Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 12 - Knowledge

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. There are a number of solutions here, and I have my own suggestion. However, the consensus is that the current solution works fine, so we might as well go with that consensus and keep the current solution as impose any other. SilkTork * 19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Completely unnecessary and virtually useless disambiguous page. Every Texas Chainsaw Massacre article has a template (Template:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) that links every single Chainsaw related page. We also have The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise), which is linked in the first sentence of each of the film pages. Having a disambiguous page that does nothing but link film pages that are already linked like that twice is unnecessary. This page should be deleted so that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film) can take over this title, with a "This is for the 2003 film, for the 1973 film see.." added to the top.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Although I wish that I could say that there will never ever again be another film, game, book, etc. that has the words Texas, chainsaw and massacre in its title, it would be easier to add that to a disambiguation page than to alter each of the articles referred to above. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. If they have a new game, and it gets an article, or a new comic/movie/etc., then it's just as easy to create the space on the template as it is to put it on this disambiguous page (it'll happen regardless). The same goes for the franchise, it's going to be listed there no matter what, because those two pages chronicle all those topics/articles. There's only one "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and that's the movie franchise. The video doesn't actually have an article, it's redirected to the franchise page to the section where it is mentioned. The comic page is misleading to start. There is only one comic with the name "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and that was a few years ago. The first was just called "Leatherface", and the next was called "Jason vs. Leatherface". It wasn't until 2005 that the listed title was even used. Plus, the page appears to be nothing but plot info, and should probably be merged to the franchise article anyway. A similar discussion is happening with a Nightmare on Elm Street page. It's unnecessary. If someone is looking for a "game", then they're likely to put "Texas Chainsaw Massacre game" or "...comic", because they probably realize that "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is typically associated with the two movies that share that title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a redundant page, however, to disagree with the nominator, the original, 1973 Texas Chainsaw Massacre film should be the one to get the undisambiguated article title. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh? You mean The Texas Chain Saw Massacre? I'm saying they both should, because of the similarities. The original film puts a space between "Chainsaw" --> "Chain Saw", so it's already undisambiguated. It's the 2003 remake that doesn't have the space, and is the only film with just "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" as its title (no subtitle).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see how this is in any way redundant simply because other articles have a template containing these links at the end (which won't be visible immediately when those articles are opened). If you want to move this to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation) and then put a link to it at the top of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre that's fine, but don't expect people to search through to the end other articles to find what they're looking for via a template, or search through the franchise page.--Michig (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
They also all have a link to the franchise, which lists everything that has a page and doesn't have a page, right at the top of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you have bigger monitor than me or a smaller font, but the only link to any of these that's immediately visible when I open the franchise page is to the 1974 film. Even if those links were evident in the first few paragraphs of the franchise article, a disambiguation page is a much easier way of navigating to the required article, which is just what it's there for. Ther may be a link to the franchise page near the top of all the other articles but if for example I was looking for the video game, it certainly isn't obvious that I'm going to find that by clicking on a link which simply reads "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".--Michig (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What I said was that there is a link on all of them "to" the franchise page. The franchise wouldn't link to itself. From there, you have the Table of Contents that navigates that page. The video game is irrelevant, because it doesn't have an article anyway, I don't know why it's even on the disambig page still. The comics are the only other thing besides the film, and again the TOC has a link directly to the comics section of the franchise page (which, at least on my screen is visible without having to even scroll down). This disambig is unnecessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I can see I'm not getting through. The disambiguation page is by far the easiest way of navigating to the required article. It will take little or no effort to maintain, so there's no case that I can see for deletion.--Michig (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the move, which would more properly be undoing a redirect made a couple of years ago by someone who was concerned that it would be "superfluous" to use the word disambiguation in a disambiguation page, rather than "helpful". Of course, the title continued to exist as a redirect, so I don't know what was accomplished. Move it on back. Mandsford (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, then the "sans space" title should be given to the 2003 remake, with a "for the 1974 film see" added at the top.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't particularly care all that much. But as the 1973 film was the primordial ooze from which all the other, um, err, derivative stuff came from, and as the article points out, the 1973 film is presented with both spellings with some frequency in various reliable sources, and as the 2003 film is not particularly more notable than any of the others, the variant spelling should go to the original. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That's irrelevant, because we'd have that nice little link at the top saying "if you meant the 1974 film then go here". Claiming that people are looking for the original over the remake is subjective. Yes, the original is more notable, but naming conventions are based on popular searching, not notability and frankly most people that saw the 2003 remake didn't know it was a remake (exception being the people who were already fans of the series).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant when the 1973 film is arguably the primary topic for either variant spelling. As others have pointed out, primary topic is what this discussion should be about rather than deletion. older ≠ wiser 03:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's the primary topic, but it's not the way the film is spelled. There are two films in this series that share a name, but are distinguished by how they spell said name. As per the naming conventions, each should have their own undisambiguated title, but given the similarities between said titles there should be a "for other use.." note at the top of each article's page. It's as simple as that. The notability of the 1974 film is irrelevant to the naming convention discussion, as the unspaced version of "Chainsaw" is not how the film spells its title. Yes, some people spell it that way, but that's neither here nor there since we have a film that does spell it without the space.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not that simple because the 1973 film is commonly known by both names with and without spacing by various reliable sources. The goal is to make it less confusing for readers, not more confusing. older ≠ wiser 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not going to be more confusing with either solution. Who is going to put in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", be taken to the 2003 remake page where a big sign says "This is for the remake, here is the 1974 film"....and stop and go "I'm confused"? It's plain English, and easy to understand: "There are two films, they share a similar name, you just came to the wrong page so here is the right one." If anything, and I like to think the average reader has a bit more common sense than I think you're giving them credit for, they'd more likely be more confused when they type in the title without the space (maybe even looking for the 2003 remake) and get taken to an article that uses a space to separate "Chain" and "Saw".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, you have your opinions, I have as well. That's why there are discussion pages. The point is that the 1973 film is arguably the primary topic regardless of the spacing. In April it had some 64K page views vs. about 15K for the 2003 film. The 1973 film is spelled without the space in many reliable sources (for example ). If it is indeed the primary topic, then it should have the base name, regardless of irrelevant typographical variants. older ≠ wiser 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter the number of page views for the original film, because you don't know how they got to the page. They could have typed it in exactly the way it's spelled. They could have typed it in without the space and used the disambig page. Again, that's irrelevant. The fact remains that the unspaced version of the name goes to another film. That takes priority, because you cannot make a subjective call on what someone intends to search for, when you have no data to support such a position. I'm away that there are sources that refer to the 1974 film with no space, but guess what, every source that refers to the remake does it without the space as well. If these two films shared a name and nothing else, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place, because you'd have two completely different films with a similar name that is distinguished by a space.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The point of the page views is that the 1973 film is by a fairly wide margin more looked for than the 2003 film. That is what primary topic is about. And if the 1973 is commonly referred to in reliable sources by both the spaced and unspaced name, it should be the primary topic rather than a derivative work. older ≠ wiser 12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It IS the primary topic, but that doesn't change the fact that another film exists that uses the name of the proposed redirect you want. That is why, per naming conventions, we have those templates for "If you were looking for this" at the top of pages. You cannot simply ignore the fact that another film has that title just because another more notable film exists that shares a common title that is often misspelled. It's precisely those instances that Template:Otheruses4 was created.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That is precisely what primary topic means -- When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Knowledge to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. If both films were uniquely named and there were no risk of confusion, then there would be no question of a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Here the problem with your argument. You cannot show that "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (sans space) is their intented search option for the 1974 film. You can show that the 1974 film is more trafficked than the 2003 remake. You can show that people in the past, and some currently, still spell the 1974 without the space. What you cannot show (at least you have not been able to show) is that those things are inexplicably linked. In other words, that people type in the title sans the space with the intention of going to the 1974 film. You are trying to use synthesis to prove your point, and you cannot do that. That is why both articles should be nondisambiguated, and "Otheruse" should be used to point to each respective article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, no. What you incorrectly consider as synthesis is used all the time to determine primary topic. Synthesis is primarily about article content. The considerations for naming article are different. There is objective evidence (Google and page views) supporting the proposition that the 1973 film is the primary topic for the title regardless of spacing. If there is no consensus that there is a primary topic, then perhaps the disambiguation page should be at the base name with a redirect from the other base name. older ≠ wiser 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because "it's used all the time" doesn't make it any less synthesis. Synthesis is when you take two separate points and use them to prove a third point that is not backed solely by either individual point. To quote the policy, you are taking argument A (1974 film is most popular) and argument B (people spell said film with and without the space) and using them to draw conclusion C (that people searching for the name sans the space will be looking for the 1974 film). That's synthesis, plain and simple. As for consensus, it appears from the above that you are the only one still on the side of making the sans space redirect to the 1974 article. JHunter doesn't mind either option, Mandsford agrees with using the "Otheruses" option, and myself. Since this isn't a controversial issue, it doesn't require community wide consensus, because it's a subjective call.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
And that is specifically prohibited with regards to article content. Evaluation of evidence from sources such as Page views, Google hits, and internal links are precisely what is prescribed for determining primary topic. EVERYONE, including reliable sources and even movie posters for the original movie get the spacing confused. Why should we expect readers to behave any differently? older ≠ wiser 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, hence the "Otheruse" template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Which might be just fine if there were not such confusion over the title. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There can be confusion of just about every title that shares similarities with other topics. The fact that these two articles are basically on the same topic, one is just updated, it makes better sense to use "Otherstuff". You have a popular 1974 film, that's 30 years old and a popular 2003 remake - I mean, if you throw Google searches out there then box office performance counts for something as well, and a 9 mill. movie making over $100 million constitutes some strong popularity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Blueboy96 23:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP: ENT in that she has only had one semi-major role, not the 2+ required. No evidence of "cult following" or "innovative contributions" ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. A new article may now be created on the other band using the same name. SilkTork * 19:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Article was de-proded, although apparently in error. As I noted in my {{prod2}} there is a notable band by this name, however they are not the same band as described in the article. (See Allmusic article.) The band actually described has zero claim to notability that I could find. The article should be deleted and replace by an article about the otehr band if desired. ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. The only coverage is in two local magazines. I also found a passing mention, but nothing more. Btw, their MySpace reports that they're on an indefinite hiatus. Fences and windows (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom, there is a notable band by this name, but this is not it. This band created its own label, unlike the other which is on a large indie label. (Before I realized the confusion, I was getting ready to !vote Keep.) Sources talk about their "freshman album." Per the Tuscaloosa News article, their EP has been a "brisk seller locally," and is "planning a spring tour of the East Coast." Never charted, no national tour, no significant media coverage. No real assertion of significance in the article. This band does not meet notability guidelines.Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite to the notable band mentioned in the Allmusic page. They at least pass WP:MUSIC#C1 & WP:MUSIC#C5. Where as these guys are lucky to be notable in their own lunch time.  Esradekan Gibb  08:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment There is no actual content to keep since this is a complete different band. A deletion of the NN band doesn't prevent a creation of a page for the notable one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
egg-zactly Dlohcierekim
You're kidding right!!!!! So what you're telling me is if a band/album/song that shares the same name, is far more notable, and has sources and references to boot, shouldn't take over the page name???? I've seen that on many occasion during AfD discussions. I'd love for you to now dig up the Knowledge guideline or policy that says that can't happen please.  Esradekan Gibb  01:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
No one is saying that it can't take over the page, just that the current, unrelated content should be deleted first. There is no reason for these revisions to stay in the page history and there certainly is no reason to keep the current content because of the possibility that it will be replaced by notable content. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ahhhhh, that explains thing a lot better. I see now. Although I'm 50/50 on whether the whole page actually needs to be deleted first. As a side note, I've already got the content mostly written for the new band to be dropped into place once this AfD gets wrapped up.  Esradekan Gibb  02:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the other band "National Trust" or "The National Trust"? Seems to vary. Fences and windows (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Based on their own website, album covers and their record label it's The National Trust.  Esradekan Gibb  22:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- User:Docu 03:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

List of shopping malls in Bahrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable list of shopping malls and is true not just for Bahrain but for any country. WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR. Mohummy (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. There's a danger of systematic bias. Are shopping malls in Bahrain less notable than, say, shopping centres in the UK? Nope. Instead of picking off one or two articles about shopping malls in foreign countries, I think more thought needs to be put into whether the whole category is notable or not. Without that thought and debate, definite keep. Fences and windows (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe a list of shopping malls anywhere is notable unless a reason for notability can be shown which I doubt is possible. Mohummy (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As I see it, a list of notable anythings in a country is a viable list, as long as there are 2 or more of them. (Judging notability in the usual way, buy having a Knowledge article or being obviously qualified for one. ) DGG (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nobody loves an exciting list of shopping malls more than me. Oh man WP:ILIKEIT more than you can imagine. JBsupreme (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Precedent. "Lists of ..." dont need to be Notable in and of themselves, just what is on them, the List is a prefered navigation tool for some, just like :Cats are for others. Exit2DOS2000 09:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Exit2Dos2000. Not every entry on a list needs to be notable. The content on this list can easily be verified. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Knowledge is not a directory and that's all these lists are. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per TenPoundHammer. But I suggest each one should be notable. I would hate to see a list of all "shopping centers" in the U.S. include every minor strip mall. The equivalent of regional malls and larger should be the only ones included. 22:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Edison (talk)

Comment How is this different from recently deleted articles such as Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_hotels_in_Bahrain Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/List of clubs in Bahrain and Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/List of supermarket chains in Bahrain? The articles for the two malls which have articles read as advertisements rather than anything notable or encyclopedic. This is not a travel wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohummy (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Reply to comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. So edit the articles that you feel read as advertisements. Exit2DOS2000 12:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG, Exit, 10# I cannot think of a single reason why we should not have this list. The only reason cited in the nom is that it's a list of non notable malls. Oh, wait. Some of them are independently notable But lists to allow us to cover subjects that are not necessarily notable individually. "Useful" is not a useful argument in AFD, but we must remember that we are building a storehouse of "the sum of all human knowledge" and that Knowledge is not a paper encyclopedia. We can afford to have items that a paper encyclopedia could not due to paper costs. It is the sort of information that would be referenced somewhere if someone thought to do it. Individually, the malls may not meet our definition of notability. Collectively they do, so the thing to do is to improve rather than delete. I can't help it if other lists have been deleted. Did not take part in those discussions. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G6) by R'n'B. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

84th United States Congress - membership changes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fork of 84th United States Congress. Should be included in the one article. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The different nature of the content and its presentation results in the significant awkwardness/impossibility in having a single article. stilltim (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • 'Delete A single article would work, but you are so insistent that your way is the only way, that our only solution left is to delete. You simply won't work with the rest of us to achieve consensus on a single article.DCmacnut<> 01:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Where is the main dispute being played out? Is there a central discussion? There is a whole category of article, so the decision on one will affect many or all of those articles. There are signs of ownership by Stilltim, but deletion doesn't seem the answer to this content dispute. Have you tried any form of dispute resolution before going to AfD? Why not merge the two tables into the main article, as they are in essence the entirety of the article. Fences and windows (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Myself and other editors have had numerous queries with the editor on his talk page. Not sure if dispute resolution would work in this case. His response to the majority of questioning is to "wait and see what I'm doing, because I don't like they way the current article is written, and my way is better." Most of these articles have been merged into the main one, but the editor does not want that to happen. Rather than taking up the discussion at the main article or the project page, he continues to maintain these redundant articles. See his comment at Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/37th_United_States_Congress_-_summary, where he blames other editors for the dispute, saying that he has resorted to creating new articles to "fix" some problem he sees with the changes to the main article, rather than trying to constructively work with us on a solution. He simply feels he owns the format, and doesn't want anyone reverting his edits, even though the current format was developed through consensus at WP:USC. This all started when he began creating duplicate articles like 50th United States Congress - summary which use his preferred formating, which he views as the only proper format. These articles provide the same information, and add nothing new and distinct to Knowledge that isn't already provided on the main article. He simply feels that all of this information should be provided in separate articles, instead of one, even though the articles are of equal length, generally, and again add nothing new. After being asked repeatedly to stop creating duplicate articles like his "Xth Congress - summary" forks, Afds on those forms have begun, and are now extended to these pre-existing forks, which by and large have already been merged into the main article. Out of some respect for the editor, they have not been speedy deleted, even though the probably qualify because the information is provided elsewhere. 'm not sure creating multiple AFDs is the answer, but I support that effort.DCmacnut<> 02:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe it would be appropriate for you to create an RFC so that there is a more centralized discussion on this. More third party input on the situation may help convince him that this plan is inappropriate. Gigs (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't begin the Afd effort, and don't really have the time or energy to go to RFC. I'll leave that to other editors to propose. It would have to be an RFC on the editors conduct, since an rRFC on content would get us nowhere. The editor is adamant that his way is the only proper way, and appears no longer open to discussions on other alternatives. I'm afraid he can't be convinced, since his comments to date indicate that only he has the expertise and knowlege to properly manage these articles, and other editors simply don't "understand" enough to do things the right (his) way.DCmacnut<> 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Knowledge:Requests_for_comment/Stilltim Gigs (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all similar articles. A content dispute is no reason for forking. And someone should get on that RFC... hundreds of AfDs serve no purpose and don't seem to be discouraging the forking that this editor is engaged in. --Kinu /c 03:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep this & and all similar articles. Good summary articles for the key political changes of the period at a national level. DGG (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep would be ok if the article wasn't the same as the 84th United States Congress article with some wording changes.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork * 12:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage of substance. Pretty much all I could find was sites that posted the track list, artwork, download link, and maybe a sentence or three. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete by User:Harej. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

84th United States Congress - state delegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fork of 84th United States Congress. Should be included in the one article. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The different nature of the content and its presentation results in the significant awkwardness/impossibility in having a single article. stilltim (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • 'Delete A single article would work, but you are so insistent that your way is the only way, that our only solution left is to delete. You simply won't work with the rest of us to achieve consensus on a single article.DCmacnut<> 01:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete by Harej. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

84th United States Congress - political parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fork of 84th United States Congress. Should be included in the one article. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to do!--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The different nature of the content and its presentation results in the significant awkwardness/impossibility in having a single article. stilltim (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • 'Delete A single article would work, but you are so insistent that your way is the only way, that our only solution left is to delete. You simply won't work with the rest of us to achieve consensus on a single article.DCmacnut<> 01:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete by Harej. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

37th United States Congress - summary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Replica 37th United States Congress gordonrox24 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

An attempt to submit a professional response to the above would be to say that it is unfortunate to have to create alternate article, but each "main" article has become infected variously with minimal understanding of the content and its organization. A close inspection will confirm that the various editors over the last year have in fact created the mess and the effort underway is an attempt to create a set of consistent and accurate articles. stilltim (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So this is basically like a massive set of POV forks, but instead of POV, it's because you don't want your contributions being edited in ways you don't agree with? I'd say the professional response here would be for you to assist with merging the articles back together. Gigs (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Unfortunately, the editor has no desire to reach consensus on how to consolidate these into one, concise article, and instead insists that his way is the only right way. This violates WP:OWN on so many levels that all such forks should be deleted.DCmacnut<> 01:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all similar articles. Massive POV forking here. Might be time for an RFC due to this editor's continued creation of these articles while consensus is attempting to be reached. --Kinu /c 03:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete by Harej. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

30th United States Congress - summary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

30th United States Congress already exists. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We were going to merge, but as there are so many articles written by the editor User:Stilltim like this one, that we can not possibly merge them all. A mass deletion is all that seems possible.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no difference in the articles. All are duplicates of the main XXth Congress articles, with minor formating changes. I believe User:Stilltim is attempting to recreate deleted articles to further his ownership claims on these types of articles.DCmacnut<> 14:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus Cheers. I' 14:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The Guinness Records' "World's Tallest Motorcycle" category no longer exists, having been replaced by "Worlds Tallest Rideable Motorcycle." A different monster bike, smaller taller than "Bigtoe" but presumably rideable, holds the current title. The winner seems to have changed at least once or twice since the Bigtoe page was created, and during that time there was little interest in it on Knowledge. There is a self-promoting aspect to both the Guinness Records, and the record holders, which suggests that they should provide their own publicity rather than seek it on Knowledge, unless there exists verifiable evidence of significant public interest outside of Guinness' own publicity, or the publicity created by the record holders. Dbratland (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment The noms edit summary reason for deletion on the motorcycle to do page: "nominated Bigtoe for deletion instead of looking for an image" seems completely improper as there are numerous articles, even stubs, without images, and he does not mention this reason here. Very odd indeed. ww2censor (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If you do a Google book search for "bigtoe" motorcycle, with the quotes, you get 3 hits, 2 are Guinness and 1 is a page that is somewhere between trivial and in-depth. That would make it important enough to be worthy of inclusion in another article but not notable to have its own article. On a regular search I'm not seeing anything in-depth and most of it seems to be levered off Guinness. Drawn Some (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is so odd. I was working on the Knowledge:WikiProject Motorcycling/to do list and I decided to look for images. The first one on the list is Bigtoe. I began looking around for an image, and that's when I realized "Bigtoe" is no longer the record holder, and the whole category has changed, and there is little interest in the topic anyway. Bigtoe's loss of the title has caused hardly a ripple in the motorcycling world. So I decided that rather than try to hunt down an image for a page nobody seemed to care much about, it would be better just to delete the page. I merely added a note saying what was up, over on the To Do list. The fact that an image is missing has nothing to do with why it should be deleted, so I didn't mention it. I don't understand what is improper.--Dbratland (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. It came, we saw, it existed. It had its 15 minutes and is no longer of note. 01:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). It held the record, and it got press coverage:. Some of the coverage is in passing, but 7 sources along with entries in the 2004 and 2005 Guinness Book of Records makes this bike definitely notable. That said, training wheels on a motorbike? Dude, you're doing it wrong. Fences and windows (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient sources for notability. That it's a former competitive category not a present one doesn't detract from notability. DGG (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep DGG said it all. If that's not enough, Fences said more. 2 year winner. Sill notable. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Interesting topic, though needs reliable sources before it is recreated. SilkTork * 19:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Manchuria national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V. Only cited website makes no mention of team Stu.W UK (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely someone needs to look in Chinese and Japanese before we conclude that there are no references. Drawn Some (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
In normal circumstamces I would agree with you, however, this seems to have come about, like the Shanghai article, as a result of people from this forum trying to find as many teams as possible and sometimes getting a little overenthusiastic in their endeavours. The same person on the forum also gives results for games between Manchuria and China, which strikes me (and apparently whoever the author who used those results to create this article) as highly unlikely to have happened, which then brings all the results into question. Stu.W UK (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well certainly, if no references can be found, it has to go - but it would be best to make sure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it could turn out be a hoax. No reason not to check first though. Drawn Some (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now, I'm being a bit dense Stu.W UK (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not a hoax; there is reference to Japan playing games in Manchuria at these times:. There is also this football statistics site:. However, the existence of the games isn't enough to make the team notable, so I'd probably side with deletion. Fences and windows (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable. John Sloan @ 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect Hmmm. This seems to be a sham national team from a fabricated nation. Manchukuo, as I recall, was a puppet of Imperial Japan. "International games" would be a sham. However, we are building a not paper encylopedia, and this information should be somewhere. Best place I can think of would be a section of Manchukuo. Dlohcierekim 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep -　the article has notability as it illustrates one of a number of failed efforts by Manchukuo to obtain international recognition. I agree that more references should be added, even if only in Japanese or Chinese. --MChew (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable in its own. Significant content in the article (if any) can be merged into the Manchukuo article. --Angelo (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork * 13:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Breadth-first search implementation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As has been discussed ad nauseam at Knowledge talk:WikiProject Computer science#Source code, Knowledge is not a code repository: it is appropriate to describe an algorithm within its own article both in English prose and as either (preferably) pseudocode or a single code implementation. Multiple redundant implementations belong somewhere else more suited to hosting code. We've recently gone through several iterations of ripping all this code out of the breadth-first search article, leaving something shorter that a human can read; this attempt to add it back in by a back-door channel is not constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete As a non-programmer, I find the article senseless. It doesn't even say what breadth-first search is. The issues that led to this need to be resolved, this isn't the answer. How one would establish notability and verifiability for code like this I can't begin to imagine. Drawn Some (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge Noms arguments seem to support merge rather than delete. I agree the article lacks context, that's because it belongs in the main article. Sorry I didn't notice that it was a fork in the first place. I would support moving the pseudocode back into the main article and getting rid of the rest. Since the content was from the original article anyway, no need to merge. Gigs (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Interesting topic if true. But needs reliable sources. SilkTork * 13:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article seems to stem from this discussion on a forum. This article fails WP:N. Further, the team is not a national one. As Shanghai actually ceased to be a Japanese puppet state in 1940 one of the matches mentioned is definitely incorrect. I find it highly unlikely that the 1937 one occurred once Shanghai became 'independent'. Regardless, Hong Kong didn't play an official international until 1954. This means this article boils down to a possible but unlikely single match between two unrecognised teams. Stu.W UK (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree in the Manchuria case, but in this instance removing ll the inaccuracies would most likely mean that there was no article. The Manchuria team has evidence of having played when independent, Shanghai doesn't.Stu.W UK (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Basically an essay that, to quote a CSD criterium, "would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic". Delete per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Yintaɳ  21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Keep votes ;) In any regard, while I may be unemployed right now, I don't have the ability to go to Wiki U., the MOS pages alone would take days to read, so can one of you either give me a few things to improve? thx Chris R —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRoetzer (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC) And I just picked up on the signature stamp button on the tool bar! --CRoetzer (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup. The article will also have to be moved for capitalization if nothing else. I can assist further with style if it survives the AfD but it would be helpful for you to have more references to verify much of the information. Drawn Some (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Drawn Some for some cleaning up, I too went back and streamlined it more based upon feedback. I'm not as qualified as the wiki experts so without removing content, feel free to help! --CRoetzer (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Snowball delete by DerHexer. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) deleted per WP:SNOW, WP:CSD#A7 —DerHexer (Talk) 17:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Youtube Poop (craze) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining speedy deletion. A Google news archives search gives exactly one relevant hit (another hit is from 2001, another hit is French), and given that, I think the article creator is overstating the buzz. None of the refs are from reliable sources. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a DRV of one of the speedies here. That may be what TPH was thinking of. Deor (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, also, the TV.com hit isn't actually from 2001. YouTube didn't even exist in 2001. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

08:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely this article could be deleted under A1, A7, G1, and G11. It is just incoherent crap and seems like an advertisement to me. Also, completely unremarkable. Alan16 16:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not delete: Why delete an article on a valid subject that is relevant and significant!

Um... relevant and significant to Internet dumbasses != relevant and significant to the general public. JuJube (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

DONT DELETE! Is urbandictionary not reliable? Is wikia.com not reliable? Ajfweb (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC) There are hundreds of thousands of youtube poop videos... I just would like it to be considered as not a "useless, meaningless thing that Youtube people do" and instead as a "valid, popular form of video remix". please, give it a chance! Ajfweb (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) HEY HEY HEY! Hang on a second!!!! Youtube Poop on many valid encyclopedias and dictionaries on the web (not all of these are that reliable, choose for yourself though):

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork * 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A senior lecturer at Auckland University of Technology who, of course, does research, but does not seem to pass the Professor Test. --Dynaflow babble 21:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. One two three... 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Showtime (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As with Ceasefire, Article is completely redundant to the already existing Episode list. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This one is tricky, as searching for sources yields lots of hits for the network Showtime. Still, my search turned up nothing showing notability. I suppose I could still be proven wrong if someone comes up with sources, but I think there's a very slim chance of this happening. Cazort (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Personally I don't think any series merits pages for individual episodes, but there are many such series documented on Knowledge. However, there are pages for (seemingly) every MASH episode. So it seems to me that the default action would be keep, unless someone can make an argument for introducing a red link into an otherwise blue list of episodes. Hairhorn (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the argument to keep because "other similar pages exist" is not valid, especially since we have been deleting episodes, some of which are closer to being notable than this one, and there has been a clear consensus that they are not notable. If the episode is not notable, it needs to be deleted. If you want to keep it because you believe it is notable, you need to show us that it is notable. Cazort (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, lets talk about policy, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline addressing episodes, has failed 3 times. WP:PLOT just had a !vote in which a majority of people wanted it to be deleted. So there is little policy reasons to delete this article, especially considering the new references provided. Ikip (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware that thees guidelines have not reached a consensus. Because there is great controversy I thinking primarily of the general notability guideline: WP:N, significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject--which excludes the episode itself as well as any promotional material tied to the industry (i.e. a site run by comcast). Cazort (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • reply the list is not all blue. Examine all the episode lists by season, and you'll see plenty of gaps. Since, as stated above, I'm reviewing a few at a time, eventually there will be plenty more episodes removed than kept, we can turn the lists to black, and thus clean up the entire situation. ThuranX (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh hell, if there are already gaps, knock yourself out. My only concern was that deletes be done with the series as a whole in mind, not strictly on a case-by-case basis for each episode. Hairhorn (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Switch to keep Dlohcierekim 14:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
On what grounds are you arguing to expand this article? You say to "add real world context and criticism"--from where? You need to provide sources. Otherwise it would be original research. And if there are similar pages on non-notable episodes of other TV shows, they need to be deleted too...we need to discuss based on notability, not on what other pages do or don't exist because wikipedia is full of pages that exist that shouldn't and pages that don't exist that should. Cazort (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have provided numerous sources. These sources are just not good enough for some editors.Ikip (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I am troubled with editors who call other editor good faith contributions "crap". Does this really help come to a consensus? Just like cruft, "this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
So, sensing the loss of the rationale battle, you're resorting to bashing people with the WP:CIVIL mallet? Honestly now, think about what ThuranX is actually saying, rather than just acting reactionary in the face of certain combinations of little black squiggles. Badger Drink (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
RE:"I have been doing a fairly detailed search for each of these episodes"
What about my new contributions? I added 5 references to this article on 17:26, 15 May 2009, four hours before you posted this.
RE:"The editors arguing to keep have provided no new sources "
Please strike this, as it is therefore false.
I am reminded of the nominator for deletion who recently felt 36 references was not enough to keep an article. Ikip (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:N. Significant coverage in reliable independent sources makes something notable, not numbers of viewers. Cazort (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H episode articles, based on the Wittebols book; however, I've now reached the limit of the number of pages Google Books will let me see in that book, so I can't do any more now. Nevertheless, the point stands: the sources that others have found establish notability for these episodes, and source material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • CommentThe 'improvements' above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
What is your definition of notability? It seems like you have a Guinness World Records concept of notability. It has to be be the longest running episode, or the most watched episode, instead of the Knowledge definition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Notability on Knowledge is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
          • A phone book has a one-line entry for each telephone number. An episode guide usually has at least a page on each episode, with details about cast, crew, plot, development and broadcast. That's exactly the sort of information that an encyclopedia covering a specific television episode would have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
            • No, someone says 'this show is popular, let's see if an episode guide would sell.' and they write up a list of episodes, with some basic facts about each. They aren't making assertions about the notability of individual episodes, but about a percieved popularity of the show itself. Within that book they may present facts which demonstrate notability for SOME episodes, like the one that got a writing award, and the other which got an editing award. But simply printing out a list of episodes isn't the same as asserting each episode is notable unto itself, which is what is required. You keep making assertions which seem to boil down to 'notability for the series is inherited by each episode.' That's NOT how NOTE works. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
              • And that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that these episode articles should be kept merely because M*A*S*H is notable. It's possible for a television series to be notable without its episodes having received critical attention. However, an episode guide is a perfectly acceptable example of a reliable source, independent of the subject, and as such the episodes of any television series about which an episode guide has been published are themselves notable. This isn't inheritance; it's focus. Claiming that episode guides can't establish notability for episodes is like claiming that bird guides can't establish notability for a species of bird.
                "Notable" is a broader criterion than "exceptional". We agree that exceptional episodes deserve articles; however, you are in error when you assert that exceptionality is required. All that is required is that an episode has been covered in reliable sources independent of the subject. And episode guides qualify. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
                • No, it is exactly what you are saying, over and over: "Because there is an episode guide, all episodes are notable." That's ridiculous. Because there is an episode guide, there can be made an argument, a good one that I'd support ,,that the show is probably notable. However, in order to establish that the episode is notable, there must be something specifically notable about that particular episode. Episode 57 is not notable because episode 3 was notable, and that's as it should be. An episode must have something specific to it which asserts notability, otherwise, every single episode of every show ever broadcast anywhere is notable. Each episode article needs to show what makes that episode special, notable. Most of these do not. I've been quite reasonable about this, withdrawing two articles already once some actual notability was established. I fail to see how you remain completely obtuse about my point here. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. You are treating "notable" as if it means "exceptional" or "special". All that it means is that someone has noted it. That's what an episode guide does— it notes episodes. I'm not talking about the TV Guide link, which I agree is not helpful in establishing notability. (I'm unsure about the classicsitcoms.com and digitallyobsessed.com links — I don't know whether those are reliable sources or not.) I'm talking about the printed books by Wittebols and Reiss. Not every television series has had episode guides published about it. For those series, it is not reasonable to expect that every episode should have its own article. However, if an independent source has published a guide to the episodes of a series, that guide is evidence of notability for those episodes.
                    Neither of us is getting anywhere in this discussion. Let's just agree to disagree, and see what the community as a whole says. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • Notable DOES mean exceptional or special. It means WORTHY of making note of it. Not every episode is worthy of making a note of it. When you decide to list all episodes, you are not making any examination of their notability, you're making a holistic list. That's different. Knowledge is NOT an episode guide. It is not hard to understand this: An Episode Guide shows that the SERIES is notable, not all the episodes, because it makes no distinctions between articles. Episode Guides present a PLOT, and maybe a list of guest stars, and sometimes trivia. Apparently all 6 of those sources only revealed THREE bits of potentially notable material. One failed award nomination and two actual winnings of awards. And as I must repeat all over AfD, I already withdrew those two wins. I am asking for individual demonstrations of notability. I got two. Get me a few more, and most of these articles could stay. ThuranX (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did you nominate the ones that are exceptional by your own standards? That is why I wrote that you have a bias against either this show, or older TV shows. You said that award nominated and award winning episodes are notable by your standards, yet you nominated them also. Every episode was nominated in season one, and you started season two. There doesn't appear to be any standard applied at all, it gives the appearance of disruption. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I started where I saw the problem, then worked forward to season two, accidentally got one of those, but saw it suffered the same problems, so I didn't withdraw it; then I started working back to the front of season one again. that's all there is to it. No article in there discussed awards when I read it. All those later found to have awards and citation supporting were withdrawn. There's no favoritism, my standard was simple - if an article made no supported claim to individual non-inherited notability, or lacked real world content that could reasonably be tagged with citation requests, I nom'd it. My actions were not disruptive; after all, it's not like I went around refactoring and redacting comments to make other editors look foolish or ignorant. ThuranX (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you understand the concept of "due diligence" before you nominate? Have you used The Google before? I can show you how to use it if you need help. You do understand that there are tags to resolve the problems you found, right? What made you choose MASH from the hundreds of TV show series articles that have identical structure? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
And you are correct there is no need for me to make you look "foolish or ignorant". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments on sources. classicsitcoms.com is self-published (by Vince Waldron), and is not acceptable as a source. The other sources are better. But I don't see significant coverage:
While most of the given sources only give a single paragraph, it's not the length but the nature of the content that matters to me. The given sources simply reference a plot summary. There is no discussion of cultural context of the episode, there is no content that relates the episode to anything beyond the show. I think the key issue here should be: are there enough sources to write an encyclopedic article? I.e. something that is more than just a plot summary, that ties the article into a web of knowledge? That's what I'm failing to see and why I continue to argue for deletion of most of these episodes. I think there are relatively few notable episodes of many TV shows. An example of what I'm looking for is mentions in places like the Journal of Popular Culture, relating this to other issues, as in this article's mention of the final episode (which is more likely to be notable anyway), I certainly wouldn't argue to delete that one, but there are mentions of other episodes (and, MUCH more interesting to me, themes and issues): , relating to M*A*S*H in that journal. I'm not a "deletionist", if you check my record you'll see that I tend to fall pretty solidly on the "keep" end of things most of the time. The issue here is that I think wikipedia is more than an indiscriminate repository of information. I think articles need to be woven into a web of knowledge. Dozens of articles with plot summaries and nothing else, even when adequately sourced, are in my opinion, entirely unencyclopedic, redundant to the rest of the web, and uninteresting. I would rather see M*A*S*H articles discussing the relevance of the series to the real world, tying it in with other articles beyond just the M*A*S*H ones. Cazort (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you think the coverage is significant? I pointed out above that the sources give little more than a brief plot summary. Cazort (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A plot summary may not provide a lot of meat for analysis in an article (other than the article's plot summary), but it is signficant coverage in its own right and that multiple independent sources choose to take the trouble to provide a plot summary of a particular episode is an indication of the episode's notability. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
As discussed earlier, your links are to exceptional shows. If we used the exceptional litmus test we would have just the TV Guide 100 top episodes. Reference works go beyond top 100 lists, and Knowledge has its own standard for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Then the standard is too low. And this episode does nothing to meet Knowledge's already-low standard. The arguments I've seen for inclusion range from the OCD "avoid redlinks" to the good ol' "notability is inherited" fallacy. If someone needs plot summaries for TV episodes, there's plenty of other Wikis out there that are better-suited for this sort of excruciating in-universe minutae.Badger Drink (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. One two three... 15:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

List of African American neighborhoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The list is intended to include "the oldest and most influential" African-American neighborhoods, but it has become an unsourced dumping ground for any and every African-American neighborhood an editor can think of. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Knowledge is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Knowledge community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).—S Marshall /Cont 22:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion, especially your use of a template. A quick look at the article's edit history would show that I've been trying to do -- aw, why the fuck am I responding to somebody who can't be bothered to type more than a dozen characters? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no way to tell what belongs on the list or doesn't. How is an "African-American neighborhood" defined at different periods of history? I am definitely leaning to delete. Basically you could include every neighborhood in the United States unless no African-American person has ever lived there. Drawn Some (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been deleting any entry whose article didn't describe it as a historically Black neighborhood, or as having a contemporary African-American majority. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • {{sofixit}} summed up exactly what I wanted to say, though. :) I agree the article should be a list of "the oldest and most influential" African-American neighbourhoods, and it can't be that if it's been deleted.

    If there's a problem with random material being added, why not ask for the page to be semi-protected? Deletion should generally be a last resort.—S Marshall /Cont 22:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs a better definition than "oldest and most influential", that's way too subjective. Drawn Some (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The WP:GNG ought to sort that out though, don't you think? If it's been called an African-American neighbourhood in more than one reliable source, then surely it's over the threshold?—S Marshall /Cont 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I agree. Those are subjective measures, and nobody has responded to an eleven-month-old request for sources. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Does Knowledge now have a deadline for an article to be in its final form? Edison (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The information is duplicated in other lists that ALSO quote the data source. This list, by contrast, is subject to bias and suffers from ill-defined terms. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Source it, don't delete it. If more than one reliable source calls it an African-American neighborhood, then include it. Fences and windows (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • DELETE. All the sofixit and cleanup tags in the world won't help this epic trainwreck. JBsupreme (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Each of the items should have a brief description of the basis, and of the relevant period. It does need to be defined better than oldest and influential--I think influential for a considerable period of time would be the right criterion. some of those I know were , for example, Jewish before they were Afro-American, or Afro-american before becoming hispanic. This geographic separation is a basic feature of american demography. This was not a very well done job, ao far, but its a start. I point out that there are books on almost every one of them, and mutiple news acccounts. There will certainly be no difficulty in sourcing. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I spotchecked a number of the neighborhoods, and their individual articles or sections in articles about neighborhoods of a city confirmed that they are black neighborhoods. The fear that an article does or might in the future need editing is not a convincing deletion argument. There are many publications about the neighborhoods of a city in papers and books about cities, as well as census data, to confirm what are black neighborhoods. Definition of the terms is an issue: does some small towns black district qualify or not? That is why articles are not "finalized" but are the product of ongoing editorial consensus. The list is a useful navigational tool. Edison (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • keep and improve. One of a series of such articles found in Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations. No valid reason to target this article for deletion; no reason to target the others for deletion either. Hmains (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • A lot of neighborhoods emigrated to the US from Africa? Man, think of the shipping involved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete- see belowComment A list like this might be informative and encyclopedic were it sourced and not subjective; here this article fails both these criteria - which means it needs to be rewritten with sources and remove any subjective criteria - if the neighborhood is 50%+ African American by population, it's in; once below the threshold it's out - it's someone else's neighborhood then - rather than some subjective inclusion criteria like someone's opinion that there are lots of African Americans there. ("lots of" is meaningless and likely based on some racist thinking). Whether the rewrite comes from the existing article or from scratch is not a big deal to me, but it does need to be re-written. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
You're trying to come up with an arbitrary threshold at which a neighbourhood becomes "African American", i.e. 50%, but we don't create our own definitions on Knowledge, we rely on what reliable sources tell us. So if reliable sources say an area is "African American" it goes in the list. Also, be careful - it could be construed that you meant that some Knowledge editors were applying racist thinking. Fences and windows (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The threshold of 50% is taken directly from African American neighborhood: "Generally, an African American neighborhood is one where the majority of the people who live there are African American". A majority is 50%+1. So you dispute that this is what is attempted to be listed in the article under discussion? That's fair, and that's why this article and its list is arbitrary and should be deleted as such. Thanks for clarifying that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Question How is it African American if it is no longer majority populated by African Americans? Harlem was once a prominent Jewish neighborhood. Do you still list it as such? Shouldn't there be something of historical importance in these neighborhoods, be it cultural, race riots, civil rights movements, or whatever? The list should include a list of things that make it notable enough to be on the list. But AFD is not for cleanup, but is suppose to be used as a last resort. Discuss problems on the talk page, and work on it from there. I'm going to go do some work on the article now. Dream Focus 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The article can be improved. I started making it so all the neighborhoods were in collapsed menus, the article easier to find your way around now. Added a description to a couple of places, to demonstrate why they were notable. The coloring of the text and background for the menus, as well as the headlines above them, I think could be improved upon. Anyone ever do something like this before on wikipedia? Discuss things on the talk page please. Dream Focus 03:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, irredeemably POV and OR. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The existence of African American neighbourhoods is "original research"?! Er, no. If it's POV, we fix that by using reliable sources, not deleting. There's nothing irredeemable here. Fences and windows (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The requirements are listed at the top of the article. The name should be changed to avoid confusion though. I have added in the reason for several of the entries to exist. If you see any entry that doesn't have any notable historical or cultural influence, then erase it. Dream Focus 11:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
That they be "old" and "influential?" Those aren't sourcing requirements, they're fluff. Why is an area acceptable or not? What defines "area?" For instance, Henrico County, Virginia, is a county, but Southern New Jersey is a third of a state, while NY metropolitan area includes massive sections of 2 states and a plurality of the population of a third. This article is unsalvagable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. This really needs a lot of work. I'm familiar with the concept with looking at gay neighborhoods. They generally have a starting point and a list article would be more helpful to explain, was it also a business hub, cultural center or purely residential? A basic list of just the neighborhoods with no further explanation isn't very helpful. Like most list articles it need a proper lede explaining a bit why African American would be clustered. -- Banjeboi 12:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork * 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Juan Fernández Islands national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm also nominating Easter Island national football team as both articles rely on each other. Neither team's existence can be verified. Even if they were, their notability is highly questionable Stu.W UK (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. One two three... 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ceasefire (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is redundant to already existing episode list. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, there is a misunderstanding of process that needs to addressed, perhaps by a wonk. The GNG tag is not a PROD. Of course. Dlohcierekim 03:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing to preserve, as this is redundant to the LoE already. There's no good reason for a redirect, as the title is not a likely search term. Any tag asking for more to be done is meant to prod the authors to do more; a prod's a PROD, and yes, only a process wonk would care to make that distinction as though it's enough to save the article. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. This is the same argument you've cut n pasted all night, I have no doubt that you'll soon reply to this and make me chase you all over again for that reply. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Strong keep per Richard. There is no WP:DEADLINE as per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merging should have been discussed on List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) before an AFD. Ikip (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, 20:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • commentNiteshift36 has made this same small, unsupported statement at many, if not all, of these MASH AfDs, and not provided any sort of 'proof' of notability assertion within any such article. ThuranX (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H episode articles, based on the Wittebols book; however, I've now reached the limit of the number of pages Google Books will let me see in that book, so I can't do any more now. Nevertheless, the point stands: the sources that others have found establish notability for these episodes, and source material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • CommentThe sources referred to above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, which can easily be merged to the LoE, improving the LoE with plenty of plot summary citations. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. LoEs with plot citations would be a benefit to the project, because it can easily reduce vandalism issues, as any editor can point to the sources to avoid plot bloat. Further, as a List, there's usually a community understanding of a lower threshold of notability for some reason. However, that's not the same as actually proving notability for a stand-alone article. ThuranX (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Notability on Knowledge is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
          • A phone book has a one-line entry for each telephone number. An episode guide usually has at least a page on each episode, with details about cast, crew, plot, development and broadcast. That's exactly the sort of information that an encyclopedia covering a specific television episode would have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge into the Season summaries Okay folks, I know M*A*S*H is a notable series, & many people here sincerely believe that every episode is therefore notable... but frankly a lot of episodes could be summarized as "The staff of the 4077 are confronted with an absurd situation/pompous jerk/horror of war, & Hawkeye deals with it through humor. And Frank Burns is humiliated." Many of the M*A*S*H episodes could be merged into the respective season summary, with minimal loss of notable content; I think this is proven by the fact few of these have been developed beyond providing a few details of the episode's creation & an extensive plot summary. Even when something more could be said about the episode (for example, the few that "Spear-chucker" Jones appears in, or the 2 or 3 in which Loudon Wainwright III has a supporting role), no one has bothered to add that material. Now in the greater scheme of Knowledge the presence of these articles don't bother me (which is why I'm only voting on deletion in this one instance), but the work of either merging the articles on the less-prominent M*A*S*H episodes into another article, or improving at least a few into B-class articles is a chore that's been waiting far too long for someone to do. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Evidently notable. Articles are not redundant to lists as articles are our preferred format. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the series list; Knowledge is not for plot summaries and this episode has no special notability. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). The article does not currently meet the GNG (requires significant coverage, beyond just a reworking of the plot). Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Let it again be noted that I have no involvement with this article beyond properly formatting the AFD for another user. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 16:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason: Redundant, Ill-Conceived Wiki Article This topic is properly covered in Barack_Obama (section Political Positions) or the Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008 (section Political Positions). The political positions of the Barak Obama campaign will not change because the campaign is over. As Obama is now an elected executive, on-going he will not have modified political "positions", he will have policies which will or will not conform to his his campaign positions. So a major article on Barak Obama's "new" political positions is trivial and silly. After the election of Barak Obama, maintaining this article as though the President can have new "positions" that are separate from the bills he signs, the policies his administration declares would require mind-reading. It is the equivalent to General Electric's P.R. division maintaining separate wiki article on the "Environmental Positions of the General Electric Board of Directors" rather than one on the actual environmental-related initiatives G.E. takes. Worse it is like some guy reading news articles to attempt to discover the environmental positions of the G.E. board.

After a president is elected, "positions" (such as, for example "The Bush Doctrine are derived by opinion writers and political critics. Some of these positions might one day deserve a Knowledge article. Most will not. But wikipedia editors are not capable of deriving the President's personal "positions" in opposition to the policies he acts on.

So the content of this article is properly applicable to a sub-section of the 1) Barack_Obama article or the 2) O.B. Presidential Campaign 2008. Number 2 is the best choice because it better limits the scope of the intended content.--Manawyddan (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - this seems like an inexplicable nomination. The article contains notable positions about a leading public figure, with each position properly verified by reliable sources. There are no problems with neutrality, and no violations of biographical policies that I can see. In addition, there is an ongoing discussion about how this article can be revamped following Obama's election. Given the enormous amount of information here, it would be difficult to see how this could be merged into the other articles suggested by the nominator without a significant loss of material. Also, this represents one of the sub-articles of Barack Obama, which is written in summary style. Deleting this article would create cascading problems for the parent article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong & Speedy Keep This issue is not about deletion--it's about a potentially highly controversial restructuring of the organization of articles relating to Barack Obama. There is too much well-sourced material on this page to argue that the material is not notable. While I'm certainly open to such discussion, I think discussion of such restructuring belongs on the corresponding talk pages for those articles, not here. This is a highly inappropriate use of AfD, in my opinion and I would recommend the nominator to withdraw the nomination and bring the issue up on the relevant talk pages. If you want, I will gladly join in the discussion there! Cazort (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This article has constant fights about its neutrality since the sub-headings are draw from sources spanning four five years and are updated with no reference to former "positions" on the same subject. The article attempts to present Obama's "current" positions on subjects without reference to (and sometimes contrary to) the actual policies documentable of his adminstration. In short, many of the "postions" are authored by the editors rather than documented. This is article is just something to fight over, because "positions" ends up being defined as however the editors want to define it on a given day. There is no way to emphatically know whether information belongs in the article or it doesn't without being able to read Pres Obama's mind. The last man standing in an edit war will decide every debate, and honest additions to the article are happiliy reverted by the other side with gratuitous claims of "vandalism". --Manawyddan (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - whether AfD is the right place to go about it or not, the article as it now stands should not exist, because it contains a lot of information without a clear organization or focus. "Positions" are something a candidate, or an up-and-coming politician has. A President has other things: actions, policies, public perception. Much of the article was written during the campaign season, a grab bag of campaign promises, public statements, past voting record, political ideology, beliefs of others, all regarding what he might do as President. Now that he is, it is all stale. Any updates are likely redundant with the Presidency of Barack Obama article. I think this article needs to be dismantled and well sourced parts merged to various other articles. Maybe there is a shell left, such as presidential campaign platform / promises of Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article is important as it serves as a resource for information about Barack Obama's political positions. Numerous other politicans, many of lesser notability, have similar pages. I see no reason why Obama, who is extremely notable, should be treated any differently. With regards to issues of vandalism, semi-protecting the article on a permanent basis would likely protect it from the majority of such action. Otherwise, the rules regarding BLP should be sufficient (as they have been in nearly all similar political positions pages).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
  • For the record, I am not involved in this afd other than formatting it properly. I have no opinion on the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Scjessey. Arkon (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment— the nominator's arguments appear to support a merge rather than a delete.—S Marshall /Cont 22:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep This article was budded off from the main Barack Obama article, per Summary Style. That article is already far too large to support the level of detail contained in this article. Also, the nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion in their nomination (just the old I don't like it). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Is an odd nomination. This is one of the few articles I've seen recently that I really found useful. The article has a pretty well organized and comprehensive notable policy positions of the President , with each policy verified by reliable sources. I see no neutrality issues. This is a valuable addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, recommend WP:SNOW. Oren0 (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, plus a motion to declare today "No Consensus Day" since that apparently is the new black today. ;) One two three... 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Major Fred C. Dobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is reduundant to episode list except for the Trivia section, which per AVTRIV should be removed anyways; if that's done, we've hit redundancy. part of my efforts to review a few MASH episodes per day. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years.ThuranX (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "quoting personal essay as policy". It's streamlining the process of responding to countless similiar arguments which don't hold water. If people are going to make the same redundant arguments, they shouldn't be too surprised at the terse responses they get. It's common sense: unless you're drawing an analogy to an article that you think clearly demonstrates the "case for keep" (which you're not, in this case), you're making a nonsensical statement. There are plenty of crappy articles on Knowledge that shouldn't be on Knowledge. Badger Drink (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thuranx, maybe if you would have discussed this on the episode page first, and gained a consensus, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, instead of launching mass AfDs. What did you expect the reaction to be? Editors don't take kindly to having their contributions deleted in mass, I think you should know this by now. Ikip (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Few of these editors actually contributed before this AfD, the creators of the pages were notified, and looking at the edit histories of these pages, without the AfD they would've been PLOT vios forever. I have explained, AD NAUSEUM, why I individually did this, and for the record, It's worked out better than a MASS deletion; Two episodse have already had ACTUAL Notability proved, and I've withdrawn those two nominations. However, the rest still fail. ThuranX (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, this is very important, Per: WP:INTROTODELETE:
"Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Ikip (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that you haven't bothered to notice that on the talk pages of many of these articles, and at the central pages where peopel are now forum shopping about this issue, this was already brought up two years ago when the articles were tagged as problematic. ThuranX (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
All studio movies have reviews, and as far as I can tell all studio movies can be added to Knowledge. What studio movies, let us say post 1950 are not notable? Not every movie wins and award, should we only include award winning movies? And once again, try not to use the essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should stop using essays too. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Procedural Close per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Knowledge has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Knowledge does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, 06:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
DO NOT CLOSE: These articles would be much better merged to a larger article about the TV series - especially the individual episodes. By all means let us have an article with "list of episodes in MASH" and "list of characters in MASH", but not an idividual article about each one of them. Jwg1994 (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) — Jwg1994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I don't think this makes my point any less valid than your interest in saving articles for the sake of having lots of articles. I think it's a valid point - you should see my other one on the other AFD. Or maybe you're too busy making articles like Man who went into a shop in an episode of a made-for-tv series and bought a croissant.Jwg1994 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The identification of possible single-purpose accounts is standard procedure in AFD discussions. You're obviously familiar with Knowledge deletion debates, yet you are not editing with an account with an editing history, so users can judge the usefulness of your past contributions. That's useful information for the closing admin. I won't respond to the sarcastic swipe at the end of your comment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Happy No Consensus Day! One two three... 15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Article consists of an extended plot summary, and thin trivia section. It makes no assertions of notability. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years.Continuing my efforts to review a few MASH episodes per day. ThuranX (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Dlohcierekim 14:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY does not exist. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete since no reliable sources establish this is an independently notable episode (no awards, etc...). Non-notable seinfeld episodes should likewise be deleted, not that this discussion is about those other, unconnected things.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Dream Focus. --Noosentaal 11:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites. This should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles. WP:FICT, a policy to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is being seriously attacked, so much so the page is protected for 2 weeks. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Keep and improve. The sources found for other M*A*S*H episodes can and should be added to this one, establishing its notability by Knowledge's definition. More real-world content is needed, of course, but that's an editorial issue, not a deletion rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • 'Reply The sources found have only in two instances spoken directly to the notability of the individual episode; in all other cases, the mere listing in a list of episodes shows only that it was an episode, not that it is possessed of a uniue notability. Notability is NOT INHERITED. ThuranX (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • There is no requirement for "unique notability". All that is required is that a subject has received coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. What part of that requirement is not met by episode guides? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • There is absolutely a requirement for unique notability, otherwise every thing on the planet is equally notable, or we premise that notability must be inherited, which is not the case on Knowledge. Each article must establish that each subject of an article possesses notability. A show is NOT notable just be being listed in TV Guide. All the 'sources' used come down to glorified TV Guides. out of all the episodes I nominated, all of those sources together presented unique assertions of notability for just two, in the form of awards received, not nominated for. Those two episodes I have withdrawn my nominations for, because they made assertions of a specific notability for that individual episode, instead of saying 'Someone, Somewhere, wrote about it'. That's not enough. ThuranX (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Not "every thing on the planet", but every thing on the planet which has been written about in detail in a reliable source unaffiliated with the subject. I agree that a TV Guide listing is not sufficient; however, a listing in an episode guide is. (Incidentally, nominations for major awards are also significant, but that's beside the point.)
            I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of WP:GNG here; we'll see which interpretation is supported by the community. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
              • Nominations are questionable for notability, reception of an award IS notable, and As I keep having to point out to the numerous editors who refuse to listen: I HAVE WITHDRAWN ALREADY THE TWO ARTICLE NOMINATIONS WHERE RECEIPT OF AWARD WAS CITED. ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
No one listens because you don't bother with the minimal work to see if even your own version of notability is satisfied. Instead of doing a search, you nominated for AFD. Instead of adding a tag, you jumped to an AFD ... and instead of testing an article at AFD you nominated every article in a season and started on a second season. I don't think I encountered anything more disruptive before. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Procedural Close per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Knowledge has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Knowledge does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, 06:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of MASH episodes. Take a look at List of Twin Peaks episodes for a good way of handling the ridiculous idea that there needs to be a separate article for individual episodes of the same series. This is MAYHEM. Jwg1994 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC) — Jwg1994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Keep Evidently notable. Not that it matters, as this is not CSD, but being an episode of MASH is an assertion of notability as such episodes were highly rated, being watched by millions of people. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

...Seishunchuu! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable one-shot by a nonnotable artist. Google searches on the English and kanji titles and on the author's name don't turn up anything, and neither the series nor the author have entries on Anime News Network. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source that says it was published for 11 years? As I commented above, one of the sources originally in the article said it was complete, not ongoing, and that it finished at only 2 volumes long. There hasn't been any evidence presented that suggests it actually ran for a long time. The statement that it is ongoing is currently unsourced and seems to be incorrect. Calathan (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. One two three... 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Army-Navy Game (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article consists of a nearly shot-for-shot plot summary, a trivia section and makes no assertions of notability of any sort. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years. Continuing my efforts to review a few MASH episodes per day. ThuranX (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rlendog (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned when editors call other editor good faith contributions "crap". Does this really help come to a consensus? Just like cruft, "this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but a short plot summary which is already covered in season list and this is an unlikely search term. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, doesn't belong here. M*A*S*H wikia for transwiking? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments of Richard...there is no WP:DEADLINE Ikip (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Closing nominator please note there have been signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As before, if millions of people thought the episode notable enough to watch, then its clearly notable enough to have an article. Their opinions are far more valid to me, than that of any newspaper critic, who has far fewer readers than the show has viewers. Also, can you get third party media coverage of a show back then? Did they talk about each episode as much as they do these days? Dream Focus 21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • comment Your reasoning is faulty. There was third party coverage of television back then, plenty of it. However, the culture of 'tv! watch-it, watch-it, or you're not cool!' wasn't there. Coverage focused on actors, or on truly notable episodes. Newspaper coverage of the finale of MASH is abundant, and is cited in that episode's article, showing that it was notable then, as now. In fact, that's better as a standard for measuring durability of notability, rather than recentism-oriented bursts of coverage which then fade into obscurity, as happens with some of the news events WP prepares articles about. Sometimes those come up here and are deleted because consensus is that 15 seconds of fame isn't the same as lasting notability. I'd argue a similar thing applies here. We can find no flash in the pan coverage, nor durable coverage. If contemporary coverage is found when the amount of media coverage was more reactive to events of significant notability than to every episode each day, then there's more likely to be lasting proofs of notability: Consider 'who shot JR?', the Dream reveal at the end of that season, that Higgins was Robin Masters, Kirk and Uhura's kiss, and so on. Those are notable events in Television, not every single broadcast episode. By your logic, Every failed pilot is notable, because it was broadcast, and surely some people watched it. That it went nowhere and is no longer remembered is something you'd dismiss, which is unfortunate, because that lack of sources demonstrating the notability of that failed pilot is what you'd need. ThuranX (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • How long will people remember that? Some remember every episode they watched and liked perhaps. Some watch the old episodes on DVD collections, and remember them. Most of the history stuff on the wikipedia is about people almost no one remembers. I think the episodes of MASH have more people remembering them, than some ancient Byzantium emperor or whatever. So how many people remember something, isn't really a valid reason to keep or destroy. And if the pilot failed, it means no one watched it, the ratings too low for it to succeed and become a notable show. Dream Focus 00:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
        • So your argument is that someohow, any bit of pop culture is inherently more important than emperors of ancient empires? Interesting perspective on the world, and on the project. ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
          • That isn't what I said. My point was, your argument over whether or not anyone remembers it, isn't relevant, since there is a lot of historical stuff which no one remembers either. Dream Focus 08:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article now has sources. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • CommentThe sources Rlendog refers to are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, but my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Except that the availablility of these sources (and others that are available offline but not currently included in the article) demonstrate that the episode is notable. Rlendog (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Exactly how did you find this particular article to be of value? You've posted this exact comment at every one of these AfDs, so I'd like to know exactly, and specifically, how you found each of these to individually be useful to you? thank you for taking the time to explain each of these. i'd also note that this editor wishes I'd individually nom'd them even slower than five or six at a time, instead of a group nom. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H episode articles, based on the Wittebols book; however, I've now reached the limit of the number of pages Google Books will let me see in that book, so I can't do any more now. Nevertheless, the point stands: the sources that others have found establish notability for these episodes, and source material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The David Scott Diffrient book also has commentary for every episode, and discusses real world events that the episode is parodying or providing commentary to. More help is needed with that. The scrolling feature of Google Books can make you jump several pages, its very annoying to scroll with it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The bits thus far cited as so generic as to apply to any episode, and do not individually address what makes any one given episode important. Saying that 'this episode mocks aspects of the military' is so completely obivous that it's empty. ThuranX (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Avgas. Article is already merged so let's close it that way (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This article does not list any reason why the subject is notable. Searching google news archives for "swiftfuel" with the quotes gives nothing that passes wp:N (I can't get a well formed link here, so: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q="SwiftFuel"&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en ) Previous AFDs ended in no consensus and promises of future development, but these sound to me like violations of wp:CRYSTAL and have not panned out. Some of the info could be mentioned at various articles, but there's not enough here for anything more than an advertisement. NJGW (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • keep merge, and redirect. The 100LL problem makes any potential replacement notable in the general aviation industry, and Cringely's article at pbs.org garnered some more general interest for it. Certainly, bloggers buzzed about it for some time afterwards. I invite User:NJGW to make a terrific merge of it, perhaps at Avgas. For now, the development of Swiftfuel is notable, if a bit newsy. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to 100LL. a little insignificant 20:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I am finding sources with fairly substantial coverage: , , not public access but: . This is an article but it looks suspiciously like a thinly-veiled press release: , another similar one: . Yes, it's kind of marginal but I think there's enough to keep. Cazort (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what the article would have except for "... is a possible future replacement for ". Besides that, I'm still waiting to see "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (ie "sources address the subject directly in detail"). NJGW (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know what to say in response to this. To me, these sources I gave address the subject directly and in detail. Taken off the pages:
"FAA's initial testing has revealed that Swift Fuel has a slightly higher octane than 100LL and has excellent resistance to detonation, something other fuels haven't been able to achieve without lead as an octane booster. The new fuel contains about 13 percent more heat value than avgas, but it's also about a pound heavier per gallon. It meets most of the requirements of the ASTM D 910 standard for avgas.", "Swift proposes to make its fuel from cellulosic biomass—switch grass and agricultural waste, for example—for a manufactured price of under $2 a gallon, according to a proposal it presented to an industry research council last year. Although Swift Fuel produces alcohol in its process, the fuel is not ethanol-based but rather combines acetone compounds derived from fermentation of biomass. Swift is continuing its testing through 2009 and seeking investors to fund further research and industrial rollout of the product", "Enter SwiftFuel, the Splenda of motor fuels because it is made from ethanol yet contains no ethanol. SwiftFuel is the invention of John and Mary Rusek from Swift Enterprises in Indiana. To your airplane SwiftFuel looks and tastes just like gasoline. It has an octane rating of 104 (higher than the 100 octane fuel it replaces) yet contains no lead or ethanol. SwiftFuel mixes with gasoline, can be stored in the same tanks as gasoline, and be shipped in the same pipelines as gasoline. It is made entirely from biomass, which means it has a net zero carbon footprint and does nothing to increase global warming. Its emission of other polluting byproducts of burning gasoline are significantly lower, too. SwiftFuel has more energy per gallon than gasoline so your airplane (or your car) will go 15-20 percent further on each gallon. ".
I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. This seems like significant coverage to me. Are the sources reliable? I don't know...I'm willing to engage that question further...the PBS one looks biased, its written by a commentator with particular biases. Is it not a reliable source? Cazort (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that there is only one source that comes close to discussing this issue in detail, and it's not really a source about swiftfuel. And as you say, this source could be seen as biased. Aside from these issues, the question is, is one source enough for "significant coverage". The other AFDs had lots of statements about forthcoming news, but that never materialized. This is an ad, and all the useful information could be moved to other places in the form of one or two sentences. NJGW (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Cazort -- you've done some reading. Can you add it to the article? NJGW -- you want a merge. Please work on the merge, especially on presenting the information in a way that won't strike you as an advertisement. Why spend a lot of time WRITING ABOUT Swiftfuel and avgas when we could be simply WRITING those articles? --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That might not be proper in the middle of an AFD. This is one method of consensus building. NJGW (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the suggestion is improper, but will take it to User_talk: to keep things WP:COOL here. --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • keep I've found another good-looking source, Teledyne Continental Motors Flies on Swift Fuel's AvFuel, which as far as I can see the article doesn't currently use - this report covers the results of a test flight, rather than just the announcement of a planned test flight. It also uses an interesting phrase, "non-food renewable resource", which I suspect relates to criticisms that the the USA's fuel-from-biomass efforts have raised food prices - not usable as a source for the food-fuel issue, but suggests another aspect for editors to research. I could not load the FAA PDF ("the document contains no data", whihc usually indicates a temptrary server problem) but other commentaries indicate that FAA tests so far are only proof-of-concept, concentrating on energy density and risk of "detonation" (i.e. engine knock), and not nearly as comprehensive as tests for full approval - Swiftfuel should make this clear. While the use of what looks like a brand name as the article's title makes one wonder if it's advertising, on the whole the article is pretty neutral, e.g. it points out that at the current "laboratory" production scale the fuel is very expensive. I've had a quick look at avgas (to which 100LL redirects) and that article, while fairly long, has only brief summaries of each avgas type, including 100LL, for which SwiftFuel is a potential replacement. So I don't think a merge would work even with the present amount of content available for Swiftfuel, and it's almost certain that events in the near future will produce a rapid increase in content. --Philcha (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The only thing preventing the redirect is the AfD statement warning us against blanking the page. Can I move that this AfD be closed so we can proced? As far as I can tell, every good part of the article was preserved in the merge, so the keep opinions (including my own) have been respected. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

No significant improvement since the last nomination. Still disputed as to which "generations" are real and which are subgenerations, now no sources are given (and no source has every been given which had Generation Jones on a list), etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Withdraw provided that the dates remain removed. If the dates reappear, then this nomination should automatically reappear. (The concerns about factual accuracy remain, as well as the selection of "facts" probably being a WP:Synthesis, but there is then some hope of a meaningful article being produced.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Every generation listed here has a specific article. If there are problems with sourcing on any of those articles then they should be improved. Edward321 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Every generation listed has an article. So do a number which aren't listed, which overlap these generations. That makes the list orginal research, unless a source for the list can be found. Perhaps it should just be deleted in favor of Category:Cultural generations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are many sources which have lists including Generation Jones, and the supposed "issues" with this article are primarily in the mind of the editor making this nomination, who has a personal agenda which is driving this nomination, as opposed to this being a good faith attempt to provide Knowledge readers with accurate articles. I point this out not in an attempt to attack this editor, but because it seems like relevant context in considering this proposed deletion. Having said that, I'm not sure how I feel about deleting this article, I could probably go either way; it has flaws, but also provides a useful role. Maybe we should try listing the generations without the birth years.TreadingWater (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep If there are problems with the list, they should be corrected. Some sort of temporal ordering is crucial to make sense of these. A category won't do it. Drawn Some (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment As I've expressed on the article's talk page, I have concerns with the way the way generations are characterized and the terms in which they are being discussed. However, as to the question of whether an article listing the generations employed by sociologists should exist, I have to say to Arthur Rubin that Knowledge has lists compiling comparable objects, each having its own article, without any requirement that a reliable source containing the same compilation be provided, or even that any reference be supplied at all. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Largo Plazo. The nomination is flawed: references are not required for lists; "subgeneration" is almost only referenced by Talk:List_of_generations; and any problems with the list can be corrected. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    The problems with the list (disagreement among reliable sources as to the dates, whether a particular grouping is a "generation" or a cohort within a generation -- subgeneration was only used here, and my use of it was a mistake -- and even the ordering in some cases) has been discussed for over 3 months. It hasn't been fixed. The table was removed, but the text section hasn't been improved noticably. Some would say the problems have gotten worse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    The problem I have with removing indicative date ranges is the utility of the article as a reference is reduced. If someone wants to know what generation they're in, don't look at this page as it is now because if you are on the cusp of a couple of the generations you have no indication where the cut off nominally is. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    That's the point: it isn't cut-and-dried that every person is clearly in exactly one of the generations, and it isn't even very useful to say that such-and-such individual is in this or that generation. Generations are used to discuss large aggregates of people; many individuals will have characteristics that are largely divergent from the ones associated with the whatever generation that person may "belong to". You speak of utility; giving a false impression doesn't create utility, it creates the illusion of utility. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • week Keepand rename, to indicate the degree to which this is the fringe and not accepted list based primarily upon trauss, Strauss & Howe, and not a standard viewpoint, though some of what it incorporates are standards. The proper place to present their theory is the article on their book Generations. There could equally well be a list giving on a equal basis every proposed generation, with the source and the period. I've been working on this group of articles for 2 years now, and it's been very frustrating. The solution is however not to get rid of it. DGG (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems to be a good example of WP:RECENTISM as generation X/Y/Z seems to be the stuff of journalism rather than a good article. There have, of course, been many generations in other centuries and places and I have illustrated this by creating the article Revolutionary generation. Consideration of this may assist the discussion. To my mind, the issue is whether generation is too loose a term, like movement, to be useful for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As I said in a previous AFD, these "generations" have been recognized by scholars and by writers for major magazines as a way of characterizing how, say, children born to WW2 veterans (Baby Boomers) were different in their values or career paths from those born years later, such as the "Generation X." If reliable sources say that baby boomers, for instance were born between certain years, it is appropriate to include that information in the list entry for that generation. There is the danger of too many made up generations. That is why good sourcing and avoidance of synthesis and original research is required in the articles about the individual "generations." They are all going to be a bit slippery of cutoff years, but so are a great many classificatiins, such as styles of musicians, or the boundaries of the Bermuda Triangle, or what is torture. Edison (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork * 13:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Gary W. Allison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined to speedy delete this as an A7, since it at least carries a slight assertion of notability, but he probably doesn't meet WP:Notability. Only links are to his website and IMDB. Aervanath (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Resignations from the Guantanamo military commission. The other lawyers to be merged as well. SilkTork * 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Darrel J. Vandeveld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Textbook WP:BLP1E case. Non-notable lawyer that has only been the subject of news articles for a single event, mostly unrelated to him. BJ 19:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Article may be recreated with reliable source showing Nicholl played for the Leinster Senior Cup in 2000 SilkTork * 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

David Nicholl (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Reason for PROD was "Article fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE because it is about a footballer who never played in a fully-pro league" - Reason for PROD removal was "player competed for the Leinster Senior Cup in 2000". I agree with the person who added the PROD that this player fails WP:ATHLETE. I am therefor suggesting this article be deleted. John Sloan @ 19:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable journalist Passportguy (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. "Word of mouth advertisement" is not a reliable source. SilkTork * 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I happened to run across this article, and the thing is, I can find no evidence that this art project ever came to fruition. Moreover, it doesn't seem notable enough for an article about an event that was planned but never actually took place. For a rationale, I guess I'll say that the project, at least as a fait accompli, is unverifiable in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. SilkTork * 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

List Of Space Racing Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of games that fall under the genre "Space Racing". Since "Space Racing" does not have its own article, and WP:LISTCRUFT discourages list pages about subjects that do not have their own articles, I propose this article be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Our biographies of living persons policies have much more importance over the fact that the event of this woman's arrest is a news story in the UK. The content of the article can be retrieved and merged upon request.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. Many people get arrested every day. A simple arrest for alleged drug trafficking does not make someone notable even if there is extensive news coverage. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep per numerous sources pointing towards notability over the normal drug mule case. Orobators story is known in many nations. Also the reasons for the deletion seems a bit weak to say the least.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Citing three Knowledge policies is a bit weak? Extensive media coverage does not equate notability. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." It is likely that this is the only event for which she will be in the news. If that proves not to be the case, then an article can be considered. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I have said what is needed to say. I rest my case and let other people decide. But your grounds for deletion does not apply on Orobators article.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, and the fact that the nominator nominated the article for deletion three different times in less than five minutes on very vage grounds.--Judo112 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I nominated it for speedy which was not accepted. I am going through the proper channels for deletion. I thought about a WP:PROD but decided that it was better to have a discussion. Just because a speedy is not accepted does not mean that an article shouldn't be deleted after proper discussion, so you'll need to come up with better reasons than that, citing Knowledge policy. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No but it doesnt neither mean that it should be deleted just because the nominator is of a strong "deletion opinion" like you. And i have to agree with Judo it seems a bi strange that you nominate it for deletion just minutes after a speedy deletion request was denied.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Especially on the grounds that "decline speedy - multiple sources indicate notability".--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
BLP1E is still a fair reason to argue for deletion, especially considering that the admin who declined the speedy stated the article was a potential AFD candidate . Nothing strange going on here. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes the admin asked for someone to check it out and then perhaps nominate it for deletion. The nomination should have been placed here after a look trough and not in haste. And perhaps not by Harry but by a impartial administrator.--Judo112 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am an impartial observer who has actually read the guidelines I quote. It is perfectly acceptable for me to nominate, and it is improper for you to suggest otherwise. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No need for any sort of personal attacks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion concerning individual articles here on Knowledge its not a "one man state".--Judo112 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me but who is engaging in borderline personal attacks? You say, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion concerning individual articles..." immediately after saying in essence I have no right to voice my opinion by nominating it for deletion. As the creator of this article, maybe you would be better to take a step back. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a step back Judo. There's no reason why the same person cannot nominate it for AfD after putting it up for a speedy delete. Just stick to discussing whether it meets the guidelines please. Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This is both Judo and Harry the dog,s discussion and Judo shouldnt be the blame-game victim. However i ask all parties to read trough this.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Not interested in meta-discussions.--Judo112 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. THe guidelines on 'one event' go on to say "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." I think we can now say that there is persistent coverage, but obviously, interpretation of this will vary. Quantpole (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment No, they are three different guidelines with different criteria. That's why they are listed separately. If we were to include everything that was mentioned in multiple news sources for a few days, this would no longer be an encyclopaedia. What is considered "persistent" news coverage needs to be looked at retrospectively, not in the heat of the event. It is far too early for this article. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The article should retain her first name, but not include the year as she was arrested in 2008, and the story only came to light this year.Martin451 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The situation is a Cause celebre example of WP:BLP1E. The unique facts driving news media over-exposure are Orobator's pregnancy and strict capital punishment laws in Laos — but news sources cover Orobator only in the context of the arrest in Laos. Avoid news media coverage as rationale for an encyclopedia article, which is premature for this developing incident. Mtd2006 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as suggested by Hipocrite. This is an international incident and controversy with plenty of RS coverage that will continue to develop beyond the NOT#NEWS scope. --J 15:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Yes, I hate it when people use wikipedia for news, but the volume of coverage here is so overwhelming that there is absolutely no question of notability, even if it's a single event. I also want to pointt out that this event is tied into so many interesting legal, cultural, diplomatic, and ethical issues. It's interesting. In my opinion, this is among the best possible examples of single events that should be covered in detail by wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Cazort and MarkusBJoke. This is not just about drug mule, it has human rights issues in it, e.g. Orobator's pregnancy and attempts to bring the trial forward. Martin451 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear WP:BLP case. The article implies she trafficked drugs which is clearly negative material about a living person. Articles purely based on said negative content should be avoided. - Mgm| 17:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If you think the article is problematic, then edit/improve it! I don't think material being "negative" is valid grounds for deleting a biography of a living person. We are to avoid slander and defamatory content...but there's no problem with neutral statements of simple facts backed up in numerous reliable sources. And is the article really that negative? After all, a lot of the articles are about how people are calling for her protection and trying to make sure she doesn't get executed!!! Cazort (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree there are also WP:BLP issues. It is not usual for someone who is not already notable to have a page created because they have been charged with a crime. There is also the potential for this page to become a campaigning vehicle for Samantha Orobator's supporters, which again is not an appropriate use of Knowledge. (There are already hints of this with the addition of the "Human rights in Laos" see also.) The fact is, she rose to prominence because she was a pregnant woman potentially facing the death penalty. Now that it has been confirmed she won't, interest in this story will wane. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I added the see also link, not to turn it into a campaigning page (which as you say it should not be), but because according to news, her rights have been violated, e.g. trial date moved to stop her getting legal representation. As for her being pregnant, she is currently 4-5 months pregnant, yet was arrested 9 months ago. Martin451 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, people have their rights violated in custody every day. That does not mean they merit a Knowledge article. In any event, the last execution in Laos was almost 20 years ago, so the threat of execution was remote at best. Laos does not routinely execute people. It is also standard in Laos, as even Reprieve acknowledges, for defendants not to have access to lawyers until right before the trial. There really is nothing unusual enough in this case that merits a separate article on the individual. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep First of all, she is a suspect, the article doesn't imply guilt. either way, this has significant coverage and rather than outright delete, merge it with a death penalty in Laos article, if it exists. riffic (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article does NOT fail BLP because it's sourced to multiple media sources which are accurate and reliable, and it's a fairly major news story. Having said that I don't know how significant this is going to be in the long term hence I'm not sure about the 'one event' test.--Yo Dawg! What's Going On Today? (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • -Rename and move to Case of Samantha Orobator. Undoubtedly there are multiple, secondary, reliable sources but they are about the case (i.e. arrest, consequences and preparation for trial) and not about Orobator's life and career. This should not be a bio article. TerriersFan (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is notable, current and encyclopaedic. Anyone facing such a barbaric punishment (that's what capital punishment is) is big news in civilized countries of the world (that excludes the USA, Saudi Arabia, etc.) I'm not going to quote lots of pointless wikipedia policies and guidelines in providing my reasoning as that's a moronic thing to do. If you want it kept, say why. If you want it deleted, say why. Don't just quote lots of policies and other acronyms - that's the most annoying thing about wikipedia: the policies which allow lazy editors to vote without thinking properly or explaining THEIR reasons.--217.203.140.226 (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is an excellent example of why the article should be deleted or renamed. It is based on a misconception. She is not facing capital punishment. If that is the only reason why she is notable, it is a false reason. The policies are there for a reason. Read and understand them before commenting. Without policies and guidelines, Knowledge becomes a pointless free for all. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Straightforward BLP1E. (If she's discussed months from now, that will be a different matter.) The person commenting anonymously immediately above is of course free to term this vote ("!vote") and/or myself "moronic". Lazily yours, Hoary (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep A notable human rights case, which gained worldwide media attention. The British government sent someone over to talk to them about this even. Dream Focus 20:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly!--Judo112 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The UK government always intervenes when a citizen is arrested in such circumstances. So that hardly makes it notable. They sent somebody because they don't have a resident consul. This has now gone from the headlines as I was sure it would. Nothing new on Google news search since 7 May. Simply no more notable than any other arrest for alleged drug smuggling. Many of the details are simply speculation (we don't know how she got pregnant again; people are assuming it was against her will but we don't know. For an encyclopaedia, it has to be verifiable. When we know the full details of the case, we can determine whether it is a notable event. Until then, it is only speculation. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Cazort and Dream Focus. Significant incident which had prompted reactions and talks between the governments of the two countries involved, and which has received widespread coverage. Aridd (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Not all western durg smugglers have their own wikipedia page first of all. Second, Orobator is a special case which had recieved more coverage than your average drug smuggler case/person. So your reasons arent the best, but hey.--Judo112 (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You will of course recognise a rhetorical flourish. She shouldn't have an article as she's only accused ("editors must give serious consideration into not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured"), she is not otherwise notable, and neither the potential motivation or exectution of the alleged crime was unusual or noteworthy. See Knowledge:Notability_(criminal_acts)#Criteria_for_inclusion_of_articles_on_participants. Fences and windows (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is not about the alleged crime itself (which was not a huge amount of drugs), but about the events surrounding it, especially the human rights issues that have been publicised, how Laos wishes to be seen, the Anglo-Laos negotiations and possible prisoner exchange that has come out of this. Also it is not clear that she was raped, this claims that she consented (It is a mixed prison). Martin451 (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. That is why if it is kept it should be merged. As to the pregnancy, it is possible that, as she was pregnant when she was arrested, she may have been told that because of this she would not face the death penalty. When she lost the baby, it is certainly possible that she may have sought to become pregnant again because of this. There is just too much speculation on the key issues that affect notability for an article to be included at this time, especially since the media interest has waned with the clarification that she won't face the DP and will probably serve most of any sentence back in the UK. This is an encyclopedia, not a rolling news service. There is nothing wrong with waiting for things to become clearer before recreating this article if necessary.Harry the Dog WOOF 05:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Human rights in Laos. While she probably doesn't warrant her own article, as per the policies cited by the nominator, the reason her case has received such international publicity is that it has brought focus to Laos's treatment of prisoners. If the issue becomes sufficiently major, the article can be split out again.--Aervanath (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete until she meets notability requirements. She's a suspected drug smuggler under arrest and there are thousands of similar people, I'm not seeing anything important or significant about her case. Even if she technically met the guidelines for notability it would be WP:ONEEVENT at this point. Drawn Some (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Deletetrivial crime; the interest isv only in the conflict of cultures. If she does get the dealh penalty, which I gather from the story is unlikely, then she might become notable.DGG (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - this article meets all of the deletion criteria as set out by policy as stated by the nominator which is my long winded way of saying "per nom". -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep leaning merge. Knowledge could have thousands of such articles on rather trivial people in the news. Seems a summary in another article, thus a merge, would be best to serve our readers as a modern example of the various issues at play. -- Banjeboi 00:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Why was this re-listed? it seems consensus was already reached, either merge or close as keep and move on. riffic (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I still say Keep as this person has reached notability beyond your average drug smuggler/criminal.--Judo112 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this discussion still going on. For me this is a straight to Keep article. No doubt about it.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The Delete minded people dont seem to have mutch really to point towards deletion more than the usual pointing towards wikipedia rules this wikipedia rules that-... Which anyway points to keeping this article.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please point to any Knowledge policy that says that an article should be created for an otherwise non-notable person who has been arrested as drug-smuggling suspect? If we don't follow the rules and guidelines why bother having them? I have pointed to three policies this article clearly fails at the moment (although it may not in the future). If it does meet notability guidelines in the future it can be recreated, but for now it should be deleted or merged. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
But if we, lets say, delete it... And she then gets death sentence or a really long prison sentence that will get enormous publicity what do we do?... Also the fact that she could be transferred doesnt change the facts about her and her notability.Actually that will only increase her notability because of the UKs efforts to bring her home.--Judo112 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Judo112, you have just demonstrated neatly why this article should be deleted. You are arguing for it's retention based on speculation. "If" this and "if" that. If indeed any of these things come to pass, the article can simply be recreated by an admin. But at the moment she is not notable. The UK government provides support for any citizen arrested abroad who requests it. Plus, let's once and for all be clear that she won't get the death penalty, as confirmed by a senior Laotian minister, so that "if" is definitely not happening, and certainly lessens her notability. The only thing that conforms to Knowledge policy is to delete and recreate later if notability is confirmed. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am willing to WP:Userfy on request. SilkTork * 18:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Wholly lacking in reliable sources, so fails the need for multiple, independent, nontrivial sources demonstrating enough notability for a separate article. Discussion on Knowledge:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gruesome_Harvest has failed to turn up anything that meets our criteria for inclusion. DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bob A (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep If you look at WP:NB you'll find this:

    "a. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature."

    So I did two things, I looked to see what libraries hold the book and if it is still in print. I checked WorldCat and it is held by dozens of libraries in my region alone, including major university and research libraries. On Amazon it ranks 5,500 or so in book sales which is pretty darn high meaning it is not only in reprint but also currently popular 60 years after first publication. Certainly common sense would indicate the book is notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But by the very criteria you've quoted above, it fails the "widely cited or written about" clause and most of the others as well. A mere reprint existing in itself means nothing. DreamGuy (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. In its present form, this article tells us nothing about how or why this book is more important than, say, Russel's Scourge Of The Swastika. If there was a proper, scholarly examination or critique then I would support that but a list (and link) of the contents plus a sentence or two is useless. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. It hasn't been discussed much, but it is part of the basis of another more recent book which has got coverage, After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift by Giles MacDonogh:. Yet there is too little evidence that it is notable on its own, and to where would it be merged? It could be potentially used as a source for reaction to the Allied occupation of Post-War Germany. Fences and windows (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • DeleteThe fact that a book is for sale at Amazon does not satisfy WP:N and WP:NB. Seems to be lacking reviews or other evidence it had much of an impact. The book itself is oddly strident postwar German propaganda, asserting that the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern European countries was as bad as anything the Nazis are accused of doing. Edison (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; fails to meet the WP:N/WP:NB criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Advertising Aervanath (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Serious notability concerns: independant label, no notable acts, no reliable secondary sources (that i could find), only external links to social networking sites. Created by Single-purpose account seemingly for promotion. Fails WP:COMPANY. -- OlEnglish 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Bootlegs are usually deleted . Name can be reused as a redirect to Metal Acoustic Music if wanted. SilkTork * 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Unofficial bootleg album, not released by the band or their labels. No sources to establish notability and a seriously doubt any could be provided. Rehevkor ✉ 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If not an official album so non notable by default, it's a bootleg, something Metallica has hundreds if not thousands of. It's release was not sanctioned (as far s I'm aware) or authorised by Metallica or their labels. Unless there's significant coverage and sources for notability it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Rehevkor ✉ 18:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER so that means we keep the article but it needs to be cleared of copyright violating text (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Unremarkable actor. Some Google news hits as cast in stage productions, but no non-trivial coverage. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2008-09 MLB Off-season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not being updated, info should already be on individual team season pages Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. We have consensus that this is an unneeded content fork of Tea Party protests, so also redirect there. There is some disagreement about whether deletion or merging is appropriate, so I'll restore and userfy the content on request if somebody does want to merge anything from this fork.  Sandstein  06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationwide Chicago Tea Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a clear fork from the main Tea Party protests article and from the sub-article New American Tea Party which is currently in an AFD discussion. I think it was inappropriate to create another fork while discussion on deleting the original fork is ongoing, and leaning heavily towards delete. TharsHammar and 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note The New American Tea Party article (the one under deletion discussion) was at one time called Nationwide Chicago Tea Party, its name was changed back and forth with that by the same editor who started this new article. TharsHammar and 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - the previous article you reference, New American Tea Party, the article could not be completed as necessary because the original name "New American Tea Party" suggests it is a group or organization. I hadn't known this until after doing more research, so the article turned out to be what I mistakenly thought was the American Tea Party (ie. Nationwide Chicago Tea Party). But since that was not the case, I created the article for Nationwide Chicago Tea Party so it had the correct title and theme. Comparing an article about an organization to an article covering an event seems a bit far-fetched to qualify the event-article for deletion. There are no other articles in Knowledge covering the February 27 Nationwide Chicago Tea Party events, which is why I created it. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:ONEEVENT would seem to preclude an article then.Drawn Some (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did you create a new article about the same subject when the other one you're fighting for is still under deletion discussion? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge back into the main article. The Tea Partiers need to work out their differences and come up with an informative article. If a section then becomes worthy of an article so be it, but these POV forks are unhelpful. Drawn Some (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge I agree with Drawn Some's points. This appears to violate WP:ONEEVENT, and it really should be back in the main article. AyaK (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no reason for this article to exist and there doesn't appear to be anything worth merging that isn't already covered in Tea Party protests. Also, it's a bit troubling that a nearly identical article to New American Tea Party would be created when that article is currently under deletion discussion (as the creator of this article well knows, since he is the only one fighting for it's retention). I would actually argue for snowballing this one. Why should we waste the time going through the exact same deletion discussion again? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. It's already mentioned in the articles on Tea Party protests and Timeline of Tea Party protests. It's wholly non-notable, blog-level political advocacy with a position paper woven in. This essentially makes WP a primary source for an attempt to get better exposure for its organizers and/or participants, rather than writing about already existing notable topics. Instead, the topic is really about this website and this one. See also WP:NOT. I apologize for being quite so blunt about it. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May I chime in too? I think the nationwide chicago tea party page looks good. After reading others comments im not sure what the fuss is all about to delete it. Does everyone here know this is different than the april 15 tea party's right? That's two events not oneevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.153.81 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you may chime in :), please consider registering an account. Yes we do know they are different events from the April 15 events. However they are both encompassed under the broader subject of Tea Party protests. TharsHammar and 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is still up for deletion. The article is not failing WP:N, that tells me user Edison in all likely did not bother to check the sources. Local news coverage, CNET, About.com, Investors Business Daily, TheStreet.com, Seattle Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, reuters, and CNBC are just a few of the reliable sources referencing the information. It's irrevocably impossible to deny the fact that the February 27 events called the "Chicago Tea Party" happened. Most of 90% of the article is covering unique details to the February 27 protests that cannot and are not covered anywhere else in Knowledge. The article is clean, it covers the events in a neutral tone, and it sticks to the necessary details about the February 27 event. How much longer is this nonsensical discussion going to last? It's really absurd. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised too, it should have been deleted awhile ago. Actually I'm surprised that this article was created while a similar article was up for deletion. That similar article had even been called this while undergoing AFD, and the material was in that article. I would like to call WP:snowball here. TharsHammar and 01:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you refuse to answer any rebuked comment or question I have brought up, and instead if all you have to offer are witty remarks that claim you are right without proof, I'm simply going to remove the tag. Tell me, TharsHammar, since you added the tag, and since you seem to know so much about these events; show me one article, one piece of evidence, or a single reference that suggests the February 27 Tea Parties were not grassroots and were in fact astroturfing. Don't give me a reference or source to "teabagging" jokes on the April 15 Tea party, or the claims of "Astroturfing" on the April 15 Tea Parties. PROVIDE TO ME a single reliable, relevant source to suggest the article is anything but what is currently written in Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. Show me local news, any reliable source for that matter, that suggests the February 27 grassroots protests article belongs in another, separate article covering the Tax Day Tea Party; where as, half of that article is dedicated to talking about "teabagging" methods and/or claims of "astroturfing." Heck, even the MEDIA got three paragraphs smashed into one large section, a whole section dedicated to media created stories around the actual event but have nothing to do with the protests. Even then, the event the media is creating its story around are the APRIL 15 TAX DAY tea parties. The February 27 events DO NOT belong in a main article where it is primarily composed of accusations that are simply not being accused of to the February 27 events. Not a single editor has shown or given me a single specific argument that suggests the deletion tag should remain. I Will Remove The Tag If No Valid Argument Is Brought Up. I'm going to repeat: Local news coverage, CNET, About.com, Investors Business Daily, TheStreet.com, Seattle Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, reuters, and CNBC are just a few of the reliable sources referencing the information in the Chicago Tea Party article. TharsHammar has refused to offer a single source to counter what is mentioned in the references already in the article. His opinion seems more drawn as reasoning against the article. Tycoon24 (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
In fact, TharsHammar, if you're unable to offer me a sound argument without all of this trivial nonsense, but with factual, related referenced article proof that the Chicago Tea Party is the same thing as the Tax Day Tea party (and that they belong in the same accused "astroturfing" article)... if you cannot do this, I will argue that you are violating WP:FILIBUSTERS. If you cannot, with utmost civility, provide valid arguments (and not just "buzzwords" to keep the WP:FILIBUSTERS going), I will remove the unnecessary and wrongful delete tag. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
And I will report you for doing so. Good day. TharsHammar and 12:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Tycoon, I think I'm misunderstanding your argument here. You don't want the February protest(s) tainted by the astroturfing charges detailed in the main Tea Party protests article? Those charges started with the Chicago Tea Party, and Santelli, Freedom Works, chicagoteaparty.com, etc., long before April rolled around. If this article is allowed to remain, the astroturfing charges will surely appear here, too. Also, if this is to be an article about events seperate from the April 15 events, why use sources and content about the April 15 events and disguise them to make them appear to be about the February events (the Rush Limbaugh April 15 quotes, for example, with the word "today" omitted)? I haven't !voted here yet, but I'm not seeing any reason not to vote delete/merge. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, you brought up a good point. It's not that I don't want the astroturfing charges in the same article as the February 27 Chicago Tea Party, it's that there aren't any charges leveled against those protests from a reliable source. Surely, if the charges are there and the February 27 protests are the same thing as the Tax Day protests, then anyone can easily do the research to find such charges. If they exist, then they will be added to the article. However, as far as I know, they don't exist. The most recent non-libel claim of astroturfing (source taken directly from the Tax Day protests article), states this:
On April 9, 2009, the blog Think Progress claimed that most of the 2009 protests were conservative lobbyist-created "astroturf" projects and not spontaneous grassroots protests. Instead, Think Progress contended, the protests were nationally coordinated and organized by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.
Before anyone makes any comment following this, please read the above referenced article. In the first sentence it clearly states, "Yesterday, Think Progress reported on Republican lawmakers planning to speak at anti-Obama “tea party” protests taking place nationwide on April 15." Then it goes on to explain how the April 15 Tax Day movement is supposedly "astroturfing," but you have to read carefully to pick up the information correctly. Think Progress states, "Freedom Works staffers apparently moved to 'take over' the planning of local events in Florida." So... this begs the question, what type of events were taking place before Freedom Works apparently moved in to "take over" the local events in Florida? Before the organizations picked up the local protests to help guide them, what were those protests called? Obviously they weren't guided by any organization. They were grassroots. They were not as large of protests as the Tax Day April 15 Tea Party; however, that's because they were grassroots. They were guided by three grassroots organizations (as mentioned in the Nationwide Chicago Tea party article), and covered by a much smaller number of media -- primarily existing of local news or others that I've mentioned previously.
It's possible the title of Tea Party protests is deceiving most people people. It used to be (and still should be) Tax Day Tea Party. Not a single referenced source in the Tea Party protests article is covering the February 27 Tea Parties. Not a single source leveling charges of "astroturfing" discuss the February 27 events. Nor does it cover the previously organized events prior to February 27 that were also grassroots. So what I want doesn't matter in this discussion, it's what the articles, references, sources, or whatever, it's what has already been said about these events (and what hasn't been said in Knowledge).
The other problem I have is the continued lack of reason TharsHammar has brought up -- yet he's the one who calls for the article to be deleted. Just take a look at his previous comment after I asked him kindly to show me a particular source to argue his point. He doesn't care to make his point, he just wants to keep his WP:FILIBUSTERS going. This is a violation against Knowledge, and I will tell him right now, if he continues this I will report him. Today. I'll give him a few hours to respond with factual-conviction before I report him; but otherwise, he is simply using his opinion to hide others factual research. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Reason for Keep:
  1. A group called the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition was formed February 20, 2009 by three grassroots organizations: Smart Girl Politics (SGP), DontGo Movement, and Top Conservatives on Twitter (TCOT). These organization led the Nationwide Chicago Tea Parties.
In response to the growing protests, various organizations began collaborating and helped to guide future rallies.
  1. The "future rallies," the April 15 Tax Day tea parties were guided by Freedom Works, The Heartland Institute, The Coalition for a Conservative Majority, The Institute For Liberty, the alleged Fox News promoters, and others. Different organizers equal different events.
  2. There are future rallies already scheduled. July 4, 2009 is the next date for tea party protests. The addition of these events, with addition of more and more sponsors and organizers, the currently titled article Tea Party protests will assuredly become too large to easily depict information on all of these events. This calls for sub-articles, which is an acceptable and desired method for resolving such events and articles about them.
  3. The first instance of this is when the article Timeline of Tea Party protests was created. The main article got too cluttered and required additional sub-categories to explain the events.
  4. The Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is essentially created to provide a background to the various protests and events that occurred and ultimately caused increase support from various organizations to jump-on-board to promote future events. Without this sub-article, those researching the February 27 "Chicago Tea Party" may finish reading Tea Party protests and leave with the wrong impression of the February 27 protests.
  5. There is a vital "bridge" of information to the Tea Party protests that must be made clear on how they were formed and what led to the Tax Day Tea Parties. The Nationwide Chicago Tea party puts a needed gap in this bridge to make the connection as to what events led to the more widely known Tax Day Tea Party. The Tax Day tea party article (or Tea Party protests) does not place this gap in the necessary bridge to provide full information on the historical events which led to more current events. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
None of that addresses why this article should exist when the subject is already covered in a much more extensive article. If anything, you're making the case that the section on the February 27 protests in Tea Party protests should be expanded. But that is an argument you should make there, not by starting a parallel article more to your liking. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Tycoon, kindly do not submit multiple bold-formatted statements of your preference for "keep", "delete", "redirect", etc.. It makes unnecessary work for the closing administrator. The convention is to preface new comments with the word "comment" in bold type, or less conventionally, to use a bullet point or just make the statement so it doesn't duplicate your already bolded preference for the outcome of the process. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This article is nearly the same as the article New American Tea Party which was just deleted after extensive discussion (see Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/New_American_Tea_Party). The arguments made in that discussion should be taken into account here as well. This is particularly tiresome, given that the sole defender of this article was also the sole defender of that article and just happens to have created this article when it appeared that the other article would be deleted. It would be nice not to have to have the same discussion twice. There is no question that this article is simply a content fork of Tea Party protests. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Response to Note: Loonymonkey, please do not take information out of context to use as a claim. The information about the New American Tea party and why the article was confused for an event over some organization called "The New American Tea Party" was already discussed in the Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/New_American_Tea_Party article. The internal link is fine, but your out-of-context opinion-comment about it here are not OK. Please keep this discussion on topic. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


No... no, I'm definitely not making the case that the Tea Party protests article discussion on the February 27 events should be expanded. If anything, it should be cleaned up and stick to only the most relevant information from the February 27 Tea Party that relates to the April 15 Tea Party. Otherwise, let the main article for the Chicago Tea Party further detail the events on its sub-article. In fact, please see this discussion for further Talk on the current proposed name-change from "Tea Party protests" being moved to Tax Day Tea Party. Here's the issues at hand: The two events had similar motivations (an argument for merging the two articles), but they were organized by different people (an argument that the distinction is important and would be blurred by covering them both in one article). If I'm not mistaken, it's the first argument that I am running into issues with for reasons against keeping the articles separated. The second argument, which is the issue that I'm trying point out, if the two articles are merged it must be made clear that the February 27 events were different in that they were organized by three grassroots organizations, and not the alleged "astroturfing" organizations. Unless any of such allegations against the February 27 Chicago Tea Party protests have been written or are found, if from a reliable source, then allegations against the April 15 event organizers should not be merged or blended in with non-existent allegations against the February 27 protest organizers. If there were allegations, then it can be edited into a merged "main" article. So, from here, I argue that it'll cause the currently titled article Tea Party protests to become very cluttered, with some information covering some organizations who protested in the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party; all the while, at the same time, other sections will be cross-discussing other organizations that guided and promoted the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party. This is the problem that I believe will be instantly created if these two articles are merged. Tycoon24 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Updated Response I found a great reference that much better explains what I have been trying to argue this whole time. Here's a quote:
Present on the March 2 call were the majority of the coordinators of the Feb. 27th events, most of whom had been calling in daily the prior week. Some on the line had independently organized their own Feb. 27th event and subsequently learned of the online group. All of the people on that call had worked themselves very hard to obtain what can only be described as a near-miracle. In less than six days, a handful of people on the national level (fewer than ten) and forty - sixty people on the ground were able to organize and manage events that resulted in 15,000 - 25,000 people across the country coming together to let their voices be heard. In Lansing, Michigan, co-organizer Joan Fabiano decided on Monday, Feb. 23 to organize an event at her State Capitol for that Friday. In less than four days, she and two other women from the area managed to gather together 300 - 400 of their fellow Michigan citizens. In St. Louis, Bill Hennessey, with the help of radio show host Dana Loesch, found themselves on that Friday standing under the Arch with 1,500 other Missourians.
And this doesn't even have information on the February 16 protest. But it still clarifies the point of differences in events (hopefully) a little better than I have. Tycoon24 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
On the allegations against "astroturfing" -- a quote:
"People came out and the idea of protesting the stimulus caught on around the country. But it wasn’t until Rick Santelli gave his spontaneous “rant” on television, calling for a new tea party, that the idea of holding Tea Parties came into focus. Brendan spoke to some of his key people in various states and found that all of them were eager to make Santelli’s idea a reality. It was that spontaneous."
Notice, however, that even a few days prior to Rick Santelli's rant, at least two or three local anti-spending protests had already taken place (with no alleged astroturfing organizations). Even the Knowledge article on "grassroots" clearly defines what the Knowledge article on the Chicago Tea Parties reads as a grassroots formed protest. The Chicago Tea party is a different event sponsored and promoted by different organizations to the April 15 tea parties. The reason I keep posting "updates" is because I have a sense many of you either don't believe me (thus, the sources I keep adding), or may not have enough background knowledge on the events to offer a helpful response. So I'm trying to be as helpful and clear as I possibly can. Tycoon24 (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, you're merely continuing your content dispute from the main article, which isn't the purpose of this discussion at all. You're avoiding the central issue of this discussion, which is that this article is a content fork of the larger Tea Party protests article, and that article isn't nearly large or complex enough to require a daughter article (particularly for sections that are just a few paragraphs). At most, you're making the case that the section should be expanded in that article, but that's an argument you should have there, not here. Your most recent tactic, that of requesting a page split on that article after the fact, to justify this article, is fairly disruptive and seems to serve only to drag this process out a little further. I look forward to this discussion being closed so we can get back to editing the article. (note also: Please DO NOT move or refactor the comments of other editors. I would like my responses to remain after the paragraph I was responding to, thank you.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Over 30,000 people made it to this event, nationwide. Considering the event was organized in less than a week by three grassroots organizations ( Smart Girl Politics, DontGo, and Top Conservatives on Twitter), and considering how these "minor, local" tea parties led to the Tax Day event, this is absolutely worthy of its own Knowledge article. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Astroturf campaigns promoted by fringe sources are not notable, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
.....Speaking of astroturf, it might be worth noting that about sixty-five-thousand-plus people, on average, go in person to a regular-season NFL football game (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance). So, half a pro football game gets thirty thousand people. Great Smoky Mountains National Park gets an average of 30,000 visits a day (http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=785) . Songwriter/performer Leonard Cohen recently announced without a whole lot of advertising that he was going to do a tour, and the first performance sold out over 16,000 seats in just a few days-- two performances, there's thirty-thousand people. About thirty-thousand people also die of influenza in an average month worldwide. These kinds of numbers of people don't, of themselves, merit WP articles. Nor is there anything particularly unique about the way it was organized, which was via web networking.
.....Note that the website http://www.nationwidechicagoteaparty.com presents February 27 as "Round 1" of the Tea Party protests, with the April 15 protests labeled as "Round 2". Both involve the same ad-hoc coalition, same type of events, hyped similarly via standard web networking methods, also including the use of an array of self-referential web domain names, with various public demonstrations in various places on various dates along a timeline beginning in February, as indicated in the Tea Party protests article and the timeline article. They all have the same theme and all trace their heritage back to the Boston Tea Party. The timeline of Tea Party protests also cites many other "Tea Party" demonstrations on dates other than February 27 and April 15. In other words, the February 27 protests properly merit a brief mention such as is presently given in Tea Party protests, not a position paper presenting itself as a somehow a separate "thing". The history, stated issues, and goals of the "Chicago Nationwide" protests are the same as those of the "Tea Party protests" in general. Also, please see WP:NOT, including WP:NOTBLOG, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note I would also like to point out TharsHammars previous attempt to delete Timeline of Tea Party protests, too. The proposed deletion was not approved, and as one editor said, "merging its content into Tea Party protests will leave that article 'overburdened' and cluttered." Thus, Timeline of Tea Party protests remained despite TharsHammars belief that "This article is basically junk and needs to be merged into the main Teabag Party article, where the information can be contained nicely." For very good reasons, the article was not deleted or merged. Point being, if an article that is clearly just an outline of the Tea Party protests is allowable on its own, then why can't an article that covers in more detail the first Chicago Tea Party (that was organized by different groups than the April 15 tea party) be allowed an independent article from the Tax Day protests? Tycoon24 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we understand that you really, really want to keep this article. That's pretty clear. But try not to get personal with it. To quote you, directly above, "The internal link is fine, but your out-of-context opinion-comment about it here are not OK. Please keep this discussion on topic." --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Merge Merge into Tea Party protests. This is one component of the broader national movement. It does not warrant a stand-alone article, which creates confusion. But parts of it should be incorporated as part of the Tea Party protests article. TeaParty1 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Tea Party protests. To separate out the individual protests duplicates much of the background and history, and is an example of recentism: in the long run, nobody will remember the subtleties of what the organisers called their protests or who exactly organised them. Fences and windows (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Tea Party protests. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with disagreements over content. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The main article on Tea Party protests can cover the subject. If that article gets too long, then consideration could be given to spinning off some of the detail into daughter articles, leaving behind a summary. I doubt that will become necessary, but even if it does, the structure should be one main article with one or more daughter articles, not parallel articles (one concerning February 27 events and one concerning April events). JamesMLane t c 18:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • note: I have clearly stated my reasons for keeping the articles separated. I've refined those reasons and posted them Here, beginning with "In accordance to the 'Levels of desired WP:DETAIL,' under WP:SUMMARY..." And I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that suggests any other alternative is a more appropriate option. From the WP:PRACTICAL policy, it's important to remember what a consensus is not.
In just one example showing why the Tea Party protests page is already a mess--even though the article is covering only the April 15 events--Tarc decided to make a random drive-by edit, deleting a reference and factual context of it in the Knowledge article, replacing it with exactly the commented "reason" he gave for his arguably blatant violation of WP:VANDAL (but in good faith I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). So I responded to it Here, only to run into TharsHammar who immediately removed a tag with the comment, "when? it says right there Feb 10." For TharsHammar's sake, I'll assume good faith but please do Knowledge a favor and research a topic before making such awfully inaccurate statements and edits. Here was my response edit.
I cannot fathom how "cluttered" the article will get if the merge took place. In reference to my Requested move and name change of "Tea Party protests" to "Tax Day Tea Party", I'd also like to point out something mentioned on its talk page that I had not yet realized:
Rename to something. This could easily be construed as to refer to the events leading up to the Revolutionary War (the one in the 18th century, not some proposed war against Obama). 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it was from an anonymous editor, but the argument cannot be refuted. If "Tea Party protests" are not a current event, is it encyclopedic for the title of an article to violate or cause conflict to the WP:DATED policy? Tycoon24 (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Although Ultimate Football (and Ultimate Football League) get a number of ghits, I can't find any showing notability of this version in the first half-dozen pages of ghits or gnews hits. Notability may indeed exist, but the noise is overwhelming any signal in the article.

Note that previous versions of the article described a more generic version of the game (with a different starting place and year), but I can't find any version with references.

Taking this to AfD instead of prod because the number of different editors who have contributed lead me to think this won't be uncontroversial. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  15:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

non-notable location. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:R'n'B, the author requested deletion (G7). JamieS93 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This is clearly either a hoax or completely non-notable. A Google search returns no relevant results, and a PROD-tag was removed by the article creator, naturally. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You have two cows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as unencylopedic and failing notability guidelines. I don't dispute that "Two Cows" is a well-known, widely used rhetorical device. Nevertheless the article doesn't add any non-obvious information on its subject beyond reproducing the "Two Cows" joke. Encyclopedic articles are about their subject matter; that is, they more than merely exemplify their subject matter. If a reader who encountered the "Two Cows" joke elsewhere came here to find more information on it, would he leave any more knowledgeable? No. Accordingly, the article as it is now is unencyclopedic. To the extent I doubt any verifiable information could be found to make it encyclopedic, the article should be deleted. Furthermore the notability of this subject has been asserted but has not been shown by reliable sources. The only relevant sources are telling of the joke, and new twists on the joke, not a discussion of the joke and the meanings behind it. Please see section on article talk page about the ProQuest sourcing. TharsHammar and 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom T-95 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand. Term has a notable history of usage in political and general social discourse. One (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Although it could use a better title than "You have two cows" (I can just hear the America Online voice saying that), the "two cows" analogy is well-known in political science and economics, and a sourced article (which this is) covers a legitimate topic for which one one might consult an encyclopedia. In some cases, a well-known joke is, like a fable or a song or a story, both instructive and indicative of culture. This would be such a case. Mandsford (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. This is one thing wikipedia can do well, provide a background to the various metamorphoses of a joke or cultural phenomenon. --Moloch09 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep- Meets notability and verifiability standards. Could obviously use a bit of cleanup, but a lot of articles could. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Joke#Cycles.

    This is not, basically, an encyclopaedia article, and it could never be one because there's not enough to write about. But it is part of an encyclopaedic theme (which is Joke Cycles, e.g. "You have two cows" or "In Soviet Russia, Knowledge edits you!"). We already have content about that theme, so merge this there.—S Marshall /Cont 18:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - topic is of some notability, and there is sourced information already there.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Please take a look at the sourcing. Yes there are sources, but they are not good 2nd or 3rd party sources. I have made a topic on the article talk page about the sourcing, how the ProQuest ID #'s don't work for some, and how on the other sources it is just an editorial page telling of the joke in some form or another, no real discussion of the joke. 5 years after the articles creation with many discussions about sources its pretty clear that if good sources did exists they would have been added by now. TharsHammar and 20:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree. What I think is "pretty clear" is that nobody's taken a critical look at the article for five years.

        I think the useful, encyclopaedic sources won't be talking about "You have two cows" specifically. They might be talking about the phenomenon of joke cycles, though.—S Marshall /Cont 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

        • After about 700 edits to the article over those 5 years one would hope that someone at somepoint would have taken a critical look at the article. But maybe not, since there is disagreement on clarity I would rephrase it as, "Its pretty clear to me." TharsHammar and 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Historical Comment I'm not going to vote one way or the other, but I will share some back-story. One this page is NOT five years old, it is actually nearly 8 years old. (Here is a link to the archived version from December 2001). This is actually one of the oldest pages on the entire Knowledge and was a pet love of many of the original group of editors, including people like Larry Sanger and Lee Daniel Crocker. We loved it because it actually served as a launching point for MANY new articles, because we realised that the jokes were useless unless we had corresponding articles to explain the topics. You'll notice that the archived version still has dead links in some places (these were all subsequently repaired). In its own weird way it was a key element in the development of the 'pedia, and I remember a lot of discussions where we would laugh about how much additional work this page kept generating. This "anecdotal WP development history" has never been recorded anywhere... possibly no-one even actually cares. So is it worth preserving for posterity? That's up to the new generation to decide. Manning (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per One and thanks to Manning. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per one So you've got an article that's been here 8 years. And it has sources and and tells how the subject is significant. 64 Google scholar hits for the phrase.
Cracky, even the nominator acknowledges it's notability. Dlohcierekim 03:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't dispute this joke has been widely told. I do though lay out why I think it fails the notability guidelines. "The only relevant sources are telling of the joke, and new twists on the joke, not a discussion of the joke and the meanings behind it" so that would mean no 2nd party sources. TharsHammar and 03:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
For example, see the coverage of the Polish jokes. TharsHammar and 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Basit (terrorist suspect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Abdul Basit is just an Arabic name, like John is an English name. RobbertSH (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete unsourced one liner about a name without any indication that it is notable in any way. WP is not your baby naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus AfDs appear to have pushed themselves to the limit on May 12th. One two three... 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pushed to the Limit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unremarkable movie. Contested prod. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment While I'm going to see if I can dig up some better references, it at the moment I think that strong keep might be a tad much - of the refs only one, the TV Guide entry, actually speaks to notability. The other indepth review is of questionable reliability, and the rest of the sources are of no real note - the NY Times is, in fact, just a repeat of the other (and acknowledges it). Still, you're right that the pay-per-views look ok, as is the festival, so I'll chase the other reviews up and see where we sit. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I was kinda surprised myself that it had been screened at a festival 14 years after its initial release. Sometimes even a crap film will make its way back. Of course, the AOF film festival did not exist in 91/92. Schmidt, 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The sources that Cazort found, admittedly without having read the full text, do not appear to be primarily about the movie. They might be useful if someone decides to recreate a non-copyvio article about Mimi Lesseos. I appreciate the diligent work you do on movie articles, but, with all due respect, arguing that this is a historically notable film based on a screening at a niche festival and a scathing review in TV Guide seems somewhat misplaced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If you have not read the sources, then with respects, any opinion about what they "might" contain is meaningless. And even were they to not be exclusive, as long as they are more-than-trivial, they are emminently satisfactory per guideline. And guideline NEVER says a review must be positive and full of praise, so a "scathing" TV Guide review of a crappy film is absolutely wonderful. I would expect and hope for nothing less. And to argue that a crappy film cannot meet historical inclusion criteria of guideline sounds like you are arguing that guideline is incorrect. It specifically states, with no equivocation "The film was given a commercial re-release, 'or screened in a festival', at least five years after initial release". Guideline does not demand that the festival be Cannes, nor that a commercial re-release be nationwide. Further, and even though no one has yet written its article, the film festival in question has itself been amply covered in reliable sources. Niche films, good ones or bad ones, will be screened at niche festivals. Guideline does not demand otherwise. The 17-year-old film has met guideline requirement for notability with its sourced assertion of screening more than five years after its release. You may not think that gives it notability, but that opinion runs contrary to what guideline explicitly states. You are welcome to change the guideline if you disagree, but the film meets that specific criteria for inclusion. And thank you for noting my diligent work in movie articles, as diligence is a good thing and due diligence per WP:AFTER allowed the discovery of these informations. Schmidt, 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • My point was simply that you appear to be arguing that this movie meets WP:NF by asserting that qualifies as a historically significant film per criterion 2 of the guideline. I doubt very much that you believe that it is, in any sense, historically significant, but I may be wrong about that. Your work to improve movie-related articles is commendable - do you really want to keep this article by twisting the WP:NF guidelines so far out of shape? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)I fixed the typo of WP:MF for WP:NF Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I use the same guidelines as do you. That someone dusted this stinker off and actually screened it at a festival 14 years after initial release allows it as historical per guideline, crap though it may be. Interesting note that at that screening, Mimi's work in and as actress/director/action hero of her film actually received recognition, so others have a higher opinion of it than do I. I might think the film is a turkey, but guideline is elegantly guideline, and requires no "twisting". Schmidt, 08:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You are correct that it meets the test. I don't believe the intention of including the "historically significant" criterion was to allow articles on movies like this one. (That's not a statement on whether "bad" movies can be historically significant, because I'm sure they can, just not in this case.) I think you do yourself a disservice by using a literal reading of a guideline to garner a keep here, but that is your choice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete Being mentioned once in a film magazine and being shown on a projector in someone's garden is only permissable if Knowledge has entriels about all the non-notable peers of Dickens and Hardy the duo The Iron Rod (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

With yet greater respects, "In January 2009, the magazine cut several networks from the grid listings, including DIY Network and MTV, citing "space concerns". - 1 It is a listings magazine! This suggests that also DIY Network films are notable - if they are shown in a notable film festival, such as the Action On Film International Festival, which despite claims to be "one of these most progressive film festivals on the scene today.", I'm certainly not 100% certain the festival itself is notable enough to be on Knowledge, let alone a terrible wrestling movie that happened to be shown there once. The Iron Rod (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
For their expertise and editorial oversite, TV Guide is accepted as a reliable source for television-related news, celebrity interviews, and film reviews... not for their programming listings. Their review of the film was in-depth and not a trival list mention. That they cut several networks from their grid listings for "space concerns" in January 2009 has nothing to do with an in-depth review from January 2008. And again and with respects, the Action On Film Festival is not a "screening in someone's garden" as you stated. If you feel the festival is not worth being considered a festival by Knowledge, despite its own coverage in reliable sources, that is up to individual editors to determine. Thank you. Schmidt, 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

-- References --

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed a bit early due to WP:SNOW. JamieS93 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO and the basic criteria. Google returns nothing, as does Google news. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. Consensus is that Michael Q. Schmidt's improvements are enough to establish notability. Thanks Michael! Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Collective (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased movie. Not surprisingly, not yet notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep Update, Schmidt's sources have convinced me that this is worth keeping. Apologies for my hasty search...I did not realize there were more sources out there. Cazort (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a lot of digging. Thanks for your input. Schmidt, 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Unreleased? Guideline for WP:NF does not demand a theatrical release and wide distribution though such is preferred. Due practice of WP:AFTER show that the film has indeed been released and is definitely not WP:CRYSTAL. A very cursory search forund that it was seen at the Brooklyn International Film Festival, Vail Film Festival, The Independent Feature Film Market, Screamfest Horror Film Festival, Indie Spirit Film festival. Further, a diligent search shows it tweaks the WP:GNG: Off Off Off and Gothamist, with acknowledgements of its release in such as Kansas City Star] and Denver Post]. Crystal? Unreleased? With respects, might it not have been better to have actually looked before opining? Schmidt, 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The movie's director appears to believe otherwise, even after some of those screenings. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The author not understanding MOS or how to seperate himself from COI are reasons for us to improve an article if it can be done, not delete it. I will not presume to know why the author made the error of date in the article name, and can in good faith suppose it underscores his inexperience as a wiki editor. But since I have moved the article to the correct name and addressed it having a 2008 release and coverage per GNG, it becomes properly and encyclopedically worthy of wiki. In keep opinion, I was commenting on claims of NFF and CRYSTAL, and the fact that a search easily found the correct release date... which facts called sourcing and a move... not a deletion. I was not commenting on its author. His earlier version might call it 2009, but what has been easily verified, now that the article is ours, is 2008. How about we move on and further expand and improve a now properly NPOV wikipedia article. Thank you. Schmidt,
Film festival releases alone are not notable. It has not actually received any SIGNIFICANT coverage (which does not include just saying it was at a festival), nor significant reviews. It fails both WP:NF and WP:N. Also, for future note, it is generally not good to move an article during an AfD, just note it should be moved if kept. Also, the author did originally have it listed as 2008, then it was speedied so he recreated under a new title, showing a fairly good understanding of how to try to avoid anyone noticing he did it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. That would depend on the festival... as being screened at Sundance or Tribeca or Cannes might actually add toward notability when a lesser festival might not. However, no claim of notability through the festivals is being made, and as stated above, the festivals were only offered per WP:AFTER to confirm that it has indeed been screened... multiple times... to counter the erroneous but good faith claim by the nom that the film was unreleased, and that of editors who opined delete as WP:CRYSTAL, when it was not crystal. Schmidt, 03:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:NF is the general film notability guideline, not the future film one (which is only a small component and is WP:NFF). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, NFF does not apply. Reading the nomination with raised eyebrows is what sparked my initial speedy keep. And naturally, NF (not written with new films in mind) is subordinate to N and GNG, which this film passes, having coverage in reliable sources and having won critical recognition for its genre. I was WP:BOLD and moved the article to its correct year in order to halt confusions, as its not "unreleased", not "coming attractions", and not "upcoming", and it being given the wrong year in conflict with sources sparked some confusion in early opinions. The author's original article must have been as bad as this one was originally. He could benefit from lessons on how to write a properly sourced article or how to use a sandbox for constrction. However, it belongs now to wiki. Schmidt, 06:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
But WP:NF needs notability. 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
How notable are those festivals though? I could start a film festival today and give out awards to any film I felt like (sorry, playing Devil's advocate here... ;-) ) Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
A point I had considered myself when I read WP:NF specifically stating "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". Since we're not talking about local bake sale award, I suppose we might be allowed to consider an award "in context" to what is being awarded. However, since I don't wish to turn this into a debate over what constitutes a major award, I can comfortable fall back on WP:NF sharing "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And whether this coverage is in reviews of the film or in its winning recognition (even if minor), I look at Broklyn Daily Eagle, Off Off Off, Gothamist, Quiet Earth, and the slightly more than trivial Real Vail, The Brooklyn Paper and Kansas City Star.. and see that guideline has been satisfied... specially for a small time independent film. Schmidt, 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It isn't entirely unreleased - it has been screened at film festivals. --Noosentaal 11:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Dank, under the G4 criterion (recreated article). JamieS93 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Neologism / Knowledge is not a dictionary Passportguy (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Sorry. I just realized this had gone through an AfD earlier. Will tag for speedy deletion. Passportguy (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Unremarkable sound designer. All sources appear to be self-sourced. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Declined speedy deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This sound designer has been lauded by Oscar winning sound designers and has produced more sound effects for the industry than any other sound designer. His book The Sound Effects Bible is an industry first, receiving praise from Skywalker Sound, Midway Games, Alan Howarth, Randy Thom, and Frank Serafine. He courted by companies like Sony, Apple, and Adobe to create their exclusive sound material for all of their software. To claim that he is unremarkable reflects ones lack of knowledge of the sound effects industry as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.253.12 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can't find any coverage about him in reliable sources. I can find no information to indicate he has won any notable awards for his work. With respect to the praise and high-esteem with which he his held by his colleagues, where are the sources to substantiate it? -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close and turn over to WP:RFD. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The article was redirecting to the article on Southern Europe but the latter nowhere mentioned the term "Garlic Belt".

Delete Probably a joke. Borock (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. However, the content is a serious issue and needs to be cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability requirements, plus many smaller problems. Drew Smith What I've done 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability is determined by WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Most church killings in the U.S. probably would be WP:ONEEVENT and not get an article, it would probably have to be a pretty spectacular case, there are shootings in the U.S. regularly. See Category:Spree shootings. Drawn Some (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Article has serious issues with Notability: This article was written based on material banned by the Second Arbitration commitee and as well as contains other unrelaible sources.This material was removed originally from the Sathya Sai Baba article due to Knowledge:Libel and WP:BLP concerns.The following are the list of banned material and other unreliable sources used in this article.
1) Source Priddy - banned in the second arbitration of the Sathya Sai Baba article. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy
This article references following Priddy sources.
  • Analysis of 1993 Murders Discrepancies by Robert Priddy
  • Janakiramiah, Sai Baba’s blackmailing younger brother, Robert Priddy
2) Source Basava Premananda - Declared Unreliable in the BostonMA mediation discussion on Sathya Sai Baba in 2006. . http://en.wikipedia.org/User:BostonMA/Mediation
This article references following Premanada Sources:
  • Analysis by Bhasava Premanand of the 1993 Murders
  • Investigate the Murder at Satya Sai Baba's Collage, The Indian Skeptic.May 1998.] Image of body as carried on Indian Skeptic( warning: graphic images ).
  • SATYA SAI BABA. Retelling The Story, Babu R.R. Gogineni Former General Secretary of Rationalist Association of India - Self published document based on Basava Premananda
3) "The Findings" - This source was declared as unreliable in Boston MA mediation discussion in 2006.
This article uses the following references from Findings:
  • The Findings. An investigative report and collection of incriminating testimony complied by The Baileys.
  • The Findings. Terry Gallagher - A Letter to the Baileys.
This article is definitely Knowledge:Libel. I request it to be deleted as it lacks notability and reliability. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The Hindu 9-6-1993
    • The Hitavada, Nagpur 9-6-1993
    • Times of India 9-6-1993
    • Indian Express 9-6-1993
    • Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad 10-6-1993
    • Deccan Herald, 10-6-1993
    • The Hindu, 10-6-1993
    • The Pioneer, New Delhi 10-6-1993
    • The Times of India 10-6-1993
    • The Times of India 11-6-1993
    • The Hindustan Times New Delhi 9-6-1993
    • Indian Express 9-6-1993:
    • Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad 10-6-1993
    • Deccan Chronicle 10-6-1993.
    • The Hindu 10-6-1993:
    • The Times of India, Delhi, 13-6-1993
    • Indian Express, New Delhi 13-6-1993
    • Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad, 9-6-1993
    • Indian Express, Vizianagaram, 16-6-1993
    • The Telegraph, Calcutta 16-6-1993
    • Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad 26-6-1993


    • The Hindu, Hyderabad 27-10-1995
    • The Hitavada, Nagpur 24-6-1993
    • The Hindu, Coimbatore 18-6-1993
    • The Hindu, Vishakapatnam 1-7-1993
    • Frontline 2-7-1993
    • Indian Express Vijawada, 4-7-1993
    • Nagpur Times 8-7-1993
    • The Hitavada 8-7-1993
    • The Hitavada 9-7-1993
    • Indian Express, Vijayawada 11-7-1993
    • Dalit Voice 19-7-1993
    • Times of India 27-10-1993
    • Deccan Herald, Bangalore 20-2-1994

-- User:Andries


Comments: I strongly support deletion of this article as it lacks notability and reliability. . Here's the reason why?

There is no argument about whether this incident happened or not. At that time when this incident happened it was published in those newspapers. This incident is already mentioned in the Sathya Sai Baba article. There is already a section talking about this incident.
  • Question: Is this incident is notable enough to have a separate article?
I don't think this topic is notable enough to need a separate article for the following reasons. The material it is sourced suffers seriously due to lack of notability and reliability. . There was no clear indication linking this incident to Sathya Sai Baba. Nobody know for sure why this incident really happened. Who was behing this?. Where there any following court case after this incident? No. My point is that such incidents happens all aound the world.
Also I would like to point that "Ex-Baba.com" website mentioned by User:Andries are negative attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba. A similar site "Robert Priddy another attack website was banned by the Second Arbitration commitee stating that these negative attack websites are full of POV views and cannot be considered as reliable / notable source for the Sathya Sai Baba article.
  • As I said before this current article suffers from serious notability issue as it is based on sources banned by the Second arbitration
  • The article is sourced to several other unreliable sources.
I would also like to point that User:Andries was banned from editing the Sathya Sai Baba article for his WP:COI. His views may be biased. I am not sure if he is even concerned using all these material banned by the second arbitration in this article.
Radiantenergy (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
1. No, incidents like do not happen frequently. Because SSB is the most prominent Godman of India and the prime minister and the president sometimes visit him. SSB claims to be God and is considered so by his followers
2. I linked to newspaper articles on exbaba.com , so these are reliable sources and can be used without problem. I admit that exbaba.com also contains unreliable sources.
3. I admit that most of it is already in Sathya Sai Baba where it should not be because the involvement of SSB is not clear. If it should be somewhere then it should either be a seperate article or moved to Sathya Sai Baba movement. Please note that I did not write that the article should be kept. I only wrote that the argumentation to delete it i.e. lack of notability is flawed.
4. The incident was not only discussed when it happened it was also treated in the BBC documentary The Secret Swami. And Basava Premanand published a book about the incident of more than 500 pages, Murders in Sai Baba's Bedroom It is no longer in my possession.
Andries (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Comments: Notability Issues in the article.: I still think the article should be deleted.
1) Attempts on religious leaders are not uncommon. There was an attempt on Pope John Paul's life. Should such incidents be reported in the Biography of the person. Yes. This incident on Baba's life has already been included on the Sathya Sai Baba article sourced to BBC. As I stated before there is a separate section discussing this incident.
2) Unreliable Sources violating WP:BLP:
  • i) Basava Premananda and his book - Murders in Sai Baba's Bedroom: Major part of this article including the photos is written based on Basava Premananda. Neither Basava Premananda and his 500 page book were accepted as reliable source in the'BostonMA' discussion. . Knowledge articles cannot be written based on unreliable sources.
Discussion Link from BostonMA discussion on Basava Premananda's book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source#Premanand.27s_Book
  • ii) Robert Priddy as a source. Arbitration ruling banning Robert Priddy: The arbitration stated as below 6.1.1) Robert Priddy is a former Sai Baba devotee who wrote a favorable book, Source of the Dream - My Way to Sathya Sai Baba. He later left the movement and wrote an unfavorable book, The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma. The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma is only held by one large library world wide according to Worldcat; it is published in India and is not available for sale on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk. Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.
Discussion Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy
  • iii) "The Findings as a source": The Findings was declared as unreliable by BostonMA in the mediation.
This article should be deleted as it is based on unreliable and banned material. It is definitely Knowledge:Libel as it has serious notability issues.
Radiantenergy (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep but ... BBC has a 2004 documentary that discusses this event at considerable length ( transcript here); the incident was covered extensively by contemporaneous Indian media (as shown by links listed above). So notability is not an issue per se. However the current version of the article is far from good since it includes some very poor sources (geocities and wordpress pages and www.saipetition.com !). All content sourced to such unreliable sources needs to be removed at once, especially given the associated BLP concerns. In short, keep the article but make sure that all its content is reliably sourced. The latter though is a content rather than deletion policy issue, and should be dealt with on the article talk page.Abecedare (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The event in itself meets notability guidlines. The article is not neutral however and needs a cleanup. --Deepak D'Souza 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is full of badly written, probably libellous material. Whatever happens to it, all the unreliable sources and speculation needs to go. It reads as an attack piece. After one mediation in 2007 editors should know better. Fences and windows (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JamieS93 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

No reference to player in official senior national team records and no international fixtures played by the national team in 45/46, possible hoax. Prod removed by IP with no reason given. Camw (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The article is of virtually no interest; hardly any info there. This is mainly because he is not really notable. Although he has played for a couple of teams, there were not many appearances, and some of these were for reserves, etc. He no longer plays in a professional league, and this is not because he is too old, etc. (aged 23), he is just not at ALL a notable footballer. Willplatts (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE, and all the editors involved in the creation and maintenance of that policy. I understand your bewilderment, but it is a generally accepted principle in Wiki that arbitrary quantitative distinctions should not be made, so there cannot be a threshold of 10 or 20 appearances. So an absolute criterion, appearance in a fully pro league, regardless of number of appearances, is applied. Kevin McE (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JamieS93 02:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable product by minor company Passportguy (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JamieS93 02:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Unsourced, unverifiable (suspected hoax). PROD was removed. —Snigbrook 13:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn per http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/nyregion/where-children-are-supposed-to-be-heard-not-simply-seen.html. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -- timed 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Children's Museum of Southeastern Connecticut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A7 declined on the grounds that it is a museum. While normally I would agree, this one is more like an activity center for preschoolers with no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. A Google News search turns up plenty of coverage , including a profile in the New York Times: . The article needs to be rewritten and expanded. Pastor Theo (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • KeepThe nominator did not comply with WP:BEFORE and the instructions for AFD, in that there are easily found reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying notability. Google news archive search shows many sources which satisfy notability and can be used to improve the article. See The New York Times, Oct. 9, 1994 "Where Children Are Supposed to Be Heard, Not Simply Seen." See the New York Times Dec. 30, 2001 "The View From/East Lyme; The Tale of a Children's Museum Without a Lease." These are all substantial articles about the museum, and not mere directory listings or news items about some event. Many more articles show up in the Google news search,some with subscription required. Edison (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Roger Clinton, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Relatives of famous people are not considered notable. Drew Smith What I've done 11:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Although being related to a famous person does not confer automatic notability, the parents generally meet the requirements of WP:N, in that they receive significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Indeed, nearly any biography of an American president is going to cover the upbringing and childhood influences of that person.

While the person may not be inherently notable, neither are they barred from having an article written about them. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just the tip of the iceberg and these are published books not web references!!!!. He clearly meets the WP:Note criteria.

P.S. I appreciate the nominator's courtesy in notifying me of the AFD debtate even though nominator knew I would probably disagree. There are few people on Knowledge who would show that level of courtesy.Americasroof (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the sources mentioned are about Bill Clinton. Not Roger Clinton. Drew Smith What I've done 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the sources refer to both persons, including The Fathers of American Presidents: From Augustine Washington to William Clinton. Mandsford (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This link has the details linking to Roger Clinton that I used to post the books rights away. Americasroof (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Does he have any notability other than as a relative of a notable person? Getting mentioned in books/articles about his stepson means that he should be mentioned in Knowledge in the article about his stepson, not that we need to create a separate article. If no reliable and independent sources have written about him other than as an adjunct to Bill's biography, then why should we break away from the sourcing and have a separate article? Many relatives of notable people were notable themselves, or become notable using the influence and advantages deriving from the relationship, if they are still alive after their relative becomes rich and powerful. They may get good jobs, write books, get appointments, or be notorious for influence peddling. George W. Bush benefitted from the prominence of George H.W. Bush, long before he was himself thrust into state and national politics, by being placed on boards of directors or into a public relations job with a baseball team. In this case time seems not to have been on Roger's side. Roger is adequately covered in the article. Not anything of substance to merge that is not already there. Edison (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I read right off of WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive", emphasis on "less than exclusive" is important here. If topic A is covered in significant depth ina book about topic B, that's just as significant as an equal amount of material written in a lone article on topic A. Do we delete the article on the Colorado Delta clam because it is only notable in the context of the Colorado River Delta? If you follow the logic you're using here, we would delete over half of wikipedia. This discussion for deletion should focus on one issue: whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources to write a full, tightly-sourced article. And people above have established very firmly that this is the case. Cazort (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I would apply the principle stated above to articles about relatives of notable people. I would not apply it in general to clams who live in a place, but all species have been found in AFDs to be inherently notable, just like all villages and major geographic features. I doubt that any recognized species has not had a monograph written about it, since scientists have to publish or perish. I say again, if they are only mentioned in conjunction with their famous relative, then mention them in their famous relative's article, rather than creating a stub, unless the amount of well sourced and encyclopedic information about the relative is extensive enough to justify a reasonable spinoff article. Edison (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The standards of notability are pretty high for this sort of article. All of the sources are in relation to his son, which means that a fully independent notability hasn't been established. Think of it this way, if Bill had never gone into politics, would we have this article about his father? I think the answer is clearly no. Gigs (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)\
I agree with you that if Bill Clinton hadn't been in office we wouldn't have this article here--but I still think that he is notable--and not just through "inheritance" but rather, he is notable because he has attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. "Notability is not inherited" means that him being Bill Clinton's father alone is not enoguh to establish notability--but if Bill Clinton's high-profile status generates significant coverage in reliable sources for his father, as is the case here, then the father is clearly notable! This doesn't even strike me as a borderline case because there are a wealth of sources! Cazort (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The news sources I give below cover Roger Clinton Jr. directly. A lot of them talk about his drinking problems, other issues. It's interesting material and its far above the threshold for many topics that are (rightfully) included in wikipedia without ever becoming subject to the same degree of scrutiny that this article is (wrongly) being subjected to. Cazort (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You do realize this AfD is about Roger Clinton Sr., not Jr., right? Gigs (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Besides my points in discussions above, there is clearly significant coverage in both news: and book: sources, including the sources given above. The logic/reasoning being given by people arguing to delete is not only wrong, it is dangerous, because if followed-through on, it would justify deleting much of wikipedia! Cazort (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTINHERITED states... "Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents". Reliable sourcing only provides a basis for notability to be established... Reliable sources do not automatically establish notability, and in this case, the consensus has generally been to require fully independent notability. Gigs (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If you think we need to establish notability by finding sources on Roger Clinton Sr. that don't mention Bill, then I disagree with your interpretation of guidelines. I am sticking to the very basic, fundamental of WP:N. Significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:NOTINHERITED generally is used to say that if you can't find any material on Roger, Roger being Bill's dad doesn't justify Roger having an article. But in this case there's a wealth of material on Roger. Cazort (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I also want to point something dangerously "theoretical" about the way you have placed an emphasis on those guidelines. It sounds like you're interpreting to say that we should be having this discussion based on whether or not Roger would be notable, given the hypothetical situation that Bill Clinton was not notable. I don't think this is a useful road to go down--it's not reality. The sources that are out there are based on the reality we are living in. We can't have discussions based on hypotheticals. I'm not even going to go down that road. Cazort (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I just realized that you are using an "essay" which is NOT a wikipedia guideline, to attempt to override WP:N. The general notability guideline takes precedence here...it was reached by consensus. Apologies for not realizing that WP:NOTINHERITED was just an essay, I was discussing it as if it were a guideline which is why my argument may seem confused. Now I don't even think this discussion is worth having. Cazort (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If he were to have harnessed his position as the father of the president in order to do something independently notable, he would meet the criteria for inclusion. There's no evidence that he did that. It is definitely still useful to look at whether someone would be notable had their relative not been when deciding a NOTINHERITED case, but that is taken in light of their actions and circumstances subsequent to their relative becoming notable, which may indeed give them independent notability. That just hasn't happened here. Gigs (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The weakness the NOTINHERITED arugment is that it is an ESSAY while the overriding argument on WP:NOTE is a GUIDELINE!!!! The GUIDELINE has the overriding consideration is third party articles. Guidelines trump Essays. I don't understand this argument that Roger Clinton Sr. searches don't pull up any articles. The print.google search I posted is specifically about "Roger Clinton Sr.". Included in the search are at least 3 books that devote specific chapters to Roger Clinton Sr. ("The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders"; "The fathers of American presidents: from Augustine Washington to William Blythe and Roger Clinton"; "First fathers: the men who inspired our Presidents") In nosing around what's available in the books online, there's a lot that can be added with regards to his father that shaped Clinton.Americasroof (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
People have already given it above: , Cazort (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Roger died while Bill was still in college. He led a very ordinary life and received no coverage at all in reliable and independent sources until Bill became famous many years later. Then his coverage was derivative, only as the dead stepdad. It is perfectly appropriate to cite an essay WP:NOTINHERITED to support a keep or delete !vote in AFD, since essays can become guidelines if they reflect the outcomes of enough AFDs and thus express the consensus of the community with respect to an issue or particular subject. They are a useful way to present the views of a number of editors without repeating their entire content in the AFD each time. If a national leader has a sibling, spouse, child, or cousin who writes books(like Elliott Roosevelt, David Eisenhower or Margaret Truman, makes movies or documentaries, is on the boards of companies or charities, gets appointed to head the Red Cross, starts companies which become prominent, founds think tanks, even though the relationship gave them the inside track, then they are notable in their own right. Edison (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Spouses, parents, children, often receives significant coverage of the mundane details of their life for the sole reason that they are the spouse, parent, or child of a famous person. It sounds like the people arguing to delete are arguing that we should not "count" or "allow" sources that cover people because of their associations with famous people. Knowledge becomes increasingly (and in my opinion, dangerously) subjective if we start questioning why material got covered in sources and only allowing sources where the coverage originated "for the right reasons". The material either is there or isn't. And if it's there then the subject is notable. WP:BIO says that notability is not the same thing as being famous--it's about being worthy of notice, about being recorded. It doesn't say anything about why it was deemed worthy of notice and why it was recorded. Am I understanding your arguments correctly in that I am hearing that you are saying we should not "count" coverage that originates for the "wrong reasons"? Cazort (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
My position is what WP:NOTINHERITED says:"Family members of celebrities also must meet Knowledge's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents." I cannot say it any clearer. Edison (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree with the text from that page, because I find it to be in conflict with WP:N. Notability, the way I interpret it, is about receiving enough coverage in reliable sources that a tightly-sourced article can be written about you. If you want to reason with me, reason on the basis of WP:N: "Significant coverage in reliable sources". If you want to discuss that essay and its texts, discuss it on the talk page--I started a dialogue there and am eager to discuss it there. Cazort (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep' Notability isn't the smartest, or the most famous, or the one that cured cancer. It means there is enough information available from multiple reliable sources to piece together a biography. Save the tallest, smartest, and other categories for Guinness World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. WP:N is the guidline, true. But it doesnt neccessarily trump the essay WP:NOTINHERITED As the essay doesnt contradict the guidline, but rather expand on it.Drew Smith What I've done 23:10, 12 May 2009
Since I see a conflict between WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED here, and notinherited is just an essay, I think it would be helpful if people could clarify exactly why they think WP:N is not satisfied. That's what I'm failing to see here and why I keep arguing with people. I don't think it's constructive to repeatedly point to the essay because I do see them as being in conflict. If notinherited were truly "expanding on" the guideline, there would be a way to frame an argument to delete without referring to that essay. Cazort (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - as nominator it is taken as a given that your !vote is 'delete'. Coldmachine 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment While a nominator isn't prohibited from labeling his comment, it should take the form of "'Delete', as nominator" in order to prevent confusion. The administrator is not allowed to tally up !votes in making a decision, but he or she does look at how many people have weighed in with an opinion. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE. Relatives of famous people are not per se notable, but can be shown to be notable in all the other usual ways. This name was all over the news in 1992-1993. This man's legacy is well-documented in numerous reliable sources. There are plenty of sources dragged up in an easy search as noted above. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The person gets plenty of coverage, and not just passing mention of being the father of someone famous. Dream Focus 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Long-standing consensus is that relatives of notable people should be covered in the notable person's article unless they have received substantive coverage in their own right. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all articles to the tune of Xth United States Congress - summary and Xth United States Congress - state delegation, as the consensus appears to apply to all articles of such a theme and not just the 46th Congress. This is license to delete these pages as CSD G6 "Housekeeping", assuming I do not get there first. —harej 11:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Xth United States Congress - political parties. —harej 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
46th United States Congress - summary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm AfDing all articles in the format "Xth United States Congress - summary" and "Xth United States Congress - state delegations". They are essentially direct copies of "Xth United States Congress" articles, and completely unneeded.

As an example, lets look at 46th United States Congress - state delegations, 46th United States Congress - summary and 46th United States Congress. The two spinoffs are almost identical information with different formatting; the summary is indeed not a summary at all, being around the same size as the central article. The summary contains almost identical information to the main article, almost word for word, while the state delegations article is simply the list of representatives/senators in the main article organised "list of delegates from state X (rep and senator)" rather than "list of senators from state X" "list of representatives from state X". This is meaningless and useless cruft. There is not even any evidence that the creator considers them viable; he as good as admitted that these articles were created as a place he could play with away from an editor he was in a dispute with.

Note to closing admin, if this closes as delete - I've avoided adding them all here because there are about 200 of the damn things. The format is summarised above, and all the articles are found in here, so it shouldn't be too hard to bag them all. Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Amendment - Xth United States Congress - Political parties added in. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't fault the nom. I also think that the actions in creating all these articles, seemingly out of annoyance, need looking at. There was some very good advice on the talkpage of the creator, saying that if all of these are necessary, then start with one, get that into a decent state, then move onto others. Quantpole (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, which is why I left it for a while - I wanted to whether the articles would turn into something useful. Rather than actually following my advice the creator instead created a new set of borderline useless pages. Ironholds (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Even the formatting is barely changed. I'm having a tough time finding substantive differences between the two. The whole point of the lead is to provide the summary, and I can't help and see how this needless forking improves the readability of the articles. It just creates more pages to patrol, synchronize, and look up when finding information. This is exactly the kind of clutter that hurts the usefulness of the project. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Can't see any point to them; as Ironholds points out, they're practically the same as the articles they were copied from. If the creator wants to continue with this, then suggest completing one to a fuller degree. Skinny87 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all, and I would also add "Xth United States Congress - political parties" to that mix, as that is yet another regurgitation of material already found in the "Xth United States Congress" articles.SPNic (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete As noted, this is a copy of 46th United States Congress with some minor alterations. A mass nomination of similarly created articles would be appropriate in this instance. Mandsford (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thats what I've done - there are about 200 of the damn things, so I decided against listing them all here. Ironholds (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of a mass nomination, but there is some red tape that you have to go through. I don't think we can vote to delete something that isn't on the list; nor do I think that you can list an article unless it's been tagged. This is the only one of those 200 that has a deletion tag. You might want to consult with an administrator for suggestions on shortcuts. I'm going to propose a shortcut below, don't care if I'm booed or hissed for this. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I consulted several; consensus was "how the heck are you going to list all of those" "They're all the same format, we'll work it like that and just list one" "okay". Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete all "--th US Congress- summary" articles as G3, vandalism. Duplicating 200 or more articles that are 50+ KB is a massive waste of space. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    Doesn't fall under G3 - vandalism is doing something with the intention to harm the wiki. The user in question wasn't trying to do that. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a matter of opinion. The user intended to to take up 10 megs for reasons all his own. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete the whole lot. The summary of each article should be the first section, not a separate article. Article spin-offs should be more detailed, not less detailed. Also, WP:WHATAMESSTHISMAKES. Drawn Some (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete: I have talked with the major contributor, and the only reason he has made these pages is because of a small amount of information. He had added a little bit of factual information to the original article, only for it to be removed numerous times. He just got fed up and made a new page with the information in the original article plus his new information. If we could find this information, add it to the article; then delete it would be great.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    Could that user be a bit more specific as to what he's added? I assume it was removed from the other pages for a reason; it may not be appropriate to include it (which seems fairly likely). Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    Let alone whether it is appropriate or not to include the material, this process should not be a way to circumvent consensus. If the user thinks it should be included then there are various ways for it to be discussed. Creating a load of additional articles which then get merged is not the way to do it. Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    I tottaly agree. This is not the way to go about getting information up, but the edtitor says he is not interested in "Wiki wars" he just wants to write about what he has learned as a historian. I have tried to get him to pinpoint which information was removed, but he has not been on since I last talked to him.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well if he can't locate where this information is then we're not going to keep 200 unneeded articles around until he works it out. He isn't interested in "wiki wars" good, but the correct response when faced with opposition is not to create your own set of pages where you can have eminent domain. I'm going to inform the user who thinks he had this dispute with Stiltim about this page - he might be able to remember what this "extra content" that he didn't include in the main article was. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete per above and similar deletion debate at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/56th United States Congress - summary.DCmacnut<> 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already stated. If the editor in question ever remembers the information he added and that he says was reverted at a regular article, he can discuss it there or at Knowledge talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. -Rrius (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Having looked through Stilltim's contribution history, the edit history of the first of these articles he created, and of the article it was based on, I just don't find the protestations of having had a substantive distinction credible. The first article created was 50th United States Congress - summary. It had its genesis in a very short dispute at 50th United States Congress. As best I can tell, the only major changes were to revert the inclusion of an infobox and to re-link dates. I am not going to check all the articles, but I am having a lot of trouble believing the assertion that the summary articles were created over a dispute as to content rather than style. Most of his contributions to the main Congress articles have consisted of changing dablinks and other minor changes. The suggestion made, through Gordonrox24, that Stilltim was reverted multiple times before getting frustrated is also hard to swallow.

He was reverted once on each of the articles where he deleted infoboxes and linked dates, but he did not follow up on any of those on any talk page. Moreover, his deletion and link edits were all marked as minor and contained the deceptive edit summary "cleanup". In the end, this behaviour is hard to justify and even harder to understand. It is inconceivable that an editor of such long standing made no attempt whatever to discuss the matter on the talk page of any of the articles involved or the editor who reverted him. The attempt to sneak in his preferred format one last time, in my eyes, detracts from his credibility.

Stilltim's only attempt at an explanation was to User:Ironholds, who seemingly had nothing to do with the dispute. That explanation, here, has a whiff of wp:own about it. In the explanation, Stilltim speaks of another editor "disrupting" his attempts to create consistent format over a period of years. The infoboxes, though, were only added fairly recently and had only been reverted in this recent round of edits. What that shows is that Stilltim is not discussing a pattern of his adding material only to have it deleted. Rather, it shows that Stilltim will revert anything that does not comport with the way he wants the articles to appear. The articles now up for deletion cannot be kept just because not everyone agrees with his vision of how the ordinal Congress articles should look. -Rrius (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rrius. While I have worked with Stilltim on a number of issues (At-large members, general ticket, party identification, etc.) and find him to be a well researched editor focused on accuracy, I do think he has taken a special liking to the ordinal congress articles to the point of wanting only his version displayed. Based on my recent discussion with him, he has a "vision" in mind of how these articles should look. I asked if there could be a compromise, but in his mind the only solution is to let him bee and once he's finished "picture may be clearer." This is the same response I've gotten from him on other issues, where he feels his version is the right version, and if only other editors would understand that his way is better, all will be right with the world. His goal isn't to distrupt WP, and his intentions are noble, but no one owns articles.
With respect to the articles at hand, his response to me is tha that "individual accounts with a particular organization seems easier to find & use, rather than combine three or four presentations into one immense article." So, he wants one main article summarizing the Congress, one that displays the same info, but in terms of political party, a third formated based on state, and a forth formated with Membership changes. Basically, he does not want any discussion of party strength or membership changes on the main article, and would rather those be forks, because it is easier to present information to people unfamiliar with the subject. My view is that sending people to 4 different articles with the same info isn't simpler, but up till now I haven't made a stink out of it. But now he is objecting to what concensus determine should be with all of the ordinal congresses, and has gone of to recreate his own duplicate page in his own image. I feel we are left with no choice but to delete these articles. If there is a way to do a mass nomination for all "XXth Congress - subject" forks, we should pursue it. Stilltim has made it clear he intends to continue creating his summary articles until he is finished, so while I still assume good faith, it appears to me he is not interested in reaching concensus, only recreating what he feels was wrongfully changed.DCmacnut<> 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, this is a mass nomination - I just thought that sticking 200 articles in this was a bit OTT. Still, they all use the same format, so it shouldn't be a problem. Ironholds (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've started a discussion at Knowledge talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Layout of the ordinal Congress articles that should have occurred before the summary articles were created. -Rrius (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rrius. If Stilltim does not respond to my question on his talk page, I have no problem with a mass nomination/deletion of these articles.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Stiltim is a smart historian, but if we can't get it to Knowledge correctly, I see no reason to keep these pages.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Having tangled with Stilltim over these articles before, I believe that the problem is that the user is overly attached to his contributions. See Knowledge:No vested contributors.—Markles 16:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New discussion here.--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Panama Canal Zone national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:N. The only reference provided is an unsourced website. Google searches of various combinations of soccer/football and Panama Canal/ Panama canal zone/ Canal zone find no additional information. Even if they did, it's highly unlikely this was anything approaching a real 'national' football team, more likely to have been composed of US soldiers than 'Zonians' Stu.W UK (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Somaliland national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating Daniel Muwathe, the team's alleged coach, although no proof is given.

Previous AfD in 2007 resulted in no consensus.

This team has played once ever, against a team of occupying soldiers. They are not notable. Membership of the NF-Board alone is not evidence of notability, as demonstrated by the number of deleted teams in the template at the bottom of the article Stu.W UK (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Be a Man... Ooh Yeah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm calling this hoax. Nothing to support this. As for the text... well, read it yourself, because I can't quite put it into words. Last I was aware, there wasn't a speedy for hoax material, so *shrug* Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is {{db-hoax}} for hoaxes. Believe it or not, this does actually exist - , and it's reasonably well-known among wrestling fans as part of the long-standing feud between Savage and Hulk Hogan. But as far as the bologna that's on the linked page, definite delete (reasonable content already exists at Randy Savage, so a merge (if there were any reasonable content to merge) is unnecessary), particularly as Hogan's own much better known album Hulk Rules is a redirect. Nosleep 09:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as wrong title Indeed, Savage has had a music career and actually received radio play for a couple of his songs off this album (esp. for the title track). This one is real (as seen on Amazon), but this entire album article is definitely hoaxalicious (the 'references' consist of a Diff'rent Strokes video and a YTMND with a Savage Slim Jim ad). The actual album title (without the ...Ooh Yeah) links to the section about music in Savage's personal article. Nate • (chatter) 09:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and rewrite. This is an article that, in its current state, needs to be put down. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed pretty much all the text, as all of it was pretty much garbage. It is better to have a small bit of correct info, rather than blatantly misleading information. I've adjusted the infobox to reflect actual data from the link Nosleep provided above. Even tho it's currently at what I would call stub-level, given the comments on the incorrect name and the information already existing on the target articles, I'll still stand by my AFD nom. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's still incorrect to even have an article at this title. Be a Man... Ooh Yeah was never the title of Savage's album. Nosleep 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as silly hoax Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-National Collective Social Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced account of "political movement" with no news coverage and zero Google hits, including Google books. Possible hoax: supposed leader "Ragnar Danneskjold" is also a character in Atlas Shrugged. Hairhorn (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to NLT (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Thorne appears to be a bit part actor and a member of a boy band. Neither make someone notable. His acting credits appear to be limited to playing the likes of "DDR Kid", "Dancer", and "Playground Kid", none significant parts. He is a member of NLT (band) currently at AFD Knowledge:Articles for deletion/NLT (band) but appears to have done nothing notable outside that band. There appears to be no independent reiliable sources that show any individual notabilty for Thorne. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Inclined to say redirect to the band, as the only mentions of him specifically and not the band in web hits seem to be accompanied by the phrase "He's so hot." Consensus on the band seems to be 'keep,' and I might !vote that way myself, but there is scarce little out there in reliable sources on the individual. I'm always a bit reticent to delete something that has interlanguage wikilinks on it, thought the articles in the Portuguese and Finnish Wikipedias aren't much of anything. Nosleep 09:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Expired PROD (reason: No reliable sources demonstrating that this person meets the inclusion criteriae, in particular WP:ENTERTAINER) removed before deletion with the mention "Adding Filmography". Unfortunately, it doesn't address the sourcing issue mentioned in the PROD. Google News turns up exactly one source, which might qualify, but the GNG requires several. Google Search only returns trivial or placeholder pages. MLauba (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - Has one lead role (Triloquist), WP:ENT requires 2+. Seems to have a minor fan base with a few trivial mentions on the web + hotties semi-article. ENt requires 'significant following'. Lone news story reads as a local human interest type story. In summary, she falls just below the bar. (It is not unreasonable to think this will change, however we have WP:CRYSTAL). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Changing vote to Weak Keep per work done by MichaelQSchmidt. She still only has one notable role, so she fails ENT. However, she appears to pass the general notability guidelines by being covered in multiple sources in a non-trivial fashion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Henrik Johan Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, one event and a contested event at that. Should be merged into article about Antarctica exploration. No reason for this to have a tiny stub of its own. Age Happens (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you give a specific target article for a merge? Nosleep 07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent point. I think the History of Antarctica article would be the best place, in the section "Exploration" as it seems he isn't even mentioned there! He is already mentioned in the List of Antarctic expeditions article, 19th century. Looking at the List of expeditions article, I suspect that many of them might need to be merged in a similar way to the Temba Tsheri proposed deletion, if that is the consensus there. Age Happens (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1.—S Marshall /Cont 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have moved the article to a more correct title and corrected the page name above. --Hegvald (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: He is included in Norsk biografisk leksikon, both the current edition (freely available on-line and already linked from the page) and a previous edition (see references there). --Hegvald (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. An entry in a print encyclopedia is the best evidence possible that we should have an entry in Knowledge. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It is important to remember that WP:ONEEVENT applies whether a person has a mention in some other encyclopedia or not. Other sources may not have our guidelines, and our guidelines include WP:ONEEVENT. The person wasn't even notable enough to include in the History of Antarctica section on Exploration, and even the first person status is in doubt, as indicated in the article itself. As noted elsewhere by Nosleep, the point of the WP:BIO1E standard is to make the aerticle about the event not the person, except in extraordinary circumstances. This person's notability is dependent solely upon that one event, for which an article already exists which should include him, and that event is hardly extraordinary enough to justify a separate article. Age Happens (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If topics covered in major printed reference works of the traditional type that were edited by experts and had to pay for authors & paper (that includes the current NBL, which was printed before it went online) could not be covered in Knowledge because of some guideline, then that guideline would (in my view) be detrimental and should be ignored. In this case, however, it is clear that you are just over-interpreting the guideline. Did you even notice that your link went to a page concerned with "biographies of living persons"? --Hegvald (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • You might want to take a closer look at WP:BIO1E and compare it with WP:BLP1E. The general content of both is identical, and they are generally used interchangeably. I used WP:ONEEVENT in my comment because that was the link used by Nosleep. I usually use WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, and do so with the former for deceased people and the latter for living people. Forgive me for keeping to the usage of previous editor's comments as a way of avoiding confusion by people who don't bother to closely read the WP links. As to the other part of your comment, what other publications and outside sources use as standards is not the measure of what Knowledge uses as standards. The Knowledge guidelines are clear and in this case entirely unambiguous. Bull is known for one and only one event. And even that event is itself disputed. The event is so non-notable that he was even left off the Exploration section of the main article for Antarctic history. To quote the Knowledge guideline in WP:BIO1E, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person."" The event was a minor onr in the exploration of Antarctica. There is an existing article for that. Therefore, there is no need for a separate article about the person or persons involved. Age Happens (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, you may take a look at what that page calls the "basic criteria", where the first sentence says that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." In other words, "what other publications and outside sources use as standards" is exactly what Knowledge is supposed to rely on. --Hegvald (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable and/or poorly sourced. Just because a person is first or youngest or oldest does not justify a Knowledge article by itself. Merge this all all other "First" articles with the appropriate complete article on Mount Everest. And 1 clearly biased online source is not suitable for reliability standards. Age Happens (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Mount Everest, and by merge, I mean a sentence or two. Clear-cut case of WP:ONEEVENT - write about the event, not the individual. The event probably is notable, though. Nosleep 07:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Pemba Dorjie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moni Mulepati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leszek Cichy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marco Siffredi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Francys Arsentiev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lobsang Tshering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pasang Lhamu Sherpa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jozef Psotka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marty Hoey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep Pembo Dorije. If this statement is true: "His climb is considered one of the greatest feats in mountaineering" then there is no question about notability. IMHO ONEEVENT is there to avoid having an article about a career nurse who briefly shot into fame due to one night stand with a rock star or something. It's not supposed to prevent having an article about someone who made a single outstanding contribution in their field. Are one-hit wonders ONEEVENT? Stevage 04:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - please note that I specifically did not include climbers' articles who were also noted as having climbed other peaks, especially the famous Seven Peaks. Those individuals would indeed qualify under WP:ATHLETE but the ones noted above are not noted except for a single event, setting only one minor record in an Everest climb or dying there. The intent of ] is clear, write about the event not the person. In this case, the event has a page already - Mount Everest and a section therein devoted to "various records" which is where most of the above should be listed. I concur that perhaps a separate page for Mount Everest Climbing Records or similar would also work. But as it stands, all of the above are One-event and quite clearly so. Just because they are listed elsewhere is not sufficient, since "elsewhere" may not have the same standard. We do have a standard, and it should either be adhered to or thrown out. And to answer Stevage, The songs in the one-hit wonders are One Event, but as an event they are suitable for an article. However, the band members who participated in the one-hit wonder fall under WP:ONEEEVENT and thus are not suitable under the Knowledge guidelines.Age Happens (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. For nearly all of these subjects I have expicitly refuted the claim that they fall under WP:ONEVENT, by showing independent reliable sources that cover other activities, including in one case the very achievement that you refer to. And coverage elsewhere is the very basis of notability, provided that the "elsewhere" is substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, which I have shown for all of the subjects for which I gave a "keep" opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I suppose we have to take your objections one at time then? Very well.
  • Your objection to Temba Tsheri is that he is, you claim, also "notable as an environmental and anti-war campaigner" which seems rather a leap of logic. Temba Tsheri signed a petition (which was signed by thousands of people and included over 70 worldwide organizations) and was mentioned (only mentioned, not featured) in some articles about the petitions. How, exactly, is that notable? Anyone can sign a petition. The only reason Temba Tsheri is even mentioned as one of the co-petitioners is because of the... WP:ONEVENT. We're back to square one. Notability for one event. And the Knowledge guidelines for one event are quite clear. "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." The event belongs in some article about Mount Everest, not a separate article for every person involved in those one events.
  • Your objection to Moni Mulepati that she has some "additional notability as an author" merely begs the question. Writing a book about her one event does not qualify as additional notability. It's still all about the one event. She is still known only for that one event. Seriously? Did you read the link at all?
  • Your objection to Leszek Cichy is accepted. He is one of the Seven Summit climbers I noted above and I failed to remove him from the list. This one I can accept as having another notable event.
  • Your objection to Marco Siffredi would perhaps have gone better if you'd googled Antoine Chandellier, the author of the biography which you claim makes him notable for more than one event. Siffredi was Chandellier's good friend. A biography written by a good friend after the subject dies is hardly a reliable and independent source.
  • In the case of Francys Arsentiev you claim that her record, her death and the recovery of her body are all separate events. Well, I suppose. In the sense that each breath you take is a separate event from the previous ones. This is just silly. She died during the same event. Just that single event. The recovery, such as it was, of her body was the result of... that same one event. She is know only for that one event. Nothing else. They aren't separate events. They're the same event.
  • You object to Pasang Lhamu Sherpa because she is famous in Nepal? Again. You're begging the question. She is famous in Nepal for... being the first Nepali woman to climb Mount Everest. The third paragraph which "says it all" as you claim, only lists a posthumous Nepali award, a Nepali statue, a Nepali postage stamp and a Nepali road, a Nepali strain of wheat and a minor Nepal mountain in her honor? Why were these things awarded to her? Her one event. It's the same thing. One event. A person known only for one event. That event means she's known in Nepal, of course. And commemorated in Nepal for... that one event. Sorry, no joy on this one either.
  • For Jozef Psotka you claim that he is known for other things. He's known as a "climber" in a Slovak biography? Seriously? See the previous person. Known for what exactly? One event. Being the oldest person to climb Mount Everest without oxygen. That's it. The other mountains listed in the article are non-notable. Hundreds of people climb them every year. Not notable. His only notable event, just one event is why he's listed. You've provided no information that he is known for any other notable event.
  • With Marty Hoey we're back to begging the question again. She's notable for one thing. Dying in a fall on Mount Everest because of an unsecured harness. You claim that having a knot named after her also makes her notable. Why was the knot named after her? Because it was a new, more secure knot, named in honor of her for dying because of an unsecured harness. Right back to her one event again! The other things you claim she is listed under in the goggle search are 'all in reference to her death on the mountain.
What your objections all amount to are circular arguments and the petition principii logical fallacy. All of the people you objected to, save one, are notable for one event only. The other minor things which you claim as notability don't even come close to a standard of notability in each case. I'll repeat it for you, the guideline is quite clear, in the case of one event it is the event which should be the prefered subject of the article, not the person. In each case, the event is tied to Mount Everest and there is plenty of room for the individuals above to be so listed. Except in one case, all of the above are notable for one and only event. I'm sorry, but that is simply fact. Blindly listing Google searches without closely examining the content and begging the question in nearly every case does not amount to any kind of reasonable refutation as you claim. You're grasping at straws here. Age Happens (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Time for another marathon response, which emphasises the point that putting all of these in one nomination makes proper scrutiny of each individual case difficult.
  • The first of the sources that I offered above for Temba Tsheri focuses entirely on him and one other person as environmental activists, without even mentioning his climb of Everest, so how can you say, "The only reason Temba Tsheri is even mentioned as one of the co-petitioners is because of the... WP:ONEVENT"? It also makes it clear that he was one of the two people who presented the petition, not just one of thousands who signed it. The second source serves to confirm that this is the same Temba Tsheri.
  • The source that I gave for Moni Mulepati is about the book, not about her climb. Just because there is a chain of events leading back to the climb doesn't make this one event. You might just as well say that Barack Obama is only notable for the one event of being elected to the Illinois senate in 1996, because everything that happened afterwards in part of a chain of events.
  • The Leszek Cichy case simply creates the impression that these articles were nominated without proper due diligence, such as the reading of the articles before nomination.
  • The 400-page biography of Marco Siffredi was written by someone close to him, as very many biographies are, but, being published by a reputable publisher, is perfectly acceptable as a source for determining notability. I have never known an article about a subject to be deleted when a whole book has been published about it.
  • Francys Arsentiev is a rather more marginal case, and I'll retract the statement about her death being a separate event from her climb, but I would still argue that the recovery of her body is a separate event. References in the article focus specifically on the recovery. Again, a chain of events is not one event.
  • WP:BIO#Any biography says that, "the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" is a ground for notability. How does Pasang Lhamu Sherpa not qualify under this criterion? The source that I linked above explains how notable this award is. The fact that there is no Knowledge article about the award reflects on our coverage of the non-Anglophone world, not on the subject's notability.
  • In Jozef Psotka's case, it has always been the practice at Knowledge to have articles on people who have entries in print encyclopedias, such as national biographies. The whole point of not being paper is that we should at least as inclusive as print encyclopedias, and the point of notability is that we rely on the judgment of the publishers of independent reliable sources to decide what to include.
  • The book coverage of Marty Hoey that I linked to includes coverage of events other than her death, such as and . If you want to shell out $3.95 or $7.90 you might also want to check out some news articles from before her death.
  • Finally I would ask you to retract the statement that I was "blindly listing Google searches without closely examining the content". Doesn't my analysis of Pemba Dorjie above show that that is untrue? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Unbundle and relist separately I stand by my merge all above, but it doesn't seem at this point that the bundling is a fair process. Nosleep 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Jozef Psotka separately. WP:BIO1E? Psotka climbed more eight-thousanders, as far as I know. He was the first Slovak mountaineer on the summit of Mount Everest (together with Demjan). He is considered one of the most famous Slovak climbers and deserves own article. I've added more links and citation, the article undoubtedly has room for improvement. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Some of the articles are available in different languages Knowledge and sources are available as shown in this discussion. The idea of merging some of the articles is interesting, but we should preserve the information so we can discuss each article individually. --J 19:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton |  00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Procedural AfD. Listed per Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 10. My own view will be Keep, which I will detail below. SilkTork * 07:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep, appears to satisfy the general notability guideline (please no one suggest we need notability guidelines for psychic vampires). I really don't like the links to imageshack.us being used as references, though. I believe pictures can be references - I've used them as such myself - but they should be pictures published by reliable sources. Nosleep 07:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • And that album cover needs either a fair use rationale for its use in this particular article or it needs to be removed. Nosleep 07:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. SilkTork *
  • Keep. Has a range of reliable sources, including media sources such as Fox News Channel, The Washington Post, and Bizarre magazine along with books The re-enchantment of the West: alternative spiritualities, sacralization, popular culture, and occulture by Christopher Hugh Partridge ISBN 0567041336, and Magickal Self Defense: A Quantum Approach to Warding by Kerr Cuhulain ISBN 0738712191. The subject is presented in the article as notable because she is a "prominent psychic vampire", and an "active figurehead and speaker for those interested in vampires and vampirism" - these statements come directly from the Washington Post - , written by "Monica Hesse Washington Post Staff Writer", and Bizarre Magazine - , written by Eleanor Goodman, Chief Sub Editor for Bizarre magazine . The statement that she is a speaker on the campus circuit are supported by university newspapers. She has been published by the two leading publishers in her field - Red Wheel Weiser Conari and Llewellyn Worldwide. She has appeared in various documentaries, films, tv and radio shows, and in mentioned in several books about her field. These statements are also supported by sources, including a clip of Hannity's America in which she appears. The previous objection to the article, that it was written in a promotional manner, has now been addressed. SilkTork * 07:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not quite right.

      Partridge does not document Belanger at all, only the House Kheperu. The only mention of Belanger at all is as the author in a citation, given in a footnote, for a quotation. Nothing is said about her at all. Partridge does not even support the content in this article against which he is cited as a source. He nowhere says that Belanger founded Kheperu.

      Cuhulain has exactly three sentences on the subject of Belanger. The first mentions her as the author of a recommended book. The second and third state that in that book she included an updated version of the Black Veil. Cuhulain is actually discussing the Black Veil itself in that text.

      Hesse only mentions Belanger to give context for quoting her on the subject of psychic vampires (not Belanger), and says nothing that is actually about her except for the three words ("prominent psychic vampire") that you've quoted.

      Goodman similarly only mentions Belanger in order to quote her on the subject of psychic vampires (again, not Belanger), and again says nothing except that she authored a book and is an "active vampire scene figurehead".

      Belanger is an author who has written on other subjects, and whose writings and views on those subjects are quoted by others. But the above are not themselves evidence that other people have actually written about Belanger herself. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • weak keep In the first DrV I wrote "I'm finding a news article mostly about her , news articles that quote her in the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune, books by a real (though specialized) publisher, apparently been on Hanity's show . The enc. dramatica article certainly makes an interesting read ED/Michelle_Belanger. Ignoring the ED article for a second, I have to imagine this person is notable. Scary maybe, but notable." Hobit (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article was previously deleted by AfD because it was considered promotional in a clear violation of the NPOV policy and failing the notability guidelines in Knowledge standards. After its closure by a general consensus, it was again endorsed for deletion at a previous DRV for the exact same reason, in a once again very clear attempt at relaunching the promotional activity for this individual by herself or her agent. That DRV was requested by an user who's single edit was to open that deletion review, using an account with the name of Belanger's vampire cult. That same account Kheperu (talk · contribs) was blocked as a role account. . Now on this new trend of continuous attempts at bringing back this article in consecutive AfD/DRV requests, I want to mention that not all of the issues with NPOV were addressed, and that the articles' language does not fully comply with a scholarly accepted encyclopedic style. Stating that an individual is a psychic vampire is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, since it is subject to personal belief. It would be like stating that someone is an alien from Mars, if that was his belief or the belief of his personal cult. An encyclopedia must present well researched and established facts, not personal opinions or beliefs. This points to a conflict with NPOV on the proposed new version of the article. Adding to that, most of the new sources that were provided do not really comply with the RS policy, which clearly should not be user-uploaded images on imageshack or articles that just refer the subject or interview him, but do not review his work or discuss him in detail. There is not one single in depth reference addressing this individual from a single reliable source. This is not an indicator of notability.

The provided sources and help in rebuilding the new article were made by accounts that clearly point to an SPA behaviour, including an user that has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing precisely because of adding promotional material from Belanger in several articles across Knowledge and reverting other editor's actions in the removal of such content. This SPA indicator alone undermines the whole efforts to reopen an article already far too entwined in drama.

This author has several books published, from which the vast majority are self-published, and the rest are released by publishing houses that do not really comply with the RS policy for reliable sources. I am sorry to most Wiccans and New Agers alike, but Llewellyn and Weiser are not exactly what falls under the RS category. (Also, as a side note, please keep in mind that there are Wicca books published by University presses, as well as professional publishing houses that do comply with RS. So don't take my example on Wicca as pejorative of the cultus.) On the top of that, none of her works was ever target of peer reviews or even documented under professional scrutiny and debate, except the online opinions found in several websites and people that bought her book. There may be a few references to her name in some more reliable articles, but still they do not present true reviews on her published work. This is a clear indicator on the lack of notability, from someone who does not meet most of the WP:BIO guidelines. Bottom line is that this individual, wether as an author or as a singer, is not worthy of an article in an encyclopedia.

For such a borderline-notable article that has been used as a platform for promotional content and a series of disruptive edits in other articles related with this same individual, I believe the benefits of maintaining such an entry in the system are clearly diminished by the red flags it raises, not to mention that it would conflict directly with the COI policy that Knowledge editors so strive to enforce.

Everyone, please forgive my extensive entry on this particular DRV, but this is the sort of trend that an online encyclopedia must try to avoid. DianaLeCrois  : 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment If you feel this is a single purpose account, that I am violating the policies surrounding promotion, or that I am engaging in disruptive editing by supplying references to published articles to editors interesting in working on an entry, then please take your accusations to the appropriate administrators. A deletion discussion is a place to discuss the merits or deficiencies of the existing article in question. Not bring up past historic issues of an article which have been dealt with. Nor is it a place to throwing about accusations against other editors that you appear to have, to this editor, a completely unfounded and unreasonable grudge against.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Diana. The issues related to style and formatting of cites are being adressed, though these are not usually reasons for deleting an article - if a cite is incorrectly formatted or a sentence is poorly phrased or a word is spelled wrong, we tend to feel that these are matters that editing will improve in time. It is not expected that an article will land on Knowledge fully formed. As regards the academic response to the subject's books, that is a side issue, and is not related to the prime reasons given in the article for the subject's nobility which is that she is "a prominent member of the psychic vampire community, and an active figurehead and speaker for those interested in vampires and vampirism." This claim to notability is supported by various cites throughout the article. The mention of the publishers Llewellyn and Weiser is entirely appropriate, as they are the main publishers of the field in which the subject is prominent. In a claim that a person is prominent in a field, it is appropriate that mention is made that the person is published by the main publishers in that field. That the field is in itself a cult is acceptable to Wikipedian notability standards, as we do accept that people may be prominent in a limited field of interest, as long as the cult in itself is notable enough for an article. We have such an article, Vampire lifestyle, which is supported by scholarly works: . The matter of people's past behaviour is for a different forum, and has no bearing on the notability of the subject. This is not a vote, and what matters is the content of what is said, not who says it nor how many people say it. SilkTork * 09:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I read the first five words, "Michelle Belanger is a psychic vampire...", checked that this isn't even a fiction category, and stopped reading. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment "Michelle Belanger is is a prominent psychic vampire..." is easily edited to "Michelle Belanger is a is a prominent member of the psychic vampire community...".--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Additional reasons: Only trivial mentions in reliable sources, all the rest are self-published or trivial AND unreliable, i.e. "Authors Katherine Ramsland and Michelle Belanger are interviewed along with several other experts on the modern vampire culture" being the only mention in of her in a review of a straight to dvd "documentary" at "Dvdtown." The review goes on to say "Vampire Secrets" is intermittently interesting, but is pretty much disposable fluff." Those last 4 words sum this article up.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - notability is extremely marginal, but having read through all the sources (in particular , , and ), I think there is just about enough significant coverage here to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - There's plenty here for notability and the npov is certainly acceptable. Perhaps if we were ONLY considering this person for an article on books, or only as a singer, she might not quite meet notability compared to others in the same narrow category, but Belanger is an author, entertainer, public speaker and expert on cult or occult subjects, and as such fulfills several categories, the combined material making her a notable person. Others above have already listed the sources so I won't belabor it, except to suggest a print ref for the Bizarre Magazine article. I emailed the publsiher for the mag and am awaiting a reply. I cleaned up a few external links that appeared as links within the article and moved them to the references area. Ebonyskye (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Feature magazine article located I think someone argued not having had any articles written solely on Belanger... Well, I found one. It was posted here and is in Dark Realms issue 24, Oct 2006. I added the ref under music/Blood of Angels, but the magazine article also supports several other statements in the wiki article. Feel free to ref it elsewhere if you think it could be of use. Cheers. Ebonyskye (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

a random combination with no resident embassies. All google news search comes up with is relations on the football field . I couldn't find anything meaningful on the Irish Foreign Affairs website (especially since they don't have a resident embassy). All I could find is what the Irishaid website says which is very little and it seems like Ireland deals with relations in an Ireland-Balkans context. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

One more of the many memorial biographies for victims of crime. Neither the person nor the crime are not even barely notable. The article pushes the POV that it was a hate crime. Also, I had to remove passages accusing some people of murder that has gone without sources at least since February 2007. We need to get ride of these memorials. Not every crime is a hate crime, not every crime is notable, not every crime-victim is notable... Damiens.rf 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete I minored in queer studies at college not that long ago and I've never heard of this case. No sources (though the BLP tag that was being used to denote that was a bit puzzling) and external links to a memorial? WP:NOTMEMORIAL. List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, referring an infinitely more notable event, wound up being redirected to the article on the crime. If the crime were notable, I'd suggest doing that (or renaming this article), but it doesn't seem that it is. Nosleep 07:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per documentary film, and repeated mention / use of case. WP:BLP1E; WP:1E "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." pohick (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Pohick2, please use edit preview when making your edits rather than making so many consecutive edits in so short a time. It prevents edit conflicts, and clogging up recent changes, and page history. And I must say, the sources you've presented don't really establish notability:
  1. ^ "Obituaries Fred C. Martinez Jr.". Cortez Journal. July - August 2001.

An obituary merely tells that someone died. It does not comment on the notability of the death of the individual. This particular obituary does not even give the details of the subject's death. 

  2. ^ "Navajo Teen Death May Be Hate Crime". The Associated Press. July 12, 2001.

A reliable source. WP:GNG requires significant mention in multiple, though. 

  3. ^ Death in Cortez, CO, Hate Crime Killings

This is a letter written by someone who has a clear agenda in the situation. Not even a source, let alone a reliable one. 

  4. ^ Jon Barrett (09-OCT-01). "Getting along in Cortez: in the aftermath of the matter of transgendered Navajo Fred Martinez Jr., a Colorado town faces its dark side, and Martinez's mother faces life without her bestfriend". The Advocate.

I don't know if The Advocate is considered a reliable source, but I don't think it should be. It can't be considered neutral in a lot of what it writes. 

  5. ^ JEREMY QUITTNER (August 28, 2001). "Death of a Two Spirit". The Advocate.

The Advocate, again. 

  6. ^ http://www.coavp.org/content/view/34/44/

Trivial mention. The article is not about Martinez. 

  7. ^ http://www.tampabaycoalition.com/files/604ShaunMurphyGets40Years.htm

This is a reprint of a number of articles from local (to the area of the crime) newspapers. I don't think local newspapers can lend notability to a subject. 

  8. ^ "Case closed in Colorado.". The Advocate. 09-JUL-02.

The Advocate, again. 

  9. ^ http://www.coavp.org/content/view/34/44/

Exact duplicate of source 6. Trivial mention. 

 10. ^ SARA CORBETT (October 14, 2001). "Does a Sex Change Mean the End of the Relationship?".

Trivial mention, which is pretty clear by the title of the article. 

 11. ^ http://nhts.net/media/Addressing%20Two-Spirits%20-%20Participant's%20Manual%20(25).pdf

This appears to be a workbook of some sort. Mention of Martinez, but only in questions to be filled out which follow. This is only used to source the statement it is used as study materials, but that doesn't make the subject notable. 

 12. ^ David Campos (2002). Sex, youth, and sex education. ABC-CLIO. p. 142. ISBN 9781576077764.

One-paragraph mention in a 300-page book. 

 13. ^ Robert B. Coates, Ph.D (March 2006). "Responding to Hate Crimes through Restorative Justice Dialogue". Contemporary Justice Review: 7 - 21.

The link does not mention Martinez; it's a link to a general page for the "Contemporary Justice Review." Likely a trivial mention, though of course I can't say for certain. 

 14. ^ http://www.gpac.org/archive/news/notitle.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum=0387

This is an interview with Martinez's mother by the "Gender Public Advocacy Coalition." Not likely a neutral outlet. 

 15. ^ http://www.gpac.org/youth/news.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum=0353

Same group as above, and a trivial mention at that. 

 16. ^ http://polis.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=124494

Trivial mention of the case in a larger article about a hate crimes bill. 

 17. ^ http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8111909

Looks to be a transcript of a speech by Ted Kennedy on the floor of the United States Senate, for much the same purposes as source 16. Martinez is one of numerous cases Kennedy mentions. 

 18. ^ http://glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/record/1697.html

Links to a tribute film, almost certainly non-notable. 

 19. ^ http://www.breckfilmfest.com/home/movie.php?film_ID=835

Another link to the same film. 

 20. ^ http://www.twospirits.org/

Another film about Martinez, but again, not notable. 

 21. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1296906/

Fun fact: A guy in my Drama 101 class at college had an IMDb page, and he was a 19-year-old pothead at the time. (OK, serious wording: IMDb has long been held to be an unreliable source for anything other than airing and screening dates).


It all adds up to non-notability of the case and the subject. Listen, it's a tragedy that this kid was killed for being who he was. But that doesn't mean he or his case automatically satisfies Knowledge's notability guidelines. Nosleep 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

1 - establishes dob
2 - establishes 'who says' "hate crime", the AP
3 - verifiable source, with a POV not mine
If you have a problem with neutrality then flag don't delete, and to be consistent go AfD Brandon Teena, Gwen Araujo as well.
Thank you, I'll look at those articles. If their subjects are non-notable, then I certainly will AFD them. Nosleep 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Araujo's notability is a bit questionable to me, but it seems to be lent from the TV movie about her case, which aired on cable. As that article is plainly an atrocity, something needs to be done to it. As far as Teena, call me when the film on Martinez wins an Academy Award, then I'll gladly change my vote to keep. In any case, notability or lack of notability of separate subjects has no bearing an a particular article's claim of notability. Nosleep 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
6 - it supports the quote "beat up a fag"
9 - it supports the statement rising trend of anti-LGBT violence.
10 - it supports the connection to Brandon Teena, which is not OR.
11 - workbook when you go to Human male sexuality#Reaction to westernization of male identities you see the transgender elaborated on (of course flagged as POV)
13 - you speculate about the content of a journal article, that says in the abstract he is 1 of 3 case studies
14 - again neutrality of verifiable source is not relevant to notability.
16 - goes to show continuing remembrance by members of congress, when they propose their hate crime legislation annually (on the point of notability)
17 - ditto
18 - tribute? subject of a film
19 - film shown at film festival in 2009 years after event (i.e. not a home movie)
20 - what evidence do you have that the documentary film is not notable?
21 - funny, did he have a documentary film about him as a subject?
the citations go directly to the point: "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." in fact there is continuing coverage in films, on Capitol Hill, in study materials. this is not a memorial article, but a LGBT one, do you have a problem with that? pohick (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, please. Yes, I have a "problem" with this article because it's "a LGBT one." You might want to reread my vote statement. Nosleep 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, many of these sources accurately reference statements made in the article. What none of them do is show the notability of the subject or the crime (as I said above, if the crime were notable, this could be moved to "Murder of Fred Martinez" or something sufficiently NPOV, but it doesn't seem that that is, either). Nosleep 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Noms motivations may be noble however this is at least the fifth article on transgneder murder victims they have tried to recast generally blaming the victims and reducing them in various nihilistic ways. I find this quite troubling. There is a difference between NPOV and mythologizing murders. Every other article, BTW is still intact as well although they seem terribly interested in stubbing them down in any way possible. -- Banjeboi 03:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if I was the only person noticing this about the nom. So are you saying keep or delete? - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 03:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"Blaming the victim? Are you seriously accusing me of that? --Damiens.rf 12:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment i for one am also dismayed by the pattern of behavior by some, to flag and AfD rather than improve. it meets the 'persistent coverage' exception to the one event: how about "trivializing the victim". i really am NPOV about LGBT, but i find the offhand dismissals galling and risible. pohick (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JamieS93 00:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This article was previously deleted at Afd. A new version was created, which was then deleted under the speedy deletion criteria as being too similar to the previously deleted version. This was challenged at a deletion review, which determined that the article was sufficiently different enough to warrant a new evaluation at Articles for deletion. I am personally neutral on this deletion. Aervanath (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

another random combination, non resident embassies. google news search turns up next to nothing except one minor tourism agreement. otherwise they've competed in football competitions. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Nothing to see here, move along. No notability. One of the 37,000+ poteential bilateral relations articles the subject of which is not notable in any way. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment In looking at the infoboxes that adorn these and other articles, it seems some notability guidelines should be spelled out (if they haven't been already), because there's a LOT of seemingly random matching of two nations that's been done, but a lot that hasn't yet. Lot of redlinks. Nosleep 06:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
almost all of these articles were created by now banned user Groubani (talk · contribs) without applying WP:BEFORE. I agree that many that were created seem very random. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Mmm, it seems this is a bigger issue than I first realized. Nosleep 06:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a shame, the notable and worthy articles among this lot have been completely overshadowed by these steaming piles of crap (excuse my frustration) passing themselves off as "articles". OK, they have formal relations, but so do just about every pair of countries on Earth- a point the creator seems keen to make. They don't have resident embassies and there's no evidence of any significant agreements here. Also, "both countries established relations"- it would be rather odd if one established relations and t'other didn't! HJMitchell You rang? 10:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with HJ-- some of these do have merit, and most are random creations by an editor who cranked out one article after another. I feel the same way about people who post the exact same comment on each discussion-- we've seen "keep them all until a committee meeting is over", "delete them all", "merge a bunch of them into another article". There are others, like HJ, Birutorul, Wily, LibStar, etc., who take the time to weigh the merits of each individual article, and others who take the time to consider the arguments in favor or against an article. In this case, a Google search didn't turn up much -- there was mention of a "transport agreement", and even that was buried inside a press release from the Bahrain News Agency. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - as far as I can tell, no independent, in-depth coverage has been given to this topic, which thus fails WP:N. - Biruitorul 16:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No third-party coverage of the article topic itself. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Foreign relations of Greece, which now holds this content. But please hang on until the content has also been added to Foreign relations of Bahrain. Aymatth2 (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JamieS93 00:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

although North Korea has an embassy in Mexico, there appears no significant coverage of any relations except this one article . other than that coverage seems to be of Hillary Clinton making comments about North Korea whilst in Mexico. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, just as it's fallacious to argue that every bilateral relations article is inherently notable, it's also wrong to delete them en masse. Unfortunately, just as with every other article, they have to be seperately and individually evaluated for their notability. The problem here is not with the existence of these kinds of article, it's that the editor who created them obviously took no interest at all to insure that only those which were notable and interesting were put up. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Comment - No, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater: some of them actually have a point. Would you call Canada - United States relations, British-Irish relations or Japan-Korea relations non-notable? (Granted, a lot of them are pointless, but not all of them… DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Early close, speedy keep by discussion. AGF, folks. Keegan 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

<<Courtesy admin blanking of nomination statement as negative unsourced BLP attack content. Dlohcierekim 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)>>

— Aa45955 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

  • Comment I disagree with the nominator, and think that they are going for a straw man argument; I find no evidence that they're pro pedophilia or anything, nor do I think they're trying to mislead people into being a "safe" site. Aren't adult sites usually plastered with warnings out the wazoo? The article makes it pretty clear that it's an adult MMO as well, and obviously it can't say what the users believe because that'd run afoul of WP:NPOV. With that in mind, though, do they really meet notability? Every freaking source is primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 04:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment that I'm a little confused as to where to leave. I have to say, I didn't see one guideline or policy brought up in that entire nomination. At a glance, the article looks okay, but if it's missing notable information that can be verified by reliable sources, add it. If the subject is non-notable, perhaps that should have been mentioned somewhere in the nomination. Even if everything the nominator said is true, I'm inclined to say, assuming the subject is notable, keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. Nosleep 04:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and Warn nominator; this is disruption to prove a point. No comment on the sources; let someone who obviously doesn't have a bone to pick against the thing nominate it or even fix it. -Jeremy 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Changing to Speedy Close AfD; nominator seems to be doing everything in his/her power to scare people just coming upon this nomination. There is zero doubt in my mind that this is a bad-faith nomination. Everything I said about WP:SOFIXIT above still stands. -Jeremy 06:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as no guideline or policy rationale given for deletion. I also agree with warning the nominator regarding a single-purpose account used for edit warring as evidenced by the related talk pages. Also, User:Kotra is to be commended for patience and explaining things and remaining civil to the nominator. Drawn Some (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
Incidentally, I don't see anything in those little pics that a child with a pet dog or cat or other mammal doesn't see everyday, except that the animals walk on two legs not four which is common on cartoons like Bugs Bunny and the ones with Tweety Bird. But maybe I'm just not looking hard enough. Drawn Some (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Nosleep 02:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Man Who Tasted Shapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Book whose author is also an article nominated for deletion. This "article" has not expanded beyond a single sentence in the four years it has existed. More generally, I don't believe the subject satisfies WP:BK. Nosleep 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep and expand. An updated edition of the book appeared in 2003 , and in the course of the AFD discussion on the author Richard Cytowic, DGG noted this review in the Times Higher Education Supplement . There may be other reviews, which would satisfy WP:BK. However, even if this eventually passes WP:BK, this article clearly needs substantial expansion. A one sentence stub is essentially useless. Edhubbard (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If you expand the article and show that it satisfies WP:BK, I will gladly withdraw this AFD. Nosleep 03:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Google News search found dozens of sources all of which could be used to expand the article and demonstrate the book satisfies the notability standards. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Good expansion. Hopefully better sourcing is also coming. Nosleep 04:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  03:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm having trouble finding the "'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent" required by WP:BIO. Most coverage is only trivial, mentioning fight results etc. Subject is a professional athlete, but not in the sense WP:ATHLETE assumes (he's not fighting at the equivalent level to say pros in the NFL; next to all mixed martial arts competition is professional since most state athletic commision does not have an amateur level). His fights are all in lower-level regional promotions, something acknowledged in the prose when mentioning fights to UFC (a top-level promotion) rejects as particularly notable fights. --aktsu  03:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JamieS93 00:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The article is in pretty bad shape, but the subject has won a number of "titles" and such. Not being a wrestling fan, I can't tell if they are important or not so I am bringing this to AfD with the hopes that someone knowledgeable can opine (and hopefully fix the article if worth saving). I remain neutral at this time. ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And the same search with quotes around "Brian Cannon" return a whopping 352 hits. Nosleep 04:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius has nominated the article for speedy deletion under G11. This process may be moot. Nosleep 06:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Not speedied. Nosleep 06:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Interesting does not mean notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB criteria. Has been speedily deleted for CSD A7 in the past, but has been improved. Nick—/Contribs 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as not notable, no third party sources. Doesn't even raise a ripple on Alexa Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as A7 web. A search for "Political Simpleton" on Google returns only 187 unique hits. Many of those are to the website or its press releases, and the only ones I can see from reliable sources are using the term without reference to the website. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable site. Yintaɳ  12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Allow We feel this is a perfect compliment to the subject news aggregator. Our site may not have top rankings on Alexa or a lack of unique hits as stated above but Wiki users now have a clear example of what a manual news aggregator is. Someguy1221 has given us some great advice and we have made some substantial changes since. NickW557 has viewed the original and now has seen the newly updated version. From his comments, he seems to agree that this has been an improvement. It would seem that when a person looks on Knowledge for news aggregator, he or she has an example to go by.

Please take this into consideration and I thank all the Wiki editors for their helpfull comments. 167.75.254.253 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ALLOW In the notablilty guidelines it says that popularity is not a guarantee of notability, so it follows that lack of poularity (as shown by a poor position in a search engine) is not an indicator of LACK of notability. The Political Simpleton does not show up on the first page of any searches other than those asking for the sitename specifically. Is that the basis for it being judged un-noteworthy by those who feel it should be deleted? If so, that reason does not follow the guidelines. I am left asking if popularity is not a basis for notability, then that leaves the criteria as subjective and stacks the deck for very worthy sites that may not fit another person's idea of worthiness. This leads to abuse, which I know is not the intent here. Wiki is trying its best to have some kind of standard, which is appreciated. If the original content on the site is of dubious quality or consists of rants, then the tag of un-noteworthy may be more valid. If the original content on the site is intelligent and insightful, then those contributions are noteworthy and so is the site by association.Laurabramble (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC) — Laurabramble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Plea It might be that "Wiki users now have a clear cut example of what a manual news aggregator is", but, while fairly sure that the article is in English, this one isn't really sure what the heck it's about. This is unusual for him in matters outside the incomprehensible worlds of sport and hiphop. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - non-notable website, unsourced; retention arguments seem to be WP:ILIKEIT with a side order of blatant conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Allow Alexa may not be an accurate gauge of site usage as it counts only those who sign up for Alexa. I would suggest that taking such stats seriously does not work. Please advise. Everyone who looks at traffic knows that Alexa cannot be used to assess low traffic sites which this site falls. All set aside, this is not about SERPS, ratings or political views but about legitimacy of submission. This article is more of an extension of the definition of "news aggregator" than a so called "plug" for a website. Ray Wilkinson Newportbreakers (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)— Newportbreakers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • AllowQuestion to the board before final decision is made: How can an editor request a “speedy delete” when that editor has not thoroughly reviewed an article? The views of “Orange Mike” should hold no water in the fact that he has not reviewed this article in full. Clearly, editor Mendeliv has taken the time to review the article and informed “Orange Mike” what my affiliation is with the article in question. My name, Ray Wilkinson, is visible THREE times in the article. Editors, please do not bash me WP:ILIKEIT for going "against the grain". Ray Wilkinson Newportbreakers (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • response - Of course I've read the article in full; I just wanted to get you to admit that you are in fact Ray Wilkinson; in which I have obviously succeeded. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • response - Orange Mike, are you trying to imply that I am hiding behind an iron curtain? I have signed every post and comment, “Ray Wilkinson”. I wish you would be more professional and not turn this into a confrontation to avoid the blatant incompetence which you have shown not only to me but to your fellow qualified editors. Thank you, Ray Wilkinson Newportbreakers (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

List of students at South Park Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Overly indiscriminate characters list, listing every single one-shot in the series. I'm fine with listing the four main boys along with other semi-majors like Butters, but there's just way too much information on this list, most of which is in-universe/fancrufty expansion on List of characters in South Park. The main character list is fine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about on the other list. There are literally millions of South Park fans, they are going to add these characters somewhere somehow. It's similar to the xxxx in popular culture articlists that are springing up. I 'm not implying that means it ought to be kept, I'm just saying it's something to consider. Drawn Some (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with the main list of characters, but keep all of the info. It's well sourced and written just fine. 02:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)TJ Spyke
  • Delete as trivia. Everything only here is only here because it couldn't responsibly be included in any of the other articles, so they got around that with yet another list. ThuranX (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If we were to delete this list as trivia, everything on it would have to be, well, trivia, which it isn't. And there's nothing wrong with creating several articles when one would have been too long. 96T (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That which isn't trivia is covered elsewhere already, and that redundancy serves to mask the triviality of the 'unique' instances. ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
        • No it isn't. I'm not saying that all the characters are notable (they aren't), but some of them are. Check out the sections on Timmy and Token Black - both contain real-world information and multiple non-trivial secondary sources that establish notability. Most of the information on characters such as these (and other notable characters whose notability isn't fully established by secondary sources yet) can't be found in any other article. 96T (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to say delete, though a model for a list of this scope that I would consider reasonable appears at List of one-time characters in The Simpsons. Nosleep 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No opinion Nosleep 11:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a fork-for-length. JJL (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep a strong keep actually, as the right sort of article. Need I mention the once-popular alternative of having individual articles? This is the way to present material and still avoid that trap. TPH, I propose a simple solution: we KEEP the list, and agree not to make articles on the minor characters. I can't promise what other people will do, but I certainly will use whatever suggestive power I have to join you (and everyone else who like us wants a reasonable solution) in preventing this. In return, you try your best jointly with me (and the other reasonable people here) to prevent the deletion of combination articles.. We can then discuss the proper amount of content for each of the characters. And, even more important, get the descriptions written in a more encyclopedic way. Deleting an acceptable article to prevent people making bad articles out of it does not make sense--its like saying, we cant do this perfectly so lets not do it at all. If we had waited for articles to be done right, the encyclopedia would not have gotten very far. DGG (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to the main character list if necessary. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep A rather well-defined list, backed up with dozens of reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete More suited for a fansite, not needed on Knowledge. However, if you wanted to keep the content, you could always add it as a section to the South Park article. If you were going to keep this article, you would then have to create a more notable article of the "List Of Students At Springfield Elementary School" for the far more notable The Simpsons. Enough said. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Other stuff doesn't exist isn't a valid reason for deletion. Neither is "not needed". There are way too many South Park characters to include all notable information about all of them in the main article. And I'm not that familiar with The Simpsons, but keep in mind that South Park Elementary is one of the main settings, and probably the main setting, of South Park, and I don't think Springfield Elementary plays the same role on The Simpsons. 96T (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sky Attacker this is trivia to the max. JBsupreme (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - plenty of notability. We don't delete articles becuase they might be written poorly or because they might have too much information. If there are problems with the article, fix them. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Although I've been working on this article for some time, and in all modesty noticeably improved it, I completely agree that it's too long, full of trivia, and in-universe, but the current state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. The article cites many sources, including enough third party sources to establish notability for individual characters (this one, for example). There are many characters on this list that aren't particularly notable, true, but that could be sorted out by trimming the list (perhaps by turning the "Background characters in the fourth grade" section into a simple point list), not by deleting the entire list and letting all the notable characters (Craig, Jimmy, Timmy, Token, the Goth Kids et al) go with the non-notable ones. The reason there are several lists of South Park minor characters and not a single one is that one such list would be too long. 96T (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to convince me to keep the article, you could start by gutting it, removing the non-notable ones and stripping it down to ones for which third-party sources exist. I'm suggesting to delete because the article seems so bad that this seems unrealistic. Prove me wrong! Cazort (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
These articles grow to unmanageable sizes because people do not police them against people adding material that cannot be referenced in independent sources. The pages are being treated like a fan wiki and this is inappropriate. Cazort (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems there are multiple problems with this article. Many of the editors above have asserted that this article is well-sourced. I would like to raise the concern that the "http://www.southparkstudios.com/" site, and references to the episodes themselves, are not independent sources. This is highly problematic--it can't establish the notability of any of the material here. Such sources are only appropriate to fill in small details once the overall notability of the material has been established by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This whole page looks a lot like a fan wiki, not an encyclopedia. The page is so heavily reliant on episodes and the studio site that I think it's basically unsalvageable. Cazort (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, but I'd like to point out that there are also many secondary sources in the article: , , , , , , , , and . These are from different media and include both articles dealing exclusively with single characters and articles that aren't about South Park at all, but refer to individual characters. Google News searches show that there is much out there: Searches for Timmy, Token, Jimmy, and Goth Kids, for example, all return dozens to thousands of hits, many of which seem to be relevant. I'll add as many secondary sources as I can into the article and probably (I haven't got that much time these days, exams coming up) trim/remove all the stuff about the non-notable characters in the next days or the near future, and hopefully other people will do the same. 96T (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I change my recommendation to Keep. Still needs cleanup, yes. And I am still very bothered by how much it relies on the episodes themselves as sources, yes, but I think you've convinced me the content here is notable. Cazort (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep this debate is ridiculous. The school in south park plays the same role as 742 Evergreen Terrace for The Simpsons. Nevertheless, while the school is FAAAR less important for Simpsons than it is for South Park, there is AN IDENTICAL article to this one at Springfield Elementary School which simply lacks the "List of" part in the title (one should look carefully at that article and then see the obcious similarity b/w this article and that hidden list). Furthermore, The Simpsons has multiple, much less notable/relevant/wikipediable lists such as List of fictional characters within The Simpsons, List of one-time characters in The Simpsons, List of animals in The Simpsons, List of recurring characters in The Simpsons, Rainier Wolfcastle, Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character). Until these get deleted, arguing that the present list should be deleted is a clear lack of impartiallity. Nevertheless, List of staff at South Park Elementary should/may/could be merged with this list. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Its something people would find interesting, and if you don't, you wouldn't be likely to find it at all. It is as valid as any other list of information. Keep it as it is, don't erase all the one time characters or anything lame and bitter like that, or try to delete it with a merge/redirect(this isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I have seen these sorts of horrible things happen before, so wanted to clarify that keep means keep all of it). Dream Focus 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed all the characters that only appear in one episode, compressed the "Background characters in the fourth grade" section into a brief list, rewritten some sections, added more secondary sources, and removed some of the more dubious claims. I'll keep working on the article in the near future, but not today and not tomorrow as I simply haven't got time. But the article is now much shorter and less trivial, and in my humble opinion it clearly establishes the notability of Craig Tucker, Timmy, and Token Black through secondary sources. Searches on Google News show that there are enough secondary sources to establish notability for the other characters who now have their own sections as well (I found this, this and this article dealing with Pip, for example). Unless someone else does, I'll get to all of them as soon as I have the time, as well as improving the sections on the characters for whom notability has been established. 96T (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The series and the major characters are certainly notable and a summary character list is certainly acceptable. The main character list provides very little information and serves as an acceptable overview while this list presents a more nuanced description without belabouring the issues. An acceptable list article that can show the way forward as each character develops on their own. We saw this happen with Pip and Butters each getting more full treatment and story development. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep One-offs can be removed, but for the sake of the moderately notable classmates, the article should be kept. Its potential for improvement is reason enough. If it is deleted, create a redirect destination for Timmy, Token, Pip, etc. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, on second thought...Merge. All of the info on the more notable students can be merged into the "students" section of List of characters in South Park. Just get rid of the wikitable format for that particular section. Come to think of it, this would probably be best for the "families", "townsfolk", "faculty", and "minor characters" sections as well. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If we are two merge all these lists into the main character list, there's no reason to delete. Merging and redirecting will be fine. 96T (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mind back to Keep, but only for the time being (and for the reasons I gave on my initial "keep" vote). Merging it right away into List of characters in South Park would throw that article out of whack, seeing as how it's a list-class article consisting entirely of wikitables. I've opened a discussion on the South Park WikiProject discussion page about the possibility of merging this and the other character lists into one article. So, yeah, keep the article so that a merger can be discussed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - Article has relevant and interesting information about characters in SP that don't fit neatly into the SP article itself without making that article massive. It seems reasonable enough to keep it with so many editors pledging to improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noosentaal (talk • contribs) 11:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I did a thorough cleanup of this article, and also opened a discussion on its talk page. I know I had voted for "delete" earlier (before changing it back to "keep"), but in essence I was suggesting a merger of primary and seconday characters and the deletion of insignificant background character descriptions. This nomination isn't really justified considering that a cleanup would resolve the issues addressed by the proponents of a deletion. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There were several strong and weak arguments on both sides, so consensus in this discussion was far less clear than in Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Longjohn Flap or Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Dear Dad...Again. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

5 O’Clock Charlie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article consists of nothing but a shot for shot PLOT, and had been prodded for almost two years. Nowhere is any assertion of notability or any real-world information of any sort. ThuranX (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

*Keep unless you plan to delete all the other Mash episode articles. The article is atrocious, but potential exists for it to be improved and there are thousands of articles on TV show episodes. Now, if you think they're all a hopeless case, then that's a different argument. This is not an article of any quality right now, but neither are any of the other articles in the same series. Nosleep 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Delete per emerging consensus and subsequent discussion, but I still consider this procedure fundamentally flawed. Nosleep 05:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So what? Does that make anything I said untrue? If articles about this TV show aren't suitable for Knowledge, then delete them all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. You'll have to really convince me that just one or two are suitable for deletion, though, when they're all in pretty much the same shape. Nosleep 03:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
same gaming as always. Nom all, it's a bad faith nom, do it one by one, it's not enough. OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I will do a few a night till it's done. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a procedure in place to nominate numerous articles at the same? And are you saying you do intend to nominate them all overwhelming majority of them? Nosleep 04:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying I intend to review all of them. Certainly not all are worth nom'ing. The premiere, finale, and the one where Henry Blake dies already have enough real world coverage; I have little doubt at least a few others will be similarly notable.ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
How 'bout now? :P Nosleep 04:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not what WP is all about. As it appears to include description of every move and every shot, I'd say the article reads of WP:FANCRUFT. It should be redirected to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 2) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to parent article. No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete there is no real world context and criticism. No reliable sources establish this as an independently notable episode. Then redirect it to the episode list.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep notable series, split for length. The various episode guides provide plenty of reliable coverage. JJL (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - trivial coverage. Would be suitable for a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the, specially when that parent has such tremendous notability itself. Discussions about a merge or sourcing belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. And so what if its been prodded for 2 years? Wiki has no WP:DEADLINE that something be done within some arbitrary length of time (except when the issue is forced through AfD). Schmidt, 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. In this case, the parent article is the LoE, wherein none of my nominated articles, as 'split', though I do not see their writings as splittings, made any credible assertion of notability to justify the plot lengths which would, under your thinking, be used as the reason for a split. So with no notability for almost all of these (I did withdraw my nomination of one), all of these should go back to the LoE. A given episode can then be split out properly if there exists proof that that episode has independent, not inherited, notability, since WP doesn't do Inherited Notability. ThuranX (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Notability on Knowledge is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
            • The episode itself provides a source of some information, for example the title credits give the name of the director, as well as the plot. None of the sources cited appear to give much information beyond what is available by watching the episode. In this context, I don't necessarily agree they provide significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There is excellent commentary and criticism for each episode in the guides, retyping the quotes is slow and tedious. If your clever you can get Google to spit up the text for a quote to cut and paste, and won't have to retype it. The DVD set has commentary too and are at my library, but even more work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Prodded almost two years ago; no independent assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment This particular episode makes a very mild claim to importance in that it supposedly was the first episode written by Alan Alda. Of course there is no reference given and it is unlikely that this was written about in sufficient depth and breadth to satisfy requirements for notability. I'll hold off on my "delete" though in case someone has references that discuss this episode. Drawn Some (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • ReplyDon't insult every other editor who commented. As said before, that level of material can easily be handled at the list of episodes. And yes, articles do need to substantiate the notability of the topic. The article you reference has three sources, so I suppose that met the burden of NOTE for the botany, or mycology, group. ThuranX (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And prophylacticly if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • commentNiteshift36 has made this same small, unsupported statement at many, if not all, of these MASH AfDs, and not provided any sort of 'proof' of notability assertion within any such article. ThuranX (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
And yet again, I am forced to follow behin ThuranX and source these notable articles, when this all could have been avoided by discussing this at List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) and gaining a consensus first. Why was WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE ignored? Why the unnecessary drama? What reaction did you expect?Ikip (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. I've explained myself over and over and over and over. I'm not interested in Merge/Redirects of non-notable episodes with improbable (to be kind) titles which won't ever be searched on. I do not believe that the vast majority of my nominated pages describe ANYTHING Notable. Episode Guides are proof of SERIES notability, NOT of each episode. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I see no evidence, however, that it's supported by Knowledge policy or guidelines. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I will add here shortly. This should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles, per WP:PRESERVE. In reagrds to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is being seriously attacked, so much so the page is protected for 2 weeks. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Keep and improve. Sources added establish notability, as defined at WP:GNG. More real-world content is needed, but that's an editorial issue, not a deletion rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • They do not meet the GNG definition of Notability - the coverage does not address the subject in detail, nor is it in most of these cases more than trivial. The sources are episode guides. They recount the plot, which is already present without sources and without real world context. Citing a plot summary by fans to other plot summaries published by fans doesn't make for the real world notability needed. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Whether it's trivial or not is a matter of individual judgment. You think it is, I think it's not. We'll have to agree to disagree, and see which side the community comes down on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Procedural Close per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Knowledge has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Knowledge does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, 06:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Dlohcierekim 14:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawing... my bad. See... this is why it's good to list on AfD. :P slakr 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails notability requirements for inclusion; Pulitzer prize nomination claims appears to be falsified. Publications are internal to his university, as is the alleged documentary; appears to have no significant field contributions per WP:BIO.

Also, self-promotional article (borderline G11) created using several socks, which also edited other pages on the subject to create backlinks to the biography. --slakr 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep: Although the article clearly has COI issues, I would argue that the subject is notable. He is the author of several books published by the MIT Press on synesthesia. As both his self-written bio article and the synesthesia article that I have substantially contributed to state, he played a critical role in helping to bring this neurological phenomenon back to popular awareness, and is widely recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Thus, the subject of the article satisfies WP:Notability (academics) "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." As for the Pulitzer nomination, if you check carefully, the website only lists finalists and winners, not all nominees. Thus, the failure to find the nomination listed on the website does not mean that he has falsified the fact that he was nominated; it merely means that he was not a finalist or winner, which is not claimed. On the other hand, the article is still available online if you log in to the New York Times website here . It is a major, nine page article, in a major newspaper magazine. In all, multiple books published by reputable publishing house (MIT Press), a generally acknowledged foundational role in a scientific field, and other such things are all notable. The COI issues should be dealt with separately. At a more general level, this is bad practice. First, the editor was blocked for suspected sock-puppetry without any time for discussion, and then his bio article, to which he has been the main contributor, is nominated for deletion when he cannot even respond to the nom since he has an indef. block. Edhubbard (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    Comment. I agree that the article should stand on its own merits. This is why I've first and foremost focused on the substantive issue of notability. I hadn't seen that the block was changed, but the main point for me is that main contributors would normally be expected to know the most about why they think the subject is notable, etc, etc, and as the main contributor is blocked we will not be getting many comments beyond mine for now. When does the AFD close? Edhubbard (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    AfDs now run a full seven days. The sockpuppetry was blatant, and after being told about the COI guidelines, the editor proceeded to use a sockpuppet to create a second version of an article about one of his books (the first was deleted as copyvio). I believe WP:AGF has been stretched to reduce the block in this case, but had that not been done they were still able to ask for an unblock just as any other blocked editor could. What do you suggest should happen in cases where editors are legitimately blocked and unable to participate in deletion discussions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    Is there any way to allow blocked editors to edit specific pages, like project pages? I would guess that it might be, since I know that blocked editors can edit their own talk pages. In this case, it may be less of an issue, as it appears that the growing consensus is that this article should be kept, cleaned up, and edited by some non-involved editors, including your own vote to keep. Given that his block is now 72 hours, User:Cytowic will have a chance to help contribute to the discussion and to providing evidence, and so my complaint is somewhat (happily) moot. Additionally, I think that, had User:Cytowic really understood the rules and been trying to circumvent them, he simply would have signed up with a different username from the start, or simply not created an account to begin with. He edited his own bio page in plain sight, yes, but based on his comments on my talk page, I don't think he has entirely understood how wikipedia works. I agree that WP:AGF has been generously applied here after the initial very quick block and initial AFD nomination, but perhaps a little more time before moving to these escalating to blocks and so on would have achieved similar outcomes. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Comment Found mention of the subject on a site independent to it here. Most the first results to a web search give Cytowic's own site or links to his book The Man Who Tasted Shapes, which does not appear notable per WP:BK. Nosleep 03:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Also, independent verification of the MIT Press books on the MIT Press website . The book that has had the most impact on the scientific community (as opposed to popular audience books) is Synesthesia A Union of the Senses. Although this is an academic review for academics, Noam Sagiv (now at Brunel University) provides some context in which to evaluate Cytowic's role in the renaissance in synesthesia research in his review .
  • Strong Keep Highly notable as an author: His major books, published by first rate academic publishers like MIT Press, are held in a great number of libraries: , Synesthesia a union of the senses in over 1000 libraries according to WorldCat, and translated into German and Japanese, The man who tasted shapes by almost as many & translated into German, the more technical The neurological side of neuropsychology in over 300. His 2009 book, Wednesday is indigo blue : discovering the brain of synesthesia is likely to be just as important. Google News Archive shows reviews of the books in dozens of reliable sources , including THES , NYTimes , etc. etc. Nominations like this can be avoided by following the practice recommended in WP:BEFORE, and by not making assumptions about editor behavior. Not everyone who writes their own bio articles is actually non-notable. Some are even famous. DGG (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs some cleanup, but the claims of notability and the sources provided more than justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Stong keep - The subject is undoubtedly notable, the article just needs punching up. The COI issues aren't relevant in this instance. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - COI issues notwithstanding, meets notability guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete - copyright violation - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Analysis. Largely duplicates Alternative investment. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Butcher & Bolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a non-notable band. The article's creator flicked away an A7 tag, so I decided to bring it here for a full discussion of its merits. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I can't any reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Also, this article has a lot of original research. Iowateen (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. The article, as it started, implied notability (there's no serious case for A7'ing blues musicians from the 1920s). Then, a later anon, who smelled a rat, fuddied up the language to make the article look ridiculous and call out the hoax. I think he's right, but using a notability argument based on the current revision isn't healthy. That said, hoaxes aren't really speediable; per WP:HOAX, "Suspected hoaxes should be investigated thoroughly, and only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be speedy deleted as vandalism." I may be wrong about the hoax, though I don't think I am, and it's reasonable to allow for five days for someone to try and prove me wrong. Chubbles (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I dunno. "Virtually unknown (and apparently not in existence) for about seventy years, he "came to light" in 2008, when a collection purporting to be rare recordings of him, named Blues Pioneer, was torrented and placed on such websites as Youtube and Last.FM. The recordings, however, are of songs dating from much later than his active dates, and were obviously recorded on modern (post-1940s) equipment." was enough to convince me that this is bunk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. You're reading the current version, which has been rearranged by an anon to look silly. The initial version doesn't sound so ridiculous. But again, I do think it's a fake - but the speedying is all happening way too fast. No one, but me, has investigated thoroughly the hoax, and I haven't really investigated it that thoroughly, either. Take five, everybody. Chubbles (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem. Everyone's way, way, way, way too freaking cautious here. I think we err far too much on the side of caution. 0.0001% chance that it's not a hoax? Let's let it wade through AFD for a week or longer! We're in no damn hurry. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Didn't want to get personal here, but I spent a hell of a lot of time on this website re-writing articles for bands that had been A7'ed in great haste. Cuts both ways, Ten. Chubbles (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. If someone effs up and deletes something that shouldn't be, we can re-create it. I'm not saying we should get deletion-happy, but this total hoax job has been sitting around way too long, and we're forced to keep it around a while longer than it should be, only because one person refutes a speedy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You may have a point, Chubbles. I've done some cleanup. It needs work, clearly, but still needs some more data methinks. Altered my !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Knowledge is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable. This article is not notable and contains little to no information. RocketPride (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC) — RocketPride (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 improvements and WP:DEADLINE. AfD is not cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dad...Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodded almost two years ago; no independent assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply It's been prodded for two years with nothing but trivia, which I removed, an IB and one line of plot. Now it's one line of plot and the IB. What notability does it assert? ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
We have stubs all the time, waiting to be filled out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep all of these episodes seem to have entries, and deleting this one will break the scheme and the navigation in the sidebox. If these are to be deleted/pruned then a policy is needed to judge amongst them, and decide what is a reasonable fork-for-length and what isn't. JJL (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply My intent is to delete more, but mass deletions of such messy situations inevitably lead to accusations of bad faith and vendettas and so on. One at a time is the way to go. If I had nominated a mass of the episodes, I'd likewise be opposed for NOT nominating one at a time. As well, OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a reason to keep. Further, nothing says the navbox cannot send readers to a list of episodes. ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment well, this isn't so much a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as it is a lengthy list of very similar articles from this and other TV shows. A single policy is the best way to handle it. I can view this one on its own as failing WP:N and in contest as passing WP:SPLITTING and deleting it as being unfortunate to delete just some of them in light of WP:Summary_style#Subarticle_navigation. In the context of M*A*S*H and all the attention it has garnered, and thinking of how so many TV shows are handled this way on WP, I don't think going piecemeal is the right approach. Some discussion on how TV shows like this should be handled would useful (cf. the recent success of Knowledge talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force for the raft of builtaeral relations articles). JJL (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Gaming the system isn't appreciated. Had I nominated the dozens of bad MASH articles which all fail PLOT and have been prodded for years, then you'd be here complaining the same damn thing, instead you're complaining that I nominated one, and should instead formulate a policy single-handedly before nominating crap for deletion. This is far easier to resolve than you think. The South Park episodes have a different navigation system than MASH does; using that system would take readers to the notable articles directly, and to the list of episodes if not notable. And insisting that without a uniform policy this can't be nom'd is a form of OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it'st 'other crap will still exist and that's somehow unfair. ThuranX (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment I encourage you to WP:AGF. JJL (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright then. List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_3) shows that there are already breaks in the system you're so reluctant to see destroyed. Clearly this can be winnowed some more, with notable episodes being broken out, nad non-notables relegated to the episode list. No one's asking for a salting, so if truly WP:RS material occurs, they can be recreated as stronger articles. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The way to deal with breaks in sequence is to write the missing partsDGG (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Not if there's nothing notable to write about. The vast majority of MASH episodes demonstrate that there is not. ThuranX (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep perhaps the solution to to merge the articles properly with consensus obtained after discussing it on an appropriate page, instead of taking it here? thats merge , not redirect to a over-short list of teasers. Long or short, combined or separate, the material has to say what happens in the episode. Any episode summary that end in ... is almost certainly not encyclopedic content. Bad content is our problem, not whether or not we have the content in separate articles. I am a little interest by the announced decision ihere at an AfD to change the balance of articles about episodes. we've been discussing what to do about fiction without reaching a conclusion, but with some attempt at compromise. It seems decidedly unhelpful to try to start a campaign now. DGG (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply What notability does each demonstrate? NONE. NO assertions of notability. No real world content. And the bad faith accusation that I'm somehow circumventing a non-starter discussion on notability in fiction is ridiculous; I've been involved with it for over year, and was there when the community overwhelmingly rejected FICT. I've nominated just a few of the bad articles to avoid exactly that attack, and now that I'm getting the attacks anyways, it's at least clear that there's no way to nominate fiction without being attacked. ThuranX (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment the issue isn't individual notability of the episodes as much as organization/splitting: How best to keep the M*A*S*H article from being too big to be readable. I wouldn't object to each season having a single page, but there should be a discussion of a uniform way to handle this. We have many TV series covered here and deleting episodes here-and-there isn't a scalable way of addressing the issue. Also, there are plenty of reliable sources: See the episode guides listed here for example. JJL (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Fill in a better plot summary. There are several books out that have commentary on MASH episodes, pre 1990 TV is at a disadvantage for having the first run before the Internet age. Also when quoting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, keep in mind: Knowledge:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he thinks it's clever. Not the first time he's used it, either. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


There appears to be a misunderstanding. It has not been PRODDED for 2 years. Dlohcierekim 03:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand plot summary and add more real world context and criticism, this one needs to be expanded not deleted. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. We also need to move the images to the seasonal outlines. And prophylacticly if your going to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please keep in mind the newer WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Episode is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • commentNiteshift36 has made this same small, unsupported statement at many, if not all, of these MASH AfDs, and not provided any sort of 'proof' of notability assertion within any such article. ThuranX (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Since all M*A*S*H episodes have the same reason to stay, and apparently all were nominated separately at the same time, I'll just copy and paste my response. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - trivial coverage. Would be suitable as a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep These episodes are mentioned in numerous books and notable sites, which I will add here shortly. This should have been discussed on the Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) instead of a mass deletion spree of 24 articles, per WP:PRESERVE. In reagrds to guidelines about this, WP:FICT, a proposed guideline to address episodes failed for the third time. WP:PLOT is in an edit war, with a majority of editors supporting its removal, and editors removing the section, so much so the page has been protected for 2 weeks. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. The sources provided by Ikip and others demonstrate notability, as defined on Knowledge. This particular episode is a bit more dubious than some others, but in my judgment the notability criterion has been met. More real-world content is needed, but that's an editorial problem, not a deletion rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The sources referred to only support the tiny blurb, yet make no assertions of individual notability for this article. This material could easily be moved to the LoE. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Procedural Close per ENOUGH ALREADY! Mass nominations of multiple articles about an award-winning series does not realistically allow time for the improvements the nominator suggests are needed. Knowledge has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement if the presumption of notability is reasonable and commonsense. Knowledge does not expect nor demand every article be perfect, even through various interpretations of ever-changing guideline. Mass nominations act to be disruptive of the project in forcing a ticking clock where none is supposed to exist. Schmidt, 06:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Level Plane Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found, so I'm putting it out to the community.  Esradekan Gibb  01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think anyone can properly judge so many unrelated articles in one AfD. Please relist as separate AfDs. Thanks Gigs (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • relist separately, too much to consider at one AFD, imho. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Done and done. Bloody silly idea once I looked back at it.  Esradekan Gibb  03:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Substantial feature from Stylus magazine here, plus there's this, and this, which are not in-depth, but don't hurt.--Michig (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping. WP:CORP is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost never do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic (Blue Note, Sun, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.
What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we need separate criteria for independent record labels rather than applying WP:CORP, but not all labels are notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and until we have some agreed criteria, we can only judge each label on its merits. It would be helpful if you could address the label in question in this and the other AFD's as I don't feel your comments will otherwise carry much weight with whoever closes the discussion. --Michig (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure. The fact that Level Plane released albums by City of Caterpillar, Envy, Hot Cross, Melt-Banana, The One AM Radio, Saetia, and Racebannon makes this one of the premier hardcore punk labels of the 1990s/2000s. Chubbles (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (CSD G11). It seems evident that this is thinly-veiled spam. --Kinu /c 04:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The article might be a little too raw -- it reads like a half-baked essay, with no references to back up its argument. It certainly is not encyclopedic. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

this article fails to in notability. Most of it is unsourced although where it is source Myspace and other fan pages have been used. There has been no official references to single releases and there is much controvery/speculation surrounding the band's future. Much of the article's style is also incorrect for wikipedia. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

  • But there are no sources for the information about the band. If you want to make and keep pages for their charted songs that is fine but do we really need a page about the band that has no factual sources/references? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy to User:Imnotafan/Sean Needham. The article may be moved back once notability is established with reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable actor, if actor at all. No trace of him on google under the name "Sean William Needham" Passportguy (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Also his managements webite provides proof of his credits and more. http://www.cdm-ltd.com/client-cv.php?client=25 This is the link to his spotlight page where you can see clips of television appearances http://www.spotlight.com/interactive/cv/9095-7833-7542 The Wicked website is proof of his involvement with the Musical http://www.wickedthemusical.co.uk/readnews.asp?id=29wkd (Croxteth)

You can't use Knowledge as a reference. That he is an actor doesn't make him a notable actor. There are specific criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER. Drawn Some (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nonnotable actor. Iowateen (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • """KEEP""" An 'Extensive fan base' for an actor is relative to the current job they are in. Wicked has a world wide fan base for any actor that is involved with it. With his Uk tv appearances this makes him of interest. Below are more links confirming his involvement with Buddy - The Buddy Holly story

http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/buddy-rev.htm http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/london_shows/show/item75343/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnotafan (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Voodoo Six (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
First Hit For Free (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has had notability template since August 2008 but notability not established. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Football player who was never officially on a roster. He was on the Patriots' practice squad for a bit but that was it, and that doesn't pass notability. Wizardman 18:35, 5 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, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's Make a Deal broadcast history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencylopedic, contains original research and reads like a book report full of conjecture. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

List of streets in Brooklyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic list. Better as a category. BOARshevik (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete wholly agree with nom. Useless list Ohconfucius (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Week keep and expand. What this was apparently intended to be was a list of namedstreets in brooklyn, the 5% or so that are not numbered or lettered streets. But its very incomplete, including some very minor streets and omitting some very major ones. Looking at the list, I think articles could be written about perhaps one-third of the ones here, and an equal number that are omitted. I'm not quite ssure how to deal with this. It might possibly be one place where a category might be better than a list, but then again it might be useful to have a checklist of which ones do have articles. Encyclopedias normally include atlases and gazeteers. We do not have a rule that WP is not a gazeteeer. DGG (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment From WP:NOT (Knowledge is not a manual, guidebook or textbook):

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Knowledge is not a place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Knowledge does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, however. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And this list is , in fact, none of these: is lists no tourist attractions, hotels, etc. It's a weak attempt at a gazetteer. a listing of geographic places. Gazetteers are appropriate parts of encyclopedias. The omission from the NOT paragraph is deliberate. WP can include an atlas & an index to it--a gazetteer. I have in fact argued, with considerable support, e that in historic places, like the City of London and the old parts of Dublin and Edinburgh, every street is notable, and could with a little work be proven to be so. DGG (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Commment deleting this list does not prevent someone from writing an article about any of the streets. The vast majority would not meet criteria for notability or verifiability, however. There are streets in major cities that have been written about in-depth, even some in Brooklyn, but most of these would be never pass the bar to have an article. Drawn Some (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Although I'm normally for keeping lists this one has so few links to articles and I can't see any way it can be expanded beyond a simple (possibly very long) list. 11:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • comment. Looking at the index to an actual atlas, I see there are approximately 1500 named streets in brooklyn (and 500 numbered or lettered ones)--more than I thought. I agree the overwhelming majority of them are not notable. I'd guess that about 5 to 10% of them are, including a few of the numbered and lettered ones., let's say 150. For the present list there are 80, including most but not all of the best-known through streets, and a good many minor ones in historic districts, mostly Brooklyn Heights. I have in fact argued, with considerable support, that in historic places, like the City of London and the old parts of Dublin and Edinburgh, every street is notable, and could with a little work be proven to be so, as there is exhaustive coverage in print. . That obviously doesn't include all of the present day cities. Brooklyn is not as important, & only 350 years old, as those 3. For the older cities in the US, I think every street in their historic downtown core could be shown notable., and the major present day arterial streets. I'm not however about to do this, even my own borderline notable street, but they would make appropriate school projects. Redlinks of those for people who might want to do articles would be a good idea--it would save them from working on the truly non-notable. I note List of Streets in Manhattan , a much better conceived article, designed to cover the problem of the many notable numbered streets there, which is not quite the same problem. There are over 120 there with separate articles. DGG (talk)
  • Delete I live in brooklyn, a borough filled with notable streets (guessing? 50 at least, 100 at most). This list? Spare us.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • WikiProject U.S. Roads has been notified Exit2DOS2000 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The vast majority of streets anywhere are non-notable. —Scott5114↗ 00:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton |  16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:Entertainer

  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if you accept two roles as "multiple", his role in the film was so small it's not even mentioned in the lengthy article on the film and it doesn't qualify as "significant". Drawn Some (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
But the role is mentioned in reviews of said film. - Mgm| 08:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Having a role mentioned doesn't make it significant unless you believe that anything mentioned anywhere is therefore significant. The question we need to answer is do reliable independent resources provide sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to make it notable and verifiable. If not we can always redirect. Drawn Some (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused about why people are so reluctant to follow the guidelines. Do you really believe that this reference from New York Magazine is non-trivial enough to establish notability? I sincerely disagree. There's nothing in it support an article except that he is from Rockland County and his character.
3. Skylar Astin
Plays Georg, who’s crushed out on his busty piano teacher.
Age 19. With the show for two years. From Rockland County. Dating Lauren Pritchard. On meeting a certain Long Islander: “When Billy Joel came, I freaked. He said, ‘I really love the way you play the piano.’ ” On days off: “I rest. I swear, I’ll join a gym soon.” Ideal night out: “Oh, my God. I don’t drink or smoke or anything like that. I’m kind of boring.” Favorite film: GoodFellas. Most difficult thing about dating a co-star: “Absolutely nothing.”
And here's your "non-trivial" Hollywood Reporter stuff:
Please review the guidelines at WP:NOTE especially regarding the quality of the references needed to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you disagree with my characterization of the coverage as non-trivial, and that's fair enough. I'll add, though, that "trivial" coverage in notability discussions typically has meant coverage that is akin to a directory listing. Coverage can be brief and non-trivial, but to justify an article there must be multiple sources. I believe that standard is met here. The sources I added allowed me to verify some content, and add some other verifiable content. Multiple sources have documented some aspect of development in his acting career. I'll also try to flesh out some of the film reviews that commented on his acting in Hamlet 2. Paul Erik 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep. There's a lot of 'wishy-washy' quasi- celebrity trash out there but I think there's just enough in terms of WP:RS] to justify an article. HJMitchell You rang? 11:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be glad to withdraw my nomination if someone can show such references. I looked for them prior to nominating and could not find them. Drawn Some (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep He was mentioned for his Broadway performance and whatnot. The references point to notable media sources, which wouldn't bother listing him at all if he wasn't notable. Dream Focus 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sun Come Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No source that is is actually a single. Has not charted on any notable charts. Fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability. Holiday56 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Gay Avenue, Manila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject, article title not even official name of thoroughfare User234 (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What does that mean? The last time my boyfriend returned home, homosexuality was not illegal there. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

No notability or coverage neon white talk 09:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a non-notable band who have only released one single, one EP, one mini-album and one self-released album. Although there are large number of sources used in the article, none of them appear to cover the band in any depth and are mainly blogs or non-independent sources. A google search has failed to turn up detailed coverage of the band in any reliable sources. Doesn't meet the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:BAND. JD554 (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete A very weak delete because with a few more references, this article should be fine. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Graham G. Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor local real-estate developer, with local--at best--notability. It has the distinct sense of self-promotion. CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there appears to be press in New York, Mexico, Vancouver, Chilliwack, and now there appears to be a US Federal Lawsuit before Judge Mahan in US District Court in Nevada involving fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.190.72 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Although well-sourced, I don't see that this gentleman is notable enough for his own article. I agree that this seems to be self-promotion, based on the article history and the review of other contributions from the editors. Mandsford (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article that just came out last week on April 22nd, 2009 about Mr. Alexander hijacking a Company. Its actual takes 1/4 of the Canadian Newspaper's Business Section written by the notoreous David Baines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenamoran (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep read that latest Baines article on the hijacking last week and the US Lawsuit in Nevada. He really ripped him apart this time. hehe. I found the article quit amusing and that I could source it this way, wikipedia is pretty useful—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.237.19 (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • in your entry above, you put Graham G. Alexander not Graham G Alexander to arrive at that number? That number appears much higher? a USA News Today article yesterday about his US Federal Suit, is that not notable? how would that be local and minor? the wikipedia article is negative, talks about fraud, hijacking, is quit blunt and most importantly, informative. how is that self-promotion? you have me quite confused atm. Check my history. I have commented/edited on other wikipedia articles not just this one, such as Jeffery Skilling of Enron, which I believe where this man is headed; im certainly no fan of his nor Mr. Alexander, thank you--Elenamoran (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)— Elenamoran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep and expand. After reading all the newspaper articles from Vancouver Sun David Baines and the US Commercial Real Estate News Article, I think there will be plenty of more notability to come. Well sourced, the article writes about both the good and the bad of this gentleman. Shiekron (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is well-referenced with reliable (even well-known) sources, many of which are in-depth coverage of Mr. Alexander so he is evidently notable and the information verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only reliable resources seem to be from Vancouver Sun, and even those appear to be little more than op-ed pieces from Mr. Baines, in that they read kind of like blog entries. Certainly not promotional, given the nature of it that implies that he is likely not to be trusted. Quite the opposite - it seems vaguely attack flavored. In any event the only thing I could find on him were duplicate entries about him - basic business profiles as published in places like Forbes. There needs to be more about this guy before we can consider him for WP. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. Notability is lacking. Also it looks suspiciously like some sockpuppetry and vote-stuffing in this discussion.Capitalismojo (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete essentially agree with Dennis The Tiger. nothing in the text makes me believe his is any more notable that the common garden burglar, whose reports/stories you read about in the local paper. I am slightly surprised that this entry has manages to stay 'undiscovered' for over a year. Much of the article about his career, especially the development history is pretty much a coatrack, and is not of encyclopaedic worth. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  16:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources. See all-dates Google news archive search and Google web search. There are tons of other possible sources, but none is cited here. Most happy to be demonstrated wrong, and will withdraw nom if so. Bongomatic 14:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

↑