Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 25 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ira D. Colvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

District Judge, got sent down for possession of methamphetamine. Not notable. Sure, there's a news story - but nothing of lasting significance. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this has been around since 2006. I'm surprised it's still around, but you probably could have just PROD-ed it. Jd027 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have, but there was an inclusionist admin objecting.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. :) Jd027 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleting something for being unsourced isn't a good idea if a source can be found. DS (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a good idea when the article in question poses WP:BLP issues. - Mgm| 12:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Contesting a deletion, mearly because it can be sourced, isn't a good idea if the article is useless and unencyclopedic. It causes needless afds.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Given this happened two and a half years ago, is there any evidence to support your assertion that this has some enduring significance (discussion, reference to, debate) in any source? I'm always afraid that the assertion that some event has significance beyond the initial news cycle is ultimately just our opinion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment- How exactly does WP:ONEVENT apply here? I don't see any event this could redirect to. ƒingersRoids 03:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. To those of you at the offsite forum: your comments didn't address Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines for inclusion, and so didn't weight as heavily in the assessment of consensus. I am willing and happy to discuss how the article would need improving on my talk page and I can even provide a copy of the deleted material to edit up to our standards, if it is possible to do so. Please get in touch with me if this is something you'd be interested in doing. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Engine 001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested on the grounds that this freeware is "shown in a magazine and to be used in a university as a teaching tool." Without specifying which magazine, or which university. Google returns nothing valuable.

  • Note: The reason researching this software bore no results for many people was due to them googleing the unofficial name for the project "Engine 001" instead of its official name "001 Action / RPG Maker". Before making a judgment on the popularity of this software please look for it using its official name.122.148.37.237 (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. No adequate secondary sourcing present whatsoever to pass WP:NOTE. — sephiroth bcr 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Not seeing any independent reliable sources on google Nerfari (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion does not seem to be an issue here. Discuss possible move on the talkpage. Tone 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wars and conflicts between India and Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

baseless infos needs complete editing else as a last sort a removal ... Doctor muthu's muthu 23:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • question Is there another India/Pakistan conflicts article that this is a POV fork of? It seems rather long lived if it is - if it isn't then I seriously have to question AfD as a method for dealing with problems on it. Artw (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Regional arts commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to meet nobility guidelines i purpose Deletion of this article Staffwaterboy 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Nigerian expatriate football players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previous AfDs - one, two, three - show that such lists should only be covered by the relevant category, which can be found at Category:Nigerian expatriate footballers. GiantSnowman 21:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. The cited discussions had a whole lot of comments supporting deletion, but none of them provided a reason based in policy or guidelines. They were just a bunch of vote-stuffing. - Mgm| 12:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up the article a little, and agree that it does very little not already done by the relevant category. Knepflerle (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, the category doesn't even give the country they play in. Nerfari (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the same exact reasons explained in previous AfDs. Notably, my main concerns are about maintability, reliable sources and verifiability, the latter two being among the pillars of Knowledge (XXG), therefore something you cannot definitely ignore. --Angelo (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It's pointless to repeat the reference when you know they're in the article about the player. (Categorization won't improve verifiability for the people who prefer to have references on the page itself since you can't provide references for entries in a category) - Mgm| 12:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not pointless, because content in such articles tend to change with time, nobody can ensure it will be kept updated every time a new Nigerian footballers moves from one team to another, or even when a new Nigerian football expatriate is found. In addition, which players are eligible to be included in the list? Only players presently playing abroad, or players who had played abroad sometime in their life? I might go on and on with a lot of other possible concerns, but I think these two are quite enough to explain why such articles are simply unfit for Knowledge (XXG). --Angelo (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) KuroiShiroi (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Show-Me Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article on a political organization does not meet the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for notability of organizations and companies. In particular, these guidelines state that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." This article contains no links to non-incidental coverage of this organization, nor can I find such after an internet search. All references to the organization are incidental notes in the course of an article on something else entirely. As far as I can tell this organization is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) at this time, and the article should thus be deleted.

A quick Google search reveals the following articles:
(Post-Dispatch, Feb 2007)
(KC Star, April 2008)
(Daily Record, June 2007)
(Daily Record, May 2008)
(KC Star, October 2006)
And there are lots more in that vein. Binarybits (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
In a nutshell, all of these look like incidental or trivial coverage to me. Out of these links, #'s 1 and 4 are reporting on a study and just mention the Show-Me institute as the source of that study. #2 is just a link to an article put out by the Show-Me institute. #5 appears to be an article on a wage increase proposal that just mentions the position of the Show-Me institute. #3 does not actually allow viewing of anything but the title, so it is entirely possible that this is primarily an article on Robert Heller and not on the Show-Me institute. Essentially, these are all incidental mentions of the Show-Me institute, not actual reports focused on the Show-Me institute. Everything I was able to find was along these lines - incidental mention. For notability as written above, there should be non-incidental coverage- essentially an article that actually focuses on this organization. Locke9k (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is nonsensical. A think tank's primary activity is publishing studies, so it's not surprising that that's what most of the coverage focuses on. Similarly, most of the coverage of a movie star will be about the movies she's been in, and most of the coverage of an author will be about the books he's written. Binarybits (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As a counterexample, here, here, and here are articles explicitly about the Cato institute, not just about studies referencing the Cato Institute as their author, and there are many more along those lines. This is exactly the sort of thing that establishes notability, and there are none for the Show-Me Institute. Locke9k (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly Cato is more notable than Show-Me. I still don't think it makes sense to say a story that's entirely about a think tank's study is not coverage of that think tank. Binarybits (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, well its a reasonable disagreement. I think that these sorts of stories are exactly the 'incidental coverage' mentioned in the notability guideline above as being incidental, particularly since a google news search doesn't even turn up too many articles of that kind. In any case, as I said, its a reasonable disagreement, so hopefully some community opinion in the AFD will help sort it out. Locke9k (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Google News's archive is showing me 171 items, with at least 20 being exclusively focused on Show-Me publications. Binarybits (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
How do we feel about the not-unrelated article Rex Sinquefield? Could this redirect to his page, or vice versa? Or should we expand this deletion discussion to include his resume article as well?—S Marshall /Cont 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually with the edits I have recently made to Rex Sinquefield I think it can be made good. I deleted the copyright vios and tried to add some balance. After doing a web search I am convinced that he meets the notability guidelines for individuals and that it is appropriate to have an article on him. Hopefully it can be improved to be a little more comprehensive and balanced. Nor do I think this should redirect to his page- just the fact the he is the president doesn't really justify a redirect to his page given that he seems to have been involved at a high level with many organizations other than this one. Locke9k (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I am in agreement wwith Binarybits' comments above. I'm finding a large number of sources in a google news archive search. Google scholar search gets some hits too: . Some of the news articles are written primarily about the stances it takes and reports it issues: . The reports issued by the institute are referenced a number of times in reliable sources (as the google scholar search shows), which also points to the institute being notable. There's really no question about it for me. Cazort (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Articles about the activities of an organisation are clearly adequate to show notability. While articles that exist to describe it are clearly better sources, the former type are good enough. JulesH (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination: Several good point have been made above. While I still think this article may be borderline on notability, I'd prefer to err in the direction of keeping if there is any question. Thus for now, I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Lets just try to improve the article and add some balance to it if possible.Locke9k (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 |  04:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Enigma 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Actually there are 362 entires on google, mostly on South Asian discussion groups. They have in the past been linked with the Arain of central Punjab, a link the latter deny. All the books, barring Inyatullah's are copyright free, as they were published in the early 20th Century. There is some work on them in Urdu, not sure if we can quote Urdu sources. I have editted and refrenced several other tribal entries, many of which gave no sources, were poorly written, provided little context, but were not nominated for deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WALTHAM2 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 26 March 2009
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Nothing remotely resembling a valid reason for deletion has been provided, so it's impossible to have a sensible discussion. The nominator has simply said that it was a contested prod, and that prod only contained the word "nonsense", and another editor above makes the incredible claim to have checked 271,000 Google search results and determinied that none of them are about the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Definite keep Google search for Maliar Tribe returns enough hits to see they're notable enough. The article needs cleanup, sure,but it's clearly not nonsense Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Only indication of importance is winning awards for best blues band, but does not state which awards, or even which band he was in at the time. God Emperor (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

*Weak keep per above. Deletion Mutation 16:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Article needs a fair bit of work, providing suitable references etc, but these do seem to be out there - quite a few reviews and live reviews, quite a few associations with other notable artists etc. I think it meets notability, but yeah, needs some work. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

NN Artist per WP:Creative Wperdue (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. No notability asserted. I'd like to know what the editor who denied the speedy on the grounds that notability was asserted saw that I did not. I42 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply I would have declined the speedy, too. At that time, the article specifically said he was a famous painter, which is a claim of importance. Remember, importance is a lower standard than notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as it stands. Bio and Context. I too can't see any real assertion of notability, unless no-one else paints Istanbul. What those references are supposed to prove is beyond me. (I can't get into one because it insist on Macromedia Flash and I refuse to use Flash.) (I consider it unnecessary and a sign of unimaginative web design.) Peridon (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep now this is a different article about a notable person. I found quite a bit about this one while looking for the other one. Peridon (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply I'm not sure you can just completely change the text of the entry to be about a completely different artist by the same name in the middle of an AFD discussion as you appear to have done. Wperdue (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue
  • Since the consensus appeared to be that speedy deletion was due, replacing it wasn't bad (he just had to make sure he made note of it here). I'm still not convinced we should keep the new version. While the new painter has an NY Times obituary, the article text still doesn't explain why he's notable. - Mgm| 11:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 09:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This is another one of User:Groubani's specials (see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Peru–Romania relations if you don't know who s/he is). For a start, this fails WP:N. Also, previous debates (such has Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Canada–Moldova relations, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations and the aforementioned Peru-Romania discussion) have determined that mere diplomatic relations between two countries does not confer notability. Further more, the two don't have an embassy in the other one's country (Chile's representation is in its embassy in Athens, and Cyprus' representation is in Madrid). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was : Speedily deleted - empty, just a collection of images. Galleries of free images may go to the Commons. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Albanian poets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, tag removed without explanation. Article does what it says on the tin, but WP:NOT is pretty clear that Knowledge (XXG) is not a repository of photos. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 |  04:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable local politician, no evidence of stubstantial coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources, per the article's talk page. Katr67 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Note: Courtesy nomination, was originally nominated by kotra and was more or less seconded by Speralta. There was some confusion about whether this was supposed to be a speedy deletion, and I clarified that AfD was the deletion process intended. Katr67 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete As nominator. Katr67 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I nominated the article for deletion. but my preference is to not have the article deleted. However, there has been significant push-back by two editors (Gang14, PeteForsyth) with whom I have recently had some editorial disputes on a couple of other pages Independent Party of Oregon, Independent (politician). I note, for example that an administrative editor, Pete Forsyth had done some minor edits to the page last year, but called for speedy deletion this week shortly after an editorial dispute on another page resolved in my favor. In his most recent raft of comments, he explicitly referenced his distaste for "my editorial style") and at this point, I would just like a resolution one way or the other.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Speralta (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete. Some claim to notability, but the references seems to be a mixture of incidental coverage, involvement in certain news events, and unsuccessfully standing in an election. Difficult to tell with Gnews because there appears to be a sportsperson of the same name swamping the hits. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Sod it, strong delete, having followed the talk page. Autobiographical article with apparent sole agenda of publicising the subject of the article. If that's the best this person can do after a concerted effort to meet notability criteria, I'm not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO, the independent sources (i.e. not the voter's pamphlet) given offer little in the way of substantial coverage (one would, but would need a handful due to the limited nature of that source), and searching through the Oregonian and Statesman Journal archives gives about the same level coverage, though lots of opinion pieces. If the Willamette Week or The Oregonian come out with substantive stories just about Peralta, then come back with a new version. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Side note, since it was raised on the talk page. I too have edited this article and did not put it up for deletion, but that has no logical bearing on whether or not I thought it passed notability guidelines. It reflects more on the amount of time it can take and the hassle of dealing with autobiographical content based on my past experiences, not on the merits of it remaining in Knowledge (XXG). Aboutmovies (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus here is that the article is inappropriate for inclusion. The discussion appears, however, to suggest that a need for sub-articles such as these exists. The consensus means that the article will be deleted, but the content can be userfied on request to me at my talkage. I would encourage all participants to discuss how the main article should be split before proceeding with such articles. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Origins to 1967 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The author of this article was trying to deny the fact that Lebanon participated in the 1948 war and was trying to downplay the Jewish acceptance of the UN Partition Plan and the Arabs' violent reaction to it in 1947 in the original History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article. It appears that since these efforts have been thwarted, she decided to write her own separate article as a kind of pov fork. Much of this article is already covered in the present History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article, which is generally accepted and has been relatively calm for an article about such a controversial topic until just last week. GHcool (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as POV fork. Artw (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This is a copy of the History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article, edited by one person to suit his/her own views and avoiding any form of consensus. I don't have time to check exactly what edits were made, but this is not on, as it's trying to dupe readers into thinking this is an "official" account of the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to the author's talk page (as pov fork) so that he can go on his work and once finished, let's discuss on the article's talk page to see which version would be the best. (nb: Lebanon participated passively to the '48 war in supporting ALA but the Lebanese army never violated the border but was attacked by Israeli and invaded by Syrians during several months. (see eg, Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, 2008, Yale University Press.) Ceedjee (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The author's rationale for creating the article is sound, i.e., the original article covers too much material. Ian Pitchford (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That might have been a good rationale for creating the article, but it is certainly not a good rationale for the vast number edits subsequently made that appeared to be geared at tailoring the article to meet one person's requirements instead of a proper consensus. If the article is too long, a split should be properly discussed on the History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict talk page, not unilaterally imposed by one person. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rational; the subject is to large for one article, it's time for it to be split into sections. The is already Israel-Palestine conflict (which merely repeats History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with no greater depth and there is a dearth of citations on both of those articles), split History of into component parts. The majority of web sites use the split method to encompass the subject. Yes there are 2 same articles already; however mine is not one of them, mine is beefing up the front and dropping the hindquarters enabling more depth to be covered and linking to pertinent areas, readers are able to navigate without having to search endlessly as you have to from the other 2 articles that are trying to achieve everything and achieving nothing. The alternative is go back to the old wiki where half of the protagonists have disappear to achieve the correct size....for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE each article in the existing format will have to double in size because at the moment they are Israeli centric...I'm just adding Palestinian nationalism into the articles...I know that is not popular but Palestinian exist and palestinian nationalism exists and so far it does not show up in either of the 2 other articles (well it does now as I've dropped the front end of mine into History of which is getting to be very large)...As I don't own the article and am not the only editor with access to the article I can hardly impose other than supply sentences with references.....any tailoring of the article is to fit the references supplied...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't be duped by this so-called "rationale." The history of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict ought not to be broken up arbitrarily (pre- and post-1967). The article is already broken up into articles that go into greater detail (see, for example, Zionism, Hajj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, British Mandate of Palestine, 1947 UN Partition plan, 1948 Arab-Israeli war, 1948 Palestinian exodus, etc etc). Also, why is 1967 the demarcation line? Why not 1948? Why not 1993? Why not 2000? --GHcool (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The correct procedure for dealing with articles that are too long is to reduce some or all of the sections to summaries, and to put the old text of the section(s) into fresh article(s). Copying a selection of the text into a new article without affecting the old one does not address the issue of the article being too long, and, in any case, imposing a change of this magnitude on an article edited by so many people is considered editing against consensus. (Okay, it doesn't actually "change" the original article, but two articles having the same text edited by different people to their preferences is just as bad.) Your justification of adding "Palestinian nationalism" to the article is pretty much an admission that you are creating a POV fork. (Supplying references to fit one POV and altering the text "to fit the references supplies" is still a POV fork.) If you think the original article is biased towards one side, you should discuss it on the talk page first. There are ways of escalating the dispute if you're not happy with that outcome. Creating your own article isn't one of them. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm all for deleting History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the name is a POV title. I would prefer the name to be Origins of the conflict in Palestine as trying to make out that only Israelis and Palestinians were involved is patently false, having the British mandate there is a big clue for a start...the POV fork is having the original article name by just two of the protagonists...why wasn't it named History of the Ottoman, British, French, Russian, Israeli Palestinian conflict....obviously because someone had a POV in the first instance...to be inclusive and reflect NPOV the article I started should really be called History of the conflict in Palestine as the conflict had its roots in European involvement from Napoleon, British annexation of Egypt, European Zionism all before the Jewish Zionism got on the scene...It is a false premise to have an article called History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the conflict had started way before the start date of that article and History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article makes no mention of those pertinent facts...the article I have started will be including those parts that have been left out and not mentioned in even the minutest amount in History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict....the two articles will overlap as major European involvement finished in 1948 with the end of the mandate...so I propose a name change to: History of the conflict in Palestine...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, if a name featuring the words "Israeli-Palestinian" is a POV title for not acknowledging the involvement of Britain, France etc., calling it "History of the conflict in Palestine" is surely an even worse POV title because it insinuates that there is no such country as Israel (which is one of the favourite mantras used by some of the more extreme anti-Israel/Zionism/Jew arguments). In any case, you would never ever delete a long-standing article just because you don't like the title - at the most you'd rename it, with consensus on the talk page first. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      1. What makes you think that an article about Palestine prior to the advent of Zionism is the best place for details of Palestine?...or are you intimating the Zionism is a POV fork and should be deleted?
      2. I do realise that the pro-Israeli version of history is to try to make Hajj Amin as the sole representative of the Palestinian people a false and POV view
      3. Palestinian nationalism started before 1922
      4. 1947 was the culmination of a Zionist endeavour to create a Jewish state as were the follow ups of 1948 and the Nakba...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Userfy until (if ever) the article is ready for mainspace. There is absolutely no logic to having this article, because: a) A logical split from History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict should be much smaller and with much less mutual information; b) A logical split from History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict should be made in logical time periods, not X BCE–1967. Not to mention, the article itself as it is written is a POVFORK. -- Ynhockey 23:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • mainly because all Palestinian nationalism was absent from the original highly POV article, if size matters then there is always the loads of unreferenced Israeli POV to be removed...Before I started to edit the original POV article there was a Zionist section but no corresponding Palestinian nationalism section...now there is both, and I put references in the Zionist section....funny how the Palestinian project editors improve Israeli Project work, whereas Israeli project editor make spurious claims of NPOV by not even including the opposing point of view....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ynhockey. This is basically an alternative narrative to History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It is a very nice article, and I would suggest moving it to Wikibooks, as an introduction to the conflict. -- Nudve (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not an alternative it is an inclusive version...and as such the original is unable to be expanded to include all the missing pertinent area...the original is a narrow POV version ...I know that Israeli project wish to narrow the subject ...but that is at the expense of factual accuracy...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to Userspace: Ashley may well be correct in his view that History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is too long, or that it lacks sufficient detail. If so, he should bring that up on the article talk page and suggest that it be broken up into a series of articles; or he should edit that article to improve it. Going off and writing a second article covering exactly the same topics already covered is not the way we generally do things at Knowledge (XXG). --Ravpapa (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • comments
  • Both current title article and broken choice are not wise. 1948 is the year at which the article should start because there can hardly have been an "Israeli-xxx" conflit before May 14, 1948. Historians (such as Benny Morris in Victims) talk about the Zionist-Arab conflict for the period before 1948.
  • Consensus among historians for the birth of the Palestinian nationalism is fixed around 1920, not 1967. Some Palestinian historians fix this at the end of the XIXth anyway. The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine is considered by historians as the Palestinian independence war (independence war, ie nationalism main point). The only issue is that they lost it and could not get rid of the British.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Palestinian nationalism began earlier than 1920. Many Palestinian national organisations existed earlier than 1920. 1920 would be an arbitrary date where Palestinian nationalism was fixed as being fully against Zionism. The palestinian nationalist arose as a reaction to European invasion (mainly Zionists but not exclusively, German protestants also arrived in numbers, hence German colonies). Every form of nationalism (Zionism included, is a reaction to a perceived or actual external threat)....
  • Unfortunately the 2 articles are not covering the same subject, Palestinian nationalism was somehow missing from the original. The original was Israel centric and missing half the story and the Israel side was missing huge pertinent areas. Christian Zionism for a start...
  • Bringing things up on talk pages with Israel Project involvement is in most cases a waste of time...Take Lebanon's involvement in 1948...Historian say Lebanon didn't invade, the evidence was placed, 3 editor say those particular Historians were good sources, Israeli Project say but JVL and BBC are better sources and Lebanon invaded, so does the Israel Palestine conflict article reflect Historical records and current Historians research...No it reflects a tired old hackneyed Israeli mantra found in JVL....Sorry to say this but project Israel is stuck in a time warp that has been shown to be factually incorrect....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think 1920 is chosen because Palestinian nationalism shifted from a pan-Arab natinalism where Palestine would have been part of King Fayçal's kingdom to a purely Palestinian nationalism concerning the zone at the west of the Jordan river.
  • I confirm that no current historian deny that Lebanese army didn't enter Israeli territory or even Palestine... Ceedjee (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep but remove POV - it is an encyclopedic concept. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete There is absolutely no logic to having this article, because: a) A logical split from History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict should be much smaller and with much less mutual information; b) A logical split from History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict should be made in logical time periods, not X BCE–1967. Not to mention, the article itself as it is written is a POVFORK. Or, what, evey time an editor dislikes the consensus on some contested part of a national terrain we have new articles explaining how history really was from the Palestinian nationalist - or Ruritanian nationalist - point of view? Not wise.Historicist (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork, per nomination, which accurately describes the editing chronology leading to this fork. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus is not "let's use the JVL version" of history, the JVL version has been proved to be false since 1987...Yet the factually inaccurate JVL web version is still hanging around 20 years later...what do you want for wiki...a regurgitation of factually inaccurate web histories or something based on good verifiable secondary sources (with a few primary sources slipped in)?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - obvious POV fork. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Funny how one editor is trying to edit out pertinent areas from History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Hist of I-P conflict does not cover all the areas and needs splitting; if Project Israel are unable or unwilling to do so, then Project Palestine will...Both History of and Israel-Palestinian conflict have areas that are factually incorrect...This is not a POV fork...I just haven't based it on JVL...as JVL is POV this article is neutral...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename to Origins of the Palestine problem. History of Israeli-Palestinian conflict is poorly named to deal with the history of the conflict prior to the establishment of Israel in 1948. Further, it cannot cover in sufficient detail all of this history in one article. There are major gaps in the article we currently have which can be covered in a new one. Speculating as to the motivations of the editor in creating the article and discounting its usefulness on that basis seems un-Wiki. Ashley kennedy 3 has put a lot of effort and thought into the article and there is a need for an article covering this earlier period. We can build on and improve on his effort, rather than just throwing it away, citing POV content. Fix it, don't throw it out. Tiamut 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Since the argument in favour of this article seems to be covering the "early" period in more detail (and, reading between the lines, I am highly suspicious of the true motives, but let's take this at face value), but the timescale of origin-1967 seems a bit arbitrary, how about two articles, one covering the history prior to the British Mandate, and one covering the British Mandate period? This, I think, would fit more logically with the existing articles rather than come across as an alternative account up to 1967, and I can't see the editors of the History of Israeli-Palestinian conflict having any objection to that. Just bear in mind that if the real purpose of these branch articles was to add as many pro-Palestinian references as you can manage, there are no grounds to complain if someone adds a load of pro-Israel references later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    The 1967 was completely arbitrary...I had and have every intention of it being about European involvement in Palestine...a 150 year period (give or take a decade or 2)....the British mandate article is only about Britain sitting in the middle of two competing nationalist ideologies. This new article is about how Britain got to that point and how it handled it, the new article is not Ottoman period but about European intervention in Palestine and the competition of 4 Empires; French, British, Russian and Ottoman....Palestine was a side show to the various empires and only a means to dominate other aspects for the French dominate the Mediterranean, British trade with India (her Jewel in the crown), For Russia a manoeuvre for expansion into the Crimea and Balkans, for Ottomans protection of its crumbling empire...those aspects are not covered in any other article...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
      • As to the disingenuous argument of any POV some editors have intimated is in the article; may I remind them that wiki is not a one man edition but may be edited by all and everyone. If any editor is under the impression that an area or topic has not been included (not that the article is finished anyway) may I humbly suggest that they get their finger out and included it.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
        • In that case, I suggest the best way forwards is to create an article on the history of the conflict prior to the British Mandate (no objection to referring to that as just Palestine because that's what it was called at the time), and any additional material you want between 1920 and 1967 can go into the articles about those periods that already exist. The article as it stands, however, is too much like a fork of an existing article, and, POV fork or non-POV fork, that, at the best, will confuse the hell out of users. In the meantime, I'm slightly tweaking my vote to Delete and Userfy. The article as it stands isn't suitable for inclusion against the article that already exist, but I'm satisfied now there is a way forwards to change it into something that is. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete Textbook case of a POV fork. Jtrainor (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Undeniably sourced information that could appear elsewhere like Israel-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian people but here it is a POV fork, essay, poorly-written, cut & paste. --Shuki (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
the conflict did not start in any one era nor in any one's empire backyard. It passed through Napoleonic, British, Ottoman, Russian played its part with pogroms and balkans. Ottoman administration came went passed to mamluk and purely Egyptian all the while British were interfering around the region.
The Mandate period is not covered in any detail as it is swamped by later events and the factual accuracy of the British mandate article is questionable due to the inclusion of unreliable POV web site style history....I'm using RS books not extremist web links...If you want a web site style history may I humbly suggest you go to JVL et al and read their unreliable POV version as it seems that reliable historians using primary sources have a different version of reality to JVL et al....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - classic POV fork. DVD 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I know the Idea of there being a Palestinian people is not a popular one, but the fact is there is a Palestinian people. The Idea for the articles is supported by Kimmerling, Baruch and Migdal, Joel S, (2003) The Palestinian People: A History, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674011317 The Palestinian identity had a beginning. It is the equivalent of the plethora of wiki articles on every aspect of Zionism, this article is just one of the aspects of a Palestinian identity...

      Palestinians struggled to create themselves as a people from the first revolt of the Arabs in Palestine in 1834 through the British Mandate to the impact of Zionism and the founding of Israel. Their relationship with the Jewish people and the State of Israel has been fundamental in shaping that identity, and today Palestinians find themselves again at a critical juncture.

      Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Err ... no-one who has posted to this AfD has disputed that. Every delete vote I have seen so far has been based on article forking, violation of neutral point of view, or both. If people think it is a POV fork, they are correct to vote for delete irrespective of whether they agree with it. (And, I have to say, comment like the one you've just made does make it sound like you are trying to push a certain POV on Knowledge (XXG).) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). -- samj in 09:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Article describes the subject in detail but not necessarily how it's notable. Didn't find much on it on GoogleNews; obviously "Discovery Project" by itself will get a lot of hits, but narrowing it down makes the number of available links a lot smaller. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC) I guess I'll retract my delete vote then. Feel free to close this.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz 09:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Should be transwikied to Wiktionary. Seegoon (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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


Non-notable minor league baseball player. Hasn't won any major awards and is barely at the AA level, so won't be in the majors for a while yet. Wizardman 16:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable player--Yankees10 23:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:N, WP:BIO and (therefor) WP:ATHLETE. (article entirely on him as college senior at Duke), article entirely on him. passing mention in washington post, passing mention on other side of the country. a bit more than a passing mention. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Every baseball minor league player is worth of mention on 'Knowledge (XXG)'. Get over yourself! They're signed and under a professional contract, I see that as 'stub' worth or whatever you call it. . Someone can be at a ballpark and want to see if Wiki has any information, and BAM! One click with the possibility of more. Delete someone that isn't on a professional team roster, Burke's gonna be pitching in 2009, and once again! Get over yourself 'Wizardman'! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjr rodriguez (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (moved by user:hobit as it was out of place.)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. While I'm don't think AA is fully professional, there do appear to be a few news stories about him. Independently of Hobit's list, I added the CBS Sports and San Antonio Express articles as refs, and I note several stories in the Philadelphia Inquirer that are behind a paywall, as well. (And a minnow to Gjr rodriguez for personal attacks in the AfD.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, and the few sources given do not fulfill the "significant coverage" needed to satisfy WP:N. blackngold29 00:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • From WP:N:
      "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
      As mentioned above, two of the above articles are pretty much exclusively on the topic and certainly discuss him in detail. Could you explain the issue you see? Hobit (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll withdraw, but I would prefer more than two short source articles about him. I don't view two articles as "significant coverage" and still don't think he meets WP:N or WP:ATHLETE; although he's close to the WP:BASE guidelines. And it's unrelated to this discussion, but the article could use a good c/e. blackngold29 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and added the info about his All-Star appearance in the article, as well as his ranks on various Texas League leaderboards last year, a photo from Commons, and some more info from another article I found in Baseball America about him pitching in the AFL. -Hit bull, win steak 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not sure why Wizardman thinks Burke "won't be in the majors for a while yet". He's still in the Padres' camp this spring (just got the win in today's game against the Giants, actually), and in that he's pitching quite well in spring training (10 games, 10 1/3 innings, 3.48 ERA, 10 Ks) and the Padres' bullpen is pretty lousy, he could be a ML pitcher as soon as opening day. -Hit bull, win steak 03:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city 05:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jay Emmanuel-Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Youth football player who has not played a professional first-team game, fails WP:ATHLETE. Qwghlm (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bigfoot. The consensus of arguments (not the countin of bolded votes) indicates merge/redirection. Consensus here should not automatically override consensus established at a more suitable locations such as the article talkpage, so this will be a close to redirect, with merging of material left as a separate decision to be made elsewhere. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

No notability established, orphaned article, article created by SPA account that got banned for use of sockpuppets to push agenda, and existence of article would seem to violated WP:UNDUE and our ArbCom created policies on fringe science topics, as the only reputable sources who have weighed in say unequivocally that it was a bear and not a Bigfoot. People on Bigfoot article don't find it notable for mention there, so having a full article would make even less sense. Even the name is odd, as only one source calls it that, and that's some Bigfoot true believer site, with no evidence anyone else used the term. DreamGuy (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I would like to ask for some clarification before weighing in here.There were references from newspapers here that have now been removed for some reason, there have been a lot of edits so I'm not sure I get when and why they were removed from the article. I'm dismayed to discover that other editors working on this page were all one person. (and mildly embarrassed that I didn't figure it out). Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems that many of those references were removed when the Origin section was removed because it basically repeated the lead. Those references were never moved into the lead, which if this is kept should be done. I think some of the references were removed because the articles didn't support the statements made. There certainly are news reports from the month following the announcement of the pictures. However, there don't appear to be much else in the way of sources for this material. —Fiziker  16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
We've discussed this recently on Talk:Bigfoot. The consensus is that this sighting is not prominent enough to warrant inclusion in the list of prominent sightings. However, it is already alluded to in the references elsewhere in the article so a quick blurb might be added. —Fiziker  15:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --GedUK  18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Bigfoot (this deserves a one- or two-line mention in that article, at most). On no account should this be deleted outright, since it is a plausible search term, and contains well-sourced material that should not be cut from Knowledge (XXG).—If someone comes to Knowledge (XXG) to read about the Jacobs Creature, as is not totally implausible, I'd want them to find the scientific consensus, not a redlink.—S Marshall /Cont 16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems like the article as is is a good candidate for merging to bigfoot. I’m not sure why WP:UNDUE is being waved around though , since that’s a policy regarding content of an article rather than whether or not an article should exist. Unless of course it’s being used in it’s capacity of being shorthand for “I don’t like fringe topics! Get rid of them! Rarrgh!” , which sadly seems to be the case a lot of the time these days. I've added a rescue tag in case anyone feels like expanding the article out to the point where it justifies a seperate existance - it seems like having a trawl through the history and reconsidering some of the removed material might be a place to start there. Artw (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The principles of WP:UNDUE that would determine whether something deserves even a short mention in a larger article obviously apply to whether it should have an article all to itself as well. If it's not worth mentioning on the main page, as was decided there, then making it a whole article unto itself is basically spinning off a POV-fork article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually Fiziker's remark (above) is at odds with yours. Fiziker said the consensus was that it couldn't appear in the list of notable sightings, but might be worth a mention elsewhere in the article. Would you agree with that?—S Marshall /Cont 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Consensus appears to be reached on the page that this does not qualify for being listed under the "Prominent reported sightings" section because it is not one of the top few most prominent sightings. There also appears to be a consensus that adding a section about juvenile Bigfoot that was solely dedicated to listing this and another non-notable sighting was just an attempt to circumvent this to get the person's favorite sighting included in the article. However, one of the sources in the "Bear" section is an news article about this sighting. The text does not say anything specific about this particular sighting--the reference is to show that some sightings are due to bears. I therefore think that there could be room to add a sentence that specifically mentions this as an example. This was only briefly talked about on the page so I don't believe consensus has been reached on this yet. —Fiziker  02:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: clearly non-notable, and if it has already been discussed and rejected for inclusion on the Bigfoot page, there is no reason for a merge. Locke9k (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
With respect, there's every reason for a merge. Notability tells us what's suitable to have its own article, but it's certainly not a reason to remove reliably sourced material from Knowledge (XXG). (There are a few situations in which we might do that, but notability in itself certainly isn't one of them.)

It follows that if the article's deleted, we have to decide where any reliably-sourced material should go.—S Marshall /Cont 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not every single piece of "reliably sourced material" has a place on Knowledge (XXG), actually. Regardless, the only item that is well sourced is the fact that this has been explained as a bear sighting. Now, that information could certainly be expanded upon in the Bigfoot article, but you have to understand that given the context of hundreds of Bigfoot sightings, the Bigfoot article can not give each one attention, and instead focuses on the most notable. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Hopeless nonsense, the sort of thing that gives the more serious bigfoot investigators a bad name. Nothing here is reliably sourced beyond the existence of the imaghination of the people who developed the film. Dubious sourcing, as would be expected.DGG (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you not agree that the Daily Mail source should be kept, DGG? It is a British national newspaper.—I do realise that it doesn't refer to the Jacobs Creature by that name, and that it implies the creature was a bear with severe mange, but nevertheless I think that source belongs somewhere in Bigfoot-related discussion.—S Marshall /Cont 09:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Mail source is a part of the Bigfoot article and was prior to the creation of the Jacobs Creature article. Currently it is reference 30. —Fiziker  17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
So it is. That resolves that, then, but raises the question of why this sighting isn't mentioned in the Bigfoot article when there's a source. Still, not a matter for AfD.—S Marshall /Cont 01:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The mere fact that something happened and can be sourced does not mean it is notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article on the main topic. Yes, this happened. And thousands of other people saw things they think were Bigfoot too. We can't list them all. In the history of claimed sightings, this one just isn't notable for special notice. DreamGuy (talk)
  • Keep. I checked the history and looked at the article when it was at its longest. Some of that should not have been removed. It has coverage is at least one newspaper, and MSNBC had an article about it from the associated press. I added a link to the MSNBC article back to the page. I also found it mentioned in the Field and Stream(major nature magazine) photo contest. I believe that counts as notable coverage. Shouldn't this be Jacobs' Creature? Dream Focus 02:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The Field & Stream link given there says only that it was mentioned on a blog affiliated with the magazine and not the magazine itself. There's a huge difference. DreamGuy (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The competition would appear to make it quite notable, any idea wjhy that was removed? Artw (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

List of vehicles sold in Canada but not the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This should be deleted per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook, as although my personal bias is that it's an interesting article to motoring enthusiasts such as myself, generally, it could be seen as WP:LISTCRUFT (on the other hand). Basically, I'm not sure whether it could be merged into another article or deleted. I'm not suggesting a blanket deletion of all List of XYZ articles but rather that there's not indiscriminate ones. Samllaws300 (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's what you said about my last account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary T (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep I found it interesting - and I hope those people that regard Canada as a sort of shadow of the USA will take note. Where two large nations abut and have little in the way of border control, and indeed share the same International dialling code, differences are important. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Make that then 'Keep per DGG and Mandsford (below)' Peridon (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable phenomenon, its not a narrow topic. ViperSnake151 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It definitely needs some sourcing, but it helps dispel the ignorant notion that Canada is "just like the U.S.A." Mandsford (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Extremely valuable and interesting list. I hope it can be supplemented by information about the cuses of these differences. But even as it is, its appropriate and encyclopedic..DGG (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure it will be possible to cite references for the fact that these vehicles are not sold in the USA. This kind of negative is typically very hard to find reasonable sources for. Even if the manufacturer states that it is not available, what about gray imports? This is a thorny article subject, and I'm not sure it's possible to bring it up to the relevant standards. JulesH (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Dahn (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if we can reasonably expect the markets to overlap, the topic is still not encyclopedic. - Mgm| 11:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't see being sold in one country but not in another as a useful criterion. JIP | Talk 12:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I do when they're as close as the USA and Canada - or the UK and Ireland - both geographically, economically and at least superficially culturally. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just don't see this being a notable topic. I might be convinced otherwise, if there was some validation of notability from reliable sources. But that only opens up a more serious problem with the article as it stands: reliable sourcing. As it stands, there's no referencing to back up the list members, and that's critical for a list such as this with potential for gray areas and false-positives (even if not marketed in the US, could an on-border dealership have had an import arrangement that allowed a Canada-specific car to be sold?), especially when we're on the scale of specific model years. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, Move. I was actively searching for a list like that, so outright deletion would go a bit far I think. It should be referenced though while I think the lead is descriptive enough. It could be renamed to something like List of cars marketed differently within North America with a possible inclusion of Mexican versions. Squash Racket (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the issue of grey imports and near-border dealers is relevant. Here, the Nissan Figaro can be seen on the roads, but they were never MARKETED here. (Can't see why people are importing second-hand ones now, but that's personal opinion...) The title could better be Marketed to avoid this. The creator of the list mightn't have realised that Wikipedians can nitpick better than a convention of lawyers with a misprinted agenda. Peridon (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The nominator's citation of WP:NOTMANUAL was most appropriate. Under point 6, Case studies, it reads Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles....This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries due to its substantial differences across international borders. Articles like Slate industry in Wales and Island Fox are fitting examples. Writing about Oak trees in North Carolina or a Blue truck, however, would likely constitute a POV fork, original research, or would otherwise be outright ridiculous. This article is clearly more closer to the "ridiculous" and WP:OR than something that represents some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. If it would, then reliable sources would back up why the relationship between cars sold in American and Canadian would belong in an encyclopedia. Failing WP:N is a good indicator that this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 01:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the list couldn't be referenced. I tried the Buick Allure and I've found it in The Vancouver Sun with the article pointing out:

    (...)the Allure (called the LaCrosse south of the border), due out later this year(...)

    So a Canadian source uses the name of the rebadged version and mentions the original name only in brackets. Canadian Driver, an online automotive magazine even goes into details:

    Oshawa, Ontario - General Motors is betting big that a new mid-size sedan with a new name will rekindle interest in Buick, GM’s premium brand. Out are the Buick Century and Regal. In is the Buick Allure.
    In the U.S., the Allure will be called the Lacrosse, in keeping with Buick’s on- again, off-again tradition of giving its vehicles French names like LeSabre, Rendezvous, Rainier. But in French Canada, Lacrosse has a potentially derogatory second meaning. So the name was changed.
    One name or two, the marketing task will be daunting and expensive for GM. Century and Regal were well-recognized nameplates that accounted for 60 percent of Buick sales. It will take a lot of advertising dollars to build the same kind of awareness for the Allure and to counter the confusion of Canadian consumers exposed to U.S. media and advertising pushing the same vehicle with a different name.

    Don't know whether that source is reliable or not, but the article's writer is:

    Grant Yoxon is an Ottawa-based automotive journalist and Managing Editor of CanadianDriver. He is a member of the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada (AJAC).

    That was just a quick search and just one model. I think this list complements badge engineering (or the not-yet-written Auto industry in Canada), both of which are obviously notable topics. Would it be better to merge this list into one of those articles? If renamed to something like List of cars marketed differently within North America it may also include the cars that were exclusively marketed in Canada. Squash Racket (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 09:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Unable to identify any significant coverage of this (existent) organization. Bongomatic 14:22, 15 March 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, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. A quick google search brought up some promising media coverage such as this: , . And that literally took me one minute to find. Bound to be lots more out there.Nrswanson (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of mentions of MCCI (I spent quite a bit of time sorting through them). However, no references that I identified included anything close to "significant coverage". Bongomatic 01:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith nomination, user blocked anyway. Tone 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Natural afro-hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

wat Knives87 (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 |  15:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Packham's Squash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not for things made up one day Cheers Kyle1278 15:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to The Mighty Celt. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Has had a somewhat significant role in one fairly notable film. No evidence of a fan base or unique contributions. Also, I might add this isn't really a biography, but a plot summary lifted from IMDb. Biruitorul 22:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A Decade of Silence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable bootleg, fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched www.billboard.com for one song, and this is what I found.
Position 26 Peak 10 Weeks 4
Tupac Featuring The Notorious B.I.G.
Runnin (Dying To Live)

Got into the top 10 on the Billboard. The rest I believe were hit singles also. Dream Focus 17:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment But this album seems to be a bootleg. According to WP:MUSIC - "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." This album has not any kind of significant coverage. Karppinen (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - having loads of hit songs on an album means nothing if it is a bootleg thrown together illegally and sold "under the counter". I could compile a CD with 20 or 30 million-selling singles on it, burn a few hundred copies and sell them at a car boot sale, but that wouldn't make it a notable album -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
How can it be bootleg? If it charts on the billboard, and is sold as an album, then its legal. I don't understand where the bootleg thing is coming from. Dream Focus 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This album has never charted on any chart in Billboard (2Pac's hit albums are here). It was also produced by a company that does not own the rights to the recordings on it, therefore it is a bootleg and not legal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Amazon.com has it listed, but says its an import. And the guy died years ago, so its odd he'd be releasing anything. Alright then. If it is a bootleg, then it violates copyright law, and should be deleted. Dream Focus 22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
2Pac's released far more material since he died than he ever did during his lifetime :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, an unremarkable bootleg. Some bootlegs are notable enough to have articles, but as this one seems to have minimal third-party coverage, it's not one of them. Lankiveil 13:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC).

*Delete, non notable bootleg. Deletion Mutation 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 08:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Norman H. Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The guy who wrote almost all of this would like us to speedy-delete it, but I ran this by DGG and he'd prefer to AfD it per his note on this article's talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The subject would appear to meet WP:PROF.—S Marshall /Cont 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems notable enough; IMO the lengthy list of publications should be trimmed to a few important ones, Google Scholar provides an easy way for interested readers to find more. JohnCD (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the current evidence for notability? According to the article Anderson was a professor at the University of California at San Diego and published a list of papers. According to WP:ACADEMIC, neither is enough to establish notability (not even close: not every prof is notable and all academics publish, so we don't have anuthing special yet). If I find some time, I'll see whether I can find some real evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep According to the Web of Science, Anderson is very highly cited: 12 articles cited more than 100 times (most cited one: 911 hits), h-index=39, total citations almost 6000. He is also one of the founders of the San Diego Dept. of Psychology. I have added this information to the article. The list of publications still needs some paring down and it would be good if the stub could be expanded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusio (talk • contribs)
  • keep per Crusio. Suggest a consideration of withdrawl or speedy snow close. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is this such an obvious keep? Where are the independent sources discussing Anderson or his work? Neither his own book, nor his own department's website, qualify as independent. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • reply The article does need to be fixed, but that is viewed as a different question from whether it ought to be deleted.Although it does not currently, the article could obviously be edited to demonstrate that the subject passes the WP:PROF notability standard. Deletion would be called for if it were the case that an article could not be improved to meet that standard. The evidence referred to in Crusio's !vote, is the sort of thing that has been accepted at AfDs at Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators to meet criterion #1 of WP:PROF. An h-index of that magnitude and many highly cited articles according to the Web of Science (which is an independent source) demonstrate that his research has a notable impact on scholarship within his discipline. If this strikes you as unreasonable, you may want to review a sample of closed AfDs from Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators to get a feel for how matters have been conducted in the past, then suggest methods by which this might be improved. Creating an account would be of help if you were to go that route. Best regards. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Web of Science is a database, not a source that can be used to construct an encyclopedia article. I appreciate the formal metaphysical notability that typically permeates AFD prof debates, but disagree with it. AFD should instead tackle the practical question of whether a neutral article can be written at this title. Only sources that actually discuss the topic at hand are relevant to writing such an article. Web of Science doesn't cut it. Likewise, a claim that Anderson's scholarly impact is notable can only be backed up by independent sources that discuss that impact, not by appeal to a "high" h-index or "many" citations. (And you don't have to preface your reply with "reply"--anyone reading the discussion can tell that it's a reply.) 160.39.213.97 (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it can be backed up any way we like, if it achieves consensus. If a lot of people cite a scholar, then it means the scholar's made a significant impact on his or her discipline. See WP:PROF.—S Marshall /Cont 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
verbal descriptions of impact on a field or meaningless, and in my opinion usually susceptible to friendship networks. Actual measurements of how important work is by seeing how much it is used is true measure of significance and notability. Some fields of study dont have adequate metrics for this , but the physical and biologiclal sciences do. When we need to guess, we guess as best we can. When we can measure, we don;t have to guess Once we guessed as through a fog of words darkly, but now we can measure face to face. . Scientometrics is a fairly well understood subject, and those using it here understand how to use it properly. and avoid the many traps. It still takes intelligence. it does not result in a single number pass or fail, thoubgh some educational politicians misuse it that way. DGG (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, DGG, and I also prefer your take on 1st Corinthians to the original. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
DGG, your argument relates to some abstract, metaphysical notion of notability--notability as "significance" or being an "authority in the field." I'm talking about the practical question of whether sources exist with which to write an actual encyclopedia article that is not a CV. See the difference? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The important part of an article on a scholar is his scholarly activity, just like the one on an athlete is his athletic record. Where either of them may of gone to high school is of marginal relevance. Notability for a scholar is recognition as an authority in his field--not my notion, but the accepted standard at WP:PROF, and the publications are what prove it. If we can verify them & their citations we've meth the V requirement for an article. DGG (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
No, you've met the V requirement for a CV or a hagiography. Knowledge (XXG) demands NPOV in addition to V. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
How is a list of papers not NPOV? DGG (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It expresses the POV of a (promotional) CV. A list of papers is not an encyclopedia article. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
for the record, I note the admitted disruption from the above anon address of an article for another academic at DGG (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I note the inappropriate promotion from the above administrator account of another academic at . Alternatively, perhaps DGG could address the issue that is actually at hand. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep on the basis of the very large number of heavily-cited publications in major journals. Even wthout looking at citations, since journal articles are accepted on the basis of peer-review, the acceptance of this great a number at veruy good journals indicates notability as an authority. Looking at citations -- a little tricky because of the age--I and Crusio find his most cited papers has been cited several hundred times according to Scopus, and web of science: 13 Papers have been cited more than 100 times each. The article, by the way, is incomplete; it stops at 1973; he published at least 50 papers subsequent to that date. By any standard this is very high notability. . How many papers should be included is an interesting question. Some of the GA reviewers are insisting that every publication be included, generally on a separate page, "list of publications of " See the discussion on my talk page at the section "You are giving me conflicting information" over the articles on Norman Wengert and Howard Adelman. DGG (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it is snowing. --Crusio (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Crusio. Edward321 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Here's an independent source discussing Anderson & his work, in words even. Clearly notable, but with a common name and harder than usual to search for data on.John Z (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Crusio, DGG et al. The citation impact noted by Crusio meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Road surface. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Not notable in accordance with your Notability policy, I Goggled for "loose chippings" and no sources covering the phrase in detail were found. Delete please Spring and Port Wine (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was : Speedily deleted. No claim of notability, unsourced negative claims, possible hoax. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This is either a hoax or completely non-notable. It may have been intended as an attack page; I have deleted the second half as unsourced, extremely negative BLP. For what's left, no source is cited and searches for Leticia Fajardo or Doña Lety find no confirmation of a "famous singer" in Mexico. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Karina Bagration-Moukhransky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Karina Bagration-Moukhransky is an artist, model and a networker, and a Polish princess who aims to save the world. Maybe?

There's no references here, and while Google throws up a bit, there's really no reliable material from which to write a biography. I don't this is a hoax, but I do ask -1) is she notable or just a self-promoter. 2) are there any reliable sources from which to write a bio? Scott Mac (Doc) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as self-promotion, but there are some mitigating factors. Current news coverage for Ms. Bagration-Moukhransky appears to focus on ASmallWorld (which itself may not be notable) and the accounts which have created this page also have contributed to that one. This would appear to be an act of self-promotion and so the article should be deleted. However, I suspect that Ms. Bagration-Moukhransky may satisfy our notability criteria if solid sourcing of her heritage can be discovered, and if she is permitted to be styled as a princess, etc. I find her listed that way in the Hollywood Examiner and some other sites and so it looks legit, but those sites (even the Examiner) may not be reliable enough that I would trust them to be sure unless there were a full bio article done about her, which I have been unable to find. So, delete for now, but recreate if reliable sources can be found and if someone can make this sound less like a promotion. JRP (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-promotion with no independant sources at best. Edward321 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, appears to just be self-promotional, and I couldn't find anything independent on this person, although I do note that User:Jrp is right in that she might have a better claim to notability if some of the claims she makes about herself could be sourced. Lankiveil 13:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC).
  • Delete I'm always wary when I google something and the first thing that comes up is its Knowledge (XXG) entry. And the next 3 are other websites that contain the wikipedia entry. I sometimes wonder how many pages of Google results we're meant to look through to try and find something, then I stop thinking that and think "delete it" Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Balance/strength of arguments favours deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thunder 1000000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, due to questionable sourcing. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep: It gets over 50 views a day; it must mean something to somebody. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: No assertion of notability? Article claims: "It holds the record for the biggest loudspeaker ever made." Now if only it can be properly sourced. Rilak (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete - poorly-referenced, lacks notability, plenty of original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I know it's not properly sourced, but there are like six linked sites that say it. And pictures which illustrate it pretty well. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Six questionable sites (blogs and forums). Is there nothing from magazines, etc.? Rilak (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Daniel Christensen is improperly canvassing for votes regarding this debate. See here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Daniel sometimes asks me questions--he and I both edit audio-related articles. Your example of canvassing is just another of those questions. I've done a lot of reverting or deleting of his changes before this; I'm not what you would call an accomplice or meat puppet. I think Daniel was gambling by contacting me about this AfD; I could have gone either way on it. Technically, 'canvassing' involves a wider search for support than a single shout out to a known editor who has relevant experience. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It is the heaviest, largest single driver woofer. Like a concept car, production of the unit isn't necessary to establish notability. Article has horrible problems with WP:OR, accuracy and verifiability but could conceivably be improved. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How? Improvement should be done within the privacy of people's own computers until it is actually verifable. Knowledge (XXG) is and remains an encyclopedia and it needs to meet minimum criteria before an article can be thrown open for collaboration. -- Mgm| 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I redid the references so that they have the proper footnotes and moved the forums and blogs to external links. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete until its properly sourced, verified, and contains enough info as to why it should be included. Even the gizmowatch reference only say that it claims to be the biggest subwoofer (not speaker as the article says). Maybe I claim to have a larger one, I'll put that in wikipedia too. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12, copyright violation of promotional texts. Mgm| 11:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DJ Mad Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable DJ. Basically a copy of artists own promotional text (see myspace page, discogs). As far as I can tell, the article doesn't satisfy WP:BAND. ←Spidern→ 12:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was various. Consensus is to retain Kelly's article and delete the rest Fritzpoll (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Emma Reisz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Eric Morier-Genoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brian Kelly (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anthony Stanonis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A series of articles about lecturers in the Dept. of History at Queen's University Belfast, input by an SPA, Brian John David James (talk · contribs). After two of them were speedied WP:CSD#A7 yesterday, I pointed him to WP:PROF and explained that embarrassment could be caused by attempts to list people who did not qualify; but he re-entered those two, listing one publication that each had written, and added three more, one of which has since been speedied. In my opinion all are A7 candidates, but rather than go on with a speedy-recreate cycle, I bring them here. Kelly is a Senior Lecturer, the other three are Lecturers; I have checked Google Scholar, and find no indication that any of them meet the requirements of WP:PROF. Knowledge (XXG) is not a staff listing directory. Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - yes, checking out Brian Kelly is hard work because there are so many of them. In Google Scholar, if you put the name in quotes (to eliminate, e.g, articles by "Kelly Tepper and Brian C. Shaffer"), and restrict the scope on the search page to "Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities" the number found reduces to 206; then it's a matter of knowing this Kelly's interests and slogging through looking at the article titles. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • comment alternatively, one could GS search on the titles of the "selected works" from his academic homepage... that would at least give an idea of the citation rates for his most influential (one would assume) works. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Good idea, I have done that as well. The best is for his book "Race, Class and Power in the Alabama Coalfields", with 9 citations in GS, three copies in UK libraries but many more in the US, 384 altogether in Worldcat. Going through the Scholar list the hard way, in the first 100 entries I found 7 of his, best citation counts 9 and 6. Citation rates in the humanities are hard to assess, but I still don't think he meets WP:PROF. Note to closing admin: this sort of discussion is unavoidable but embarrassing - maybe this debate should be courtesy blanked if it closes "delete". JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. Reisz has published a few articles, and, just now is about to publish one book The book is not yet in any academic libraries..Unless the book is a great success, she;s still a beginner & not yet notable.
  2. Morier-Genoud has not yet published a book, just a small number of articles. She is not yet notable.
  3. Brian Kelly, unlike the others, is a Senior Lecturer not a lecturer; His book won two awards--he is therefore notable.
  4. Anthony Stanonis has published a few articles, and one book, so unless it is a great success, he's not yet notable. It's based on his dissertation, and in 200 WorlCat libraries. I found no reviews.
  5. Brian Kelly, in addition to his articles, published a book that won two important prizes, is in almost 500 worldCat libraries, a very good record for labor history, and received reviews in 6 important journals in the field, including the highly prestigious Journal of American History. He clearly meets WP:PROF, because of the reviews. and the prizes. Reviews prove the importance of the book, and its confirmed by the prizes.

So we haveKeep for Kelly, delete for the others. DGG (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I Wanna Rock Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable concert tour. Nothing that makes this tour any more notable than any other. fails WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

*Delete, not yet notable. Deletion Mutation 16:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

No notable relationships between these two countries to make a full article, only mutual embassies and coincidence in membership in two orgs.

See precedents at Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Luxembourg–Serbia_relations. Enric Naval (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Another Groubani article by someone who wanted to make a set of articles about relations between nation X and nation Y, regardless of whether there was anything to say. This guy leaves behind more stubs than a bad surgeon. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fatah. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Neologism, WP:COATRACK, no sources given. pedrito - talk - 25.03.2009 08:10 08:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Both articles (which were added after I started this AfD) use the term only in passing, without describing or defining them. The Times piece has no author and both pieces are mainly prosaic. If this is a widely-used or notable term, then there should be more explicit sources.
The fact that 90% of the article is an anti-Fatah coatrack doesn't help the case. Remove that and you're left with a stub that won't satisfy WP:NOTABILITY.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 26.03.2009 09:30
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 03:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable school game. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. By its own admission on its website it is a "silly game" but it appears to be gaining some kind of following. IMO it only just escapes WP:MADEUP but it has entered the mainstream enough to be mentioned (albeit in passing) in New York magazine. There's a paucity of third party references on the Knowledge (XXG) webpage, though. I42 (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, hello. Willing to answer any questions that you all might have. There are a few articles which have covered Field Crumpets, granted two come from college newspapers (The Kansan, Columbia Missourian - both are no longer directly available, though the Missourian article is available from the internet archive here). There was also news report done by Lawrence Channel 6, available here. I would wager that there are some additional college newspaper articles that I am unaware of, as there are possibly clubs at some colleges (as well as other, non-college related clubs) that I'm unaware of. There will be a large gathering in the coming months (June 20th to be precise) and I plan to attempt to get some media coverage for that event. In any case, I am not very versed in the details of Knowledge (XXG) so I won't pretend to understand whether the article should be kept or not, but do let me know if you need any more information regarding Field Crumpets and I'll be happy to oblige. SombraAla (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am admittedly biased regarding the subject of this article. Field crumpets is and will continue to be one of my favorite games to play outdoors. That said, I think the geographic reach of the game beyond its original roots in the Kansas area should be considered. I have personally been part of groups that have played the game regularly in Iowa and Wisconsin, and there seems to be an active league as far away as New York. Etphonehome (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable references can be provided to demonstrate this game's notability. Popularity and geographical reach cannot in themselves support an encyclopedic article if it is entirely based on primary sources from people who created the game in the first place. ~ mazca 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep by WP:IAR. Passing mention in the nymag, what appears to be a governing body, and a few SPSs which prove that the game is played. Doesn't meet the sourcing requirements of WP:N, but IMO this is one of the exceptions to otherwise generally acceptable guideline as it meets WP:V and seems to be played in a number of places (Univ of Wisc, and in Kansas are both verifiable via a web search). Hobit (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Speedily deleted - hoax/editing experiment. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Article is an exact copy of the Knowledge (XXG) Alexander Ovechkin article. Author just changed players name. Frehley 06:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Sending to AfD as PROD appears contested on talk page of article. Basically, fails the notability criteria, and since notability is not inherited, her only claim to fame is somewhat unnoteworthy. ∗ \ / (⁂) 05:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. The case seems crystal clear. There's WP:ITSA: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Knowledge (XXG)'s notability criteria on their own merits". But the subject easily fails WP:ENTERTAINER, because she hasn't had a single significant role. I was unable to find even a source that verifies any of the minor roles, which leads me to conclude that she also fails the criteria of the general notability guideline. decltype (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as totally unverifiable. Since the Miley Cyrus article doesn't mention her, I don't see the need to redirect. - Mgm| 11:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW keep. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Harry, A History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a place to advertise a fan's spinoff/derivative work which would not have stood alone on its own. Harry Potter is a phenomenon. Would it have been covered by USA Today if it weren't related to H.P.? At best, it should be merged into HP fandom or similar. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it would have been notable or not if it was of another subject. That's like saying, "Would Harry Potter have been popular if it was a totally different book?". I don't see your argument that "just because it's a book about a book its not notable" to be very convincing. It's neither a spin off or a derivative work, it's a non-fiction autobiography about the authors relation to the Harry Potter fandom. chandler · 07:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This 4-month old book has a sales rank of #7,158 in the "Books" category on Amazon. Why exactly are we wasting valuable space to promote this? How exactly is it notable? Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop acting stupid, this isnt promoting anything. Or are every article on Knowledge (XXG) in your eyes a promotion of the subject? And how it is notable, it's been covered by sources independent of the publisher. I don't see how the sales matter? Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have a limit of how many book articles can exist, and there's certainly not a criteria called "Has to be top 5,000 sold book on Amazon" chandler · 09:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if book reviews or being (not 1st) on the NYT bestseller list was something that helped notability so I didnt mention it. chandler · 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Due to the massive popularity of the Harry Potter franchise, every spinoff/derivative work, especially one marketed on a high-traffic fansite, will end up being a "bestseller" at some point in time. That's not indicative of notability. This book could have appeared on NYT's list for only a single week--and if we were to create a separate article for every work that has ever appeared on a weekly NYT list, we'd have millions of additional articles to make.
Amazon's cumulative sales rank in the thousands and the Google News test (only 58 articles that mentioned this book in 2008) do not support the assertion that this work is notable in any way.
Also, to chandler, I'm curious if you have a conflict of interest in any way? Are you affiliated with Leaky, or work for them? Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, Wikipedian06? Jd027 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No I am/do not. chandler · 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 |  00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

nn, wikipedia is not a collection of obituaries... Maniamin (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

*Delete per Mgm. Deletion Mutation 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked users struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Overwhelming consensus - WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) ~ mazca 23:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

game is non-notable. the lawsuit was dropped. there is no more media attention on this commercial venture; WP doesn't need to advertise for them.Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

KEEP You're kidding, right? Hundreds of articles about the game; it's impact on Facebook and Facebook aplications; what it meant for online creative copyrights for existing games, whether the concept of "game" could even BE patented; fans very vocal fallout with Hasbro; The Agarwalla brothers lawsuits; Wordscraper still has 180k users... --Knulclunk (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Snow keep the article about this ridiculously notable and significant game.—S Marshall /Cont 08:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This game was never copyright-legal to begin with, and there isn't much to note. It's just a poor excuse to advertise this game. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not it was legal is not relevant. Knowledge (XXG) is only concerned with whether it's verifiable, has reliable sources, is notable, etc. That's why we have articles about hoaxes and criminals.—S Marshall /Cont 08:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep -- of course it's notable -- both as a game that's a significant part of social networking, just, you know, like an on-line multiply edited encyclopedia, and as a very significant element of internet commercial history. Nightspore (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)nightspore
Keep The only reason multiple reliable sources could be thrown out if they're part of a short news burst in which publications take over each other's news reports. That's obviously not the case here. It was in the news for a period of at least 8 months. The fact the lawsuit was dropped and the thing isn't in the news anymore isn't relevant. notability is not temporary. There is a difference between writing about a commercial venture and advertising it. - Mgm| 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep - might not be notable if it was just invented today and Scrabulous had never existed, but history makes it notable, particularly in the context of intellectual-property issues. (Though I have to say, and I appreciate this isn't the place to say it, that IMHO it would make more sense for Lexulous to re-direct to Scrabulous rather than vice-versa.) Barnabypage (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
KEEP - relevant to the history of social networking for several reasons, including being a well known showcase for issues with copyright and being a a useful case study for those studying economic development in the developing world. --Steve Foerster (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
A what??? Who cares abouy that muck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.58.53 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
KEEP - An very notable application for various reasons, including copyright/trademark, social networking, etc. I agree with the above sentiment that it should be a redirect to Scrabulous and not the other way 'round. PrePressChris (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without the law case, one might have a possible case for deletion. However, the legal history of this is notable, as demonstrated by the amount of references available - from reliable sources such as the BBC, the Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal, strong sources that don't turn up too often in video game articles. There's no denying the need for cleanup—far too much proseline and the like—but notability is established, and as already commented, notability is not temporary. -- Sabre (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
But what exactly did this incident contribute to the modern legal system? A court decision was never made -- if this actually went to court and there were a decision (see Pirate Bay trial), it might be relevant. But this case was resolved privately and Hasbro later dropped the charges. In other words, it's not noteworthy. It's just the same as every other legal threat that ended in an amicable settlement. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


According to Google News, there are about 4000 news articles discussing Obama's dog. There are tens of thousands of tabloid articles discussing what so-and-so celebrity is wearing at the current moment. Does that make any of this noteworthy material for Knowledge (XXG)? Extensive press coverage isn't necessarily indicative of notability. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd hardly compare an article by the Wall Street Journal, which is focused on the game far more than any of the legal stuff, to the level of tabloid rubbish. Our notability guidelines, which extend from WP:V, do not require something to have been of importance, merely covered in sources independent and reliable. One might well be able to write an article on Obama's dog, but common sense would say such information would belong in the articles on Obama and his family (we've got articles for Putin's dog and Hitler's dog... but that's besides the point). -- Sabre (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiant chains (talk • contribs) signature of closing editor added, nom withdrawn--Wigglesoinks 19:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Next Czech legislative election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is simply about an election that may occur this year or next year. After the election, it will be outdated, as a new election will be the "next" election. Radiant chains (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. My understanding of the situation is that it's similar to Next United Kingdom general election in that elections must be held by a certain date in 2010, but may occur before then due to the no-confidence vote. Thus, we can't use the standard "Czech legislative election, XXXX" naming, and this is a compromise title pending the actual date of the elections. If anyone's got a better suggestion for a title, go right ahead, but that's not an AfD issue. BryanG (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


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

The result was unbundle and relist as this was a poorly bundled AfD and it would be impossible to reach consensus from this. Tavix (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sepulveda Dam bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path.") JamesBurns (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages as per above.:

La Mirada bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yorba Linda bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
West Los Angeles Veloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bolsa Chica bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
California Aqueduct bikeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lario bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long Beach bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rio Hondo bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metro Orange Line bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Santa Monica bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Santa Clara River Trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Santa Ana River bicycle path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

JamesBurns (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning to editors - the link labikepaths.com which appears on a number of these articles is generating virus warning messages from Google and my anti-virus software. JamesBurns (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably the best fix is to remove the links. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
"Knowledge (XXG) 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 (XXG) does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc." JamesBurns (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You're referring to content, not notability. The sentence of WP:NOTTRAVEL that you're quoting is immediately preceded by "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." The sources found above for some of the articles are not telephone numbers, address or prices of a café but in-depth chapters, articles or whole books about the topics. There can be "tourist attractions" that pass WP:NOTABILITY. Just because articles are currently badly written as travel guide-like doesn't negate the fact they might pass WP:NOTABILITY. What you're referring to is a re-write of these articles.--Oakshade (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oakshade comment. Some of these paths appear to be notable enough to be on Knowledge (XXG). If the articles are written like a travel guide, they should be tagged with the "Unencyclopedic" template so as to give people a chance to improve them and/or to prove notability. It seems to me that some of these places are quite famous so I'm sure there is a potential for better articles. Laurent (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear - I should have said "Since they appear to be notable, they should be on Knowledge (XXG)". If they are not, I agree that they can be deleted. I would suggest to do the following:
  1. check for the notability of individual articles and delete those that are not notable.
  2. remove the author's opinion from the article (and possible copyrighted material).
  3. tag the remaining articles as stubs.
Obviously, in order to do all that, we may need a bit more time than what an AFD would allow.
Laurent (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Copyright problem: The article Santa Ana River bicycle path appears to have been copied from the book Bicycle Rides. Orange County by Don Brundige & Sharron Brundige, published 2000. JamesBurns (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all - these are travel guides. Better suited to Wikitravel, than wikipedia. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. A mass nomination like this one does not enable the creator or anyone else to give each article proper individual care and attention. These need to be evaluated on their own. Travel guide content can be taken care off by replacing it with a stub if enough sources can be found as per above. Florida Connector Bicycle Route may be relevant too. It turned out to be a copyright violation. - Mgm| 12:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • You're a terrible admin to get advice from MGM. Next time I will ask someone else for a second opinion, rather than yourself. You sat on my question for days, responding to others but ignoring my question. JamesBurns (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete only La Mirada (my hometown) and Yorba Linda as essentially blank articles with no prejudice toward re-creation when information is added. Stub the rest and flag for improvement. Subjects are notable but nom is correct that they currently read like a travel guide. However, they can be re-written in an encyclopedic tone. KuyaBriBri 15:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Note. My point above was indeed that the ones that are notable (and I only did a quick Google News search) should be reworked, sure--but copyvio issues can be addressed in editing, content can be adjusted in editing, etc. If an article is too much like a travel guide, then edit it so it becomes an encyclopedic article! Coverage in for instance the LA Times is a sure sign of notability, and no matter what the content is, an article on a notable topic is to be kept. I fully chime in with the criticism of this mass nomination--I don't have time, right now, or in the next four days, to work on all the ones that I believe should stay. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Frankly, I feel this is a terrible bundled AfD in which it would be hard to drive a consensus from. Personally, I think 3 of them should be deleted and the rest kept, while I noticed others only wanted one deleted or half of them, etc. I think the appropriate way to handle this would be close it as no consensus and relist a couple of them separately as needed. Tavix (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 03:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

non-notable model. Originally prodded with the following rationale by User:Dismas: "No coverage in secondary sources that I can find. A Google news search returns a number of articles about doctors and lawyers with the same name but after weeding those out, none appear to be about this woman. Appears to be NN model per Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people). Her official bio mentions acting in a television show for two episodes but IMDb and TV.com don't show it." Tavix (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete I stand by my original prod. Dismas| 03:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas| 03:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per prod & nominator. --Nick—/Contribs 04:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: per WP:N. South Bay (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems to have a couple articles about her in the english press to satisfy WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Since there are only nine results to that Google search, I've gone through them...
      • 1) Property Week magazine is a trade journal who did a fluff piece on Becker going back to work as a model.
      • 2) Without purchasing the article, I can't see if the Sacramento Bee article is actually talking about the same Lucy Becker but either way, the article's focus doesn't appear to be her. It just seems to mention her. And what she's doing in an American city newspaper, I'm not sure.
      • 3) A mention that she was #19 in a list of most searched for celebs for a single month. That being the previous month, so she wasn't popular enough to last any longer than that.
      • 4) Another mention by Property Week but this time the article is about a guy and the article is "for the ladies". So it doesn't focus on Becker.
      • 5) Business Wire - Not the same Lucy Becker
      • 6) Knight Ridder - So far the only major coverage if the article is longer than a couple paragraphs.
      • 7) The original printing of #5 above.
      • 8) An ad basically to get you to vote for one of however many girls to be the spokesmodel for Big D peanuts (article?).
      • 9) Another printing of #5 and 7. This includes the rest of the article which confirms that it's referring to the "Lucy Becker Professor in Medicine and of Microbiology and Immunology" which seems to be a title of sorts and not anything to do with the model.
    • So, only the Property Week article is actually about her. The rest are either about other people or mere mentions of her or someone with her name (#2) Dismas| 09:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a mistake to assume an article has to be about the subject to be a good source. If the article has a single mention about her, but that mention means she meets some other WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE criteria, then she's notable. Say for example you have a single mention about someone in a reliable newspaper and nowhere else, but that paper reports the person won an Academy Award, they'd clearly meet the inclusion criteria (enough to be mentioned on some level). It is not the number of size of the articles that matters, but wha they say. By the way, your assessment on number 1 is a personal opinion, unless you know of some objective way to keep fluff pieces apart from other news articles. Since most of the articles are off-limit to me according to Google I reserve my judgement until I see the actual content of the articles in question. - Mgm| 12:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 08:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Declined speedy; this person falls far short of WP:BIO LetsdrinkTea 02:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'll apply SNOW here, several articles of this kind have all been deleted via AfD and there's nothing new here. Tone 17:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:N. Prior discussions (such as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Canada–Moldova relations, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Peru–Romania relations, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland) have determined that mere existence of diplomatic relations does not equate notability. The two don't even have embassies, and no sources turned up in a search I did, so deletion seems the best option. (Granted, the two were both Communist in the 1975-89 period, and Romania valued her relations with East Asian Communist regimes, but the burden of proof is on others to provide sources showing there was something to this relationship, and that has not happened, nor is it likely to.) Biruitorul 02:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - agreed, non-notable relations. Jd027 (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. There do not appear to be any notable relations between the countries; at least none that are cited in the article. --Nick—/Contribs 04:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Fails general notability requirements. Yilloslime C 06:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per precedents - random and non-notable topic. Dahn (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Mere existence of diplomatic relations are not enough for an article. It basically states the obvious by rewording the title which is speediable. Also, when someone has to go to another country to visit an embassy for the so-called related country, the relations are clearly not important enough. - Mgm| 12:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Laos doesn't have an embassy in Romania, and Romania doesn't have an embassy in Laos? At least the flags are pretty. Do you suppose that someone could just do a list of where Romania has embassies, and where Laos has embassies, without writing articles like this? Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
We certainly have those lists: Diplomatic missions of Laos; Diplomatic missions of Romania. - Biruitorul 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 08:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Can-Do Conservatives of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group founded recently. No significant reliable sources. They'll probably be notable some day, but not yet. Hangon'd speedy declined. HeureusementIci (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton |  00:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Sufficiently explained in related articles. To minor of a component in Norton AntiVirus to be granted its own article. TechOutsider (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

  • Comment fixed nomination --- needed {{afd2}}. cab (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge SF007 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It is used in 3 different pieces of software (not just Norton Antivirus) so merging it to any single one of them muddles the water by making the reader believe that is the only place it's used. A better merge target would be Symantec, but I don't see this work there just yet without a technology section in there. - Mgm| 12:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with Symantec. Not sufficiently notable on its own. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are two independent articles that are cited and appear to be non-trivial, establishing notability. It would be awkward in the Symantec article & I agree that merging it to an article on a single product seems somewhat inadequate. TechOutsider's most novel contribution to the article (the drawbacks section) should be better cited. I don't think anyone has shown that automation leads to more false positives. Indeed, I remember email spam/ham and/or phishing studies that suggested that given average users choices about such things didn't always lead to spectacular results. --Karnesky (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per WP:N, "Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." This article is a stub/start class and will stay that way; Symantec acquired a firm, PC Tools, which develops and distributes 'ThreatExpert', similar to SONAR. TechOutsider (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimfbleak as G4. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This is simply game guide content and trivia. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Andres Rivera Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Many claims are made about this singer, none of which I can find verification of. There does not seem to be a "BBC Award" for "New Artist" (at least not that I can find). Confirmation of the award for "Best Latin Song" (from what organization?) is similarly elusive. He supposedly had a number one song, but the article does not specify what chart.

The only Google results for "Andres Rivera" "Island Records" that are relevant are submit-it-yourself sites like MySpace and LinkedIn. ... discospinster talk 00:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete as entirely unverifiable; no reliable sources outside of wiki- and myspace-mirrors. Half of the claims seem like wishful thinking, to me. onebravemonkey 13:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Unverifiable claims lacking available sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

*Delete: per above. Deletion Mutation 15:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The editor of a newsletter and author of some articles? No independent assessment of notability. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked into the books, unless I missed some, everyone was via a vanity/POD publisher. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Vanity and POD are two different sort of things. They often go together, but not always. Vanity publishers try to earn money by making the authors pay fees upfront, or by forcing them to by large amounts of their own book. Print On Demand is a method by which a book is printed each time it is ordered (on demand). There are plenty of publishers who rightly push the costs of these books on the buyer rather than the author. (sorry a pet peeve of mine)- Mgm| 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This article first came to my attention when someone mentioned it on the BLP board, they thought it was of a notable person but the article needed some clean-up. A quick glance suggested to me that was the case, however... once I started digging in the sources, they were all listing to generic pages - so if there was a claim that she did some work for notable organisation X, then it just linked to their homepage. As far as I can best determine she's worked as an editor and administrator and researcher for a number of organisations - completely run of the mill stuff and nothing that suggests that the subject is suitable for a wikipedia article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Further comment about sources - The vast majority of her articles are published in Mondaq.com and what do they have to say about their service?

On pricing Mondaq breaks the mold of traditional 'pay to publish' marketing opportunities that are expensive, demographically dubious, and provide no conversion evidence at the end of the year when it comes to making renewal decisions. the lexis stuff seems to indexs of this paid material. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Although I see a large number of papers, essay and books written by her, I cannot find any coverage about her in independent, reliable sources that would demonstrate that she meets our notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean With this author's output, it is likely a reader of her various legal writings would look for background biographical information here. Deletion would create a conspicuous absence in my opinion Jordanstratford (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete since this person, despite the claimed output, does not seem to be notable--such a person should generate some meaningful, independent hits on Google News, and she doesn't. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Query Google scholar seems to list quite a few publications for her (I'm assuming she's all the SS Ramage legal hits here), but none of them show any citations. I do not know how citations work in the field of law, would a notable legal scholar not be expected to show citations in a search like this? Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As best as I can determine, the pay to publish site she uses mondaq, submits it's material to crawlers so it appears in various databases. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I note also that the Google Scholar search turns up a hit for "Fraud: Law, Procedure and Investigation. S Ramage - 2009 - Oxford University Press" but I can find no other information about this book on line, and don't think it amounts to a claim of notability by itself, per (WP:CRYSTAL) among other reasons. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I had a look into this and can also find nothing about it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Clicking on the links provided by the google scholar search gives this result, with some apparently independent info, it's published this month - , and WorldCat says it's in 6 libraries - . She has also been known as Sally Dabydeen & Sally Sookram - see earlier versions of the article, but I didn't find enough good evidence when I looked at the article when it was prodded. The OUP book looks like the best evidence she may eventually be considered notable enough here.John Z (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this book has been published yet - it does not seem to available from the Blackstone's site (which is the imprint) under which policing material is released by the OUP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Further investigation suggests that it's actually another self-published book and nothing to do with the OUP (see article talkpage). --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
As I commented on the talk page, info in my last version of the article was editted out. I think the links above may clear things up; the OUP book appears to be the second edtion of the iUniverse book, with a different ISBN and a new coauthor.John Z (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup . Although the lack of entry on other dbases is surprising.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced this book exists - the only library copies are the iuniverse version and I can find no mention of it on any OUP site. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it is most likely that it actually does or will exist; if not, my hat is off to whoever for making a good show of it. In any case, I agree with Pete Hurd that it is not likely to save the article alone, so I think it's moot. In a year, if there are reviews, if major publishers publish her other books, things might be different.John Z (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 multiplayer video game. MBisanz 08:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable neologism. Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as hoax. Kimchi.sg «C¦T» 01:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Another hoax from the "Cartoon Network and Nicktoons are somehow in a video game" file. As usual, unsourced and blatantly a hoax, should be a delete on sight thing but the content is never the same nor is the title, the only thing that is the same is the subject matter. treelo radda 00:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 08:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Commune 2 (Popayán) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sources, unverified, non-notable, original research   —Chris Capoccia ⁄C 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against recreation when it comes out. Tone 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Reason not yet notable future game. Twice tagged for speedy but contributor keeps removing tag from own article.Dmol (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per nom--Moloch09 (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 08:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Commune 3 (Popayán) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sources, unverified, non-notable, original research   —Chris Capoccia ⁄C 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 08:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

no sources, unverified, non-notable, original research   —Chris Capoccia ⁄C 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Commune 5 (Popayán) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sources, unverified, non-notable, original research   —Chris Capoccia ⁄C 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 partly because there is consensus that the organisation does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia and partly because it is a blatant copyright infringement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nu Gamma Psi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

JOSEPH A. MCPHILLIPS III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Be nice if more then one editor chimed in but I see no point in relisting this again (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:N  Chzz  ►  14:59, 20 March 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, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Reason the page should be deleted violates WP:V, does not meet WP:BIO SuperEdit04 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm questioning the importance of appearing on magazine covers, at least in this context. If a subject is on a cover as a feature of that month's content, that would seem to confer notability. But with all due respect, in this context subject is fundamentally an unnamed model. Trying to avoid a slippery slope, if modeling for a cover confers notability, that would infer inclusion for all cover models of magazines, and then arguably all television commercial actors. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you know if he was only a cover model or could there be associated articles in the magazines? →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Fair question. I don't know, but my understanding of the of the rationale used was that he was on the cover. If I may use Prevention magazine as an example. There are a lot of cover models here, but only in a few cases are the models notable (the only one I saw was a Bollywood actress). When the cover model was notable, there was an article in the magazine. The argument for this subject, as I understand it, is he was on these covers. Prior to that, it was indicated that there is no evidence of an article. Given the high level of commercialism on the internet, and that the subject sells DVD's, it is reasonable to assume that if there was an on-line article available, it would be used to sell DVD's. Going back to the covers, though, if you go to this list, you will see he is identified as a cover model. There are a lot of cover models listed there. Under the above rationale, every one of them would deserve an article here, even if there is no article in the magazine.
I believe that Mr. Marting's accomplishments are commendable. He is obviously in excellent shape and appears to have achieved some business success in this field. But there is a difference between being commendable and being notable. If articles turn up, or if his workout video's are shown to be notable, then by all means the article is deserving. If you notice, my remarks were prefaced by comment, I am attempting to provide an opinion on a point of order without providing an opinion on the article's worthiness (though I suppose this comment makes my thoughts clear). I am actually an inclusionist and generally only come down on the side of helping articles stay in.
74.69.39.11 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

South Africans of Hispanic descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probable WP:HOAX. I am admittedly unfamiliar with the immigration situation in South Africa, but in my Gbooks searches I cannot find any evidence of significant population movement from Spain or Latin American countries, Mark González notwithstanding. Furthermore, the article creator CARLMART was indef-blocked last year for adding lots of vaguely-plausible-sounding statements to articles about human migration, which later turned out to be complete and utter lies --- see the ANI report. cab (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is no significant Spanish or Hispanic community in SA (as opposed to, say, the Greek or Portuguese communities). I can find nothing to indicate that there ever was immigration beyond the normal flow of people back and forth. So even if this is not a hoax it fails both the verifiability and notability checks. 9Nak (talk) 16:02, 20 March 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, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another completely unsourced ethnicity article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, while there are a few Hispanics who have migrated to South Africa, there is definitely not a big enough number for anything noteworthy. Tavix (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete As noted above, completely unsourced. Enough buzzwords are thrown in to make it sound encyclopedic: "Most Spanish South Africans are Castilians and Basques. There are some Galician, Catalan, Andalusian, Aragonese, Asturian, Gypsy, Spanish Jewish, Filipino Spaniards and Chinese ethnicities in Spanish population." If the author can't tell us where he/she got something like this from, are we supposed to assume it to be true? "They may also speak one of official South African Bantu languages, like Zulu, Tswana, and Xitsonga." They may, but I read that they have to say "por favor" first. Take my word for it. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Martin Mystery episodes. MBisanz 08:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Monsters in Martin Mystery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sourceless and indiscriminate collection of trivial details of a work of fiction. It's mostly plot summary and gives no indication of any real-world notability. Reyk YO! 05:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Unsourced and overly detailed fancruft for a show with only minor popularity; pretty much a plot description for each episode disguised as a character description. Nate • (chatter) 18:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Martin Mystery. The article about the show itself indicates notability because it was syndicated in several different countries outside the one where it was created, but it is in dire need of references itself. By redirecting it there, we offer editors the chance to verify the information or use it to write a section about the monsters of the show in an encyclopedic manner. If recreation is a concern it can be protected. - Mgm| 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Martin Mystery episodes and leave a note there on the talkpage to encourage editors to merge information of interest (per Mgm). From my quick check, at least the vast majority of monsters are monsters of the week, so wikipedia just needs one list to cover the ground. – sgeureka 11:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Keep, whatever.. Withdrawn/Keep, whatever. The copyvio has been addressed and while I'm still not convinced it's notable but at the least, this will close as no consensus so there's no point to prolonging this. StarM 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Parks Bicycle Route (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While this is a long and detailed article about a bike route, I find no evidence this route is at all notable. It's a great travel guide for those seeking to use the route, but that's not what Knowledge (XXG) is. StarM 03:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Notability - I believe this bicycle trail is no more or less notable than major hiking trails or state highway routes. The major objection seems to be that this trail is primarily designed for mountain bicycles, which some editors consider unworthy of Knowledge (XXG). In the Rocky Mountain region, tourism is a major industry, and hiking, horse, and biking trails are considered major recreational facilities. I believe this article should be retained. --Buaidh (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Buaidh's reasoning on this as regards bike trails in general. However, I think in order to establish this particular trail's notability it would have to have been covered in multiple independent reliable sources just like anything else on wikipedia. I would be surprised if this particular trail didn't have such sources available. Perhaps a mountain bike enthusiast has some bike magazine's talking about the trail or maybe some books (mountain bike books, travel guide books, etc.) that discuss the Great Parks Bicycle Route. Until such sources are produced than notability for this individual trail is not established.Nrswanson (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment To the closing administrator. I have just blocked User:Buaidh's account for 24 hours (see User talk:Buaidh#Warning and User talk:Buaidh#Block) so please extend this AfD by 24 hours as user:Buaidh was the creator of this article. --PBS (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Update I'm back, no thanks to PBS. I've added several additional hyperlinks to related articles. --Buaidh (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. After doing some research I have made up my mind. Google books revealed several promising sources. Here are some other possible sources: , This article just needs better referencing.Nrswanson (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment the 2nd is by the organizer and therefore not a reliable, independent source -- in fact it's where this text is lifted from. The third is a mirror of same. StarM 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The coverage in the Google books seems to establish notability.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Citations to good sources are prima facie evidence of notability. Copyright violation is a different matter which may be simply addressed by stubbing the article. I shall attend to this now. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 08:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Did he register an account to write about himself? Looks like it to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/BasilHero Habanero-tan (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I had that thought as well but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. It could simply be a keen supporter of Basil Hero. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. The preservation of this old theatrical footage seems to be fairly important, and as far as WP:NOTE is concerned, we have two NY Times articles directly relating to the project he is leading, though they don't address him quite as well. Quantumobserver (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The preservation of the footage and two articles in the NY Times does not justify an article on the person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete Article doesnt really assert any notability. Minor trivial coverage but nothing substantial. --neon white talk 08:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not Delete. Mr Hero is also a founder of the Theatre Museum in New York and donated InTheatre's photo archive to the Museum. He is a major supporter of theatre museum efforts and the preservation of television classics as cited in half a dozen major articles by the New York Times. Mr. Hero was also cited in The New York Times in a major Sunday Arts & Leisure article for his personal appeal to Arthur Miller to release the 1966 CBS version of Death of a Salesman. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/arts/television-radio-a-chance-to-see-salesman-as-if-for-the-first-time.html. He was also cited by Fortune Magazine in its 9/11 issue for his leadership abilities in preserving the aforementioned programs. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/11/12/313345/index.htm. His biography should be maintained on Knowledge (XXG). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilHero (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither really discuss the subject in any detail. --neon white talk 16:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't Delete: The digital preservation of classic film and television libraries represents a vital and important contribution to the arts in America. Without BDE's and Mr. Hero's efforts, many of the finest works in PBS's Great Performances Library from the 1960s and 70s would have disintegrated and been lost forever. Ditto for the prime time specials of that era broadcast on NBC, CBS and ABC. These preservation efforts were cited by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jul/06/entertainment/ca-48186 and all the major newspapers in the country. There are numerous links in the Knowledge (XXG) article to famous actors like Robert Redford who got their start in these programs. It is a vital part of the historical record to maintain acknowledgement of this rich history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadwaydigital (talk • contribs) 20:21, March 23, 2009

— Broadwaydigital (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's no consensus to delete this article but good arguments for both keeping and merging. The merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Diet For A New America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a musical recording that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The creator of this article was advised, and given the opportunity, to add references to the article to support his claim of notability; but he has not been able to do so. Untick (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge to 58 (band) per WP:NALBUMS (Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting). There doesn't appear to be significant independent coverage in reliable sources about the album itself. --Onorem♠Dil 13:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not clear from the nomination statement what research was done, if any, to clarify this subject's notability in preparation for the AfD. I found that there were multiple sources that cover the subject significantly, and have used those sources to expand the article just now. There's enough for the general notability guideline, so I recommend keep. Paul Erik 02:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I guess I didn't look hard enough. I won't argue against keep, but it's probably likely that additional sources aren't going to surface 9 years later. I'd stick with merge as my !vote since even after being expanded, the article on the band could easily host all the available information while still being barely more than a stub. --Onorem♠Dil 03:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the merge because there was always so little information about the band as it was for all intents and purposes a place for Nikki to show his solo work, but although I agree with the merge, when the article was proposed for deletion, despite what Untick claims, as the author i was NOT notified and only found out by keeping the page on watch, which is not in line with the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines given for proposed deletion. Btw i looked at the article and was very impressed at the addition to it, I myself never even knew alot of that :)DrMotley (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 14:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I can understand other editors' wishes to beef up the article on 58 (band), and that could be done by merging all this content there. But the sources I have added are addressing the album (discussion of its conception and production, critics' reviews), rather than the band in general, so our notability guideline would suggest that this content remain at the current article. Paul Erik 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton · 17:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The too-long, don't-wanna-read summary: Fails WP:N and WP:V. The one source given is completely unreliable, and no reliable sources can be found.

The long version: No reliable sources. The magazine that is mentioned writes about one direct-sale/multi-level-marketing company a month, and states flatly: "Direct selling companies are enjoying record recruiting numbers by utilizing VideoPlus Publishing's newsstand and non-newsstand magazines and custom publications. This success is due to the publications' third-party credibility, emphasis on opportunity and thorough highlighting of the featured company's history of success and the lifestyles of successful representatives... Success from Home offers no competing or business opportunity ads and no subscriptions. As a third party publication, it offers instant credibility to your company." In other words, the magazine exists to pull people into MLM companies and isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. (The implication is that companies featured in Success from Home pay to be in the magazine.) I searched regarding World Ventures and haven't found any reliable sources to use to make an article. The unreliable sources I found (weblogs, travel agent forums, and similar sites) all state that World Ventures is what's called a "card mill", which means that it's not considered a legitimate travel agency in any case. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete nothing more than (perhaps) local notability shown, sourced of course to its own site. It is written so poorly and with a spammy nature, that it is more of a blog than an article, and even were this show notable, this article would not be the starting point for writing an article on it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete for non-notability. Carlos, I hope you like the article a little better now; it was so full of trivia that it was embarrassing to the Knowledge (XXG) project. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • REPOST This is so ridiculous, first of all their is no such thing as not being notable enough for WIKI, and even if there were, no one made anybody commenting in this post the judge of it. Secondly, an article can and should be created for the Woody Show if any being out there believes it should be. However the writer or writers should do their best to have a well cited and as objective as possible outlook on the subject they are covering. It is up to others to help edit the writing to make it fit these guidelines, and not just delete it from some unelected and undeserved position which decides what subjects are notable enough for WIKI. THECON (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Right on. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I say keep. We obviously don't need to make it as extensive as the page as been in the past, but a little blurb on the show and the people on the show would benefit WP. The people on the show have been in radio for years, and thousands of listeners would make it relatively notable. If we find some decent sources, I think this could be a nice small addition to WP. I have been seeing issues, however, with references to radio: there are very few. For instance, I have been trying to do work on WKQX, which has been around for over 15 years, but with little sources referring to its history. Sometimes a lack of sources does not diminish notability. However, in accordance with WP guidelines, we better find some neutral sources on the subject. Angryapathy (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I. H. Sangam Dev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I cannot find significant third party coverage of this individual and he does not appear to have written anything notable. Fails WP:BIO in my opinion. Enigma 00:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt Jones (singer/songwriter - Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This awkward title was made necessary by the fact there is another, more notable person with the same name and the same profession (Matt Jones (singer/songwriter)). However, I don't think this one is notable enough for inclusion, despite having been the drummer for a band that has an article. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 00:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Google matt jones and this Matt jones comes up more frequently than the musician categorized (Matt Jones (singer/songwriter)) therefore this entry is certainly not trivial as his press coverage outweighs the other matt Jones at this time.
    • This is sometimes due to "googlebombing," and we need to make sure of the quality of the Google hits. Remember to use a search string that specifically excludes blogs, forums, wikis, etc., as these can be edited by virtually anyone. -- Blanchardb -- timed 10:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - The subject may be notable in the local music scene, but he does not satisfy notability criteria for musicians. Jvr725 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 08:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable book about a non-notable lucid dreaming technique, rather than being about a lucid dreaming technique. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete, no book review nor reliable source found.--Caspian blue 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Caspian Blue, you have searched Google News for a reliable source, but you haven't searched Google Books or the web. If you expand your search, you will find the sources you are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomB33 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Virtual Dreaming is not simply a Lucid Dreaming technique. Lucid Dreaming is simply about awareness, not about control or direction of the dream. Virtual Dreaming on the other hand allows both awareness and a degree of control depending on the experience of the practitioner.
The clinical studies outlined in the book, Virtual Dreaming: Clinical Studies Show Successful Results, show significant breakthroughs to sufferers of pain, stress disorders and insomnia using the virtual dreaming technology. The results are ground breaking! Far from 'not notable'.
So this is a notable publication underpinning a breakthrough technology, and not merely a lucid dreaming technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomB33 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. The google books result just reports that they made the book available to google books; no indication of notability or being from a respected publisher. Artmedia Publishing is clearly not an academic or scientific publisher, so the book does not lend notability to the concept. So we have not established any evidence that either the book nor the concept is notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've cleaned up the article and references, not removing any material, but tagging everything with as much of a reference as has been provided. In spite of the fact that I think the article should be deleted (and noting that Gary McNaughton is Artmedia Publishing, according to their web site), I've added as much material as I can find. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This material clearly falls under the policy on Knowledge (XXG) NPOV for pseudoscience and fringe theories and the guideline Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories. I have done a search on "Virtual Dreaming" in Web of Science and on Google Scholar, with no results on the topic. It is thus pretty safe to say that there are no papers in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific topics on this subject. Quoting from Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories: "Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Knowledge (XXG) does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." As the two books referenced in this article are apparently written by adherents of this theory, they may not be used to establish notability, as per the above guideline. Nor can I find any third party, reliable references documenting notability. Thus the material fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability and Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories and should be deleted. Locke9k (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete no prejudice to recreation if it does receive significant coverage in independent sources at some future date. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless someone can find some reliable references that aren't self-published.

Anaxial (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Retain The Virtual Dreaming clinical studies report is edited by Grant H Moorpark and published by Artmedia. Mr Moorpark has no connection with Artmedia what so ever. He was contracted by the Australian Association of Applied Psychophysiology Researchers to edit the studies results. None of the books listed as references for this article are self-published. I don't know from where this misleading information has come. -- TomB33 (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Retain My understanding is that there are Virtual Dreaming research articles in Google Scholar, but these are not showing up yet because of delays in their system. This is leading edge research and there is always a lag before the mainstream media catches up. The publication, Virtual Dreaming: Clinical studies show successful results, is an edited summary of three independent research studies undertaken in different universities in Australia, and as such these are peer reviewed research results. — TomB33 (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Peer reviewed" means published in a peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific journal. Publication in a book doesn't fit that bill, nor does simply the fact of having been conducted at a university. Secondly, Knowledge (XXG) is not a Crystal Ball. As a previous editor said, if later there is significant attention or sufficient peer reviewed publications an article can be created on this subject at a later time. Locke9k (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments (1) Article doesn't explain what virtual dreaming is and just rambles on. You know even the website www.virtualdreaming.org doesn't explain it, either. (2) It might need renaming to "Virtual dreaming" unless "Virtual Dreaming" is a trademark. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Retain Added a third reference to the article. The books by Laberge and Yuschak are not by adherents to virtual dreaming, so they may be used to establish notability. — TomB33 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Please Desist from posting multiple bolded votes. You have posted at least three now, which can obscure whether there is a consensus. Please go back and cross out your the prior votes accordingly. Locke9k (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Promotional article for a media agency, orphaned and unreferenced except for an incestuous award from its own industry. Fails WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTDIR and WP:ADVERT SpinningSpark 16:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Spam page for unnotable agency. LetsdrinkTea 16:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, reluctantly. There is some confusion over names of the various branches, and who owns what, but press coverage for Carat as a media specialist within the UK is fairly substantial. is the Guardian newspaper commenting on the company securing a job with the Telegraph. Then you've got and , plus which suggests the FT covered the company. All this, as well as the large amounts of money being mentioned, would suggest to me that the company is notable enough for an article, at least. - Jarry1250 18:18, 15 March 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, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mahtab Singh Sehrawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unless I'm missing something, this is just a random bureaucrat. A "Deputy Commissioner" isn't generally notable. Biruitorul 22:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, no evidence that this isn't another "random bureaucrat". Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Hard to know for sure whether he had good coverage in the non-English press, but with only 2 sentences to the article this can always be recreated. AngoraFish 木 10:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why shouldn't a Deputy Commissioner be considered notable? This isn't just some "random bureaucrat": he's in charge of government administration in a district with a population of ten lakh, and in a country with such all-pervading bureaucracy as India that is a very prominent position. He also appears to have some rather unpleasant duties . Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
    • 1) India has 610 districts; do we really want 610 "X is Deputy Commissioner of Y District" articles being created in perpetuity? Plus, not even the head of the Indian Administrative Service has an article (though he probably should). And again: this individual is not a politician or someone who influences policy; he collects taxes and stamps papers for a million people (a trivial number when it comes to India). 2) I'd be more sympathetic if, as required by WP:BIO, he had received "substantial coverage". That is not the case. A few disparate mentions (rather than a complete biographical profile) will never allow us to write an actual article on him. It seems preferable, then, not to leave this one-liner lying around endlessly. - Biruitorul 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, as long as it is verifiable I do think that we should have 610 articles on deputy commissioners (or the equivalent titles such as "collector" in the various states), and thousands more on past such people, in India. This is the person with the power in a district. He (it's pretty universally not "she" despite India having had one of the first female heads of government in the world) is the person that makes the decisions about what goes on in the district and, not least importantly (although I wouldn't want to suggest that this article subject would accept), is the one that you offer a bribe to if you want to get anything done. The position goes far beyond collecting taxes and stamping papers. We assume that certain classes of subject, such the 90 members of the state legislature of Wyoming (which has about half the population of Mewat) will, by virtue of the office that they hold, have sources available even if they haven't yet been found, so we can do the same for a deputy commissioners in India in charge of districts with an average population of about 20,00,000. The sources will pretty obviously exist, but will mostly be in Punjabi (in this case) and Hindi, and probably offline. Why should subjects in India be considered less worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia just because the country contains more than 20% of the worlds population? I don't see 20% of Knowledge (XXG)'s content as being about subjects relevant to India yet, so we should be encouraging articles about clearly important Indian subjects rather than slapping them down. Of course China is even more under-represented, but that's a separate issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That depends on what you mean by "article", but my understanding of that word involves a work of at least a few paragraphs, which I somewhat doubt we could ever get to for most of these individuals. Your comparison with Wyoming legislators is a bit of a straw man: those meet WP:POLITICIAN, which administrators do not, and no one is suggesting deletion of people from Category:State legislators of Indian States. Moreover, while I'm aware of WP:DEADLINE, the fact is that sources are far more readily available for, say, Stan Blake or Marty Martin than for Indian Administrators. The notion that sources "pretty obviously exist", and that someone will come along some day, merrily translating Punjabi newspaper articles for our benefit, is rather implausible. Indeed, the burden of proof is on others to show that sources for an encyclopedic article do exist: as far as I can see they don't, and unless they're found (with the stipulation that nothing in WP:BIO renders this man inherently notable), then deletion is the answer. - Biruitorul 06:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO, WP:GNG; not because it would be too onerous to have articles on a few thousand IAS, IPS or IFS officers, but because in this (and most other) case we don't (and won't) have sources to write a biographical article beyond reflecting trivial press coverage of public events and appearances. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete cant find anything notable other than he has a job. --Docku: What's up? 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It does not say whether he has passed I.A.S. If so, keep him. According to the references included, he is an I. A. S officer and hence must have passed I. A. S. Check it out. If he has passed I.A.S, he would become commissioner eventually. Commissioner is equivalent to a mayor of a big city in the US.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

not sure about the last part. there are mayors in India in big cities elected by people. --Docku: What's up? 02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mayor and Commissioner are two different roles. Mayors are elected politicians. Commissioners have to pass regeorous scholarly tests. Yes, I think mayors are also there in India. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC) --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner may be I. A. S. (class I exam.) passed or I. A.S promoted (means passed class II and down the road promoted to Class I (equivalent to I. A. S). If Singh has passed I.A.S, he can be notable. Otherwise it is for further discussions. Check it out. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

District collector (the senior colonial government official) of districts in India and else where, which has a present-day population of about 2 million. This would make him roughly equivalent to a mayor of Houston or Brisbane. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Commune 9 (Popayán) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sources, unverified, non-notable, original research   —Chris Capoccia ⁄C 23:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Commune 8 (Popayán) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sources, unverified, non-notable, original research   —Chris Capoccia ⁄C 23:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Commune 7 (Popayán) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sources, unverified, non-notable, original research   —Chris Capoccia ⁄C 23:22, 20 March 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, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as for Commune 1--same arguments apply DGG (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Commune 6 (Popayán) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sources, unverified, non-notable, original research   —Chris Capoccia ⁄C 23:22, 20 March 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, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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.

↑