Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 10 - 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 Keep Cheers. I' 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Motörhead extended discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is unnecessary - all relevant material can be combined into the main article and track listings are on the articles about individual albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete hastily, redundant to existing articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Inclusion of the archive releases in the main discography would be a size issue. Track listings cannot be included on the majority of the individual albums as many of the discs listed there don't have articles. Do we have a policy or guideline on this as we generally don't have individual articles on archive releases not approved by bands? - I'm not aware of any.--Alf 06:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • futher comment Could be expanded to include the more notorious bootlegs as well.--Alf 09:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll re-post the reasons originally stated on Talk:Motörhead discography for the article's creation from here: "The reason for having separated the two in the first place is that the main discog page is dedicated to, for want of a better word, 'proper' releases, ie those intended for release by the group - the releases detailed on the extended discog page, although perfectly legitimate, have purposefully been over-looked by the contributing editors of the main discog page because they were not instigated or approved of by the group. The format of the extended discog page intentionally differs from the main discog page because each listed item on the latter has its own page, whereas on the former the details are all self-contained. Remember, the ext discog page is only a first cut and we can debate the relative merits of its format, and it may well be better to merge it into a list on the main discog page and create separate pages for each of the listed entries here." – Drwhawkfan (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep – for the reasons stipulated by Drwhawkfan above. Motorhead's discography is a long and tangled affair after 33 years and this article covers the most notable of the non-official releases. And there are plenty more out there. – B.hotep •talk• 12:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I must also take issue with the above comment stating that it must be deleted "hastily" – why must it be done hastily when there is a discussion to be had? – B.hotep •talk• 12:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge into discography article. Why not accommodate the two together. I don't see why this would necessitate a fork. Shadowjams (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and consider renaming to "Semi-official releases" on something like that. Since there are so many Motorhead albums, both official and unofficial, it seems reasonable to separate them this way. Yilloslime C 05:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Dane Owens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real assertion of notability. The song he is known for gained a respectable number of Youtube views (and I like it, incidentally), but it's not charted anywhere and gained little mainstream coverage, and as such he's not notable at this time. Was nominated a while back but for whatever reason the nominator reverted their nomination. Esteffect (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have also nominated the song's article, Shine on Me. Esteffect (talk) 23:32, 10 June 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 withdrawn; article cleanup necessary Shii (tock) 03:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

E Bukura e Dheut and other Encyclopedia Mythica-sourced articles

AfDs for this article:
    E Bukura e Dheut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Raudna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Horagalles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Datin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Verbti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Luot-chozjik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There are a lot of stray mythology stubs sourced solely to Encyclopedia Mythica. I noticed several years ago that these articles look like hoaxes but neglected to delete them. A lot are copyvio as well. Please help me find these stubs and delete them. Shii (tock) 22:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • speedy Keep all. "Horagalles" can be definitively sourced and so is not a hoax. ditto for Luot-chozjik: . Also, "E Bukura e Dheut" seems also to be real -- -- The sources here are in Albanian, which i can not read, but I can decipher enough to see that there is such a folktale. Probably the others similarly. The others are fairly common words and much harder to check quickly, but it seems that whoever did them did in fact have a good source. This was a good case where WP:BEFORE would have helped avoid the need for AfD. DGG (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Claims of importance in article are enough to cause me to decline a speedy request, but gsearch (both with and without middle initial) don't turn up any notability. The external link in the article is to an article that doesn't show notability. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete. My search came up blank. He doesn't seem to have had any articles written about him, barely has any Google hits, and while revamping the Massachusetts computer system was useful, it doesn't seem very notable. Fences and windows (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - sounds like a great guy to hire for IT consulting, but there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 12 June 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 Salem, Oregon#Neighborhood associations. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    South Gateway, Salem, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. roux  22:29, 10 June 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 Backslash Forwardslash at 09:13, 11 June 2009 as a blatant hoax. Non-admin closure. Greg Tyler 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    I came across this one while working on Cyprus geo stubs and orginally stumbled over the wrong transliteration. Turns out that the village doesn't exist at all. Google gives no results for Συταροιά and the given source for the population doesn't have it either (look under Ammochostos which is Greek for Famagusta). Nor does my detailed map of Cyprus list it. In theory it could be a very gross misspelling of Sotira, Famagusta, but then both the Latin and Greek spelling would be wrong - very unlikely. Passportguy (talk) 22:09, 10 June 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. Note: one of the reasons that inhabited and formerly inhabited places are inherently notable is that we presume the availability of the reliable sources to demonstrate notability, which sources seem to have been adduced by those claiming "keep" here and there has been no counterpoint to those sources - i.e., showing that they are bogus. In order to avoid disruption I think the issuance of a strong caution against nominating articles about inhabited or formerly inhabited places is in order. If they cannot be verified, that's one thing, but generally speaking, if the place exists or existed as shown by one reliable source, other sources will likely be found - perhaps paper ones, which are no less valid - if given sufficient time. Ideally, a source should be in every such article, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and nominators should look for sources before nominating such articles, because when the sources are found these nominations reflect poorly on those who cause others to run around to find them under short deadlines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Theba, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. It is my assertion that the mere existence of an entry in the USGS GNIS database - which is in many cases over 30 years old - is not enough to establish the notability of a purported "populated place", let alone its existence. Sure, there is an entry in the database calling Theba a "populated place" - but then again, there is an entry for the Citrus Grove Trailer Park . I do not believe that, without additional information to show that a "populated place" is notable, the GNIS is enough to warrant an article. There simply exists no information about this "community" beyond what the old GNIS entry tells us, and to me that does not establish any kind of notability. Shereth 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Agree with nom There has to be something you can say more about the place aside from "it exists". So unless someone can show that there is something more, this article should be deleted. At most, its existence can be mentioned in the county article. --Polaron | Talk 22:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Longstanding consensus is that all populated places are notable. Communities always can be counted on to have local history bits about them: can you assure us that, to the best of your knowledge, there are no printed sources about this place? I don't ask you to say that there are no such sources, but only that you have worked to establish that there aren't. Moreover, if you have established that this place doesn't currently exist (which seems rather doubtful, given the Google satellite view of the site), are you certain that it's not a ghost town? See this deletion debate: ghost towns can be notable, even if the community doesn't exist anymore. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • By the way, Polaron, there's more on here than "it exists". If there weren't anything else, I couldn't have given you the satellite link. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I have no serious problem with the notion that populated places can be notable, but where do we draw the line? From the perspective of the USGS, a "populated place" can include everything from a city of 8 million down to a trailer park of 8. Ghost towns can be notable becuase we have reliable sources that say so; a GNIS entry does little more than tell us that someone marked the spot "Theba" at some point in the past - it proves nothing beyond that point. I made a good-faith effort to dredge up information about this "community" last night (I have a vested interest in Arizona places) and came up empty-handed. If someone can demonstrate any tidbits of community history - or, frankly, anything other than the fact there was a dot on a map called "Theba", I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Shereth 22:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Nyttend, why does this require a separate article if this is all that can be said about it? Can't you include this information in the county article? Or you might even think about making a "List of unincorporated communities in Maricopa County, Arizona" and make a table with all your geographic information there. Can any one say why we need a separate article for this locality? --Polaron | Talk 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete or redirect - this isn't notable. It completely fails not only the GNG, but the spirit of the guideline as well. There notion that all populated places are notable is also contested.陣内Jinnai 23:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete or redirect as there is no "longstanding consensus is that all populated places are notable" - this argument is just another slant on WP:IKNOWIT. Notability requires verifiable evidence; without it, the article will only fail Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies. In any case, you can't write an encylopedic article on thin air - you need coverage from reliable secondary sources. This stub has no coverage, other than thin air (which must be thin at 728 feet above sea level). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - it may be a ghost town now, but there are plenty of sources available to verfify it once had people and businesses, as recently as 1978. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - Towns, whether currently existing or historical, are inherently notable. As Bearian pointed out, sources exist demonstrating this was a population center. --Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I hate to come across as being a little tendentious here, but has anyone actually looked at/reviewed these sources? One of them refers to the Theba Arizona USGS Quad - the name of a topographic map, not a place. Two of them are merely mentions in captions. Two are Google Books snippets that are impossible to determine what they actually say (and to be honest their use on the article is a little disingenuous unless someone has actual access to the books, and not just the snippet). One of the sources is even a website that essentially says "I can't find any information about Theba". One of them is even referencing a Theba in Yuma county, quite removed from the purported location discussed here. How this collection of stray mentions amounts to anything substantive feels like an extreme stretch to me. Shereth 03:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep The basis for the consensus that all populated places are notable is that--as this article shows--there always are sources if you look--even if we don't start looking for print. A map is a perfectly good secondary source. The GNIS database is just a start, but it's a good way to start. The practical reason for always keeping them as separate articles rather than merging is uniformity and the avoidance of these unnecessary debates. DGG (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Knowledge (XXG) is not a travel guide. A map is not a secondary source, it is the graphic equivalent of a travel guide or a telephone directory. If maps were reliable souces, every detail on them would be notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    DGG, there does not appear to be a consensus for the principle of "all places are notable and merit a stand-alone article" is not part of any guideline. It is only articulated in several essays and in WP:OUTCOMES, which is only a natural result of the fact that it only takes one person to create an article and a consensus to delete. So the fact that there is no consensus either way means that these articles tend to be kept. If there truly is a consensus for this inherent notability of places, its proponents should formalize it in a guideline proposal and see if it indeed has consensus. --Polaron | Talk 11:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep There are already several other sources and references on the article about this place. It may be notable for it's previous status as a mining town, and as a ghost town by now it would also be notable. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Previous consensus has repeatedly been that real places are inherently notable. In addition, this article is very well sourced for its size. Claims that the USGS map is not a secondary source are irrelevant, since it is a reliable source. Articles regularly use government compiled data (Census information is only one example) and are considered to be reliable sources. Finally, a place no longer being populated no more ends its notability than a person becomes non-notable if they died. Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - Since it is obvious that no one is bothering to actually check the references and happily assuming that a bunch of links = well referenced, I'm just going to withdraw my nomination under protest. Nothing in the "references" given states that Theba is or was a mining town, that it is or was populated, or that it is or was ever considered a "community" in any sense of the word. Apparently there is a (misguided) consensus that real places are inherently notable - a patently silly idea - but if it is consensus then I must concede that point. Still, I find it extremely disappointing that people are readily willing to accept the existence of links on an article as proof of facts that are not supported by the information in the links themselves, hence my withdrawal is made under protest. Cheers, Shereth 14:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If this were anything else, WP:V wouldn't be enough as they'd have to show notability. TBH nothing here shows notability. If anything it confirms the lack of it. Furthermore as there is no SNG on populated places, it is subject to the WP:GNG. Knowledge (XXG) isn't travel guide or listing of trivial information.陣内Jinnai 17:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This is another case where we forget that WP:GNG is simply a section of a guideline, not a "law" or "policy" and the heading of that guideline stipulates that it is "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Population centers have long been considered an obvious exception even without hyperlinks to New York Times articles about a towns that ceased to exist before Al Gore invented the internet.--Oakshade (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. It appears to be a community now, even if has population of only 2 in the last census. It would be okay even if current population is 0, as it is a valid former community then. Another reference to it is as the nearest community to a NRHP-listed place, which I just added to the article. doncram (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I created article Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona) which is a valid article about the NRHP-listed place. Would Administrators present please help stop administrator Shereth from edit warring in moving that article and even deleting redirect from the NRHP name for the place, and deleting mention of the official name of the National Register for the place. At this moment, the article is located at Painted Rocks (Arizona) but it should be moved to "Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona)". I requested nicely enough at Shereth's talk page that he/she open a wp:RM if he/she wishes for it to be moved from that article name. I would appreciate if another administrator would move it back to that name as the default, and tell Shereth not to edit war. doncram (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    RM discussion open at the article talk page, please continue it there. Shereth 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Fine, there is discussion now at Talk:Painted Rocks (Arizona). I appreciate somewhat that after edit warring to get his way, Shereth has acceded to my reasonable request to open a contested move discussion there. However, not part of the article name issue necessarily, is Shereth's further edit warring within the article to remove mention of Theba, Arizona from its contents as well as from its title. This seems wp:POINTY to me, that Shereth is edit warring as if to win the present AfD discussion about Theba, Arizona at all costs, in that way. It is a fact that the National Register of Historic Places lists this petroglyph site as being in or near Theba. It is appropriate for the NRHP infobox in the article to show that, per the default NRHP infobox output which I used in creating the article. doncram (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I reverted your edit a whopping single time, and you have managed to use the phrase "edit warring" three times in a single paragraph. Have you ever read WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL? I do not appreciate your scurrilous insinuations over a single revert and request that you knock it off and stop flinging mud - I have made good on my end to try and discuss this issue in a reasoned manner and it is now time for you to do the same. Shereth 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: previous consensus hasn't always been simply that populated places are inherently notable. For instance, this AFD decided that so long as a place has a name, and that name has appeared in print, that location is notable forever after. No people, no buildings, no census data, no info? No problem. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    World Book Encyclopedia 1970 lists Theba as having a population of 200 persons. That is why I started the article; 200 people is enough to be a legit community even if it is a ghost town today. Burningview (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    I really, really, really don't want to come across as snarky here but .. the bulk of this discussion would have been avoided if you would have included that as a reference in the article to begin with! Do you have any other references (remember, paper references are every bit as valid as online sources) at your disposal that you could help shore up the article with and stave off further concerns? Shereth 15:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Sure I will include them. The reason that I did not put the reference on there at the time was I wanted a second opinion first. 1970 World Book has Theba on a map in Arizona, and includes the population of 200 also, but there was no article on theba; (of course because its not significant). I wanted help thats all. Sorry if I stirred you up like that. My apologies. Burningview (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. I realize that I can come across strongly at times and for that I apologize as well; it's just that I am frequently misunderstood and sometimes get defensive about it. In spite of appearances I do not have a vendetta against Theba (or any article for that matter) - I have a vendetta against unsourced information. For what it is worth, I am satisfied with the level of attention being devoted to this article (and I would close this discussion, except that other editors have standing arguments to delete) and hope to see it improved; I intend to hit up the library this weekend to see if I can find any info, and possibly drive out there to see if any useful pictures can be taken (I'd like to hit up Painted Rocks and snap some pictures and it is on the way). Shereth 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    I understand, and you plan on doing all of that? Thats impressive. You sure work hard for wikipedia.Burningview (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Not really - I live nearby so it's no big deal. There are some other sites in the area that are in need of pictures (such as the Gillespie Dam) that I would like to stop by, too, so it's no big deal. But thank you again. Shereth 16:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Current and former populated places that can be verified to exist/have existed as independent settlements are (imo, and per consensus) notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep For the same reasons as others. It is a populated place, which has things about it mentioned in other sources. Anyone who wanted to visit Painted Rocks would want to know where the nearest town was. If its a popular tourist attraction, then surely the nearest town would have businesses catering to tourists. Dream Focus 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment None of those sources provide evidence of notability. If there is no evidence that a town is notable, then it fails Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory of random stuff. I don't see how a directory listing can impart notability on article that is itself little more than a directory listing. I mean, are topics about human settlements exempt from the requirement WP:V for coverage from reliable secondary sources because they are about settlements or about humans? Why stop at human settlements, and exempt humans from WP:V as well? Then we could list every person in Knowledge (XXG), just based on telephone directory listings and credit ratings. If human settlements are exempt from Knowledge (XXG) content policies, then what is the point of having such polices at all? Anyone could dream up an exemption for anything. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment We don't have to imagine what the slippery slope looks like, because Knowledge (XXG) has content policies which tell us where it leads to and what the pitfalls are - POV pushing and advert spam, to name but two. It seems to me that in eight-plus year history of consensus finding, the common sense inclusion criteria is WP:V and its requirement for reliable, third-party sources to act as a check on these sort of problems is the common sense solution. There has been the trend for schools to write their own article without evidence of notability for quite some time, but if you were to argue that they are inherently notable, you still have the problem of what to do with coatrack articles and promotion of fee paying schools. Without reliable, third-party sources, stubs on settlements will become a battle to "get on the map" for every town with an ice-cream stand or grocery store looking for business. Promoting exemptions from notability is a fundamentally flawed. We have been down that road before, and it leads to infingements of Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies, and acts as a magnet for original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. When dealing with historic entities, online searches often don't pull up much, so you must use books. There's a population entry for the community in my 1961 World Book Encyclopedia (estimated population of 200), which I've added to the article, with in-line cite. I can't find much on-line (possibly this), but a NewspaperArchive search might pull up tons of stuff. Kudos to the people working on these former communities (and kudos to Shereth on offering to get some images of the area). Firsfron of Ronchester 01:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    I've done a Newspaper Archive search, but it didn't pull up much of anything useful: just that the rail line at Theba was still operating in 1931, there were some auctions in Theba in the 1960s, and there was a sexual discrimination case in 1977 at a school in Arizona named Theba Elementary (which isn't necessarily in the same place). I'll check another newspaper archiving site later this week. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. I realize that consensus has generally been that currently and formerly populated places are inherently notable, but consensus can change, and in this case I hope it does. I'm a firm believer in the spirit, logic, and application of general notability guidelines--the idea that we need secondary, independent sources to write an an encyclopedia article on something, and at least some of those sources should address the topic directly and detail. Without such sources, article writing becomes either an exercise in synthesis, or you end up with a collection of somewhat related facts with no context or interpretation to hold them together. And this is exactly what we have here. Yilloslime C 05:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Rachel Thomas (political activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable campaigner trivial mentions in the sources provided, basically started a petition to save a pub fails WP:BIO BigDunc 21:47, 10 June 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 under criterion G3. There were just too many contradictory claims in the article (moving for privacy but doing a reality show) and claims that didn't hold water (alleged Hollywood records contract). —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Sabrina & Samantha Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article about a pair of 16-year-old "singer/songwriters" whose claim to fame is that having "entered the Junior Eurovision Songcontest and Idols they ended as the last 200." Then they are "best known as songwriters at You're Tune Space and Yourstagespace.com." but those sites don't seem to be operating yet: . Sources provided are a search on Dutch Google which only turns up one Samantha Banks, who seems to be a drummer; Sabrina's Twitter and Myspace; and what looks like their website but is a dead-link. I have done more searching and found nothing. Sabrina is already Twittering about "being on Knowledge (XXG)" so we may get SPAs turning up in support. Delete as absolutely non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • G3 So much hoaxery it's not funny. They're not listed on Hollywood Records at all, nor are any of the assertations of notability true. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    I can't find any secondary sources for this person. Her name pops up in things like General Motors press releases as being a contact, but I am unable to find any sources that would aid her in passing WP:BIO. Sixtysixstar (talk) 21:42, 10 June 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. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    No indication of notability in reliable sources. Only one news story mentions this author (link} and reviews of his books seem limited to forums and self-publishing websites. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Please be specific. Which sources do you think establish notability? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Actually this source looks a good reliable source by a reputable publisher that discusses Gooch specifically. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    For starters being published by Duke University . He's also referenced in this book originally from Indiana university. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


    • Question - what are the primary sources for his books? I would support the above EM consciousness page, but here the paranormal thing should have some value beyond fiction or fantasy to present it as science. I don't know what notability criteria there are for pop fiction writers but if the article makes statements about this as being science the primary sources he uses would seem to be important. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:47, 15 June 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 clear and obvious keep for now; there is no sense in a pileon at the time being. Please pay attention to the suggestions that this be revisited in a week or so to determine whether or not it should be merged into United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Shereth 22:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Knowledge (XXG) is not the news. People are, believe it or not, shot every day in the USA. I'm aware of the relevance of the location, but this really is a news story, and sadly, people won't be thinking of it as notable in a year's time. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    The museum does not deserve to be sullied by having space (beyond a link and a sentence) devoted to this incident. That would be unfair unbalancing of the page of an important museum.Historicist (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Historicist (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Is is necessary to keep both this version and the (sister project) WikiNews version??? Couldn't they be merged at Wikinews??? Just asking. CaribDigita (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Wikinews provides a different sort of coverage than Knowledge (XXG)... Knowledge (XXG) will have one unified encyclopedia-style article on this incident, with broad coverage, where Wikinews will write several seperate news articles over time on specific developments. The question here is only whether an encyclopedia article is proper for this topic. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Knowledge (XXG) considers the historical notability of persons and events." This is dramatic and will no doubt get a lot of short-term news cover, but that does not make it historically notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It may not be historic to you but for survivors of the Holocaust this is indeed a historic event. This event will change many things, and not just security details. If your not familiar with how difficult and scary it is for survivors to even go the museum you may not understand how much this is going to impact many people. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. High profile right wing violence is part of a larger story that is historic making it encyclopedic. As well, this is the Holocaust Museum, it will impact many people, it goes beyond the normal shooting incident and has the flavor of a historic event. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. And really an admin could snow-close this at some point if we continue on in this vein. Sorry but this isn't even close, and the notion that "shootings happen every day in the U.S." is a relevant fact for this situation is a bit bizarre. A semi-well known white supremacist/holocaust denier shot up the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. It's the absolute dominant news story of the day in the U.S., and will certainly be remembered for many years—at the least among Jewish folks, but many others as well I'm sure. There will be hundreds of editorials about tomorrow (WP:CRYSTAL, I know, but just watch) These insta-AfDs of obviously notable news events do get tiresome—particularly when there is no effort whatsoever to make an argument for deletion based on our actual notability standards ("people won't be thinking of it as notable in a year's time" is, of course, irrelevant since notability is not temporary). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    we should snow-close this now. The tag on the page merely makes Knowledge (XXG) look like an absurdly argumentative place.Historicist (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    I've asked the nom on their talk page to consider withdrawing this so we'll see what comes of that, but I'd also support a snow-close for the same reason you suggest, in addition to the obvious fact that there will be no consensus for deletion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. To say it's not going to be historic is pretty silly. YOU CANNOT SEE INTO THE FUTURE! I say keep it around until history disproves it. Xmzx (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep per KarshSM's rationale (what sets this apart from other murders) and the other keep rationales. A redirect is possible if the story never grows beyond a few paragraphs but to delete this article now would make future efforts at incorporating it into the museum article much more difficult. Soap /Contributions 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete Why does this need its own article? It's hard to argue that it doesn't need to be located on the main page of the museum. Pr0me7heu2 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    The museum does not deserve to be sullied by having space (beyond a link and a sentence) devoted to this incident. That would be unfair unbalancing of the page of an important museum.Historicist (talk) 22:07, 10 June 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 Slakr under WP:CSD#G3. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Article is unverifiable and suspected hoax. Previous version had alot of BLP problems, like a hoax vulgar "quote" from U2's Bono and claimed affair w/ notable singer, crazy unverified quotes, it is obvious hoax. Subject's parents, history, recordings, colaborations, gigs, awards, it is all unverified, i can't find any thing on internet about it or the subject. Only source was myspace, it is not RS. RetroS1mone talk 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • G3 Obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The guy does seem to exist (at least, there is a teacher of this name at New College Telford), so the page isn't intrinsically hoax. However, much of the material was possibly hoaxy, (IMO) likely to be defamatory and definitely unsourced or poorly sourced. I've been trying to get the page content improved for several weeks, without much success. As I've said on the article's talk page, I've mailed Jackson today to let him know that the page exists and is problematic, so he may come back to me with comments or get it fixed himself. Kay Dekker (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:44, 10 June 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) 09:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Non notable proprietary connector with no reliable source. The first 2 reference link to a freely editable wiki. the 3rd and 4th reference to the official website. Paid Editing (talk) 20:31, 10 June 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 G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    Around the World Submerged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Doesn't seem to be a notable book. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete Per lack of third-party sources; I also couldn't find any significant coverage in a google news or google book source. I came across this article at DYK and I am the one who tagged it with {{primary sources}} and {{notability}}; I think the only thing that would convince me of its notability would be to see it cited by other works and see them claiming that it is as groundbreaking as this article claims it to be. From what I can tell, even if it was the first book to report some things (as this article says), I can't tell if they're really notable. rʨanaɢ /contribs 20:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'm not sure on this one. While Rjanag's argument is persuasive, it is from 1962 and was (presumably) not a best-seller. It's hard to find stuff on books from that long ago; heck, (for example), it's hard enough to find stuff on the novel that is credited with the revitalization of the fantasy genre, The Sword of Shannara. What I mean by all that is the no significant coverage in Google News or Books doesn't worry me, because I would have expected nothing from News. Books is a little worrisome, but modern books (what GB has a lot of) would probably cite modern research, not a 46-year old book. (did all that make sense?) Perhaps someone knows an old navy guy who would have seen coverage back in '62? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Allow me the opportunity to expand on this article. If need be, tag it as a stub. The book did have at least a second printing, and it was published as a paperback by Dell. Also, I recall reading that it was on the New York Times best-seller list, just as Captain Beach's first noovel, Run Silent, Run Deep. Finally, if anyone was going to look into the Triton circumnavigation, this book would be the principal source for this voyage.

    Marcd30319 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • That doesn't address any of the criteria at Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books). Being published more than once doesn't make a book notable, and even being on the bestseller list doesn't necessarily do so (assuming you get a source for that). The only criterion here that this article has even an outside shot at is #5, and I don't believe that is met either; while Beach is notable, he doesn't appear to be that much of a giant in his field. rʨanaɢ /contribs 21:51, 10 June 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) 09:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    San Diego Thunder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I'm not particularly familiar with US sports teams but from what I can see this is a minor club which doesn't appear to meet WP:CLUB; my attention was drawn to the article because there is a clear WP:COI from its creator, who states he is the club owner. I42 (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Semi-professional is very minor level, indeed. But with any organization, what matters is whether there are third party sources with meaningful coverage to cite... I didn't expect to find any, but lo and behold, in the San Diego Union-Tribune. As far as I can tell that's the only article with coverage of this team. Unless more can be found, I'm going to have to say Delete. There have been other, apparently unrelated, teams by this name... one in the 1980s for example: --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete for lack of notability. -- Blanchardb -- timed 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Also listing

    -- Blanchardb -- timed 23:04, 10 June 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. Cirt (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Likely fails WP:POLITICIAN. He was deputy mayor, not mayor, and while he was a city councillor, did not receive significant press coverage. 3 passing mentions in Evenimentul Zilei, 4 in Cotidianul, 5 in Adevărul, 2 from Mediafax, 0 in Jurnalul Naţional, 0 in Ziua, and 1 in Clujeanul - a newspaper from his own city. Biruitorul 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    He was the only politician to have served 2 consecutive and successful terms as the vice mayor since Democracy dawned upon Romania.The romanian press has been good sometimes, lukewarm, and mostly bad to him - it is quite obvious as he is from a Hungarian minority. His popularity should not be guaged by the anti-hungarian romanian news media but the Hungarian media. He has not just 12 media mentions as claimed.To understand his popularity and the coverage he got, we should look at the popular hungarian press, Innumerable mentions in "Szabadság", More numerous mention in another Hungarian daily "Krónika", Even more in "umsz" and "Hungarian Human Rights Foundation" citing the effort Janos Boros has made towards upliftment of the Hungarian community in Romania, are but a few. These prove that while it is true that Janos Boros was held in high esteem by the Hungarians and the Hungarian media in Romania as their representative in politics(and hence passes the WP:POLITICIAN muster) and was given significant exposure, the Romanian media ignored and concentrated more on the Romanian politicians. Janos Boros is a noted figure among Hungarians and definitely deserves mention. Thus the attempt to delete his page holds no logic.(Hangakiran) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    • 1. The only two-term Vice Mayor of Cluj, or in all of Romania? And in any case, is there a source indicating that might be notable? (Also, Romania was a democracy prior to 1938...)
    • 2. Do you have anything to support your claim that the Romanian media is anti-Hungarian? After all, if we search Romanian newspapers for other ethnic Hungarian politicians, for László Tőkés we get 542 hits in Jurnalul Naţional, 306 hits in Adevărul, 1910 hits in Ziua, and so on. Béla Markó gets 210 in Jurnalul Naţional, 1740 in Adevărul and 6240 in Ziua. Even more obscure politicians like Jenő Szász get 67 mentions in Jurnalul Naţional, 116 in Adevărul and 98 in Ziua. So it's absurd to say that just because a politician is a Magyar, the Romanian press chooses not to cover him. Other Hungarian politicians get ample coverage.
    • 3. Of course, mere mention in a paper is not enough to show notability - coverage must, per WP:GNG, "address the subject directly in detail". If you can actually translate and adapt that coverage into a legitimate article, great.
    • 4. I'm not claiming Boros is irrelevant, but Tőkés, Markó and Szász (and Borbély, and Zsolt Nagy, and Winkler, and Asztalos) are far more the "representative in politics" of Hungarians in Romania than Boros is. Let's not inflate his importance beyond Cluj. Naturally, the Romanian media focused more on Romanians, who are 90% of the population as opposed to 6%. Again, it may be that notability is to be found in Szabadság, Krónika and so on, but the burden of proof is on you to do that, and so far, if we are to judge simply on the article as it stands and what political offices he has held, notability is not yet demonstrated. - Biruitorul 01:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    Does Janos Boros satisfy WP:GNG:

    • 1. Significant coverage has been indicated in the Hungarian and Romanian media sources above. As a noted politicians, the coverage is in terms of direct relevance to Janos Boros in his interviews, his point of view and activities noted and published by the press. This is as directly relevant as it can get. WP:GNG also states: Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Janos Boros as the vice mayor was bound to be mentioned in most of the news alongside other political entities, as administration and politics is not a one person game. So he got coverage which was definitely more than trivial and sometimes less than exclusive. If you read the the coverage links in the Hungarian media above and even many of the Romanian media given below of Janos Boros, you would see this to be true. Hence WP:GNG is perfectly satisfied.
    • 2. Then the WP:GNG continues to mention, notability in Knowledge (XXG) indicates verifiability and Substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject constitutes verifiable evidence of notability. The Hungarian media coverage is both independent and verifiable and hence their reporting on Janos Boros makes him notable.
    • 3. Whether the Romanian media is anti-Hungarian or not is a matter of perspective and not the point in question here. The actual question is whether Janos Boros got "Significant Coverage" as per the WP:GNG which he did through the Hungarian media, which is independent and verifiable.
    • 4. Whether Janos Boros is more relevant or not than another politician is also not the question here. "Significant coverage" and "Notability" which are proven beyond doubt determine acceptance. As to the aspect of finding mention in Romanian media, 61 mentions in Evenimentul Zilei, 37 mentions in Adevărul, 41 mentions in Ziua, 200 mentions in Clujeanul - a newspaper from his own city, 128 mentions in hotnews.ro are significant.
    • 5. So, last but not the least, Romanian media being unfavourable to Janos Boros is only in comparison to the Hungarian Media. If you look at the Romanian media coverage he has got, that by itself would be enough to satisfy the norms of the WP:GNG. But if you factor in the coverage in the independent Hungarian press as well, it becomes not just significant but conclusive.

    This IS "Significant" and "Notable" enough to put this debate to rest. (Hangakiran) 06:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete I don't see how this passes either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage that he got in the press is, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively owed to a local corruption scandal which implicated him (an incident which, tellingly, is not even covered by the article). The news is of marginal interest even locally (in Cluj County, that is), and the text, which is most likely promotional, is horribly written - beginning with the title. This is a quick way to make oneself look important, not an encyclopedic topic. Dahn (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete Dahn said it far better than I can. At most, maybe an article on these scandals and a redirect, but even that pushes the bounds of notability considerably - Vartanza (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC).
    • Weak keep, I'm not familiar with Romanian politics, but this Boros is mentioned several times on quite significant websites, and not only about the scandal, but in articles about local politics, Hungarian minority, etc. (Look for him in Google using the Hungarian name order "Boros János" and add his city's Hungarian name "Kolozsvár" since his name is not that rare; you will see how often is he mentioned.) – Alensha  10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • NOTE I moved the article to the correct capitalization of a proper name and adjusted all links as such. Content should not be recreated at the BOROS version. Syrthiss (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • strong keep. He seem to pass notability criteria, at least google see plenty of hits, and I have found more references in Hungarian media than I had the time to read (and not about any scandal but usual political agendas). I think it's not the topic whether Romanian newspapers do or don't like to talk about politicians of whatever nationality but whether the person has been mentioned by independent media, be it national or international. All notability related comments above seem to be based on Romanian language local media only, which is of course just one side of the story. --grin ✎ 15:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    Have changed the content with updated references to comply with both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The references in Hungarian media if read properly is proof enough of his Notability and is a noted Politician in Transilvania. Determining the Notability of a minority Hungarian politician based exclusively on Romanian media presentation will definitely lead to a biased view. [[In addition to this, searched for other Romanian(Listed below) Vice Mayors and politicians to see if they have pages on Knowledge (XXG), they do. Most of them have not served amount of tenure Janos Boros has. If they are considered Notable and qualify to be WP:POLITICIAN, then so should Janos Boros. The list:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/Mioara_Mantale - A Subprefect
    http://en.wikipedia.org/Leon_Rene_Yankwich - A US federal judge of Romanian origin
    http://ro.wikipedia.org/Mircea-Anton_Silva%C5%9F - Was a Vice mayor of the Forest Filipestii
    http://ro.wikipedia.org/Ovidiu_Tudorici - Vice Mayor of Câmpulung Moldovenesc.
    http://ro.wikipedia.org/Tiberiu_Dekany - Vice Mayor of Arad
    Hangakiran (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Keep. Not sure I agree with Dahn's assessment that this fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Under Politician we have: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." So he's a member of the citywide government of a major metropolitan city (third largest in Romania). He's received significant press coverage, as others have found. How is that not meeting the criteria? The argument here seems to stem from the question "What is significant?". Note that the WP policy says "more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." The fact that the articles Dahn is talking about doesn't give exclusive attention to Boros is not a reason to delete the Knowledge (XXG) article. The only criteria the "significant press coverage" has to meet is that it gives details directly about Boros. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. in between a lot of hundreds piliticians there are only 14-15 hungarians, so they are downrepresented in this category of EN WP. See Category:Romanian_politicians. On the other hand we get a few tousand results in the google for the following searches: "Boros János" Kolozsvár (3 420), "Boros János" alpolgármester (2 190), "Boros Janos" Cluj (2 940), "Boros Janos" viceprimar (803), "Boros János" RMDSZ (3 050), "Boros Janos" UDMR (1530).

    Against for it there are a lot of existing Romanian politicians in EN WP with more smaller number of results. For ex. "Gheorghe Taşcă" (286), "Gheorghe Mironescu" (724), "Emil Haţieganu" (1230), "Ştefan Voitec" (1300), "Maria Antonescu" (1770). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakmaros (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was Speedy delete per A7, deleted by Jéské Couriano. The article was tagged as A7 before the AFD opened. Two other users tried to remove the speedy without realizing that the speedy was there first. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Looks like the article doesn't meet the criteria for musicians and ensembles. LouriePieterse (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Canadian actress with three minor (extra) film roles. No independent sources other than myspace, no verifiable assertion of notability, possible conflict of interest. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Article is tagged for speedy, custom tag - I guess it would be a combination of A7, G11 and possibly G5. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    Not an A7 for claims of importance/significance are enough; it's not unambiguously promoting, thus not G11; and G5 requires that the creation was in violation of a ban, thus does not apply if the the user was blocked afterwards only. Let the AFD run, one more day will not hurt, will it? Regards SoWhy 08:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    Okay, I misunderstood G5. I thought if a user was banned/ blocked indefinitely any article that was created by the banned user with no significant edits by others was subject to deletion. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:56, 16 June 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. per WP:SNOW; merge discussion (if any) should take place on talk page (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) 18:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    LouriePieterse (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • I fixed the first problem, and the second should be easy to fix. I don't know much about radio articles though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment : This is purely site owner's discretion but what about licensed radio

    amateurs or licensed real estate professionals who are well known in their communities? If you just want to make a directory that is fine but this makes notability a bit irrelevant. It was notable as a kid that I could listen to radio Moscow on short wave and you could argue that AM stations may have automatic national interest but even those that do internet broadcasts may not have more than local appeal. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    This is a different station than KTRO. Different ownership, management, format. Just because the current licensee KTRO inherited the physical apparatus of KISN doesn't mean they're the same. KMET (defunct) (now KTWV) is another example. "Thin on history" is only a blind assumption. A quick g-archives search alone brings up many secondary sources. --Oakshade (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Vampires in new york (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The major rationale for deletion is lack of notability. The article presents no independent sources; in fact, since the article's author appears to be the book's author, the issues of conflict of interest and original research are also in play. If this were an album, I would have already deleted it under speedy criterion A9, but since that's not possible for books, consider this nomination as bearing a strong delete recommendation for lack of notability and verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    David Andrew Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) removed from nomination: speedy deleted, A7
    Vampires Invincible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I've taken the somewhat unusual step of adding the author of the book to this AfD, as they were created more or less as a pair and they pretty much cover the same thing.  Frank  |  talk  19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    ...And Vampires Invincible, which the creator of the first two also created. I note that two opinions below already lump Vampires Invincible in.  Frank  |  talk  20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    I'd say verifibility is the major problem here, I'm not sure evidence for this book's publication even exists. Google turns up plenty of matches for "New York Vampire" (which is a completely separate series), but absolutely zero matches for this. Delete - 2 ... says you, says me 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    go to this website to find out where i got the information from:www.davidevans.yolasite.com the reason you cannot find the site on google is that not many people know the site and not many people have visited it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidevans123 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Which would exactly define why these two articles are not notable enough for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG) at this time.  Frank  |  talk  19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    The publisher that Davidevans123 put down is "lulu company" which is a vanity press Lulu (company). Even if the book does get published, it probably wouldn't deserve an article. I don't think there's much to discuss here. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    ok fine i give up on these pages. but the writer is 14 and not 18 and it is NOT me i just go to school with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidevans123 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 June 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) 09:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Times Ten Cellars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This winey fails to establish notability as per WP:N and articles reads like an advert BodegasAmbite (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    @This flag was once red: A simple Google search is not a test for notability. Please read WP:NN for a detailed explanation of the topic.
    Jesteban78 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    I'm familiar with WP:N, thanks. I based my !vote on (a) the article doesn't (didn't? However, I looked again just now and the references all seem to be local) assert notability (the subject is a wine bar and winery serving a neighbourhood of a city; it has won city awards, but so far as I can see nothing outside the city), and (b) I couldn't find any sources that suggested notability outside the local area - I found plenty of sources suggesting that the wine bar had been favourably received locally, but again nothing outside the city.
    To put this is context, I !voted weak keep (and it still looks like the article will be deleted...) for an Australian vineyard on the basis that the vineyard pioneered production of a grape variety in Australia; I'm not seeing anything comparable in this article. I'd like to see at least regional importance - "this local winery is selling well in the South-Central US", pioneering activity, or something equally notable.
    Cheers, This flag once was reddeeds 15:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    I wholeheartedly disagree with your nomination. This winery is one of only five in the city of Dallas, and the only one in the historic neighborhood of Lakewood. It is notable because it was established as a result of Texas loosening its restrictions on wine production, and is on track to become a regional brand with its second location in Fort Worth. HEB/Central Market have begun carrying Times Ten Cellars wine, along with over a dozen Dallas restaurants. It has received awards from Citysearch and The Dallas Morning News Wine Competition, an internationally renowned wine competition.
    Your Google search may have returned "touristy" links because it is a very popular destination within the neighborhood (its tasting room looks much like a bar and is reviewed as such). All of the article's sources can be found online. Cheers,
    Jesteban78 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    Comment. Please read WP:N. There is nothing notable about being one of only five wineries in Dallas, nor being the only one in Lakewood. Neither does its being established as a result of Texas loosening its restrictions on wine production confer any notability on it. Secondly, being on track to achieve anything is not a criterion for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). The achievement must come first, then comes possible inclusion. If you read the notability article (WP:N), you will see how being carried by local restaurants, winning awards and being mentioned in newspapers also doesn't automatically confer notability. You should also read WP:CORP for issues related to advertising and self-promotion and WP:COI if you are connected to or have a relation with Ten Times Cellars. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    I have read WP:N, and it seems like we have a disagreement over what constitutes notability. I have provided secondary, verifiable sources to back up my claims. Even you seem open to the notion that winning awards MAY confer notability, but you do not explain why you think it may not. I am open to suggestions on improving the article, but you don't seem interested in that.
    "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
    No original research is needed to extract the data from my sources, so the article passes the "significant coverage" test.
    My sources include newspapers, business journals and magazines that reach hundreds of thousands of readers and are peer-reviewed, so the sources are "reliable" and "independent of the subject." I can't stress enough that this article satisfies all of the criteria for a stand-alone article.
    I have also read WP:CORP and can assure you that while I know the owners, I do not own or work for this company, so it does not constitute self-promotion. If you think the article is not written from a neutral point of view, please identify the section(s) that you find are biased. Again, I am looking for suggestions on improving the article. Jesteban78 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, the sources are reliable and independent (even if they are all local), but that's not the issue here. The issue is Notability, and as I said above, the winery has done nothing notable. So it doesn't really matter if you provide good references, if there is nothing notable in the first place.
    The reason I mentioned WP:CORP and WP:COI was that the article is just like an advertising write up.
    It's not that I'm not interested in helping; it's that I have lots of other things to do (both in WP and in RL). But here's a thought: I see you've added text saying that x10 grows grapes in Texas. That might be notable if it's the only winery that does it or if it was the first who did it or something like that. And if you can find a reliable independent reference to back up the claim. The point here is Notability and references. As it stands the article is just an advert for for the winery.
    With regard to awards, just winning an award doesn't automatically confer notability. There are literally thousands of wine fairs giving out vast numbers of awards and medals. There are very few that are considered to be notable. Also, winery articles in WP don't usually have an awards section for that very reason, and if they appear, they usually get deleted.
    I hope this has helped. If you are keen to keep this article, you really must find something notable about the winery and back it up with good refs. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    I think you're confusing "notability" with "importance". Knowledge (XXG)'s article about notability states that it is "not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." If only the first winery to grow grapes in Texas is worthy of an article, then why write an article about Pixar? It wasn't the first animation studio or even the first to use 3D animation in films. It is notable because people care about it and want to know more.
    It seems to me like your issue is more about the tone of the writing than anything else. I agree that it needs work, that parts of it do sound like self-promotion, but Knowledge (XXG)'s Deletion Policy states that if a page can be improved, it should be edited and not deleted. You can also use the tag npov for bias.

    Jesteban78 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Very weak keep. The Dallas Morning News Wine Competition appears to be a large enough contest that winning medals there would provide at least a small claim to notability. The article needs to be completely rewritten, however. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    The Dallas Morning News Wine Competition would not be notable enough to merit an article on its own and at most would be a brief blurb in the main Dallas Morning News article. There are literally thousands of non-notable wine competitions across the globe giving out hundreds of thousands of awards and medals. Winning an award from these non-notable competitions doesn't infer notability any more than a high school football coach taking his team to the state championship. That's a far cry from winning the Super Bowl. Agne/ 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete I think the article's creator is missing a key point about Knowledge (XXG) and our notability policies. First and foremost Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not a wine guide but rather an encyclopedia. Additionally we are encyclopedia with an international scope and audience. Knowledge (XXG) was not meant to be a catalog of all the local mom & pop restaurants, business or wineries but rather an encyclopedic reservoir for those topics that go beyond just the local to a national or international level. Hence your comparison of Pixar with this local wine bar/winery is not very valid. The single act of making wine alone is not any more notable than the local Lakewood Pizzeria for making pizzas. As a member of the Wine Project, I could definitely be swayed to support keeping this article if something can be demonstrated with independent, reliable sources that this local winery has accomplished something of significance to the world of wine or even the Texas wine industry. Winning awards from non-notable wine competitions is not significant. Otherwise my roommate with her dozen plus medals from home winemaking competitions and numerous state fairs would qualify for an article as well as every blogger than wins a "bloggie" or band that wins a local battle of the bands, etc. Agne/ 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm gonna go with a delete despite my love of the tipple. They may have gotten awards, but my accolades from friends about my mead does not make me very notable. Let's get some more reliable sources here and we can possibly make it work. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:35, 10 June 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 as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Written like an advertisement, creator was User:Agropedia so there's a conflict of interest here. Was prodded with:


    A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
    2009 June 10 – news, books, scholar
    Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.     Sandor Clegane (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Another piece on Down to Earth and the SciDev article was also featured on the UN CAPSA flash, and then there's a one page reference about how scientists are using social media to improve farming in Content Nation: Surviving and Thriving as Social Media Technology Changes Our Lives and Our Future, by John Blossom, ISBN 0470379219, Page 67.
    The SciDev piece was also co-published by The Guardian UK, SeedQuest, Environmental News Network and also a few universities in the US and Europe. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. First, "written like an advertisement" is not a reason to delete an article. It's a reason to rewrite from a neutral point of view. Second, a COI is not a reason to delete an article. If Barack Obama had written the article on himself, he would still be notable. Third, Spaceman Spiff has shown this article is marginally notable.

      Note: If the consensus is to keep, this article should be added to the List of online encyclopedias.—S Marshall /Cont 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

      • Except notable people usually aren't the ones to write articles about themselves or their affiliations. If something was truly notable, then an unrelated third party would eventually get around to making an article for it, wouldn't they? Barack Obama wouldn't be writing an article about himself for obvious reasons--he's notable so he wouldn't have to. That being said, the COI was hardly the reason for deletion, I just thought it was worth noting.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment I just found out that the person who removed the prod was in fact User:Useragropedia after User:Agropedia was banned. I wonder if there's a connection between the two?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The user was banned because of their username, not any other vio, and probably came back under a similar username. This can just as well be an honest error due to not knowing the rules (I didn't know about user name vios until now). As far as removing PRODs, anyone including the creator can do it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Question for nom: What are the links above to Google news meant to mean? The parameters you have set are:"2009 June 10" source:"-newswire" source:"-wire" source:"-presswire" source:"-PR" source:"-press" source:"-release". Nowhere in this do I see Agropedia. Same for Google books and Google scholar. Given that the references above were all in the article and searchable on Google, I'm inclined to think that this qualifies for a Speedy Keep. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I don't know exactly what you mean, but I'm not the one who did the prod--I was just reiterating it (although I don't see the problem with it). That being said, I just did a Google news search for Agropedia for ALL dates with no further restrictions and I still only got five results .--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I downgraded from speedy to prod, and those are the links that come with every {{prod-nn}}. They are intended to subtract out some of the promotional urls, although often there's little or no difference in the number of hits you get searching on the subject itself. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • My mistake, you've linked the GNews, Gbooks in the nomination statement to the page title, so if you view this on the main log page, it searches for the date, not the name of the article. It searches for the article only if you open the Afd page directly. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:14, 11 June 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) 09:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Super Smash Bros. Voice Cast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    falls under WP:GAMECRUFT --Teancum (talk) 15:54, 10 June 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) 09:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    StarChamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Comment The article gives no independent sources and doesn't even say what "StarChamp" is. If anyone knows anything about it please fix the article so we can have a decent discussion. A Google search finds a lot of "StarChamp" but it's difficult to tell if it's related. Drawn Some (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. There appear to be more informative versions in the history. I gather this is some kind of talent competition organized by a music school in Singapore. No opinion at present as to the notability of this program. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    That helps, but I'm still not sure if it is a record label, a school, a school program, a talent agency, etc. It is in some odd categories such as "Living people". Drawn Some (talk) 14:27, 10 June 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. I'm calling WP:SNOW per IAR. –Juliancolton |  20:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Ex-girlfriend fist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Per WP:MADEUP. No sources, seems like the author has just made it up for fun. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Does not pass WP:AUTHOR A few published books does not make one notable. Bonewah (talk) 14:37, 10 June 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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Subject's notability is debatable, and the page appears to have been created as a spinoff from Marc Stuart Dreier - see Talk:Marc Stuart Dreier. Despite some attempts to rescue the page by uninvolved contributors, BLP concerns remain, and I think notability needs to be established. Disembrangler (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Return him to where he rightfully belongs: a subsection of Marc Dreier. When an edit war erupted on June 5, 2009, a few dissenters felt the resolution was to create his own page. i disagreed, but that was the consensus. please synthesize a small part of this page with a section within the Dreier page. (See Revision history of Marc Stuart Dreier before overnight deletions on june 5, 2009 for section placement. Furtive admirer (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete no extensive coverage about the man anywhere. I also urge other editors to keep on eye on Furtive, whose grasp on BLP policy is shaky.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep central attorney in a few high profile bankruptcy cases makes for notability. The sources are sufficient for that. DGG (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Notability is not inherited. The sources are generally not about Traub, they mention him in passing. It's fairly clear from the content that this was a content fork from the Dreier scandal, and I'm not sure enough sources exist to balance that for a full bio. Disembrangler (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - GET INVOLVED in Fact specifics - a page on Traub, eToys, Dreier and Petters are all national issues. ---- These items are akin to Madoff and Markopolous ---- the facts are overwhelming and profuse that manifest injustice is transpiring on a National scale. If you Care to make a difference simply have several editors block the page(s) and put up only sourced items the achieves a majority vote - The TRUTH shall Set this discussion FREE Laserhaas (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    — Laserhaas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    At least I sign my name to all comments as an author of this veiled inuendo — Laserhaas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. you miss the point - One is either a reporter/Pedia of Facts or one has an agenda
    Clearly you have an agenda. I don't much care what it is. No veiled innuendo; you are demonstrably a single purpose account.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Weak delete DGG makes a good point but the sourcing isn't extensive at all and this seems almost like an attempt to smear Traub. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    Collapse what you may - the statement by me is that Editors research the FACTS and report what is public - the WSJ reported on the Story - the OPINION by the Court and Corresponding Order of Oct 4 2005 stipulated that the parties Confessed to supplication of false affidavits and deceiving the Court -- Deliberately - It is a FACT that Martha went to jail for a lot less.

    Why does his own resume on the new law firm website not mention anything about eToys, Stage Stores, Jumbo Sports etc

    Why are you and those here trying SO HARD to bury the information? As you can see - I am not the one that originated the Traub or Dreier pages and the overwhelming and abundant proofs are Public Court Documents and the Wall Street Journal article of July 25, 2005 (front page mention)
    Attacking me personally - inferring that I have a veiled agenda - when all I request is that Editors gather together, research and report the facts - is Most Certainly an AGENDA!

    Laserhaas (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    collapse soapboxing
    Single purpose - To halt Fraud and Ponzi schemes from harming others - that appears to be against your grain. Traub, eToys, KB, Dreier, Petters and DOJ Breach of Fiduciary duties, fraud, cronyism, corruption, organized crime a/k/a Bankruptcy Ring and counsels who have CONFESSED to supplication of False Affidavits to Deliberately Deceive a Federal Court as Officers of the Court. So strong a premise that the US Supreme Court stipulates in the case of In re Hazel Atlass Glass - that there is NO statute of limitation thereof.
    While you fail to follow your own rules to sign your name and on the other hand I have placed affidavits out on the web accusing DOJ personal of engaging in corruption!
    The problem with those who swore an oath to protect; is that they are assisting in Covering up these crimes against innocent stock holders, creditors by Assaulting the Constitution of the United States as they and those who engage in haughtier (such as you) - is that when it comes to a conscience;

    No one seems to have One!

    Report the facts or Do NOT - the choice - simply - is Yours!

    69.232.152.53 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


    As for eToys, Dreier, Petters, Traub one would be hard pressed to find a more fact intensive person than this one

    Regardless - I have accepted the integrity of this system as pure and yield any agenda to the quest for truth However - such a quest should NOT be tilted toward an effort to Cover Up the information - specifically because one is a novice

    It is our case ````But is the American system of Justice at risk here Stand up for what is right in America or Let it Go! Laserhaas (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


    • Keep DGG is correct: Plenty of sourced material see: *Zoom Info] There is something to be said when a paid PR agency has to protect what is written on Knowledge (XXG)....something is amiss here... when only his new office address is retained on Marc Dreier. He deserves more resourceful research into other bankruptcy conflicts and his business issues with Tom Petters. Both Dreier and Petters are of like mind...not coincidential. let's dig deeper, ok?

    Furtive admirer (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete While their are many sources about the cases, there appears to be a lack of sources about the actual subject. I doubt a proper article could be written and it seems that he'd be more appropriately mentioned in the articles of the companies when discussing their bankruptcy cases. There seems to be an awful lot of questing for truth going on here and its been a challenge to keep the article from becoming a coatrack for some supposed wrongs; I believe a lot of this is due to the lack of coverage for the subject outside of the courtroom. Shell 08:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep on some of his pages associations. notability The WSJ refers to him as "one of the biggest names in bankruptcy law" see: WSJ and Full WSJ article for free Basically of note it says, the Trustee said his deception was intentional; given his experience, he should have known better than withold paid personnel relationships. Ergo, he is quite notable, whether infamous in his field or not.

    Furtive admirer (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Not sure if you realize, but this is a discussion not a vote; you can add further thoughts to your original comments instead of adding several "keep" notes. You've also been asked quite a bit not to violate the BLP policy in regards to this subject and your continued need to state your opinion is becoming seriously problematic. Shell 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


    Items of NOTE

    As a "discussion" it would seem to all newcomers, etc., that a realm - seeking to expand its horizon - would be cordial and diplomatic - with sound ethical protocols.

    I would rather not be here - being snide upon - by those that do not have compassion - this place is click minded - however, because other parties are putting in a good faith effort - for the greater good - I am obligated to spend time; we would all waste last of it - in banter - if the resulting consensus was to just report/pedia the issues at hand.
    Fact 1 eToys went public in 1999 for nearly $8 billion and bankrupt a year later
    2 - one of the 1st Orders was the approval of DESTRUCTION of Books n Records
    3 The US Trustee testified in a Motion to Disgorge TBF that the acts of false affidavits and planting of a paid associate of TBF (creditors attorney) within the Debtor as CEO was deliberate, with affidavits being Deliberately left knowing they were false.
    4 The US Trustee also testified that he did forewarn the parties not to do the very violation of replacing key personnel with people connected to the retained professionals

    http://petters-fraud.com/DisgorgeMotion_TBF_1_6_Million.pdf

    5 After confessing to supplication of more than 17 false affidavits the DOJ Trial Attorney (who also noted Traub as counsel for Kmart shareholders) then gave Traub implied, blanket, immunity and the promise of willful blindness by the DOJ US Trustee's office in the future

    http://petters-fraud.com/US_Trustee_Motion_Feb24_2005_2giveTBF_immunity.pdf

    6 After receiving that promise of impunity, Traub became partners with Dreier and Petters
    7 The NY Supreme Court docket of case 601805/2002 - nearly half thereof - is Under SEAL

    (because Traub knows that he was originally "caught" red-handed by a mistake in the docket record of the case of In re Bonus Sales (a vanity letter-head stated that he and Gold were co-principals; thereby making all the Affidavits stipulating NO conflict of interest were FALSE)

    8 A TBF associate threatened me to back off or else and my own attorney emailed such
    9 The OR else has come true
    This day June 14 2009 - the TV show 60 minutes will have Markopolous of Madoff - on how all were notified and yet harm kept getting bigger
    It is indisputable that Fraud and Perjury transpired in eToys - they confessed to the acts and would like everyone to just rename it minor bad faith - However, it was a public company with 290,000,000 shares of stock that went from $78 to ZERO in a year and a half's time and the Chief Justice, having testimony by the US Trustee (the POLICE of the Bankruptcy Court) stating that he forewarned them not to do- the very felony violations they Conspired to accomplish by Deliberately deceiving the Court - as the Judge says No Wrong has been done and she cannot see that any perjury transpired (yet if you go to the 11th Circuit decision of Walker v Walden - Judge Kravitch stipulated lying under oath is Lying Under Oath (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=walker+v+walden+lying+under+oath&aq=f&oq=&aqi= )

    BECAUSE the Courts are chosing to hide the public documents under a paid system - editors here would argue that such therefore makes all reports Moot. That would be the same as saying that Woodward and Bernstein were not Noteworthy because Nixon said on public TV "I am not a crook"

    Please be aware - if you help bury this information - you are assisting the desired effort to Cover Up the Facts - it does not matter that you can twist the protocol, editorial banter to justify your position - others will be harmed if the Truth is made dark.

    ANY good faith party would simply restrict what is placed on the articles to being fact specific and let the readers draw their own conclusions!

    Laserhaas (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laserhaas (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 June 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. Overwhelming consensus despite convention Xavexgoem (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    An event of no extraordinary importance elevated by sensationalist media. The percentage of attacks on Indians against the total number of attacks is inline with the percentage of Indians with in the total population showing that assaults/robberies are not against just Indians. But equal with the rest of the population. Just because the Indian media has been over stating the situation doesn't mean an article is required. Unless, wikipedia now wants entries for every attack against a minority group in every country. Bojach (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Comment"percentage of attacks on Indians against the total number of attacks is inline with ..." Anything to back up that claim? Even if such were the case, since the unfortunate episode casts a shadow on the relations between the two countries it does wholly warrant its own article to catalogue racism and xenophobia as an issue between nations. "An event of no extraordinary importance ..." Time magazine, BBC, CNN and others differ from your view and secondly it is not for wikipedians to judge about the "real worth" of notable items. We must only record as best as possible. - Varun (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    PLEASE NOTE: I have renamed this article to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia and rewritten the introduction to focus on the protests rather than the pattern of attacks. This change has been discussed on the talk page and no opposition was raised. I decided to rename the article while the AFD was still open because I felt the problems should be fixed sooner rather than later because it is linked from the main page. - Borofkin (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    As a courtesy, Please don't move the article during an AFD discussion to avoid confusions among the users. Feel free to edit the article based on RS and NPOV. I have moved the article back to the orginal title 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia. Let the outcome of the AFD decide the rename/keep/deletion of the article. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    What confusion will be caused by an entirely appropriate move that has been widely discussed? Knowledge (XXG):Guide_to_deletion says that if the page is moved it should be noted on the deletion page, which was done. The AFD process will take days, and a name that is bad and wrong should not have to stay that way when the article has such a high profile. - Borofkin (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Please note that there is no consensus as of now to rename and keep the title. Let the closing admin take care of this -- Tinu Cherian - 07:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    On the article talk page there have only been comments supportive of the rename. This page is for discussion of the deletion. If you want to discuss the name of the article do it on the article talk page. - Borofkin (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I dont see here a consensus here or at the talk page for the rename of "2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia" to "2009 protests by Indian students in Australia". Let the article say how it happened and please dont try to push a POV tone. Things doesnt change if you change an article in wikipedia, but I request it to keep the article NPOV based on reliable sources. There is no "chicken or egg first " issue here. It is blatently evident that attacks came first and protests later. Whether there is any racial element to the attacks is not yet proved and till then it should stay allegedly racist attacks only -- Tinu Cherian - 09:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    It's also not proven that attacks have increased or that Indians are over-represented in crime statistics. To say so (as your editing seems to support) is non-factual. It is not a question of POV, rather one of accuracy. While there may or may not have been consensus, there is nothing to say a page cannot be moved during an AFD process. If there is, then please let me know where. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    no policy page cannot be moved. but in the present situation where significant disagreement exists among interested editors would it not be better to wait for a consensus instead of having the page moved back and forth and edit warring. CheersWikireader41 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, Tea Party protests is one such example of what is considered important in the US versus the rest of the world... I was not aware of this before it was pointed out to me in relation to a different, yet connected matter... I am, however, perfectly aware of the protests being discussed here... --candle•wicke 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, should have added that I'm in a neutral enough position geographically - not in Australia, India, China, the US, New Zealand, Asia, North America or any of the countries or continents I have mentioned... --candle•wicke 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep and perhaps rename. Even if the attacks have been exaggerated by some media outlets, the protests are real, which provoked official government complaints and have been covered by media in many countries in almost all the continents, therefore notable. If you are concerned about POV perhaps you could rename it to something like, 2009 protests of Indian students in Australia. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "An event of no extraordinary importance elevated by sensationalist media."
    • That's precisely why the article needs to be kept. The over-reaction by media makes the events notable. Notability by reliable sources, not socio-political/economic/cultural importance, is the criteria for keeping an article. However, it should be renamed to Protests against 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia.This reflects the notability arises from protests against the attacks, not the attacks themselves.VR talk 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - By no stretch of the imagination could you consider this not notable. For those who claim that "Knowledge (XXG) isn't the news", this article isn't about an event that happened, it's about a number of assaults in Australia that span months, if not years (it discusses assaults starting at least in 2007) and the reactions to those assaults. It's true that the media is currently playing this up due to public protests being made (hence the current event tag) but if anything that makes it more notable, not less; a good indication of notability is how much attention something receives among reliable sources. The article does need some work to be neutral but that's never a reason for deleting an article, it's a reason to fix an article. The article also needs to be renamed to be less accusatory. -- Atama 15:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: The protests involved no more than a few hundred people. Hardly a major event! The entry is pointless. It's mainly about the 'reactions' of people/groups than the actual events, because the actual events are so unnoteworthy as to warrant more than a few sentances. This particular event is being pushed by some users. Should wikipedia also have an entry for the over-reaction of the media over Miley Cyrus's revealing Myspace photos? I think not. If you think sensationalism by the media is important, perhaps add it to a relevant page. But the '2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia' does not deserve its own page. Australia–India relations is a suitable place for it. --Bojach (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep under current title. This is a significant set of incidents that is playing out over several days. There is no question that this will eventually show-up in books under similar titles. Eventually, not that dissimilar to 2005 Cronulla riots. It isn't just in Indian media. The Australian and Indian Prime Ministers have both gotten involved (e.g. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a2jnr0N6o_Hk), the Indian and Chinese governments have gotten involved. Multiple people have ended-up being stabbed over several days, and it seems to be gelling into an Indian vs Lebanese confrontation. The article itself needs cleaning for sure to better present what is actually happening. Makes no sense to delete. --Hunnjazal (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep. I believe this page should be kept. This (series of events) has had massive media coverage in their respective countries and around the world too. I live in England, and am commenting here to keep this article. I am sure events will develop further and this page will evolve, and potentially mark this event as a turning point in the life of Australian/Indian students. Nobody can deny that these events have happened. So, we are not discussing that possibility! If something has happened, there is no reason why there should not be a page. --Nazrani (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    — Nazrani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath  14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Note:Above comment was added by 161.12.7.4, but he/she signed as User:Nazrani. —Amplitude101 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Note:Thanks Amplitude101! I have signed in to validate my above comment. --Nazrani (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - It has so much reliable sources. Also no matter what it is, it gives a precious information and has a huge amount of effort, it deserves to keep. --♪♫Berkay 19:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - per the above.--Judo112 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Clearly has reached a level of media coverage that makes it very difficult to claim it is not a notable topic. The title needs to be changed as these attacks predate 2009 by a looong way. While I have my doubts about the whole racism angle (I grew up in the western suburbs of Melbourne in the 1980s and it was a dangerous place to be at night by yourself even then) clearly the topic has reached head-of-government level now. POV is an issue but it needs to be dealt with through the editing process. Better use of Australian sources would help rather than sources reporting third hand from outside the country. -- Mattinbgn\ 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete Not that notable and Knowledge (XXG) is not a news site. A brief mention in the Australia-India relations page is more than enough. TJ Spyke 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete Though newsworthy due to disproportionate numbers, the article is more suited to a history book than an encyclopedia. This event is out of context aside entries about people, places, etc. --scochran4 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep- There definitely is a problem going on, not just media hype, it does have a racist angle to it, NZ, PRC have also responded/voiced concerns at an official level. Lilaac (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    *Strong Delete-I don't think anyone is disputing a "problem" or denying the high level of media attention. But the article is written as if these incidents of assaults are a part of a systematic/central problem. Editors have simply cherry-picked references that report x assault on foreign exchange students and then wrote an article combining all notable 2009 incidents. This is totally against the laws of wikipedia and encyclopedias in general. If the assaults revolved around an event, say...a terrorist attack by Hindus or something that would generate a systematic response then I could see the logic in writing an article, but this is a joke. This is an acceptable article: Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War, 2009 attack on Indian students Australia is not. We might as well write an article titled 2009 attack on African Americans in the United States or 2009 attack on homosexuals in Egypt. If and when the issue is clearly systematic and continues as a result of laxed laws in the government/politicians, SOME of the info could be absorbed in Human rights in Australia but that's a maybe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    'Comment' - and only when a systematic/central problem exists can we have a wiki article. which wikipedia policy are you referring to may I ask ?? it would help if you did not come up with your own set of guideleines on what should be included and what should notWikireader41 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep The article summarizes cited and notable sources regarding to the attacks. The main page of Knowledge (XXG) also mentioned the protests involving this article. Furthermore, this series of incidents happened at a fixed period of time and is commonly related to several reasons. The attacks had gained media attention, and various governments around the world also respond to these incidents as well. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment But the thesis of the article is inconsistent. What are these attacks about? What is the motivation? So there is a surge in racially-motivated attacks against Indians and this has prompted a response from their native governments. That's the article in 1 sentence. This is not notable, the article is over-stating a problem that isn't there. In terms of actual content - most of the stats are 2007-2008. There is a short section with a few examples of assaults but nothing truly revealing. Just because something has garnered attention by reliable sources does not mean an article is inherited. This should go in a blog. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep this article is about an unusual, notable event which can be verified. it is not for wikipedians to decide whether this has been over or under sensationalized. if it gets sufficient press (rightly of wrongly) it belongs. can any of the editors arguing for a delete tells me why this article needs to be deleted and Natalee Holloway can stay. whats so notable about a teenager who did some alcohol, sex and likely overdosed o some illicit drugs. happens all the time. except that this one was a pretty white American in a foreign country and made for some juicy press Wikireader41 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep and rename to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia or similar. There have been protests in Melbourne and four days of protests in Sydney. The protests should be the focus of the article and the stuff about assaults should be in a Background section, or as claims attributed to protestors. - Borofkin (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I would accept this as a very poor second option to deleting it - "attacks" is needlessly NPOV as it suggests that Indian students in Australia are being attacked in a distinct manner rather than just a collection of individual (likely opportunistic) attacks which are on a range of people, some of whom happen to be of Indian ethnicity. Some of the reportage indicates that other overseas students are also being attacked and that many of the attackers are other overseas students. Orderinchaos 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep and rename. While wikipedia may not be a "news site". It is an encyclopedia, therefore it includes notable news items. I agree with the above re: 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia rename. This is a notable even, covered by several news agencies. Just because this might not be getting much coverage in the US, doesn't mean it's a trivial news event. Icemotoboy (talk)
    • CommentI do not understand your logic. What constitutes a "notable news item?" BLPs like Natalie Holloway are not comparable articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment why ? substantial news coverage by media in several countries. A write up in TIME discussion of these incidents in Australian parliament. what is your reason to believe this is an ordinary non notable event. what makes Natalee more notable may I ask ? it is clearly verifiable and fairly NPOV.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Natalie is an explicit and focused BLP, this article is not a BLP and thus cannot be compared. Your comparison follows under Knowledge (XXG):OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You are confusing notability with relevance, not to mention your use of the word "event" is inaccurate. This article isn't about an "event" or an "issue." The article has been written with an OR mentality and screams SYNTH. Half the article is background, mostly crunched and irrelevant mention of 2007-2008 crime, and then a short paragraph on a select examples of "events" in 2009. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - I agree with your comments Wikifan12345. However, they do not apply to the proposed renaming of the article and refocus on the protests. The protests are notable and an article about the protests will not be synthesis or OR. - Borofkin (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment TIME did a story specifically on this subject. clearly that suggests its not OR or SYNTH. even BLPs have to establish notability otherwise we would have 5 billion BLPs. it would help if you point out specific wikipedia policy this article does not satisfy. it is clearly not OR and meets notablity, verifiabilty and NPOV guidelines. Clearly improvements need to be ade and I am sure they will be. before you comment that editors not agreeing with you dont know wikipolicy you might want to read these yourself especially WP:AGFWikireader41 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Okay, can you explain that a bit better? In terms of what is a notable news item, Knowledge (XXG) uses the news to help recognize what is a notable event. We recognize that when an event/person/place/show/song etc... receives substantial coverage in the media, theres a prima facie case for its inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Theres notable, verifiable, references. The Australian Prime minister commented on the situation, the New Zealand Government have been directly referencing the events and discussing them. I agree the article needs work, and I believe it needs to be renamed. But just because there is a problem with the content, doesn't mean the whole thing goes. And I don't think that "clearly" can be used at all to describe your views, they're your views - but many others here have differing views. Let us have those views, and you have yours, and lets discuss it without talking down to people.Icemotoboy (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I completely agree. just because an article is not FA quality doesnt mean it needs to be deleted. WP has very specific guidelines when an article may be deleted. WP:UGLY is NOT a reason to deleteWikireader41 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment A plane crash that killed over two hundred people is vastly different to everday common assault/robberies that have only gained notability due to sensationalist media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.147.107 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete It should be in the Australia-India relations page, not as a standalone article. Citizen D (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      Comment - Most of the Indians involved will stay in Australia and become Australians. This is primarily a domestic issue, and so doesn't belong in an Australia-India relations page. - Borofkin (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Will they? Of course some will but they are on student visas and I personally know quite a few who have only been able to stay the duration of their degree, or who have never intended to stay longer (i.e. parents or company are paying for the degree and expect them to return at the end) and then return to their home country (or go elsewhere) to get a career in it. Orderinchaos 03:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete Knowledge (XXG) should not be endorsing the musings of activist groups and tabloid media - a lot of students get attacked, including those of Chinese or Overseas Chinese, Malaysian and Singaporean derivation here in Perth (which was making the media 2 years ago especially in the grounds of Curtin University), and we're not going to have an article on all of them. I agree that some mention (and I emphasise *mention*) should be maintained in Australia-India relations. Additionally there has been some suggestion in Australian media (and elsewhere) that the attacks are not racially motivated as many of the attackers are also overseas students rather than white Australians. Also not convinced that the number of cases (the Indian Govt estimated 100 in 12 months) is particularly notable - that'd be a quiet year in Adelaide, a smaller city, and most likely more Indian students get attacked in Malaysia and on a more systematic basis than in Australia (as one commentator pointed out). Like anyone I find anyone being attacked in my home country appalling - I lend my support to an organisation called "Fight Dem Back" which tries to combat organised/"nationalist" racism in Australia and New Zealand. Bit concerned about some of the voting patterns further up in this AfD too - may be worth investigating. Orderinchaos 03:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    the question of what WP should or should not be doing is not being discussed here. the question really is that does this article satisfy the current WP policy of deleting articles or not Wikireader41 (talk)03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Actually it is a very pertinent question. I'm not sure if you realised I've been around a while and participated in hundreds of these things over time. :P It comes up again and again in deletion debates and it is indeed a relevant question - WP:NOT has the status of policy. See "Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox" in particular. Orderinchaos 12:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I agree that is a pertinent question ( what WP should or should not be?) . but this is not the place to discuss that issue. And I am not questioning your experience. it would help if you could specify what specific policy this article violates. WP:IDL is clearly not a reason to delete. if a specific policy is being violated in your opinion then please point it out and lets debate it. as far as I can see this is not OR , clearly Notable ( which ordinary crime is discussed in the parliament of 2 of the biggest democracies in the world and gets a write up in the press over multiple continents?), fairly NPOV and easily Verifiable and so meets WP criteria for inclusionWikireader41 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep with its name intact. This is no run of the mill anti-minority thuggery. Foreign ministers and heads of states of both nations have been drawn into it, and so have been many student groups. These incidents might unfortunately lead to more nasty incidents (as they are already starting to show with the rise of vigilante groups). We have already seen rioting in Melbourne and Sydney. The press has been after it, and there are plenty of editorials trying to analyze what could have gone wrong. The demand to delete this is like asking to delete the air france disaster article, just because minor air accidents keep happening around the world. The entire episode is sadly but definitely a part of the history of racism and xenophobia and demands a record for those who want to know. - Varun (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep unfortunately notable. That they are unfortunate does not make them the less notable,DGG (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's unfortunate how things are happening. But, definitely it is notable and is getting international coverage. I live in Germany, far from India and far far away from Australia, but saw the TV news coverage yesterday evening in CNN news telecast from UK. Srimanta.Bhuyan (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - the new title is better, and it is getting sufficient coverage to view it as notable. Unfortunately. - Bilby (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep Very notable series of incidents ( Yea, unfortunately) which is very much in news. Rename back to 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia  ! If there are 50 attacks and 5 protests, Why is the name as "protest by" ? Ridiculous and POV ! The attacks happened first and protests later. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Comment- Yes the attacks came first. but the protests are what is attracting the media attention. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong keep It is a very notable topic with great interest to the public.The issue has also garnered international and domestic reaction.Certainly something to be covered by Knowledge (XXG).--Princeaditya (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is more than a single event. It's notable. It has lots of reliable references. It has far more information than can be squeezed into a general article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak keep under certain conditions I endorse the name change as it is far more reflective of the content in the article. The vast majority of reliable media is covering the reactions and staged protests, very little has been dedicated to actually examining systematic attacks...mainly because there aren't any. There is no justification for "2009 attacks on Indian students..." that's an absurd title. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    glad you have changed your view somewhat. maybe you should also complain to TIME about the absurd title they gave to their story Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in AustraliaWikireader41 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep I am surprised the article has been nominated for deletion. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep: Highly notable, well covered in Australian media in the past few weeks. Inconsistencies can be gradually fixed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 08:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep: merge and/or rename may apply, but these are separate issues. In the meantime, the best way to address concerns of disproportionality is to edit the article with reliable sources. If all Australian media say one thing and all Indian media say another, the article can cite both and readers will be able to make up their own mind. This is a better way to protect readers from bias and sensationalism than suppressing the whole story. jnestorius 09:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep this is not some trivial news story, the reaction to these events have been extremely noteworthy with coverage across the international media. Pahari Sahib 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep and No name change. It is unfortunate that Austalia is in news for a wrong reason, but it is not a one-off incident. Did anyone notice that the nominator made edits almost a year back before hitting this article and nominating for Afd?--GDibyendu (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment ^^^^Irrelevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep This meets WP:N and is out of scope of WP:NOT#NEWS given the extent and duration of international and domestic Australian coverage. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep was reported on the BBC last night, so coverage is reaching the rest of the world. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep This article meets enough policies and guidlines of Knowledge (XXG), and it is notable enough to keep and I also doubt disbalancing of NPOV by Bojach as the above user mentioned and also noticed that Bojach hasn't made any change from last 1 year and all of a sudden comes back with deletion of an article!!!????? and if Knowledge (XXG) is not a news website and if this article is like a news then there would be a huge no. of articles like this article which will need speedy deletion on Knowledge (XXG). Lets keep this article--Shekhartagra (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhartagra (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep So the article is based on current events...Knowledge (XXG) frequently has articles that fall into this category. Perhaps needs to be retitled and/or reworded, but the article itself shuold stay. -Sparky (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep The articles notability is obvious given the third party coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.237.40 (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Do not rename The attacks are real (any objections?). The protests are facts. Australian press may have under reported the attacks, but I had assumed Indian media reports also counted. What about TIME. Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia and "Rory Callinan" doesnt sound like an Indian name. The current title is factual, backed by reliable sources. It does not say who attacked the students (Australians or other nationals in Australia) and neither does it hint anything at the motivation (racial or just increase in street crimes on supposedly "soft targets"). I do not see any POV in the title, whereas 2009 racial attacks on Indians in Australia would have been a POV title and I am not arguing for that. Conversely, I personally think 2009 protests by Indians students in Australia is actually the POV title as it seems to be an attempt to whitewash the original attacks which evoked the protests in the first place. We can remove the year 2009 (as I had argued before) and name it Attacks on Indians in Australia to account for the attacks had happened before. I am all for improving the article and I like User:Borofkin's new lead idea. --Like I Care 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep due to its very significant coverage, not just a 1 or 2 day event newsfiller. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - Victoria's police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland has admitted that some of the attacks on Indian students were "clearly racist in motivation", and the amount of coverage reflects that there has been an increase in crime and assaults. I think sections on the response to the attacks by the authorities. Australian Matt (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - Iam shocked to see such an article is nominated for deletion. The event is clearly notable and there is a huge International reaction. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - and keep "attacks" in the title. These incidents have been reported all across the world and fit in with current history of Australia. Philwalker87 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    How do they "fit in with current history of Australia"? Orderinchaos 20:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - Of course the attacks are real, they are just not notable. The only thing that makes the attacks notable is that they were followed by protests. That is why the focus of the article should be on the notable protests, rather than the non-notable attacks. - Borofkin (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    It depends on how (through what media) you look at the issue. If you were one of those who follows Indian media everyday, the attacks are exceedingly notable, but, apparently, Australian media started covering the issue only after the protests. Guess User:Wikireader41 gave this example of Natalee Holloway, an ordinary teenager killed in Mexico, the only reason for her to have her article is due to the the coverage it received in the United States, it eventually didnt matter whether the issue was covered in North Korea or Tonga. It didnt also matter whether the issue was worth such extraordinary coverage which is still debatable. --Like I Care 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If that is the case, why don't the people who consider the attacks to be notable edit the article so that it is obvious to all? Why don't they add sourced information about how the Indian government was talking about these attacks prior to protests occuring in Australia? I can't stress this point enough: edit the article with specific, detailed and sourced information, including names, dates, and locations. Who was attacked? When were they attacked? Where were they attacked? Who criticised the attacks? What did they say? When did they say it? Edit the article! Add sourced facts! It's fun! - Borofkin (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    the protests would not have happened without the attacks. that the attacks led to widespread protests makes them notable. most non notable attacks are not followed by protests. do you know of any similar protests without the attacks? plenty of Indian students in USA have been mugged, killed and beaten up. nobody has brought up the question of racism there. also have to keep in mind the hidden agenda everywhere to push such issues under the rug. I am sure these attacks are embarrassing to many people and some of them would want these attacks to be quickly forgotten.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - non-notable event. We don't have articles because others organisations have reported it as news. Statistics prove the attacks are not significant, just part of a broader increase in crime. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep - this is clearly a very controversial topic with international reaction and government response. Exactly the sort of thing that should appear on Knowledge (XXG) as an article and be subjected to editorial debate on it's contents. 69.230.61.245 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Most of these Keeps continue to ignore the argument for delete. Read the article guys - very little to dedicated to the actual attacks, because there aren't any. This isn't even comparable to the annual attacks on Jews in Europe, or the attacks against homosexuals in the Middle East, or the treatment of Muslims in Hindu-areas of India. There is nothing that suggests this article carries lasting notability, so if you want an article it must revolve around the reactions from these countries because that is the only thing that is keeping it from being speedy deleted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    nothing is stopping you from writing those articles. and how are you predicting that this articles doesnt have 'lasting notability'. lasting 1 year, 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years. does the article on Australia have 'lasting notability'?? are the editors voting for keep ignoring arguments or the editors for delete ??Wikireader41 (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment (keep) I disagree on Wikifan12345's opinion. I can see there are quite some supporters to keep this article by now, and they made many good points about keeping the article. Many of them did not ignore the arguments for deleting the article and they respond with some great reasons to keep it. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - There have been attacks but there is nothing particularly notable about them, except perhaps the petrol bomb, and even with that I haven't seen any evidence that it is anything more than an isolated incident. - Borofkin (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    this article in TIME is about the attacks and only cursorily mentions the protests Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in AustraliaWikireader41 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    I believe the information related to attacks were earlier removed from the article for reasons that they were not written in an NPOV way. Some of the attacks which received widespread coverage in Indian media are listed in the article talk page here. I hope someone will take the time to expand on this, I honestly dont have the time right now considering the time it will take to write in an NPOV manner. Notability is not something we sit here and arbitralily decide, each of these attacks were repeated on TVs across India several times. --Like I Care 00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Comment (keep) I believe an expand and correction to the article can easily be done when dealing with issues regarding to POV. But for now we have to keep this article in order to improve it, not delete it. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Clearly notable per wikipedia definition of the term with a few thousand secondary reliable sources, protracted coverage of continuing developments in news media, involvement of prime-ministers the two nations etc. Abecedare (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Keep as per above. Liquidluck (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    June 2009 (UTC)

    • Keep: International coverage: BBC , CNN as well as Indian and Australian media.--Redtigerxyz 04:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep: I agree, vast coverage especially in Indian media. Plus when shall it be notable enough, does it require for a death to happen?! Instead of hiding or using euphemism, lets' face who we have become and becoming! --Ekabhishek (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - I would say either delete it, or make it a more balanced discussion. Fact: the media has blown this out of proportion. Fact: the attcks were motivated by greed; thugs (and there are thugs all over the world) who picked easy targets at night carrying cash or expensive items. Fact: the Indian community in Australia is outraged by the way the media and Indian students have blown this out of proportion. This is not a noteworthy article in its current form. I'm disappointed that it is still on the Main Page of Knowledge (XXG).--Just James /C 07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    The article is still on the main page of wikipedia because the attacks continue to happen . Additionaly that very fact confirms the notability of this article. - Varun (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    If attackers seek easy targets at night and they were so called "THUG" then why Chinese students or local(australian) people were not attacked??? and what about the incident of petrol bomb ??? Was that for Greed?? and to all those who say India media has imbalanced proportion please Read this Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia. This is not India media.--Shekhartagra (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC) This article has got enough notability to keep.

    • Strong Delete or at the very least Strong Rename for the simple fact that there is absolutely no evidence that there were any racially motivated attacks. The views of politicians and community leaders, and the perception of a racial motivation in the attacks, do not mean that the attacks themselves were in fact racially motivated. And even if some of the attacks were indeed racially motivated (which a few most likely were) there is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than what is experienced by other community groups. The greatest argument for the deletion/renaming of the article can be found in the article itself, which cites a few meaningless statistics and a few case studies which by themselves do not prove any form of racial targetting, before spending a majority of its length discussing a number of protests and responses to a perceived threat. Given the denial of any racial element by the authorities, and the absence of any independent review, it is clear that there is absolutely no evidence at this time of any attacks against Indians beyond what is experienced by the normal community. Given this the article should be deleted or (and I say this with great hesitation, given Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source) renamed to a more appropriate name. Guycalledryan (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    The views of politicians and community leaders, and the perception of a racial motivation in the attacks, do not mean that the attacks themselves were in fact racially motivated. The police chief of Victoria confirms that they (or atleast some) are racial in Nature. The victims themselves allege that the attackers heaped racial slurs on them. With these facts at hand, it would take reliable ciations to show that the attacks dont have the racial angle to them. I agree when you say that the article is not particularly well written, but I'm sure we can fix that. -Varun (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Many of the Indian victims have said that the attacks were not racially motivated. The article contains very few sourced facts about racism. Many people have claimed that the attacks are racist, but these are claims rather than facts. - Borofkin (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    whether the attacks were racially motivated or not is immaterial to the argument here . wikipedia is not in WP:TRUTH business. that allegations of racism were made adds to the notability of these attacks.Wikireader41 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    I'm a bit confused about what you are saying, you seem to be suggesting that unconnected attacks become notable in themselves as soon as an allegation of racism is made. All racial groups in Australia have been the victims of racism, and all racial groups in Australia have suffered incidents of racial violence. But this does not mean that an article is required for every single group in every single year. There is nothing but weak anecdotal evidence to support the hypothesis of a series of attacks against Indian students in 2009 (as currently presented by the article). Yes, the reaction to the perception of racial violence may be notable, which is why I am in favour of renaming the article, but unless you can provide strong evidence of a series of attacks against Indian students (whether connected or not) then there is no validity keeping the article under its current name. Guycalledryan (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    nothing to be confused about. even a series of unconnected attacks which for whatever reasons generate this much response become notable. even if these attacks are eventually proven to be hoaxes does NOT diminish their notability. whether these attacks are connected or not is also immaterial to the argument. it is the response of world media ( rightly or wrongly) which makes them notableWikireader41 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, BUT if the notability is due to their response, then the article should be on the response, not on the attacks themselves. Guycalledryan (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep—These events attracted widespread attention, see Google news. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep and Strong Rename The notability is the media reaction and public demonstrations. The articles name should indicate this to some extent. The facts given do not support that there is an epidemic of racial attacks specifically on Indians. The overal assault/robbery crime rate in Australia is 4.8% while that for violence specifically against Indians in Victoria is 3% (the 1,500 attacks quoted). That ages 15-19 comprise more than 40% of all cases reported in Australia means students will be over represented. While it is undisputed that racism is involved in some attacks there is no evidence given that the incidence is any higher than for any other ethnic group. If statistical evidence exists supporting the claims being made it should be in the article to support the anecdotal evidence currently presented. Wayne (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    The article is titled neither Increased attacks on in Indians in Australia nor Racial attacks on Indians in Australia nor Australians attack Indians in Australia nor whatever. The title has 100s of reliable references in support. you might disagree with them. --Like I Care 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Like I Care, you are correct, but so is WLRoss who is trying to explain that this article quickly skips over a number of facts - indeed, the whole issue seems to skip over them with media and politicians yelling as loudly as they can while ignoring some fundamentals. While the figures WLRoss appear to stand to testing, there is admittedly a degree of WP:SYNTH (albeit very credible synthesis!) and is the only reason I haven't promoted this point more in the article - as soon as there is a reliable source supporting it, then I believe it should be made a prominent point in the article - unless someone can show me I'm wrong. --Merbabu (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    I have no problem in adding this statistics to the article with support of reliable sources and put things in perspective (but no original research) for readers. we might even include a sentence in the introduction. --Like I Care 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep and Strong Rename The focus of the article needs to be changed. I will admit I am not an unbiased commenter, being Australian and offended by the calls of Racism, but the I believe that the current response, from Indian media and personalities to the attacks is more notable than the attacks, which the sources are very sketchy about, what with figures bandied back and forth, increasing with each go around. I just read that there were 1440 attacks in the last twelve months, a figure which seems to be close to be a misrepresenation of the 2007-2008 figures (of almost 1500), which follows 2006 claims of a whopping 24 cases in 3 months! Also, I feel that many of the proponents of both the Keep and the Delete camps have agendas which are not conducive to either good wikipedia articles, or indeed harmonious editing. I feel with a refocus that this article can be much better, while still appealing to both indian and australian racist editors. WookMuff (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    I agree. the naming issue can and should be discussed and sorted out on the article talk page. a bad name is not a reason to push for deletion. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep and Don't rename Regarding the title, whatever complaints people have about the media and how they are covering this, that's essentially how they are covering this issue. The coverage (read the headlines on Google news, using the neutral search terms Indian + Australia) is focusing on the attacks and not the Indian students protests. These are the same reliable sources that are used for every other article, thus 'keep and don't rename'. Note: the title is actually exceedingly neutral - it doesn't say that they are race-based attacks. Priyanath  03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep The abundance of reliable secondary sources and the longevity of the issue make it an obviously notable topic and suitable for an encylcopedia. The naming issue is more controversial but this isn't really the best place to discuss that. To be honest, I imagine that the article will discuss both the attacks (allegedly racist) and the reaction (protests, political diplomacy, etc.) so having the title that mention both of these aspects may not be such a bad idea. The racial element to the documented attacks is not clear though, so I would refrain from adding any such description in the title, and perhaps very early in the article (unless it is made clear that the Indian community claims this). Gizza 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep and Don't rename These attacks are as much an event in Australian history as the <<Stolen Generations>> are. Hence, I strongly suggest that this article may not be deleted. It would be more benificial for Australians to stop events like these happening than coming on Knowledge (XXG) and stopping an article on this being published. Hence, please keep Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility and keep the article in its current form. Atayal 
    — Atayal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath  14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    ha ha - these events are equal to the Stolen Generation episode? Ie, the forced removal of 10's of thousands of children from their parents. Are you kidding? Further, please don't personalise this AFD or get on your WP:SOAPBOX by commenting on voting of Australian editors. You should note that Australians are voting to keep this article as they are voting to delete (and I haven't voted one way or the other). Note, that no-one has commented on Indian votes here. Yours was not a helpful post. regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    There was no colleralation bewteen these events and wouldnt even rate a mention had it not been for the beat-up and outrageous claims from the Indian media that they were part of some greater bias it is this that makes it notable. Atayal your comments are in very poor faith and while I take offense at you lack of GOOD FAITH I still think that the article meets the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY Gnangarra 13:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong KEEP and Don't Rename The page describes and represents an important event which resulted in wide international media coverage, national debate in Australia, direct telephone conversation regarding the event between Australian Prime Minister and Indian Prime Minister, discussion of the event and the issue in the parliament of Australia and India, change in Australian government policy in terms of new task force, change in the Australian law with Attorney General asking Judges to consider hate motives in relation to crime in sentencing, change of Australian High Commisionner to India, and has caused a strain in the diplomatic strain between Australia and India. If all of this doesn't justify this article then I don't know what does. Aditionally, as a precedent, there is already an article on 2005 Cronulla riots which is similar to this event. Scarish
    — Scarish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath  14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • At least here in India, the attacks are very notable and on the front page of every newspaper. If we were to go by the media claims, the attacks are definitely notable. Seems Australian media has a totally different viewpoint about it. Regardless of the naming debate, we should keep the article and look towards some unbiased reliable sources (perhaps non Australian/ non Indian) for the naming decision (outside of this debate). — Lost 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • U.S. coverage is also notable, and focused on the attacks (not the protests). The article needs some work to be more neutral, though. There are positive responses from all sides that aren't being covered in the article, including from the Australian government. Priyanath  17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment time to WP:SNOW this discussion, it obvious that the article will be kept either as is or with no-consensus and this discussion remaining open is only attracting flyby-night/spa editor opinions, who dont either understand WP:AGF or are chosing to ignore it, leave the renaming for a separate fresh discussion. Gnangarra 01:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    wikipedia is definitely not about pushing POV. the surprise here is not that the article WILL be KEPT. it is that it was nominated for deletion in the first place.Wikireader41 (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, there is a clear vote (as opposed to consensus) to keep and a clear vote for a certain POV. --Merbabu (talk) 04:18, 14 June 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 boldly merged into Bulbasaur. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    Bulbasaur evolutionary line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Entirely redundant to List of Pokémon (1–20) and Bulbasaur. Content mostly copied without attribution from Bulbasaur. I'm not seeing any kind of consensus for this change in coverage style, and the previous method (of lists, with articles for the more notable Pokémon) seems far more logical. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • There's a long discussion about this article at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Pokémon (starting at "User:Permethius/Sandbox3"). TheLeftorium 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Shit, didn't realise that was there. Nonetheless, this article has serious attribution issues, and remains redundant. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The Bulbasaur article is now a redirect to this article, so an "un-merger" discussion is probably better than an AfD. TheLeftorium 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, I've undone that. I feel this article should be deleted, covering Bulbasaur seems much more logical than covering Bulbasaur, Ivysaur and Venusaur. I guess a section in article could deal with the other two, but they obviously are not nearly as significant as the original. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete Merge - I completely agree with J Milburn. Both Ivysaur and Venusaur fail WP:NOTABILITY. TheLeftorium 14:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I changed my vote to merge because I think it would be a good idea to include the basic information about Ivysaur and Venusaur in an "Evolution" section in the Bulbasaur article.TheLeftorium 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Read Zarrep's comments, lists dont always have the same references. This is name Bulbasaur evolutionary line because it is center around Bulba but has info on the other, with references. Come on J, bring this up at WT:PCP, more supporters than opposers, as Left is against anything I do anymore.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ Sign Here! 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I've brought this up here because I feel it should be deleted, and accusations of bad faith are not going to get you very far. Theleftorium is an excellent user for whom I (and many others) have a lot of respect. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge into Bulbasaur. I agree with Theleftorium that there is probally not enough notability to cover each different character with its own article. With the new WP:Fiction proposal underway seperate article's might get removed if the proposal is accepted as policy. Similary covering three different subjects with the same weight in an article is uncommon, and probally not a good idea; Since bulbasaur is clearly the most notable of the trio, why not merge the different evolution forms into that article? the different forms are clearly important on the subject Bulbasaur, even if they are not notable enough to warrant an individual (or even group) article. Excirial 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • (ec)Merge into Bulbasaur. This article was never intended to co-exist with a Bulbasaur article; it was meant to replace it as a more thorough article on the subject. Per Excirial's comment, I think that Ivysaur and Venusaur are relevant if you're talking about Bulbasaur. I see this as increasingly true with Ivysaur's inclusion in SSB:B. Extraneaous information should be trimmed when merging, but I think it is a disservice to the topic of Bulbasaur to ignore its evolutionary path. The actual name of the article is a minor details compared to what is expected to be included (or excluded) from the article. I understand if people have Pokéfear, but this is a good faith attempt to expand coverage on a Pokémon previously deemed notable (if only by being #001). —Ost (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Merging to Bulbasaur seems like the best option here; this may also provide a way to have slightly larger segmented on the evolved forms that can be used for redirect targets while providing a comprehensive overview. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge with Bulbasaur per above. Furthermore, there seems to be little info directly relating to the evolutionary line, and more on just the individual Pokémon. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge Ivysaur and Venusaur aren't notable enough to warrant significant coverage in their own article, and as stated all over the place, there's nothing particularly significant about the evolutionary line itself. Bulbasaur is what people will be searching for, and a little info on the later forms is warranted as part of that discussion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Additionally, a lot of the info in the article proposed for deletion fails notability tests, and should be done away with. The remaining skeleton should be merged. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    The skeleton came from Bulbasaur anyway. If you think any of it should be kept, go for it, slip it in. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Pro Wrestling Superstars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod - prod tag was deleted by User:Prowrestlingsuperstars without comment and without any improvements to the article. (I was the original "prodder".) No evidence of notability, no evidence that this is even real. Even the "official" sites listed by the article's creator do not mention "Pro Wrestling Superstars". A search of the Fox Sports site found no mentions of this, and a Google search for "pro wrestling superstars" and "fox sports" had only 10 hits, none of which confirm that this is real. "Pro Wrestling Superstars" on its own got a lot of hits, because it is the real name of some past events (i.e., Pro Wrestling Superstars '86), but "NJPW Pro Wrestling Superstars", used by the author in the article, got none. At best, this is crystal balling based on information not publicly available, at worst, it is an outright hoax, either way, it should be deleted. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • I didn't see that there was anything under the exact title Pro Wrestling Superstars, or under Pro wrestling superstars - could the same article have already been through an AFD under a different title? Dawn Bard (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure, but I do see that someone else nominated for speedy on the grounds that it had already been AfD, rejected though because admin couldn't find the AfD. Oh well. Gigs (talk) 14:44, 10 June 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) 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Fails WP:NOTE as there are no sources on the topic of the article, "Croatia-Lebanon relations". There aren't even embassies so that rules out even non-independent references on that front. No redirect is needed as it is not a plausible search term. Non-notable. Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    So you admit that there are no independent reliable sources providing significant in-depth coverage of the actual subject of the article, Croatia-Lebanon relations? You're also misrepresenting an article discussing an aspect of multilateral relations as representing one aspect of bilateral relations. No one is claiming that absolutely no relations exist, but that they are not notable. Here at Knowledge (XXG) the subject of articles must be notable, not only verifiable. Your opinion that your personal standards are met isn't good enough, it violates consensus and it is disruptive for you to continue to ignore notability guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I provided an independent reliable source that provides significant coverage. It's called the BBC. Your observation that this article is solely about "bilateral" relations is wrong. This article is called Croatia–Lebanon relations not Croatia–Lebanon bi-lateral relations. What you call my personal standard is me thinking that the BBC is a reliable, significant, 3rd party source and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that. My view the subject matter is notable is backed up by the source provided about the Croatian military sending troops to Lebanon in 2007. As far as your repeated allegations that I am being disruptive by "ignoring" the notability policy in saying these things, your tone is accusatory and your allegations are false. I'll remind you of wikipedia's policy against personal attacks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    The source may demonstrate the notability of a UN peace-keeping mission to Lebanon, but it does not address Croatia-Lebanon relations in any way. This topic of this article is not UN peacekeeping missions or even UN peacekeeping missions to Lebanon, it is Croatia-Lebanon relations. Drawn Some (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see why the fact that Croatian soldiers were acting under the aegis of the UN should stop them from representing Croatia. The source makes a big deal out of the fact that they were Croatian.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    See my last comment. You're ignoring the fact that the article does not address Croatia-Lebanon relations. Drawn Some (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Just because a source doesn't use the magic phrase "Croatia-Lebanon relations" doesn't mean that that is not the subject of the source. The cited article, in covering the Croation military's deployment in Lebanon establishes the notability of the military "relationship". Relations does not have to refer solely to diplomatic relations. It can also refer to military interactions (war) or trade.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. Their "relationship" doesn't go beyond the pedestrain, which means not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. per lack of independent sources addressing this topic directly and in detail. Yilloslime C 00:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete I'm not trying to be offensive, but the fact is, if we were to accept this article and keep it in Knowledge (XXG), we would probably have to keep an entire log of when, where, who and how of all diplomatic establishment between all country, which cannot all be notable enough to sustain an article. This is just one of them.Frankie goh (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - no, sophistry aside, there is no coverage of "Croatia–Lebanon relations", no matter how much we may pretend it exists. Fails WP:N for that reason. - Biruitorul 02:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete another mindless combinatorial article (if x is notable and y is notable then the intersect of x and y isn't necessarily notable).Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Ian A. B. Wrigley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:BIO : Google — news — Scholar - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete Unless, of course, all the various "Who's Who"s qualify as sources. Heck, we can print a "Who's Who on Knowledge (XXG)" and then use it as "notability" to give people their own articles? I fear some do not understand that anyone at all can print one -- Marquis has no claim to the name in general. Collect (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Who's Who directories or websites are not reliable. It's a business that relies on selling listings or directories or ads or a combination, etc. They sometimes target specific groups. The information is self-submitted. Drawn Some (talk) 21:15, 10 June 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 WP:CSD A7, no assertion of notability, if discovering two asteroids is supposed to be notable, the article would need to say so. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Not notable. Article does not even reach stub category (It is -still- just 1 sentence="Štefan Gajdoš is a Slovak astronomer", was created before 28. june, 2004 (!)), article does not even exists on the slovak wikipedia. No information found about him on the internet, article has no reference/source. B@xter 13:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Do not know: but do not like AFD nominations that is not well researched and does not have any valid reasons:
      • not even stub is not a reason to delete
      • 1 sentence is not a reason to delete
      • does not exist on slovak wikipedia is not a reason to delete
      • article has no reference/source is not a reason to delete
      • no information found on the internet is not a reason and is FALSE "Štefan+Gajdoš"&btnG=Search
    So basically not any valid argument except not notable, so is Štefan Gajdoš Notable? He gets 8 hits on google scholar "Štefan+Gajdoš"&btnG=Search for his full name and 18 for Š Gajdoš "Š+Gajdoš"&btnG=Search, how many of those that is his I do not know. Is that enough for WP:PROF? I do not think so, but my slovakian language skills is not really good enough to say what those papers say. --Stefan 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Well, sorry! I am not very familiar with wiki deletion guide (this is my first "nomination"), I saw this "article" and I thought 1 sentence is not worth enough to have a dedicated article (It could be merged into article Slovakia, part "science"). Also, I searched for him on the google, but I only found facebook accounts and other not reliable webpages... Gajdos has 53 100 hits (not sure that all of them is this person) while "hjhjhj" has 107 000 (even a youtube video:). The other stubs, like Peter Kolény and Leonard Kornoš could be merged into one article==>Slovak astronomers, not?
    Yes correct, the page should probably be merged, but before nominating for deletion you should have read WP:DEL#REASON. You should have found WP:PROF and you should have argued from them. IF you thought the page should have been merged, why did you nominate for deletion?? Anyone can merge! You should also read WP:ATD before you nominate the next time. Sorry no offence, I just do not like drive-by-AFD's, when you nominate, do your homework. Finding a one line article and do a check on google is not enough. --Stefan 00:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I did not merge them, because I found those articles after I made this nomination.B@xter 06:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Comment Those sources are Slovak sources. All of them.(I am not saying that English sources are better than the Slovak websites)B@xter 18:45, 10 June 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. The article needs additional references, but its subject's notability is firmly established. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -- timed 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Contested prod. un poorly referenced for over a year, this musician has been a member of notable bands, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO himself RadioFan (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Speedy keep If that criteria for deletion has merit then 90% of all "member of a famous band" articles should be AfD'd for the same reason. In this case the subject is a member of 2 famous bands (including being the founder of one of them). Also... the above claims that the article is unreferenced... which it isn't. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't sufficient here. The article makes no claim of notability other than membership in these bands. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, the only reference is to a brief concert announcement.--RadioFan (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Agree that page could be referenced better and should be re-written, but don't see how this qualifies it for deletion. The page is viewed about 45 times per day which is significant. Plus this direct quote from Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music) following "Criteria for musicians and ensembles": Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. The notability of his two bands admitted by the nominator. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • NOTE The article was missing an entire section that had been blanked some time ago by an IP. I have restored the section and found a reference relating to the subject turning down an invitation to join Metallica as a lead singer/frontman. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep John Bush was an important figure of the Los Angeles metal scene during the 80s and did enormous work to keep Anthrax alive in the 90s. His unique voice is also remarkable. --Aranyos (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep- You. Have got. To be. Kidding me. (Longer more profane post redacted due to WP:CIVIL). Notability more than established as the lead singer of two notable bands. WP:BEFORE exists for a reason, and its a bit obvious that it wasn't followed here. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep -- not only is he notable, there is no other logical place to put all of the useful information on this page. It would be silly to list his bio in both the Anthrax and Armored Saint pages. Luminifer (talk) 14:43, 10 June 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. Too many !votes from SPAs to establish consensus. No prejudice against a speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Reason Msmiserie (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) — Msmiserie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:37, 10 June 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 G7 by Dank, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    No independent secondary sources found on this individual. Fails notability criteria. Promotional and full of factual errors. Enki H. (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    High school / college STEM alignment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a personal essay or some type of high school class project. It does not fit with Knowledge (XXG)'s no original research policy. It was speedy deleted once, recreated, nominated for proposed deletion, and then the prod tag was removed. Deli nk (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Club is not notable, his web is dead, 0 ghits (in both English and Greek). Only creator is banned for creating hoaxes and possibly this is another hoax. Yopie 11:37, 10 June 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 G7 . Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    There's no speedy delete category (at least that I could figure out) for this, so I've brought it here. This is original research and completely unsourced. Google hits basically go to blogs and sites linked to these artists. There's no independent, third-party sources. freshacconci talktalk 11:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    This was nominated for deletion in January but closed as speedy keep, unjustifiably in my opinion. Most of the follow-up questions made by the nominator were ignored, and the notability argument, particularly regarding independent sources, was not fully considered. There are only four articles on Google Scholar that use this term (and not on the title, but maybe just in passing). All the articles are very recent and all by the same set of authors. This strongly indicates that this is a neologism that is promoted and used by a very small group of people, which is the antithesis of notability. The fact that the term is used in conferences (and especially in Gordon Conferences, which expressly forbid their use as references) is certainly not enough for notability yet. Maybe in a few years "chemical postevolution" will become an established term. Then we can have an article about it. (My opinion of the term is that it is just a fancy buzzword, and that well-established terms such as lead optimization are preferable, but what matters for the purpose of AfD is current, proven, independent notability. I just add this parenthetical note in case possible redirects or merges are suggested.) Itub (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    T. S. Vishweshwara Dikshith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Google pulls up less than 40 hits, none of which actually include the last two names together. Ergo, whatever this person has done, there appears to be no coverage of it anywhere in any form. Tyrenon (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment Suggestion to nom: Be patient, the article is a historical stub, created less than an hour before the AfD nomination. It's about someone who lived in India pre-Independence, unlikely to have much English language references, and any references that are available will be in the form of books in the local language - Kannada. Mark the articles for references, or for an expert to look at it. An AfD should be the last resort, read WP:Before. Participate in other AfD nominations by voting, and reduce your focus on creating new ones until you get well acquainted and comfortable with the process. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply. Look, I'd agree if there were a snippet somewhere out there, but when all I'm getting is a bunch of links to electoral rolls and a link to the article, there's a real notability issue. Yes, one could expect most info to be in the native language, but I would also expect at least one English-based source. Otherwise, I'd have to offer a strenuous objection to notability, not to mention verifiability for English-speaking users.Tyrenon (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment AfD is not a matter of voting - the !votes are simply to tag one's point of view on the matter. As to references - can some be cited in Kannada? Apart from which, someone has got the information from somewhere to put it here. I would like to see at least some reference, and a little more info such as dates. There can be transliteration problems with some languages, so there may be mentions under variant spellings. The poet's last name is not uncommon (and occurs in different spellings), but I cannot see a great possibility of variance with 'Vishweshwara'. Peridon (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I suggested participating the process to get familiar with it, before posting so many nominations. As far as this article goes, there's a claim that the subject was 'Asthana Vidhwan', this is a pretty hefty title, probably given to about 5-10 people during the reign of a king, and if true, that is a good indicator of notability (in addition to why that title was conferred). So my entire point is, if there are some such claims, why not tag the article for references and notability, than put it up for AfD within 45 minutes of creation? As far as the multiple spellings, V and W can be used interchangably except as the first letter, the H may or may not be used after each s, and there could also be a 'ya' at the end to make it Visveshwaraya. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    There could be issues here. I participated in some AfDs recently where they were nominated by someone with a sudden and possibly overweening interest in deletion. When it was suggested by someone (not me) that they might be a sock or an alternative account, they 'silently vanished away'. I am not in favour of unnecessary deletion - I'd rather see an article survive in a usable form, hence my comment about the info here coming from somewhere so there must be some reference possible. Peridon (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    Well, here's the thing: If this article still has no sources towards the end of a week up here, then I'm firmly in favor of killing it. If sources can be found (and I do insist on one being in English, simply so the vast majority of the readerbase here can read it), then it can stay. But as it stands, the possibility of a hoax hangs over this article due to the lack of sources. If all we have is a spelling issue, that's nothing, but with that said...I do want to see before I'll believe.Tyrenon (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete Can't find any resources at all on the subject of the article and the editor who created the article provided none. Without any resources at all, it is neither notable or verifiable. It doesn't feel like a hoax but for all we can tell, it could be one, we just can't say. It's already being mirrored, this sort of thing is harmful to the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete I tried asking the author for references including any offline ones, no response; nothing at all on the Internet with many spelling variations. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. I tried with different spelling of the subject but couldn't find even a single source. Salih (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The author put a comment up on the talk page attached to the deletion debate here commenting that "It is sad that you have marked this for deletion and if that is done, this information will be lost forever." This leads me to very strongly suspect a hoax, as the underlying implication is that there are no other sources concerning this person whatsoever.Tyrenon (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    I hate to think this is a hoax, because the level of detail in it is too much for a hoax. It could very well be a POV push though, but eitherways, it's time for it to go. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:44, 12 June 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 |  00:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    London Stansted Airport Car Parks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Disputed prod. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory or travel guide. — RHaworth (Talk

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

    The result was keep \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    UEIMS School of Medicine & Dentistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD article originally flagged for rescue - Pure advertising page which might be saved trough some copy editing. Excirial 09:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Keep but this may be a sign of a bigger issue. We've had a few Indian? or Middle East writers profer these poorly written bits. I wonder if it makes sense to invoke a first build it your language wiki approach? They might have already but how much energy can we put towards this? Alternatively I wonder if we have or should create a English-as-a-second-language tag directing those interested towards translating services. It's quite frustrating to fully clean these up only to have deleted because sourcing was simply not available. -- Banjeboi 12:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable - being a programmer and editor for a weekly news issue of a Linux website does not make a person notable. —Amplitude101 (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    H1Z1 Virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Little-known Internet hoax that fails to meet notability/verifiability criteria -- no independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, original hoax page no longer seems to exist. The LA Weekly article is the only mention I can find outside of the blogosphere, and that's a mention in passing in an article about something else. The Anome (talk) 08:25, 10 June 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. equally as many considerations both ways, and relisted twice already Nja 07:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Marinello Schools of Beauty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This was PRODed but I felt it warranted discussion instead as it is not a very clear cut case. On the one hand, a 100+ year history and 35+ locations (which makes it the largest beauty school chain on the west coast) would seem indicate notability. On the other hand, while I can find RS to verify these facts, I can't find much as far as non-trivial coverage goes. Therefore I am neutral at this time. ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - It is indeed surprising that an enterprise this large and well-established is so lacking in coverage through reliable sources. I was unable to dredge up any. However, it does appear that the founder of the school, Ruth Maurer, is notable although she lacks an article. Google books has results froma filtered search. Newspapers of that time referred to her as a beauty expert. I'm sure there's more sources out there that could establish her notability. This article would make sense as a section in an article about her. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. Notability asserted and nothing suggests this information is untrue. These schools often are refered to by a bewildering array of names including beauty college, school of cosmetology, _____'s Marinello school, etc etc. The current school's website will serve nicely to concur basic information and handily includes a video about the school done by The Ellen Show and press releases which can also verify what's up. This is not the kind of business that works at creating headlines outside the hair-styling industry so miles of sources likely exist in trade publications, so strong keep per WP:CSB as well. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. No convincing data that the school is notable. It may well be the case that the founder is notable, but notability is not inherited. Fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 16 June 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. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    List of films aired on Nickelodeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Listcruft per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, similar article was deleted two years ago (see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of movies broadcast by Nickelodeon) Caldorwards4 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete There was a previous nomination for this article under another title after this was originally deleted which resulted in a keep vote. My argument then was for deletion based on the fact that theatricals were inserted in the list with the network's original films, and that issue at least has been rectified. However, I now vote delete based on the fact the entire list is unsourced and it has not been connected in any way to any article according to the list of links, as has been the problem with many of the Nickelodeon block articles. Nate • (chatter) 07:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep It easily could be sourced. Essentially, this is what a list of this sort should be-- films that were specifically produced for the Nickelodeon network, along with the date that the films premiered. Generally, any cable network's original films will attract higher ratings than the regular programming, and in the case of Nickelodeon, they have a lot more advance promotion. I see this as no different than a list of films attributable to an independent production company. Kind of ironic that "Nickelodeon original movies" included films that were re-run for the umpteenth time (and thus were not original), while "List of films aired on Nickelodeon" doesn't make clear that these are films that were produced by Nick. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep if the sources are your only concern, you should first tag the article for giving time to other editors to fix the issue before taking last case measure of deletion. However I agree the article should contain references. Kasaalan (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    By the way, don't the wikilinks provides enough reference for dates or if they have been aired on Nickelodeon or not. You should first check and answer that question. Kasaalan (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Inward links to movie articles as sources don't count at all. They must be sourced by reliable outside sources. Nate • (chatter) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Did you read all inline links to movies to check if the inline movie articles contain reliable sources for nickelodeon airing or not before making deletion nomination, or just assuming the list article don't have references so inline movie articles too don't have reliable sources.
    Also if inline articles don't have reliable references for nickelodeon airing, how info in their articles can stay. You should first deal with inline articles before deleting the list. Kasaalan (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I'm here to talk about this article, not individual articles linked to. See my argument below; if a WikiProject devoted to the network can't muster any kind of rescue effort to convince us to save it, I doubt many others who aren't network geeks will want to do so either. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a list of things that aired on particular channels, even if WP:V could be met. WP:NOTDIR applies. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Major network, and an appropriate list to get the information together; should all be sourceable easily enough.. No reason given why this in inappropriate. DGG (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete this list, if completed, would be somewhere over 10,000 entries (though, of course, not 10,000 entries covered by any reliable source except each and every TV guide since 198x (whatever year this network went into business). Nothing generates "encyclopedic notability" for the topic films aired on Nickelodeon. It's an aspergers/train-spotting type exercise to even try.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    You can always prefer not to read a long list if it hurts your eyes. If some users are willing to spent their time on building a 10.000 entry list, it will save all other readers of wikipedia to do any research like that when they need the info. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    I hate to invoke WP:WHOCARES here, but really going by an editor count for this article (not counting the IPs adding cruft and vandalism) and the lack of links into it, there are very few who care. This article is linked to much of nothing at all, just several redirects to possible alternate names for this article (which do have four links from movies, but it should be much more than that.) WP:NICK, the project that is supposed to be responsible for Nick articles is notorius for building articles without any kinds of sources and filled with line upon line of plot geekery the average fan really doesn't care about and is later easily winnowed out by experienced editors. They have not had a member respond to your request for comment, and nobody came forward when I asked for comment on a deletion vote on another topic, which is incredibly apathetic for even the lowest-tier Project (and because of this, another editor declared it in an inactive state days ago). Wheras articles on subjects involving Cartoon Network and Disney Channel in my experience don't have these kinds of issues (and the Disney Channel Original Movies article at least has several sources), these Nick articles are created haphazardly without organization. As for research, many other fansites can provide much better and detailed information about their movie history than seems to be provided here. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for your replies and time. You may know, WP:WHOCARES also refers to "Delete Who cares about this stuff anyway" approach. Also I agree, a project should interested in their articles one way or another, yet some projects are active, some others not. It is also same for wiki environment project for example. But their efforts made others to reach info, without wasting time on research, and when they do it allows them to improve article even further. Also it leads a good directory categorization for similar relevant conent articles. Moreover Disney Channel Original Movies article has exact same issue, which only quotes from a single reference from his own site, rest of references are there for view counts of Highest rated Disney Channel Original Movie premieres. I added the article to disney channel article now it has 1 more link.
    • Do I like the channel, No except 1-2 series they publish
    • Do I care for article in particular, Not really much right now, but I may spend various hours of research time for improving articles that I don't care but others may care
    • Do I find it useful, It may be useful for some other people interested in the area, I also may care about the info in the future if I get interested, moreover I find verifiable list articles useful in general, they doesn't hurt anyone or any policy actually
    • Do deleting the article helps anyone on earth, Simply no.
    • Can the article will be improved in the future, Yes.
    • Can the article will be improved easier in the future if we not delete it, Certainly Yes.
    If fansites has much more reliable information, we can use them as a reference. Kasaalan (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Also debating with 4 people for article deletion is not helpful at all, the more views the better. Kasaalan (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep I think this article can very much be sourced. -phobia don't be afraid to drop a line! 21:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:N. What is so notable about this particular channel and its films? This isn't an encyclopedic list in its current state (unreferenced, no notability shown, no context) and I don't know how this could be turned encyclopedic. Even with the references in place it would need to be shown that the topic of the collection of these films means something to the encyclopedia. We aren't an indiscriminate collection of information, nor are we a directory. ThemFromSpace 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. Like many lists this needs more context of why should anyone care. Nickelodeon is seen as a gateway to young consumers - preteens and children and is considered commercially-ladened but family-friendly fodder. Ergo the lede should be expanded to explain these points as well as relevant, perhaps obvious, ideas about reaching certain subsets of consumers. How the movies were billed - world premiere, etc - and hyped in contrast to other networks or movies. Also did this change over time and how. In its current form however it is an acceptable list and certainly can be improved. -- Banjeboi 23:00, 15 June 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 Treephort. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Enchanted Forest (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable album. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - Per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Knowledge (XXG)." No reason given to believe this album should be an exception. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment On the other hand, the paragraph just before the one you quoted reads, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Whether or not there is significant outside coverage may be the subject of debate, but just because there is an article about a band does not mean that each of that group's albums is sufficiently notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If there is an article on the band, the band is likely notable. Which means that any of their officially released albums may be notable. There is no reason given why this album is non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge. To the band article, it's short and there doesn't seem to be much here. -- Banjeboi 12:10, 16 June 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 Speedied as hoax. لennavecia 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Autobiography with no easily-verifiable sources. Possible claim to notability is unsourced. Nothing popping up in Google but social networking sites. لennavecia 06:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Photo purports to be an individual other than that at the image page ie Paul King (musician, VJ). I initially accepted the bona fides of the initiating ed. assuming good faith. Seems I was wrong and this is an example of a hoax correctly described as vandalism. RashersTierney (talk) 14:32, 10 June 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 Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol#General Carl A. Spaatz Award. Merge/redirect: content still visible in history for merger to be carried out by interested editor Nja 07:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    I tried to redirect this to Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol#General Carl A. Spaatz Award, which, except for the material plagiarized from (see Knowledge (XXG):Suspected copyright violations for June 9), covers the raison d'etre of this article. The level of Civil Air Patrol achievement fits nicely into that article, but as a stand-alone article this fails WP:ORG. Deor (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    A fringe theory with minimal notability. One book published in 1980, the two other books are self-published (Book Guild is a self-publisher). Minimally cited in the literature , except for three less than stellar book review in the American Journal of Sociology, the Industrial Relations Journal and Political Studies at the time of publication. Since then, nada. Google only finds book listings in online catalogues.

    I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

    Support-Bargaining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stepopen (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


    Response: Your assessment is fair enough. I had not seen the American Journal of Sociology and Industrial Relations Journal reviews of my 1984 book. You say 'less than stellar' but the AJS review is very pleasing. The reviewer concludes: 'There is an implicit thread running through these observations, but the nature of the link is never clearly explicated. Yet, one feels that Spread is onto something. I think the book is best viewed as presenting useful, sensitizing concepts and even provocative ideas about a variety of social processes well worth further explication and clarification with the goal of a more circumscribed but ultimately more useful theory.' My subsequent two books (2004, 2008) draw out the nature of the link, with full explication and clarification. It seems a pity to deprive Knowledge (XXG) readers of these ideas, but I suppose the support I have is too limited and not sufficiently respectable.

    Weak delete - It's an idea that's been published. (I don't know if the two recent books are self-published, so I'm not sure if they should count.) I'm not big on deleting articles, so that makes it weak. But I still side for delete, given that the idea can't be seen to have caught on beyond the author. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Delete - the articles read like rambling personal essays, and with no additional sources to improve them I don't see how they can be made better. They give an impression of the importance of the theories which may be misleading for readers. The author of the articles seems to be the author of the cited sources (see reply below), raising WP:COI concerns. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


    Further response:

    I suggested an insertion to the 'Economics' entry, on which there have been various comments. My response there is copied below:

    Thanks for all the comments.

    It appears I am now permitted to edit the page directly, but the comments indicate that it would not be appropriate to make the proposed insertion. There is, in any case, a proposal to delete the main entries on 'Money-Bargaining' and 'Support-Bargaining', to which I have responded on the Money-Bargaining deletion page. I am copying this also to the Money-Bargaining deletion page, since it is relevant to the proposal for deletion.

    We have to separate the questions of what is right and what is respectable. If Knowledge (XXG) is only concerned with material that is derived from respectable sources, then the queries about the sources (meaning the publisher, Book Guild), may be relevant. The question of what is right would be of no significance.

    While the Book Guild is not a conventional publisher, it is not of the undiscriminating kind. It has some distinguished authors. It has published Lord (Denis) Healey, the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer. It also publishes Peter Evans, who was Home Affairs correspondent on the Times for seventeen years.

    As regards what is right, the 'open edit' approach of Knowledge (XXG) suggests a commitment to a wider range of opinion than can be accommodated in formal 'establishment' encyclopaedias. This seems to suggest also acceptance of a broader range of sources. There is an implication that the establishment and its 'respectable' sources could be wrong, or at least incomplete.

    In this case, there is a real probability that respectable sources are wrong. If needs and wants are situation-related (see 1 in the proposed insertion above, and 'Money-Bargaining/Situation related selection' in the Knowledge (XXG) article proposed for deletion), then economics has been wrong for over a hundred years. Money-bargaining gives a much more realistic account of monetary exchange. Democratic theory is more principles and aspirations than a theory of how government works. The people cannot possibly govern in any direct sense. Support-bargaining gives a realistic account of political, social and intellectual processes.

    My entries and proposed insertions are designated 'fringe theory', which is fair enough from the viewpoint of orthodox economic and political theory. The designation makes it easy to delete them. But bear in mind that the fringe may become the mainstream when the paradigm changes. If my entries are designated 'alternative paradigm' it may not be so easy to delete them.

    Furthermore, alternative paradigms will probably not be promulgated through orthodox institutions and publishers. Orthodox, or respectable, theory uses orthodox and respectable publishers. Because of the viability condition (see 2 above, and 'Money-Bargaining/Companies as money-bargaining agencies' in the article), orthodox publishers find it hard to publish unorthodox theory. Academics generally approve, buy, read and teach orthodox theory. So unorthodox theory has to use unorthodox publishers. If Knowledge (XXG) rules out the use of unorthodox sources, it may also be excluding right theory.

    Papersign (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was speedily deleted by Kralizec! under A7. --Patar knight - /contributions 05:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)

    Mariofan110 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Speedy tag has been removed by an IP twice. Speedy delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 04:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment Speedy tags aren't supposed to removed by non-administrators, unless they're obviously wrong (e.g. A1 for an article that has context, A7 which shows notability, G3 which isn't vandalism, etc). Retagged. --Patar knight - /contributions 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, read the tag. Anyone but the page creator can remove a speedy tag. AfD tags are another matter: only the closing admin may remove those. -- Blanchardb -- timed 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It says to only remove if "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." It's obvious that this page meets the CSD criteria, and almost certainly can't be fixed. As for the creator part, it's pretty safe to assume that the IP and the article creator are one and the same. How likely is it that two different users find the same newly created article on an obscure Youtube artist? Not very. --Patar knight - /contributions 04:43, 10 June 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 Fairchild Channel F#List of games. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Spitfire (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Video Blackjack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Desert Fox, Shooting Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Tic Tac Toe, Shooting Gallery, Doodle, Quadradoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The notability of this article's subject is in question, also the article is an orphan and a dead-end. The article also has few external links and reliable sources. -- Patchy1 03:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    The game also seems to go by 4-in-1(, ) and Videocart 1 () —Ost (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    This article should be exstended on, so that it stands out better as a article by wikipedia's standard. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Contested prod by IP. No reliable sources to indicate this is a notable band; Google News search just found two gig listings. tedder (talk) 03:37, 10 June 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 |  00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Eye Flys (Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    unremarkable song, fails WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was speedy delete as G7, heading towards a SNOW anyway. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Evan Evans (Pro Wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The subject is a U.S. teenager who has appeared in a few non-notable professional wrestling leagues. Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • This is not a vote and you already expressed your opinion. Dressing up as a real wrestler does not mean squat (most backyard wrestlers pretend to be a real wrestler). Considering this kid is only 15 years old, I don't buy that he has been trained by anyone. Do you even have any evidence to support your claims? TJ Spyke 03:23, 10 June 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 |  00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Czech Republic – Iceland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    a random combination with no resident embassies and a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral and diplomatic relations, of course there's multilateral and football relations. . there's the first article of that search and the ousting of a spy in 1962 but needs more coverage of actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    "Knowledge (XXG) articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." It doesn't fit any of the examples given even is you stretch the definitions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    It doesn't have to "fit any of the examples given" because it clearly says "loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to)". Do you even read the text you post before you start using it as a basis for discussion? It contradicts the point you are making. Clearly these collections of miscellaneous trivial factoids, anything mentioning two countries in the same paragraph, fall under that area of "Knowledge (XXG) articles are not:". In fact that is specfically meant to exclude this sort of bricolage. Drawn Some (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    I apologize I wasn't aware that "but not limited to" meant anything else you or anyone else reading it desires it to mean, no matter how unrelated it is to "quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." This would be an example of "mentioning two countries in the same paragraph": "Administrations have collapsed in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, and Ireland. Riots and paralyzing strikes have crippled Thailand, France, ..." However, treaties, official visits, and trade and international incidents are the definition of international relations. Go to the US State Department website and see all the information on the US and any other country to see the topics they use. Certainly if it appears on the Czech government website under "Czech Republic – Iceland relations", it is not random trivia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    There's a good reason primary sources can't be used to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    A primary source of a treaty would be the text of the treaty itself, this is a secondary source. Even then Knowledge (XXG) doesn't ban primary sources, it only cautions against original research as you interpret the text. Knowledge (XXG) says: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Knowledge (XXG), but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    could you please give a reason? LibStar (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Really you need to divide those figures by two to account for Russia-Nauru and Nauru-Russia not being separat articles. Drawn Some (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, it's 19110 at most, but my point still holds. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Knowledge (XXG) has no concept of "exceptional" that is for Guinness World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    How about "exceptionally non-notable"? --BlueSquadronRaven 20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - as is by now routine, a "rescue" effort has succeeded only in cluttering up the article with meaningless trivia we'd never pick up on outside this series of nonsense articles, not in actually finding in-depth coverage in independent sources of "Czech Republic – Iceland relations" (think about that concept for a moment and the absurdity it entails). Moreover, half the sources come from the Czech government, violating WP:GNG. - Biruitorul 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Notice: It has been suggested that AFDs and other discussions on this and similar articles be suspended. Please have your say on this at Knowledge (XXG):AN#Proposed_standstill_agreement_on_Bilateral_Relations_articles. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete The "rescue" is, as usual, a joke, and the matter stands that this topic has received no coverage in its own rights in outside sources. The material supporting this article, when it is not a primary source saying marginal niceties, is marginalia on various events, synthetized by the "rescuers" to look like something of substance. Dahn (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    From Knowledge (XXG): "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." No new position is generated beyond that a relationship exist between the two per the title. A new position would be saying that relations are "good" or "bad" based on the names of, or number of, the existing treaties. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, you've pasted that on other pages too, alongside other interpretations, even though these were answered in detail several times around. I hope your purpose is to exhaust the reader or to canvass the wide-eyed. Dahn (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Point out the "new position" in this particular article to me now. If you are going to use the same argument, you should be expected to be challenged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    And one more time, silence instead of a response. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe it's not clear from my other replies, but I won't feed your ceaseless drive to make me repeat myself. If you can't refrain from these comments and really want me to engage me more in conversation, feel free to contact me on my talk page and maybe I'll consider relying for what must be the 50th time. Dahn (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Point out the "new position" in this article to me. I haven't seen your other comments, and you haven't provided links to them here, if they are valid here. I would assume instead of just invoking SYNTHESIS, you would take the time to explain exactly how it violates the rule, or could provide some quote from the SYNTH page to strengthen your interpretation of it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    No, Richard, I don't have to do anything because you ask me to. I have done so already, so have others. You've chosen to ignore that, and took these discussions in circles. Sure, if someone asks me in good faith to explain my position here, I will consider it (they'd have to contact me on my talk page, since I'm not gonna watchlist this page as well). You asking me to do that is another attempt at obscuring the points other make in a cloud of verbosity. Dahn (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    (Note: I moved the above signature back to its rightful place after it was found languishing at the title and causing formatting problems within the day log page -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC))
    • Keep reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep This one has enough material. The SYN argument does not reasonably apply to this sort of material. If information about a treaty #1 between A and B is published in a RS, and information about a treaty #2 between them is published in another RS, we can put them in one article. Of course, if the treaty is important enough to have specific commentary about it by itself, we could make a separate article about each treaty. DGG (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • "Enough" by what standard? What if there had been just 7 instead of 8 visits, or 6 instead of 7 pieces of paper signed between them? Were relations notable prior to the Hamé deal? How about using the "multiple, independent, significant coverage of the topic" standard instead of the "enough material" one? - Biruitorul 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep As Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) said, its fine for an almanac entry. Dream Focus 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    No Almanac I've ever seen had any entries looking anything like this... Yilloslime <subC 01:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    No Encyclopedia I've ever seen had any entries looking anything like 95% of Knowledge (XXG), that why the others are dead, and Knowledge (XXG) is the number one reference source in the world. Knowledge (XXG) adapted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    Where there is a first time for everything. Dream Focus 08:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete another mindless combinatorial article (if x is notable and y is notable then the intersect of x and y isn't necessarily notable).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddy1981 (talk • contribs) 23:24, June 15, 2009
    • Strong keep Can't believe this was actually nominated for deletion in the first place, although there has been a great improvement since it was first nominated. However, the nominator knew that an aspect of the relations of these two countries had been extensively covered by the press: a Czech spy was expelled from Iceland. Thank you to Richard Arthur Norton (1985- ) for finding the NYT source. There are a significant number of bilateral agreements and official state visits, the existence of which have been verified and the notability of which have been established by the existence of significant independent 3rd party sources. The notability and verifiability of the subject matter of this article have been conclusively established in my opinion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • First, he was actually a Czechoslovak spy. Second, does that have any contextual relevance? Do we, for instance, mention every instance of spy expulsions that happened during the course of Soviet Union – United States relations? Of course not. But here, since the topic isn't actually notable, we need to find trivia to fill the void and create the appearance of notability. - Biruitorul 09:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete per a total lack of independent sources that discuss this topic directly and in detail. Sure, there are about 7 reliable, independent sources cited in the article, but none of them directly address the topic of article (bilateral relations). Yilloslime C 05:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. For now at least. The volume of these articles flowing through doesn't seem to match the concern that these articles are actually doing any harm and are actually not notable. After a notability policy, or any working agreement on how to treat these subjects is reached thena civil merging process should be entertained. This is valid information that we certainly would want on some article so keep is the default. If there is a list article this would likely be too big for it. -- Banjeboi 11:49, 16 June 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 Auburn Tigers football#2010 schedule. –Juliancolton |  00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    2010 Auburn Tigers football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:CRYSTAL. We've had this discussion before. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2011 Kansas State Wildcats football team. The planned schedule info was useful, so I merged it into Auburn Tigers football#2010 schedule. With that out of the way, I think article can go bye-bye. DeFaultRyan 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:32, 10 June 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 Rasim Delić. –Juliancolton |  00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Rasim Delic indictment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Rasim Delic already exists, no need for a separate page. PRODUCER (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:30, 10 June 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 |  00:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Search engine project was not launched in 3 years. No notability. DonaldDuck (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:29, 10 June 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 |  00:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    No evidence of passing WP:BIO. I couldn't locate any myself. Citius Altius (talk) 11:56, 3 June 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, 10 June 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 aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Delete: thoroughly non-notable. (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    To expand: This individual has but two credits per IMDb to his name, both non-notable: one for acting in a tiny indie film from 2000 (When the Sky Falls) and the other for writing and directing 2by4 (yet a second tiny indie film from 1998). (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    This also claims he is a writer/director/actor, more than one role there... --candle•wicke 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    Article on filmcritic.com. --candle•wicke 21:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    Has also written and directed Pushers Needed, according to this article in the UK's The Independent. For someone small from Ireland he has gotten around a bit... --candle•wicke 21:09, 7 June 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete as unreferenced and refers to a future date in the past tense. When it's past tense, it can be referenced and recreated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    In the Name of Blood, Part 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    As a rule, individual episodes don't tend to merit their own pages; this episode not being unusually notable, I would suggest that it be deleted, with perhaps a blurb being added under the appropriate CSI season article. Tyrenon (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:23, 10 June 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 07:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Contested PROD. Film of questionable notability. The article has been nominated for deletion twice previously, and was deleted both times - first discussion, second discussion. This is the second time it has been reposted, tagged for speedy deletion as a repost, the speedy nomination refused, and so this is now the third deletion nomination for the same subject. I would appreciate someone informing me why deletion review appears to be an optional process in this instance. Besides that this is a genuine nomination as I still do not believe that the subject is that notable. role 00:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Character is involved in movie and radio appearances. Has had some reliable coverage. I don't see how deleting the article makes the encyclopedia better, but this certainly isn't the most notable subject in the world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak keep As I said last time, I think he's (barely) notable enough because of his association with two well-known radio shows (in the US, anyway). He made Dr. Demento's Funny Five several times. BTW, we shouldn't expect new users to know anything about deletion review, so cut the article creator some slack. He's trying. Also, two of those sources didn't exist when the article was last brought to AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      My question re deletion review wasn't against the article creator, it was against the admin who refused to delete it as a repost. -- role 08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak keep Not a huge deal of RS coverage, but their is evidence that the character has developed a cult following. I believe it would thus qualify under WP:ENT for having "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Also to the nom: FYI, the speedy request was declined because the new content is substantially different than the content that was deleted under AfD. My understanding is that deletion review is only for cases where the admin potentially erred in their closing, not for cases where a subject might have gained notability (or had sources discovered) after the AfD happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:31, 10 June 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 |  00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable - self proclaimed "art crtic, art consultant etc". Description of Mr Forrest appears to be taken verbatim from his own blog page. Most reference links are invalid to defunct web pages apart from reference to Mr Forrest's own website. No "features" in New York Times, Entrepreneur magazine, Flash Art magazine and Conde Nast Portfolio magazine as claimed are traceable and no contributions to unreferenced world's top art magazines can be found. Seems to be unknown in Australian art circles and claim to be creator of "world's most popular blog on art" entirely unsupportable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qorocuwi (talk • contribs) 2009/06/03 09:28:13 — Qorocuwi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 10 June 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, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Non notable game from a book. Malinaccier (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:21, 10 June 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, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable graphic designer and co-author of a (probably self-published) book. Advert as well. Prod tag removed by original author without explanation. Delete DMG413 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 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 07:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Ippon seoi nage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment ippon seoi nage is a highly notable technique--one of the most fundamental and common throws of Judo. A Google books search on "Ippon seoi nage" returns 75 hits., and Google scholar returns 81 hits. I think it and morote seoi nage are best handled together at the seoi nage page, which is where morote seoi nage now redirects, but this is a major technique of an Olympic sport--deleting it would be like not having an article on Fastball. JJL (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Strong keep One of the best known judo throws. When I took judo years ago in college (brown belt), this was an important throw. Easily satisfies notability via multiple books with significant coverage, as shown by Google book search Please do a minimal amount of research before making such a disruptive AFD nomination. See , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , all reliable and independent sources with significant and substantial coverage of this one arm shoulder throw, a required technique in the study of judo. When you say "I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page," how is that different from "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" with respect to the sport of judo? Why did you not bother to notice that this one "IS" of particular note? Edison (talk) 04:28, 10 June 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 |  00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:57, 2 June 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, 10 June 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 |  00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, this particular article (and the one listed above it) lack any sourcing. Tyrenon (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:09, 10 June 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 |  00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Akushu Kotemaki Tori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:08, 10 June 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 |  00:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Akushu Ude Tori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Ryo Te Tori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided.

    Nearly identical to this debate and therefore subsumed into this debate are the 18 or so below it:

    Ryo Te Tori, Akushu Kote Tori, Akushu Ude Tori, Akushu Kotemaki Tori, Mizu Kuguri, Mae Yama Kage, Norimi, Shidare Fuji Shime, Momo Jime, Ashi Garami Jime, Daki Kubi Jime, Ichimonji Shime, Juji Gatame, Uchi Gama, Emon Tori, Katate Hazushi Ichi, Yubi Tori, Moro Yubi Tori


    Tyrenon (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Article (] | ] | ] | ] | ] |  |  | logs | views)

    • Comment on AFD: Actually, this is not just a judo move. It is simply the Japanese martial arts term for an attack in which the attacker grabs both of the opponent's wrists, one with each hand. It isn't really a technique, just the name for an attack. Locke9k (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, most of the items in this list are not "Judo moves" but are described in the articles as being techniques in Danzan Ryu jujitsu. One possibility would be to merge them into that article, but the problem is that its not clear from any sources that these techniques exist only within that art. Its entirely possible that some of them exist in many arts and thus shouldn't be merged and redirected into one. For the ones that don't have any notability established and no references, I would say to delete. For the ones that have a reference linking them to a specific art, a merge and redirect might be appropriate. Locke9k (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment concur that there are lots of problems with this batch of nominations. The major moves of Judo, an Olympic sport, are notable and well-sourced and should be kept (much as individual terms for baseball etc. are kept); the Danzan-ryu techniques should be deleted or redirected to that art. This particular term should probably be deleted. JJL (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. The arts are notable, but the individual technique (or the term) seems to lack notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. No content worth preserving. Lists of techniques in judo and jujitsu seem comprehensisve already. RD to appropriate art would seem fine.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 as per consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Not Notable Abe Froman (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    If we included Bios for every self-produced, internet released documentary creator we could rapidly make a hash of notability. For example; Does each 9/11 truther who throws a 'documentary' up on Youtube deserve a Bio page? This individual's only claim to fame is a self-released web vid. Abe Froman (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, WP:WAX arguments about non-existant articles do not convince. However, coverages in reliable sources that meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO do. Further, and to use your own words, if "every self-produced, internet released documentary creator" or "each 9/11 truther who throws a 'documentary' up on Youtube" had coverage that met guideline, than they too might have articles. Lastly, the individual does not have just a single claim for notability through a "self-released web vid", as the 72 minute film is not a minimal little "web vid" and the film is only the most recent of events where the sunject received coverage. Again, the article deserves WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    Lets take a look at these coverages in reliable sources. There are six Schmidt's Google link lists. Two appear to concern other "Erik Werth's' from the one under discussion. The remaining four, spread over 19 years, cover 1. an animal rights counter-protest Werth attended; 2. Men's fashion according to Werth; and 3. Two articles indicating Werth crashes holiday parties. These sources Schmidt has given us establish that Erik Werth is a well-dressed holiday party attendee who likes a steak. None of the "notable sources" listed concern "The Third Jihad." In fact, the news articles I see for "The Third Jihad,"do not mention Werth at all, except for a press release which, by itself, is an original source and does not meet notability guidelines. How exactly does Werth figure in a film that fails to mention his contribution in a notable source? How this merits a Bio page based on these desultory sources that do not mention Werth's magnum opus is beyond my ken, but give it a try using all coverages in reliable sources Schmidt mentions. I think you'll see that this is a vanity page after looking at what Google News gives back. Abe Froman (talk) 03:32, 10 June 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) 00:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Well, I read past the headlines. Werth is an activist as well as fimmaker... and explanations are searchable as to why, in the light of the Presidential campaign controversy, he originally kept his name seperate from his film project.
    Washington Times (1990) writes of Werth being a counter-protestor
    Boston Globe (1992) writes of Werth as working (then) in the Boston DA's office
    Boston Globe... and yes, as assistant Suffolk district attorney he crashed a party
    Boston Globe (1999) writes of film producer Werth being up for an Emmy
    Philadelphia Inquirer (1998) writes of Werth as an investigative journalist
    Wall Street Journal (2006) Film producer Werth quoted about fashion
    Werth's finally coming clean with being producer of The Third Jihad is verified in Movie Guide, AishNY, The American Muslim. He has coverage over 29 years for various parts of his career. ----
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. لennavecia 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Article does not pass WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 23:19, 3 June 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) 00:05, 10 June 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 Patrick_Stump#Other_projects. –Juliancolton |  00:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Contested prod. Movie with no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    No evidence given that article subject meets requirements of WP:MUSICBIO, and I can't find any reliable sourcing in Google. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable startup company Madcoverboy (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 June 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 07:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable artist. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 June 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 '. Merged/redirected Nja 07:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    While an assertion of notability (charting well in several countries) is made, there are no sources to back this up. Additionally, while the song yields a number of hits on Google (particularly with respect to downloads), GNews provides nothing on it charting. Thus I have to say that while this song clearly exists, I find it lacking in verifiable notability. Tyrenon (talk) 06:41, 3 June 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) 00:03, 10 June 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 |  00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BIO. Even by the article's admission, Mr. Sins has not yet released an album, and on top of that there are no source links on the page. This might be an editing problem, but I believe that Mr. Sins fails on notability. Additionally, a Google search yields 30 million results on account of a large number of pages likely referring to the sins of people named Joe. Tyrenon (talk) 06:45, 3 June 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) 00:03, 10 June 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. Two deletes (including nom) and two merges to different places. No consensus and extended once already. Nja 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Aur-Vin (winery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability not established as per WP:N BodegasAmbite (talk) 09:12, 3 June 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) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

    How many other actively maintained torrent clients for Unix with an HTML interface are there?--Oneiros (talk) 00:42, 6 June 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Delete Not seeing much coverage. Gigs (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    This article doesn't really have any specific information, mostly because the topic is too broad. Anything that might be added here would probably be better directed to more focused articles like Anthrozoology, Zoophilia, Pet or Conservation Movement. Figmentory (talk) 20:21, 2 June 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. Especially the useless trivia section. This article contains little information. Even the little bits of information can be put into existing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.190.0.8 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 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 07:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    I can find no evidence of this phrase (Swabian salute) being used to describe Leck mich im Arsch and the like. Ironholds (talk) 13:29, 3 June 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I can, and it took me about thirty seconds. The German Knowledge (XXG) has a good, and sourced, description of the phenomenon: de:Schwäbischer Gruß.

      If kept, this article should be renamed to Schwäbischer Gruß because there are no sources for the English version. I would not strongly object to its deletion regardless of that, because Knowledge (XXG) is not a German-English dictionary and this phrase is not a loanword into English, so I shall not !vote.—S Marshall /Cont 00:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Keep Notable. I'm not sure about the rename proposed by S&M. This is the English language Knowledge (XXG). We'll have to duke it out on the article talk page with the losing receiving an appropriate salute in their preferred language. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      Could you give some kind of evidence of notability? The notability of the german phrase is already established, and it is found in other articles. The question is essentially over whether the phrase "swabian salute" is notable. Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    Isn't this article title just a translation of the german phrase? If that's notable, and I agree it is based on the sources in the German article, then why wouldn't the phrase be notable under an article title translated to English? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    The phrase is notable, but the idea that it is known as the "swabian salute" isn't backed up by anything I can find. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 10 June 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 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Another one of these sad events, but again WP:ONEEVENT Passportguy (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    Comment/Keep: Using your logic, the articles for Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, and other beheaded people need to also be deleted? Murgon (talk) 05:53, 4 June 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment BLP1E is one of the more frequently misunderstood policies. People are often made famous - and notable, meaning of lasting interest to informed readers - for a single thing. Events are often notable, and by definition an event happens only once. BLP1E reflects the truism that a person's connection to a notable event does not always make the person themselves notable. (disclosure: this is plagiarism). Here it is the event (not the person) and the possible repercussions that could justify inclusion. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:48, 11 June 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. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Article was originally written by someone affiliated with the company and doesn't appear to be notable. Contested prod and speedy.Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Keep A Google News Archive search returns a multitude of reliable sources, proving that this company passes WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak delete. First of all, the article asserts its own lack of notability ("43rd largest law firm, by revenue, in the UK"); wikipedia is not a directory of companies. As for the Google news results, they fall into roughly three categories: (1) entries in trade publications, especially Legalweek, which establish verifiability but not necessarily notability; (2) mentions in mainstream media, as you'd expect for any law firm above a particular size, the stories are about the cases, not the firm, and (3) at least one story that is genuinely about the fim and in a mainstream publication, but is ignored by the wikipedia entry, possibly because it's not flattering. I think this last article might establish notability, but it has to be folded into the article. Hairhorn (talk) 18:26, 3 June 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep It's notable, one of the UK's big firms and is historical. Conflict aside the article can be fixed with some attention from independant editors. Nja 20:03, 15 June 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 |  00:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Barza Alba (winery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article does not establish the notability of the winery as per WP:N BodegasAmbite (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    Comment. Winning medals at wine shows does not automatically confer notability. We have had this discussion several times over at WikiProjectWine. (the number of medals awarded at each show and the number of shows held is truly astounding!)The source provided in this case may well be reliable, but it is not notable at all, which is the issue here.

    --BodegasAmbite (talk) 10:26, 4 June 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, 10 June 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 |  00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Procedural request. PROD was removed. Enough assertion of notability to pass A7, but IMDB page only indicates two things GedUK  15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete - body of work does not indicate notability. Searching for sources is problematic as teh name turns up many individuals. Various qualifiers applied to the search does not turn up any results to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 4 June 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, 10 June 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 |  00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Seems to be self-promotion for a chap who has written a book about something called "aerotoxic syndrome". We don't have an article for that yet but does seem to be a real thing (see for example this news article), and it has been turned into a documentary. However I'm not convinced that Mr. Loraine is quite notable enough to need an article yet. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment. This is a tricky one. There is no doubting the self promotional nature of the article. Other articles worth reading include GCAQE, 31 North 62 East, Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines. Users involved in editing these articles all seem to display a conflict of interest from their usernames, such as User:FNFFSFTS (which I presume stands for "Fact not fiction films shadows from the sky"), User:GCAQE, and User:DFTEnterprises (the company of that name operates from the same address as the film company, which is also the address for GCAQE). So, there appear to be a few users all creating and editing articles associated with Tristan Loraine, and all of whom seem to have conflicts of interest. However, there does appear to be some reasonable sources of this person/organisations/films: , , , , , etc. I don't really know what the best cause of action is. My own take is that they are promotional in nature (GCAQE claim to represent half a million airline workers, but I bet they don't know about it). There doesn't seem to have been much work done by other editors to these articles, so I wouldn't particularly object if they were all deleted and were started from scratch if someone wanted to. Quantpole (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 June 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, 10 June 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 |  00:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    A second XI cricketer who is yet to play major (professional) cricket, fails WP:ATHLETE. PROD was removed as article had previously been PRODed then deleted. Jpeeling (talk) 17:10, 3 June 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, 10 June 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 |  00:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable Star Wars character. Not quite a speedy, but it is cruft (which I say as a Star Wars fan). Belongs at Wookiepedia, not here. Tyrenon (talk) 19:42, 3 June 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, 10 June 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 Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow (quotation). –Juliancolton |  00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow (short story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A longtime stub with no citations. -- A /contribs 23:44, 9 June 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.

    ↑