept that the Real Mount Sinai is in Arabia and the site of the Red Sea Crossing is right where Mr Wyatt claimed it to be after he discovered chariot wheels on the sea bed (covered with coral) directly in line with the only feasible route that Moses could have travelled to get to Mt Sinai from Succorreth.Drnhawkins

He is ridiculed for being wrong. Most of the seven-day adventists who initially supported him think his claims are bullshit; religion has nothing to do with it. Please structure your posts in the same way as everyone else; it is getting impossible to follow what you are saying. Ironholds (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • His claims of finding the Ark of the covenant in a natural cavern connected with caves that go under the calvary escarpment (and also link to tunnels that go underneath the temple mount) have not been disproven. A likely explanation is that his discoveries were supressed by the Israel government at the time. Now Israelies claim to have the Ark in their possession and Ron's Excavations have been reopened to reveal the cavern that the Ark was said to be in is full of rubbel, thus explaining why it was not detectable by radar and electrical resistance methods. His reputation suffered because he was not able to produce the Goods and his church was not willing to risk it's reputation to stand by him. --Drnhawkins (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Please, this does not belong here. Take it to WP:RSN. You are making a mess of this AfD. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right, you will have to justify why he is a RS. I don't see any evidence of you having done that so far. Ironholds (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Article seems to be based, to the extant that it actually is based on anything, a single source who may well not meet WP:RS standards. Regarding the various claims that source has made, the fact that they have not been disproven by others is irrelevant. They would have to be proven by him to qualify as reliable, and they have not been so proven. Article as is probably doesn't even meet WP:NOTABILITY standards, and any content which can be verified as per RS could probably be easily added to other pages. I would be willing to see content Userfyed for editor to work on, on the expectation that no content be added to mainspace from it without getting consensus from other interested editors. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment This started in his userspace, in fact the original userspace is now a redirect from here, which I think may be a misuse of redirect. The article in userspace shows up on Google and I am not happy with that. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - That a redirect was created is an artifact of the page move process; the redirect is automatically created, and exists until and unless someone manually changes it. LadyofShalott 15:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I have given Drnhawkins an only warning for removal of content from this article, including Delete !Votes. When I earlier restored content he'd removed I'd assumed Good Faith, I can no longer do that since he's removed content again. If he does it again I'll take him to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Even though that said "only warning", I backed it up with my own comment emphasizing that removing others' comments is not allowed. LadyofShalott 15:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - If the page is userfyed, there will be no redirect to it from mainspace. Should it still appear in google searches, a separate MfD for it could be made then. And I also agree that any further deletion of any comments will result in that party being blocked. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you would rather put my artical other pages so it does not violate the NPOV fork then that is ok with me but it may disrupt the flow of these articles. As such it is not misleading or deceptive as it is subordinate and links to these articles. I think it deserves to be an article of it's own unless you want to combine Imotep and Joseph into one article aswell. --Drnhawkins (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I am new to wikipedia, I will not do it again. I thought it was ok because other have deleted mine. I thought I would tidy up the article once I had addressed their issue. Sorry. --Drnhawkins (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to delete my article then feel free. --Drnhawkins (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete -- This verges on WP:OR. It is an attempt to link together two people who must have lived centuries apart. Views differ on the date of the Exodus, but it was 1200 or 1400 BC approximately. Joseph was a few generations earlier, conceivably as much as 200 years. The article says that Imhotep lived in 2400 BC. It is thus obvious that the two people cannot be identical. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - this material has not been included on other articles for precisely the same reason that this one should be deleted - because it is original research. I certainly understand the editor's confusion, as he has provided sources. But the reliance entirely on primary sources, combined with conjecture, is exactly how synthesis is produced, and it should be published by a reliable publisher before arriving on WP. I hope that Drnhawkins will not take this as a discouragement to editing, or a bias against religion. Athanasius1 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 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. Xclamation point 16:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Elliot McGucken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Not notable; appears to have been written by subject himself; subject is a physics crackpot on other forums. All the outside links are to sites controlled by Elliot McGucken except the patent link Readams (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is a link to a quote in the NY Times, but it's not about the physics crackpottery that makes up most of the article. No real indication of serious and encyclopedic notability. eaolson (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable and most likely written by the subject himself. To correct the sock puppet below, Foundational Questions institute did not "award" Elliot McGucken his own forum, but rather took his posts about his MDT and sectioned them off so they'd not continue to clog other discussion. Iainuki (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User Readams/Ianuki seems to have a personal vendetta against McGucken, beginning with the action to delete McGucken's article and engaging in ad hominem attacks (against wikipedia rules) by calling McGucken a crackpot. McGucken has a Ph.D. in physics, high praise from prominent theoretical physicists and professional peers, and an award-winning dissertation from a prestigious institution. On Readam's bio it says he quit grad school, and yet he has the audacity to call McGucken a crackpot while hiding beyond an anonymous username. Is Readam the same person as Iainuki? Can IP addresses be checked? Readam/Ianuki consitently ignore the overabundance (50+) of reputable sources/references consiting of major print publications and univeristy websites supporting McGucken's original work, focusing on ad hominem, mean-spirited, and unfounded attacks.

Edit physics theory down but keep. Searched & retina phd dissertation research can be found on nsf, popular science website, etc. Other items can be foind at sxsw, new york times, wall street journal, businessweek.com, and other sites. Someone should edit physics theory down/delete physics and add refs tO other items. Keep parts with solid references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.67.85 (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Added a plethora of references from reputable sources including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Popular Science, The National Science Foundation's Frontiers Mag., IEEE publications, Business Week, the Triangle Business Journal, The Charlotte Business Journal, and The Daily Tar Heel. Added references from major research institutions including UNC Chapel Hill and North Carolina State Univeristy. Added references from oscom.org--International not-for-profit organisation dedicated to open source Content Management. Perhaps the physics section needs to be shortened/wait for any publications of theory to appear in more formal publications, but the rest of the article is strongly supported by dozens of reputable sources (NYT/WSJ/IEEE/BW/UNC/NCSU) and there are more to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Added text from a glowing endorsement form the famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler found at the fqxi.org site in the form of a Princteon recommendation for grad school and news pertaining to McGucken's award-winning artificial retina device which appeared at North Carolina State University and in the Wall Street Journal. These are extremely solid accomplishments backed by major sources/figures. Also noted that the Foundational Questions institute awarded McGucken his own forum for his theory and provided a link to the UNC Chapel Hill website listing McGucken's teaching award in physics. Definitely notable/diverse array of accomplishments. Now an extremely well-sourced and referenced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.173.238 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. There seems to be some possible sockpuppetry going on here? Anonymous user suddenly shows up and adds fawning statements about McGucken. Both from same anonymouse IP --Readams (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Someone stated that there were not enough references and links to outside articles/sources. References and links were thus added to a multitude of prestigious, well-known sources. The references now include The New York Times (for jollyroger.com and arts entrepreneurship), the Wall Street Journal (for poetry and award-winning artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation and jollyroger.com), Businessweek (artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation and articles mentioning/pertaining to Arts Entrepreneurship), North Carolina State Univeristy (award-winnning artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation), UNC Chapel Hill (list of teaching-award recipients/McGucken's physics teaching award), and text straight from a letter of recommendation from the famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler at the Foundational Questions Institute site. A reference from Popular Science was added which reports on McGucken's retina research, along with references from the National Science Foundation's Frontiers Magazine and IEEE publications, all related to McGucken's research/award-winning Ph.D. dissertation. Articles from the Triangle Business Journal and Charlotte Business Journal are referenced, as well as articles from Cincom and an article at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation's website from their 2007 Thoughtbook print publication. References from oscom.org--International not-for-profit organisation dedicated to open source Content Management--are now included. Various univeristy websites/news-centers/newspapers are included referencing McGucken's work. Articles on McGucken's work from the Daily Tar Heel, Raleigh News and Observer, and Charlotte Observer are referenced. An interview with the Arts Entreprenuership Educator's network is referenced along with articles from the Carolina Entreprenuerial Initiative at UNC Chapel Hill and the Kenan Institute regarding McGucken's novel research and class in the realm of arts entreprneurship & technology. McGucken's ITCONVERSATIONS interview is referenced, noting that it has become an archive favorite on the internet's original podcast network. The Wall Street titan John C. Bogle's Enough: True Measures of Money, Business, and Life was referenced as Bogle salutes McGucken's work. And a new reference from Wake Forest Univeristy was just added: http://www.wfu.edu/creativity/projects_artsentrepreneur.htm "Elliot McGucken, trend setter in ‘artistic entrepreneurship’ and entrepreneurial applications with new internet technologies." More references exist. All of these are reputable sources and they all enhance the notable article and diverse array of accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Solid, extremely well-sourced article.
    • Comment. Another anonymous IP address likely to be a second sock puppet. The article was clearly written almost entirely by the subject, who apparently considers himself quite notable. --Readams (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User Readams seems to have a personal vendetta against McGucken, beginning with the action to delete McGucken's article and engaging in ad hominem attacks (against wikipedia rules) by calling McGucken a crackpot. Is Readam the same person as Iainuki? Can IP addresses be checked? Readam consitently ignores the overabundance of reputable sources supporting McGucken's work, focusing on ad hominem, mean-spirited, and unfounded attacks.

The article is now well referenced and extremely well sourced. The majority of words in the article come from/are linked to independent and prominent sources including the new York times, the wall street journal, business week mag., popular science mag, IEEE engineering publications/journals, crc press, and major university's websites and newspapers. Words of support from the famous theoretical physicist john archibald wheeler are also included. Publications including the Raleigh news and observer, the triangle business journal, the charlotte observer, and the charlotte business journal are referenced as well as wall street giant john c. Bogle's book enough: true measures of money, business, and life, where mcgucken's novel class the hero's journey inarts entrepreneurship and technology is saluted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.135.84.209 (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Another comment written in McGucken's style. I don't think it would be too unreasonable for him to log in and sign his comments, but then he probably realizes Knowledge (XXG) has policies against conflicts of interest. The claim that MDT was granted its own forum on fqxi.org is intentionally misleading. The forum was created to have a place to move his constant long-winded crackpottery where it was clogging up discussions. Here's what the forum admin said when the forum was created:
Dr. E, Congratulations! Your posts have accumulated enough mass that they have collapsed into their own separate universe. That is, your posts that are predominantly about your MDT theory have been moved to their own thread, here. Readers are welcome to find them there and discus them in whatever depth they choose. Please confine future postings about MDT to that forum rather than others such as this one to which it is not directly relevant.

This is just the example where I happen to know something about the "reference" McGucken provided. There is good reason to suspect based on this example that the rest of this self-promotion has a similar level of scholarship. --Readams (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes--MDT was given its own forum and it is now displayed prominently on the front and center of the fqxi community page: http://www.fqxi.org/community, where it has been the #1 most active forum since its inclusion in March 09: "FORUM UPDATES High Energy Physics Dr. E's MDT Theory By DR. E (THE REAL MCCOY) Thanks Anthony!Of course I thank fqxi for the forum and the time and effort--and even the stated intent--but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em." New ideas take their time to be accepted by the physics community, and MDT's progress has been tremendous.

Above user Readams again engages in his nasty, mean-spirited, ad-hominem campaign against McGucken behind a mask of anominity. All we know about user readams is that he dropped out of grad school, and somehow user Readms thinks that this makes him a greater expert on physics and physicists than fqxi and the famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium.jpg : "“More intellectual curiosity, versatility and yen for physics than Elliot McGucken’s I have never seen in any senior or graduate student. . . Originality, powerful motivation, and a can-do spirit make me think that McGucken is a top bet for graduate school in physics. . . I say this on the basis of close contacts with him over the past year and a half. . . I gave him as an independent task to figure out the time factor in the standard Schwarzchild expression around a sphericallysymmetric center of attraction. I gave him the proofs of my new general-audience, calculus-free book on general relativity, A Journey Into Gravity and Space Time. There the space part of the Schwarzchild geometric is worked out by purely geometric methods. “Can you, by poor-man’s reasoning, derive what I never have, the time part?” He could and did, and wrote it all up in a beautifully clear account. . . .his second junior paper . . .entitled Within a Context, was done with another advisor, and dealt with an entirely different part of physics, the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky experiment and delayed choice experiments in general. . . this paper was so outstanding. . . I am absolutely delighted that this semester McGucken is doing a project with the cyclotron group on time reversal asymmetry. Electronics, machine-shop work and making equipment function are things in which he now revels. But he revels in Shakespeare, too. Acting the part of Prospero in the Tempest. . ." --http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium.jpg

Above, in the very first post, user Readams begins his whole campaign to remove Mcgucken's extremely well-sourced and notable article by calling McGucken a "crackpot. (user Readams violates wikipedia's rules which forbid ad-hominem, libellious attacks. user Readams also violates wikipedia's spirit, which stands against nastiness and mean-spiritedness form behind masks of anominity) user Readams/Iainuki launches his mean-spirited campaign with "Not notable; appears to have been written by subject himself; subject is a physics crackpot on other forums. All the outside links are to sites controlled by Elliot McGucken except the patent link Readams (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)" According to user Readams, publications including The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Popular Science, Business Week, CRC Press are not notable publications and are all contolled by mcgucken. According to user Readams, who is inspired by some sort of personal vendetta against mcgucken, the raleigh news and observer, the triangle business journal, electronics weekly, the charlotte business jounral, and the charlotte news and observer are not reputable sources. According to user Readams, the famous theortical physicist John Archibald Wheeler's words have no import and are not notable nor trustworthy. User Readams hatred for McGucken is blinding him and shaping his entire view of reality. According to user Readams world-class, peer-reviewed research and an award-winning dissertation (global Merrill Lynch Innovations Awards) on an artificial retina for the blind which appears in publications including Popular Science, Business Week, CRC Press, IEEE Engineering publications, is not at all notable.

The user Readams states "There is good reason to suspect based on this example that the rest of this self-promotion has a similar level of scholarship." Blinded by his personal vendetta and crusade against McGucken, user Readams ignores the existence of and denies the reputability of references and links that were thus added to a multitude of prestigious, well-known sources, after user Readams complained there were not enough references during the initiation of his personal campaign against McGucken's article. The references now include The New York Times (for jollyroger.com and arts entrepreneurship), the Wall Street Journal (for poetry and award-winning artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation and jollyroger.com), Businessweek (artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation and articles mentioning/pertaining to Arts Entrepreneurship), North Carolina State Univeristy (award-winnning artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation), UNC Chapel Hill (list of teaching-award recipients/McGucken's physics teaching award), and text straight from a letter of recommendation from the famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler at the Foundational Questions Institute site. A reference from Popular Science was added which reports on McGucken's retina research, along with references from the National Science Foundation's Frontiers Magazine and IEEE publications, all related to McGucken's research/award-winning Ph.D. dissertation. Articles from the Triangle Business Journal and Charlotte Business Journal are referenced, as well as articles from Cincom and an article at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation's website from their 2007 Thoughtbook print publication. References from oscom.org--International not-for-profit organisation dedicated to open source Content Management--are now included. Various univeristy websites/news-centers/newspapers are included referencing McGucken's work. Articles on McGucken's work from the Daily Tar Heel, Raleigh News and Observer, and Charlotte Observer are referenced. An interview with the Arts Entreprenuership Educator's network is referenced along with articles from the Carolina Entreprenuerial Initiative at UNC Chapel Hill and the Kenan Institute regarding McGucken's novel research and class in the realm of arts entreprneurship & technology. McGucken's ITCONVERSATIONS interview is referenced, noting that it has become an archive favorite on the internet's original podcast network. The Wall Street titan John C. Bogle's Enough: True Measures of Money, Business, and Life was referenced as Bogle salutes McGucken's work. And a new reference from Wake Forest Univeristy was just added: http://www.wfu.edu/creativity/projects_artsentrepreneur.htm "Elliot McGucken, trend setter in ‘artistic entrepreneurship’ and entrepreneurial applications with new internet technologies." More references exist. All of these are reputable sources and they all enhance the notable article and diverse array of accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment OK I'm done arguing with sock puppets who just say the same thing over and over. All the references were added after the AfD entry was created; prior to that all references were to McGucken's pages, because the article was written by McGucken, and now is defended by McGucken. MDT is entirely self-published and doesn't belong on wikipedia, period. Shameless self-promotion does not notability make. This is the last comment I'll make here, so Dr. E feel free to post another massive diatribe which repeats everything you've already said as the last word. --Readams (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note Readams/Iainuki--an anonymous sock puppet hiding behind anonymous usernames--constant use of the ad hominem-attacking words "diatribe" and "crackpot" and "Shameless self-promotion" and "sock puppet" while trying desperately to ignore, belittle, and refute McGucken's notable achievements that were reported on in independent, venerable publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Popular Science, Business Week, along with the words of famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler and a plethora and abundance of words taken from, quoted, and referenced in a wide-range of solid resources ranging from major research institutions and universities to prestigious research journals and presseses to globally-respected print publications all reporting on notable, novel research and achievements. Readams's personal crusade against McGucken and private vendetta must redefine The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Popular Science, Business Week, IEEE, and CRC Press as non-notable publications and award-winning research on an artifical retina that is helping people see as non-notable. Hopefully Readams/Iainuki finds a more constructive way to spend their time on furthering acheivements of their own, rather than trying to cut others down via anonymous, ad-hominem attacks and personal crusades/vendettas which are a waste of everyone's valuable time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment incredible. Deal with the sockpuppetry please by having them blocked by an administrator. The Conflict of Interest makes it impossible to see what is going on. To establish notability, reliable third party references must deal with the subject in a non-trivial way. Honestly at this point I can't tell what is going on with the article. Mr. McGucken needs to immediately cease editing the article and place any suggested changes on the talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and trim. There are two possible aspects of notability: the artificial retina, and the literature web sites. The NYT feature article on the web site is possibly enough to show it was notable in 1997, but there doesn't seem to be anything else reliable. There is only one major article on the chipset, but scopus shows 127 citations. It does not seem to have been commercially developed, and I am not sure it has actually led to anything, or whether its being cited as just one of the many experiments. I suspect the latter, or there would be later articles. I am not sure about Arts Entrepreneurship, for the articles in NYT and BW are not substantially about it primarily, & the other sources are minor. A familiar question by now: someone slightly less-than-notable in a range of things. Do we add them up, or expect notability is some one thing? DGG (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. But make it a stub with neutral language, as the current version of the article is totally out of proportion with the notability of the subject. The subject does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF, but this news coverage suggests to me that he meets WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:41, 4 May 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 G3 by Nyttend. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod, and has been speedied before. Game made-up by a couple of drunk guys. Delete and salt.  Blanchardb -- timed 13:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. Speedy delete w/salt per nom. FlyingToaster 13:35, 27 April 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. Nja 08:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming: Hype (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
At nearly 100kb, the global warming article is practically "full." I'm curious as to why there can't be two articles on the opposing viewpoint. A google news search shows that a number of scientists and organizations have indeed called global warming a hype.Smallman12q (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, and there are two real-world POVs, neither "neutral" in that each states their case from their own prespective and in depth: that global warming is a major concern, and that global warming is hype are opposing views. If each is side of the dichotomy is treated neutrally by their respective articles, and present their asserions in an encyclopedic and well sourced manner, wiki has room for both. We are here to inform the reader, not promote one side more or less than another. POV forks are emminently allowed here on Wiki... for balance, and to improve the project. Its not a "bad word". Schmidt, 16:15, 3 May 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. Nja 08:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We Came as Romans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC, unreferenced, can find no reliable source per WP:RS online establishing notability MuffledThud (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedily deleted as vandalism. Dlohcierekim 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Band whose notability is asserted, but cannot be backed up. Reviews in articles on their albums actually link to reviews of albums by Led Zeppelin, among others.

Also nominating:

Delete all.  Blanchardb -- timed 11:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete all (including the two below) - album articles are simply articles on equivalent Led Zep albums with a few minor details changed. I think the fact that the articles claim the bands came from Coruscant is a slight giveaway that this is all a hoax..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 27 April 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. Nja 08:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Natural Landscape Abutter Threat Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I cannot find any references to this on Google except a blog and Knowledge (XXG) clones. I think it is a really neat idea, but unfortunately at this point it seems to be original research and fails both verifiability and the notability guideline. Jll (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

and here it is - I thought I had put this in already. pablohablo.
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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How to tempt the girl? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I just declined a CSD G1 on this, because it clearly fails the criteria for that speedy. However, the entire article is a how-to guide and the only external link appears to be promotional in nature. Delete Mgm| 10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as spam. Have a look at the editor's other contributions - they're all how-to followed by a link to the same website. andy (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I wrote this they've all been deleted as spam. andy (talk) 10:25, 27 April 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 Essay mill. Nja 08:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Unnotable company/website with a single verifiable reference source without any explicit claim to notability. Neither the company's history, nor specific coordinates, nor volumes of operation, nor anything is known — I urge everyone to peruse WP:COMPANY. Lucinor (talk) 10:04, 27 April 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. Nja 08:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I've just stubbed and semi-protected this article per WP:BLP. From what I can make of it he is a controversial figure in the audiophile internet community with no real notability. Over half the references on the article were for the horrible written "Viewpoints on Hoffman's work by his peers" section. The article only made one claim to notability backed with a single source.

He is borderline notable at best, the article is almost completely unverifiable from reliable sources and has been in a BLP tug of war for 4 years. We clearly can't do the article right, delete it. BJ 09:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. Your statement that he's a “controversial figure in the audiophile internet community with no real notability” doesn't do him justice. He has to be one of the most famous mastering engineers out there. Come to think of it, I can't name any other mastering engineers. He's notable for having mastered the definitive CD versions of a lot of classic albums. There are a lot of independent articles about the man's work on the internet so I'd say the guy is not even borderline, just plain notable. The article in its current state doesn't establish notability well but, given that he's notable, that means that the article should be improved, not deleted.Thebrid (talk) 21:23, 28 April 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. Nja 08:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

PROD on the following basis: "No reliable sources to be found which can indicate how this person meets inclusion guidelines", contested without reason given. I maintain the PROD rationale: only trivial sources to be found, no indication of a following or any other elements to pass WP:ENTERTAINER, no significant results in Google News either. MLauba (talk) 08:29, 27 April 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. Nja 08:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Helen Earth Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, can find no reliable references per WP:RS online supporting notability MuffledThud (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete A7 Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:46, 27 April 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. Nja 08:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Carroll (Irish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional match. He plays in the Northern Ireland league system, which is largely semi-professional. This means he fails the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN, and there are no sources provided to suggest he passes WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:28, 27 April 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. Nja 08:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Footballer who has played semi-professional football in Wales, England and Australia, but has never played a fully professional match, and therefore fails the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. A google search reveals some results, but no more than you would expect for somebody playing at that level, and none in real depth. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. per WP:SNOW, would have been willing to leave this discussion open for longer, but there is absolutely zero sourced material and WP:BLP is also an issue. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Boys (South African gang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable "gang" consisting of a couple of schoolboys. Not much in the way of sources. At best a group known for one very minor event. (see article talk page) Beeblebrox (talk) 06:15, 27 April 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 |  00:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

another random combination. non resident embassies. Google news search doesn't show up much in terms of bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 27 April 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 |  00:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination from the obsessive article creator. even the NZ government describes the relations as "slight" . no active agreements between the countries since 1990. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Centralized discussions are not arbitration, or even mediation. There is no definite outcome of a centralized discussion, and even if there was, the underlying issue is and will always be one of notability. There is no apparently notability listed here. If someone can add it, then it should stay, and if we delete it now, and someone discovers it later, then it should stay later. Even clearer here since the government acknowledges it as "slight". Shadowjams (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The "relations" here are that NZ officials are aware Romania exists. No notability, coverage etc. Dahn (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete For those of us who want to look at the article and its references, New Zealand foreign ministry notes a "slight" relationship that won't be outside of NZ's dealings with the EU in general, and Romania's embassy in Australia don't show much. Save it to your hard drive if you like the page. Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - the fact that these two countries exist is notable but is covered by their own entries in Knowledge (XXG). Daveosaurus (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. No significant content, and little chance of real expansion. -- Avenue (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: The "keep" vote above is clearly invalid since the discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:26, 2 May 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 Japan-Syria relations. Nja 08:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Embassy of Syria in Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG. also WP:NOTDIR applies too. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

this article is about an entity not country X-Y relations. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 28 April 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. Nja 08:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Article is original research, does not assert importance or significance, is non-notable, is not verifiable and there is a conflict of interest. Drawn Some (talk) 03:33, 27 April 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 no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable company. The user who created the article may be the company's CEO, judging by the initials, so likely this constitutes advertising and self-promotion. The supposed references are merely links to popular websites where the author claims to participate in forums. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

-I am indeed the CEO of Game-Sinew (the company referenced in the article in question), but that fact does not by itself undermine the validity of the article's contents. The article is not intended for the purposes of self-promotion, but rather the proliferation of information. There are many individuals on the internet looking for computer based information and assistance that can often times be difficult or expensive to find. The primary purpose of the article was to provide an informational resource to the wikipedia community. The reference links in question are well solidified sites in the online computer community and with some searching will validate their existence as references. If it would be preferential to provide direct links to specific articles within each of those sites or else the any user-names used at each site (for the purposes of reference verification and anticipated technical assistance) , then that is perfectly understandable. As for having listed computer sales under services, it seemed unnecessary to restrict the complete model of the business for the sole purposes of avoiding potential advertising or solicitation. If you would like, I have absolutely no issue with rearranging the information and elaborating on the free technical advising services. It was never my intention to advertise Game-Sinew, but rather to offer useful information to the wiki community. My apologies for any mis-understandings, I hope this issue can be resolved without deletion of this article. -Bryce Germain, User:bdg4436 (4/27/09) --Bdg4436 (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdg4436 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG) has standards for inclusion, among them WP:N and WP:V. Game-Sinew does not meet those standards, regardless of intent. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject of this article does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Big 4 Guru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spammy, practically unsourced article about website that even admits that traffic figures are unavailable. Black Kite 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 03:07, 27 April 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. Nja 08:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Greeks in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to establish WP:NOTABILITY PMK1 (talk) 02:48, 27 April 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. Nja 08:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Greeks in Panama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to establish WP:NOTABILITY PMK1 (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs tends to overexagerate the number of Greeks around the world; I would not be surprised it this was also the case here. PMK1 (talk) 05:55, 27 April 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. Nja 08:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Greeks in Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY PMK1 (talk) 02:46, 27 April 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. Nja 08:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

2005 Johannesburg bus-train collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable event; delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. The consensus is that the deletion rationale is not based in policy and that prior consensus (clearly evidenced in earlier AfDs) has not changed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I get the anti censorship and anti disclaimer arguments, but lives are at stake here. Some of you may not care about this, but depressed people can and do use Knowledge (XXG) to learn about methods on how to commit suicide, including a suicidal member in my immediate family. With what we have seen in the media about the copycat effect for people committing suicide, TIME magazine, we should either delete this article or put a disclaimer on this article alone per WP:IAR. This is not a typical censorship case and I urge Wikipedians to understand the practical effect of having this article without any sort of prominent help hotline at the top of this article. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


  • Strong keep - This is the 6th nomination now and no actual new argument for deletion is presented. Anti-censorship and anti-disclaimer aren't simply "arguments" but wikipedia policy. You can't just use WP:IAR as a way to backdoor WP:JDLI. DSZ (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has content problems with respect to its scope--it is more like a general list of ways to die. It's also possible that any encyclopedic discussion of such methods can be merged to suicide. However, these are editing issues and not deletion issues. Nominator's rationale seems to be based entirely on emotion, which despite his claims to the contrary, makes this a very typical censorship case, and on that issue I see no reason to defy established guidelines. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • KEEP It is not a 'how-to' just an article listing the most common types of suicide, and is presented in a way that is neutral. To delete it simply because it covers a sensitive topic would simply be censorship. We must keep it as per WP:NOTCENSORED Trevor Marron (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I do not accept that "lives are at stake here" - i.e. remove this article or people will die - a few moments playing with Google shows that information on suicide methods is widely available on the Internet. Anyone feeling suicidal will simply look elsewhere. In any case the article is not a manual. Jll (talk) 13:28, 27 April 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. Knowledge (XXG):Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is still open, this would disrupt the process. Xclamation point 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed as delete per Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2009 May 6. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Colombia–Croatia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination from the obsessive article creator. non resident ambassadors. no agreements whatsoever except establishing diplomatic ties in 1995. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Wow, this guy really is obsessive. A bloke called AndrewMy Messies 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No more so than the rest of us, I guess. He or she has his opinion, we have ours. It doesn't appear that the "put it on hold" proposal has stopped any rulings on these articles. I don't think the administrators want to deal with the flood that would result if the river is "dammed up" for awhile. Mandsford (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
a number of these X-Y articles have been deleted in recent weeks, I would say at least 30, so relationships are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's either that, or the deletions were wrong. GregorB (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: Two of the three "keep" votes above are clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. The remaining "keep" vote immediately above is based on an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument involving a class of about 20,000 potential articles, many of which have been deleted already. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but no, it isn't based on WP:OTHERSTUFF - I made no mention of "other" articles, existing or potential. GregorB (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I see what you mean. My point was that you seem to believe that all these 20,000 article topics are automatically notable, and that the deletions of dozens of such articles show that this is not an opinion shared by a majority of the community. I think that's still problematic, although probably no reason to dismiss your !vote. Sorry. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
        • No problem - that was just my opinion, nothing more. I understand the frustration of having to go through the same process over and over, but if notability is the issue here, than it has to be assessed either on a per-article basis, over and over (because in this case prior discussion results can not be binding), or "once and for all" (barring WP:CCC, of course) in a global discussion. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep pending the result of the centralized discussion. OTOH I'll try to improve the article in the meantime. —Admiral Norton 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • As I hinted above: The result of the centralised discussion will either not cover cases such as this article (if there will be any result at all, which is far from clear at the moment). Or any demarcations it produces will be based on the outcomes of deletion discussions such as this one. If this is the best justification for this article that you can come up with, your !vote needs to be disregarded. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete notability and verifiability guidelines are already in place and we should use them until the day comes when some newer guideline takes their place and not "keep" now in the hope of some more inclusive guideline or policy being created in the future. In this specific instance, no reliable sources discuss this alleged relationship in any non-trivial depth. The stub is completely unsourced, without even a bare assertion of notability. I find no sources elsewhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:47, 4 May 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. Nja 08:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

non resident ambassadors, the Finnish foreign ministry doesn't even say anything about Bangladesh relationship LibStar (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOHARM is not a reason. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: The two "keep" votes are clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Isn't that a bit of a catch-22? In order to save it, you require that the centralized discussion resolve itself in a timely manner. Yet you state the centralized discussion depends on the result of this vote. Does WP:Deadline apply here with regard to your claim that we should not wait for the centralized discussion to resolve? -Moritheil (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about? Our policies and guidelines codify consensus. Their purpose is to streamline those discussions whose outcome is predictable based on consensus in previous similar situations. Subject-specific notability guidelines don't legislate notability criteria, they interpret the general notability guidelines for a specific situation. And their content obviously depends on previous case law. Here is where this case law is being produced.
      In the current charged atmosphere (created by mass-creation of obviously non-notable articles, which caused a predictable "deletionist" reaction, which in turn caused a predictable "inclusionist" counter-reaction), if we ever get a specific notability guideline (and that's far from sure, as we have even have people violently opposing any such guideline), it will either contain only the most obvious guidance such as: "The relations between two countries that most people have never heard of, which have no diplomatic relations, no trade, no wars, and lie at opposite ends of the world are normally not notable. The relations between two countries that have a long history of significant trade and several wars, or which have had a book published on their relations, are notable." In which case it is completely irrelevant to this AfD. Or it will be the result of a compromise that tries to draw general principles from the outcomes of dozens of AfDs. Neither side will like such a guideline, but at least it will prevent the fighting.
      In the first case it makes no sense to wait because the guideline will be irrelevant. In the second case waiting for the guideline will either unfairly change what the guideline says (because "no consensus/wait for guideline" is interpreted as "keep") or restrict what it can talk about (because "no consensus/wait for guideline" is interpreted as "no idea what we should do in this case"). --Hans Adler (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Sorry, but all I get out of the arguments is that some of the voters for deletion hate all X-Y relations articles, while Mr. Adler explains above that he is undertaking some kind of effort to revise policy. In either case there is some kind of agenda present so it seems WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:JDLI would apply. Furthermore, WP:Deadline, so there is no need to rush to delete. -moritheil 04:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I am revising policy? Per WP:POLICY#Evaluating the consensus, new guidelines are not normally allowed to contradict existing policies or guidelines. I don't "hate all X-Y relations articles", I evaluate them all per the general notability guideline (in practice none of them was justified per WP:Summary style yet, which would be the alternative justification for existence). Just because the 400 articles on various values of X and Y are highly notable doesn't mean all (or most) of the 20,000 articles on X–Y are notable. See User:Hans Adler/Relations between Helmut Kohl and Kurt Tucholsky for a demonstration of where that type of argument could lead us. You haven't given a single reasonable argument for keeping the article. You are merely making assumptions about other editors' motivations, calling policy based deletion !votes (hint: the first two sentences in my !vote) "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT", and claiming that lack of notability can be healed through editing or waiting (the latter is theoretically possible but very unlikely in this case: the two countries don't even have mutual embassies; also see WP:CRYSTAL). If you don't add any reasoning that actually has to do with the article I predict that your !vote will be disregarded by the closer. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 (blatant ad) and WP:CSD#A7 (person with no assertion of notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Article reads like a resume for what seems to be a non-notable person. Could not find relevant 3rd party sources or any information on Google News. Does not meet WP:BIO. JogCon (talk) 01:54, 27 April 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 author's request. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3 A.M. (Eminem Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a recently created copy of 3 A.M. (Eminem Song), without the closing parenthesis. I am tempted to CSD it, but in order to be more formal, I'm bringing it here. Shadowjams (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, go ahead delete this one, this isn't the original one. Toonamiguy (talk) Original is: http://en.wikipedia.org/3_A.M._(song), thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonamiguy (talk • contribs) 06:56, 27 April 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. Nja 08:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Another combination of non-notable embassies in Hungary and The Philippines. I'm Filipino and there are no ambassadors. ApprenticeFan 01:41, 27 April 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 Non-admin close. Speedy keep per WP:Speedy keep, nom withdrawn, no other "Delete" !votes.. ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

George M. Zinkhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a person currently in the news as the wanted suspect in a triple murder yesterday. As I think this is the only reason an article exists about him (despite his academic achievements) it is squarely in the realm of WP:BLP1E. More appropriate would be an article on the event itself, but the stub that existed has been redirected to this article. Note that a previous version at George Zinkhan was speedily deleted under the G10 criterion yesterday. LadyofShalott 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for notifying the deleting admin. It did not occur to me to do so. LadyofShalott 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was the admin who deleted under G10 yesterday. The version of the article which I speedily deleted contained no references at all and did not assert the level of notability required for either WP:PROF or WP:N/CA, as I noted on WP:BLPN at the time that I deleted. I agree that there is the possibility that an article is possible for this person, and the one that is the subject of this AFD is much closer. In my own opinion, there is undue weight being given to the crime he is alleged to have committed, while the real reasons he is notable, as mentioned above by DGG, are given somewhat short shrift. Even should the subject be convicted of the reported crime, his prior activity is really what makes him notable; sad to say, this type of crime is remarkably commonplace and shouldn't be considered noteworthy in itself. Risker (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Addition: I would have no objection to the current article being moved over the redirect so that it meets our standard naming conventions, but will refrain from doing so myself as I don't want to mess up the AfD. Risker (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG (talk · contribs). Too soon to tell if this person will continue to be notable in the future, but for now I believe this person will continue to a be a notable person. Could use some additions on his academic background though Calebrw (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. When I stumbled on this article yesterday, it contained almost exclusively information about the alleged crime. I spend some time digging up stuff about his career (not too difficult, given his detailed CV on the university website). I was surprised myself to see how easily Zinkhan passes the bar for several of the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I also redirected several other articles to this one (even though I almost got into an edit war with someone who thought all three victims "deserved" their own articles; thanks for your help there Ukexpat :-). I agree with DGG that the article needs to be monitored and the current version, giving less emphasis to the alleged crime (even if at some point the crime would be proven and there would be a conviction). Risker is right that it is the other stuff that makes Zinkhan notable, not the alleged crime which is all too common. One question to Risker (just for my education), how does the current article not meet our naming conventions? --Crusio (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Crusio, our naming convention would have it at "George Zinkhan" instead of "George M. Zinkhan". I believe the second (current) article was created shortly after I had deleted the first one, and the original name redirected to this article later than that. Risker (talk) 11:11, 27 April 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 Nominator withdraws nomination On consideration of the evidence provided. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

another random combination. "Vanuatu condemned the bombing of Libya" is hardly a reason for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep You have to be f'ing kidding me? Have a read of this source for crying out loud - it clearly demonstrates notability. In fact I placed it on the talk page Talk:Libya–Vanuatu_relations 3 days ago. Are the people nominating these articles actually looking for sources of information, or are they just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive? This is getting beyond a joke, and perhaps bans restrictions on certain editors (i.e. LibStar) nominating such articles should be given, because this one just proves there is too much disruption going on. --Russavia 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Requesting a ban is not assuming good faith. I have also supported the keeping of certain articles as well and have created some new bilateral relations articles so I'm not nominating most of them. each article passes through the AfD process. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are we supposed to assume good faith with ridiculous nominations such as this? Did you even put Libya Vanuatu into a search engine before nominating? If you did, you would have gotten that source, in addition to - they are all from the first 3 pages of search results of Google Web, Books and Scholar. And you are claiming not-notable? The proof is in the pudding, that you didn't do an ounce of research before bringing this to AfD, and it is disruptive. --Russavia 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes once in a while - can we not jump on each other like this? LibStar is doing a good job; assume good faith, be civil, and don't call for his head. - Biruitorul 03:12, 27 April 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) 02:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

There is no referenced independent and notable source that indicates that the subject of this article, a living person, satisfies Knowledge (XXG) notability criteria. The subject has never been the nominee or recipient of any "notable award or honor" and there is no indication of any "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The only independent opinion from a notable source that this nominator could find is from Opera News, which described Lazzara as "somewhat feeble-sounding". (Note that this article has previously been deleted per CSD g12 — unambiguous copyright infringement — and many images uploaded by a significant editor have been removed per {{copyvio}}. The complete record of the previous article might help with determination of whether this article should be deleted.) —Danorton (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • There is one record for Marco Lazzara at the German Music Archive.
  • I see a significant number of published CDs at amazon.com where he participated.
  • He is mentioned once in the New York Times: and Marco Lazzara, a male alto with a dark, rich tone.
  • RAI has portrayed him as a unique interpret of baroque music and of the 18th century who applied some of these techniques to romantic and contemporary music: Precocemente diplomato in Pianoforte, Organo, Clavicembalo e Canto, Lazzara ha debuttato nel 1989 suscitando subito l'interesse della critica, non solo per la particolarità del suo registro vocale ma anche per la sua forte personalità musicale; a differenza di molti colleghi, legati pressoché esclusivamente ai repertori barocchi e settecenteschi, Lazzara ha applicato la sua musicalissima concezione della vocalità a repertori assai diversi, cimentandosi - unico forse nel suo genere - anche in quelli romantici e in quelli contemporanei (al quale ultimo si ascrivono molte prime esecuzioni).
All this adds to some notability. The main problem with that article, in my opinion, seems to be that Marco Lazzara wrote it himself without the distance of someone else in the style of a personal web page and without any Knowledge (XXG) experience (as he never edited any other articles). --AFBorchert (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - (Writing from a hotel) Just to clarify, I didn't technically create the article. I re-wrote it and redirected Marco lazzara (created by User:Marcolazzara2). In my view, he passes the criteria for notability of musicians as applied to opera singers. He has sung leading roles in leading opera houses, including several world and Italian premieres and has an extensive discography. The fact that it was created and extensively edited by its subject, shouldn't influence the decision to keep it. I would ask that this AfD please not be closed until I return to my home computer and can edit the article as necessary. -Voceditenore (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support the request for deferral submitted by Voceditenore (talk · contribs) and further request that no decision be made before April 30. —Danorton (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously notable even if the article is less than ideal. --Kleinzach 22:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Update I have now completely re-written this article and added extensive inline citations, something I don't do unless I think an article is worth saving. As can be seen, apart from his performances in several world premieres, he was the subject of an hour-long programme on RAI Radio 5. See also the many other broadcasts he has appeared in . He also has an extensive discography which includes several world premiere recordings. The reference to the Opera '97. Annuario dell'opera lirica in Italia includes excerpts from multiple reviews of his Orfeo. I have to say, that I also found it rather unhelpful for an editor to have summarily removed all the previous sources, which although not attached to inline citations, had backed up his notability and the performances claimed in the original article and provided a starting point for expanding and improving the referencing.. Obviously, a singer appears non-notable, if the only source listed in the article is his own website. The subject recently attempted to redress this by re-adding the references and adding a (badly formatted) discography, but this too was summarily reverted as "vandalism". It is definitely a conflict of interest but not vandalism. I repeat, the article was undoubtedly originally created by the subject as an autobiography (and I sincerely hope he refrains in future from editing this article), but that has no bearing on whether or not he is notable, or whether an article should be deleted. For those of you unfamiliar with the criteria for notability of musicians, and particularly classical musicians, please see the following past AFD discussions. Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Diletta Rizzo Marin, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sylvia O'Brien (soprano), Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Adrian Adlam. Voceditenore (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep updated article shows notability in discography alone--Moloch09 (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Voceditenore, for this excellent work. I think this is best outcome of this DR we can have thought of as the notability is now proven and the article is written from scratch in conformance to WP:NPOV. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:47, 27 April 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. Nja 08:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; the prod was contested, but someone else then re-added it. As the prod was contested – and the article has been live for five years prior to deletion – I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain.  – iridescent 22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I think/hope that sources can be found. At the time this was written requirements for sources etc. were considerably more lax. Given the 'non-RS' hits I think it's likely that RS could be dug up; early days of the net, so not suprising they might not be online. I hope some old magazines etc. might help verify and assert notablilty.  Chzz  ►  07:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd have to agree here with Marasmusine that there's not many sources out there to be had. From my little bit of research, it would appear to me that although it generated a fair amount of buzz in the homebrew game development community, it didn't get a whole lot of attention outside of that. Not to mention that the project seems to have gone unmaintained for several years now, and their forums aren't set up (the article even says this). I just don't think that this project ever gained enough notability. Matt (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There's now a couple of references, though admitedly not of the highest quality. It would be a shame to loose such a venerable article, perhaps given time other sources will turn up? FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Mgm| 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Charles E. Abramson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; as this is a potentially noteworthy figure and Oo7565's prod reason ("unreferenced, no sources on the internet") appears to have missed the ten different references in the article, I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain.  – iridescent 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:28, 27 April 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Absorbing the Disarray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; as this appears to be an verifiable studio album by a notable band, I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain.  – iridescent 21:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment At least this one has a review of the album from online "Decibel" magazine. Is that considered a reliable source? If so then the article is halfway to "multiple reliable sources." Has the album been on the charts or won an award. or in some way satisfied WP:MUSIC? Edison (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:27, 27 April 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. –Juliancolton |  16:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Accademia Italiana Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; as this appears to be an verifiable offshoot of a notable institution, I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain.  – iridescent 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep College-level fashion design school in Thailand. Strangely, although it is affiliated with an Italian College, BA degrees are awarded from a college in Wales. Edison (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable author; attempting to piggyback on the fact that he ghostwrote or co-wrote a book with a notable scientist. Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

another comment

Hopefully this is the correct page for discussion on this matter. I started this article and I assumed that it had already been deleted. However, since it has not been deleted - my main reason for starting the article was because he co-authored The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? with Leon Lederman, a nobel prize winner (see wikipedia page for date of nobel prize and for what).

Also he has been involved with co-authoring "Laser: Light of a Million Uses" which is about the laser revolution, so to speak, and how it is used in our life. Here is a quoted summary "From check-out counter scanners to compact disc recordings to fiber optical systems, lasers have become an integral part of modern society. LASER tells the fascinating story--past, present, and future--of these remarkable beams of light and how they are transforming our daily lives. A new preface brings the text up to date on the latest laser technology. 44 illustrations.
Engrossing story -- past, present, and future -- of tools that use light instead to perform a host of functions -- from providing superb fidelity on CDs and conveniences at the check-out counter to transforming surgical processes and improving telephone service and TV reception. "A fascinating, comprehensive book for the layman. Richly, readably thorough." -- "Wall Street Journal."

I wondered , if Leon Lederman thought enough of Teresi to include him on the cover of the book with the words "with Dick Teresi" to imply that he was some sort of co-author to such a great book; a book that gives an incredible view of paticle physics, then he might be an interesting guy. But, at this time I don't have a lot of information about Teresi and it would take time to put it together.

I am curious where did you come with Teresi as a the ghost writer for this book? If that is true then possibly his contribution is minimal. It appears that he does not have a PhD. in physics like Dr. Lederman.Ti-30X (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Apparently to see the link the reference refers to you will have to go to the edit function of this page. Ti-30X (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Teresi and his wife were both editors at OMNI magazine. His wife has a stub at Knowledge (XXG). Ti-30X (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:25, 27 April 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 |  19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A nonnotable piece of software Timurite (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:24, 27 April 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.


I remember a good quarrel with some wiki admin (they are mostly often just power hungry gawks) over the Nette Framework. He must have deleted the discussion. What a dipshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.156.185 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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 |  19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Formidable for TYPO3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A nonnotabloe piece of open-source software Timurite (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think this article should be removed. The team behind this software is working hard to produce a robust and free solution for rapid php-dev in a TYPO3 environment. In what way should the article be updated not to be considered a AfD ? Please tell me. Schneiderjerome 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how hard people are working on it, or how important it is to them - if it doesn't satisfy the notability criteria it can be deleted. There need to be enough references from reliable, third-party sources to assert that it's worthy of an article. Otherwise it could just be a school weekend project for all the verifiability. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It's stated here WP:FAILN that For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. Also, that there's a procedure to follow before honnestly judjing an article, notably to ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources. Being the article's creator, I can assure you that nobody ever asked me to cite sources before considering deletion (which btw is to be considered as a final resort). I personnaly feel that the deletion is not fair in that case; furthermore, if you simply search for 'formidable TYPO3' in Google, you'll see that many third-party sources are actually using and talking about the Formidable project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schneiderjerome (talk • contribs) 10:03, April 24, 2009
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:23, 27 April 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. Nja 08:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedball (South Euclid) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Non-notable local variation of a game. Unreferenced. Radiant chains (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok I dont know how this works but I have to say that there is no reason to delete this thread as it is totally true and accurate. Additionally it is not a non notalable local variation of a game, it was a totally new game still being played today. It is an example of today's youth getting together and learning how to organize themselves, govern themselves, and resolve conflict with absolutely no adult influence. LONG LIVE SOUTH EUCLID SPEEDBALL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.183.164 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This game is very different than other Speedball games out there. As author of this article, I feel very strongly about this. Thousands of students in the Northeastern Ohio area know about this game and it still continues to be played years after the founders have left for college and have not been able to keep the tradition alive. It is regional, but so are all of the wikis for local television channels, city pages (including south euclid and lyndhurst), awful morning radio programs, and even third rate, cable access local celebrities. This is much more relevant and worthy of a wiki than numerous others. Don't delete this; it is worthy of the 💕. ABernhard07 —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

Please see Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability. Even if the game does exist as described, I've been unable to located any reference in reliable, third-party sources. Radiant chains (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject fails to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines for inclusion as no coverage in reliable sources can be found. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This article sounds like it was written as an advertisement. It cites one reference, which is the company's homepage. Apparently, GolemLabs hasn't even produced a game since 2004, and have only produced two games since the inception of the company in 2000. GolemLabs is clearly not notable and its article should be deleted. Worldruler20 (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:18, 27 April 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. Nja 08:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

nn DJ and record producer Oo7565 (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not meet guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Perfect Dark Battle Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent reliable sources allowing for a neutral and verifiable article. Google News and Google Search turn up nothing useful. MLauba (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to have been created as part of a school assignment, and the writer is aware it probably doesn't pass muster: see . Nifboy (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - no secondary sources available to establish notability or verifiability, and therefore consists of practically entirely original research. NikBurg (talk) 00:53, 1 May 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) 02:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Very short article on non notable subject. One external reference which seems to have been largely copied or paraphrased into the article- possible copyvio? HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:05, 27 April 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 |  19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Subject is not notable. Did a search on Ghits and found nothing regarding Gibsonanimeshin or its creators that was relevant (or existent to the topic JogCon (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 27 April 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 The Apprentice (U.S. season 5). No consensus to delete. Redirecting per WP:BLP with no prejudice against a speedy renomination if the redirect is reverted without the article being sourced. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jose "Pepi" Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Person fails notability that he did not won The Apprentice 5. He does not meets BLP1E. ApprenticeFan 11:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Very short, non notable article providing little or no context. Completely lacking in references. HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The BFI source looks good. The JPS 15:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Indian films don't get as much English language coverage as American/European ones (a vast majority of Indian films are not in English). Given the prolific resumes of the director and some actors, I will assume many Malayalam language sources exist. --Oakshade (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I know nothing about the subject, but the film appears to have several notable people involved, and therefore a high-profile production. Strongly suspect that someone with knowledge of the language/film culture would be able to source and improve the article. Dekkappai (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable television actor and unsourced BLP article. Acting roles include only bit parts as far as I can tell. Appears to fail the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline. Lankiveil 22:43, 20 April 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, 27 April 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion. No prejudice against a speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but two of the three "Delete" votes were by sockpuppets - see Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting. I am neutral. Black Kite 19:07, 20 April 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, 27 April 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 |  00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing Double at the Triple Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song that wasn't released as a single, with no sources to suggest notability. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I did, and I didn't find anything that would be considered non-trivial. The fact that the band made a music video for the song does not make it notable, nor does the fact that some people somewhere may have possibly found it offensive. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:01, 27 April 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. Almost all of the creative text in this article was duplicated from or other official sources. Permission to use this text was not verified in spite of due notice and listing at Knowledge (XXG):Copyright problems/2009 April 20. Since the article has now been twice nominated at AfD with very little interest and since recreating it without the copied text would leave only an introductory sentence and a list, which would even further reduce any encyclopedic value, I have deleted it. There is no prejudice against creation of a clean version that verifies notability with proper reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl 14:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

UTS Writers' Anthology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

last deletion discussion was barely a discussion. relisting for greater consensus for keep or delete. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 20 April 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, 27 April 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 |  00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non notable software package. Few ghits, unreferenced. -- Mufka 18:04, 20 April 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, 27 April 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 |  19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A PHP developer, nonnotable by himself. Timurite (talk) 15:56, 20 April 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, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced BLP. Looking through the Imdb credits I find little of note, mainly minor production roles. A look for sources just gave me film production charts, nothing on her in particular. Wizardman 14:45, 20 April 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, 26 April 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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑