Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 23

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

The result was Keep - as per consensus in this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake2

Jake2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Java port of a commercial video game. This product never reached version 1. I not even sure if the project is still active. This could be a single line in the Quake II article. Certainly not enough quality information for an article. Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The port is complete and working, even is the version number did not reached version 1, this is not a Beta (and I'm not a developer of this game). The forum is still active (I checked just today). This project is not interesting because it is a port of Quake II IMHO, but because it is a straight port in Java (it was even mentioned by a Sun developer in a white paper about JOGL (the paper is quoted in the article). Hervegirod (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete – are there anything else from reliable secondary sources besides the paper mentioned above? MuZemike 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not dead. Interesting and relevant to Quake II and JOGL. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same as Anakin (I explained above). I also just added more references, including an interesting academic paper on a grid re-engineering of Jake2, a Sun direct reference to Jake2 in their Java 6 release notes, a Joystiq source about the use of jake2 to experiment eye tracking in 3D games, and an O'Reilly source. In fact this port has often been used to discuss the possibility of performance intensive 3D games in Java, because it is a straight port of a well known C game (and because of that easy to compare to its C reference), and it was maybe the first one to use the JOGL library. Hervegirod (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - WP:N suggests that Jake2 needs to be the subject of significant third-party coverage. I'd like to see something more than one paragraph (Joystiq) or a page of screenshots (hexus). The Amador/Alexandre/Gomes paper might swing it for me if it can be shown that it has been peer reviewed. Since the information is largely verifiable, merging to other articles is a possibility. Marasmusine (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is explicitly cited as one successful example of a Java Web start app in Sun's Java 6 update 10 release note (one page) ? There's also O'Reilly article. There's two academic papers (one dating from 2006, one 2009), one specifically about using it in Grid computing, the other cited by other papers ? Plus the part of WP:N you refer is a guide on when to add an article about an academic, not about citing academic work in an article (even if the article you mentioned was cited by other research papers, I added the source). BTW, the Joystick article was quoting another academic paper which was also added as source. Hervegirod (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main query is if the academic papers are peer reviewed or not (WP:RS). Marasmusine (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary for academic paper to be peer reviewed in order to be used as a source. What WP:RS say is Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available, not that only peer-reviewed publications can be used. Plus it adds The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. The paper about eye detection in video games, which used Jake2 for one of its experiments, was part of (ACM's SIGCHI conference proceedings, the world's leading organization in Human–Computer Interaction according to wikipedia), and was cited 5 times in other papers according to portal.acm.org.Hervegirod (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this gives us one reliable source, then I'm considering N#cite_note-3. Could be a good starting point for a broader subject such as, well, Eye detectionFace detection, which is the subject of the paper. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 23:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable at the moment  Chzz  ►  01:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the references that have been added and other improvements by Hervegirod since the AfD nomination. The work that has gone into this article seems to address the nominators original concerns above. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – there is plenty there now that demonstrates sufficient notability. MuZemike 14:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Changed from "weak delete" per sources found.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caesars Cup

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

This is a non-notable event that is being tied to the 2009 WSOPE. Betfair is a co-sponsor of the WSOPE, but that does not make this inaugural event worth mentioning. The person who wrote the account appears to be a spammer for the betfair website. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was discussed briefly at WP:Poker before being brought here. NOTE: There is a publicity blitz ongoing, but this is the inaugural Caesar's Cup. I suspect that if this becomes an annual tradition, it might be notable, but at most it deserves a comment in the 2009 WSOPE article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I just wrote an article, Non-bracelet events at the WSOP that this could simply be redirected to.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability guidelines WP:GNG  Chzz  ►  01:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• RESPONSE: Can you please explain what makes this user a 'spammer for the betfair website'? Is it simply because this event is sponsored by Betfair? I think the wiki reads nicely and that it is useful information for anyone interested in poker, like myself. Seems like a tournament that is notable, especially if it is going to be on-going - then again, maybe even as a one off.
  • See the discussion at WT:POKER and check out the users edit history. Almost every edit has been related to adding "sponsored by Betfair" or ensuring that the poker pros from Betfair are covered or that Betfair's publicity stunts are covered. At this point, the Caesar's cup is no more notable that the All-In Energy Tournament of 2008. In a year or two, heck possibly AFTER the tournament, the Caesar's Cup MIGHT be notable, but right now, we don't know that. Ante Up for Africa is only now reaching the point where it is notable enough to stand on it's own. This is the first time the event has occurred. If it gets big names (and it is off to an excellent start) that might improve the credibility, but right now... it fails WP's general notability guidelines. Everything is currently either from Betfair itself or obviously gleaned from Betfair's press releases.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned, the tournament is not yet notable. The current article is little more than a Betfair press release. Hazir (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• RESPONSE: I wrote the article. I have been asked to update the Betfair Poker Pros pages and other related pages. I can understand some of the Betfair references being challenged but cannot understand the discussion about deleting this article. To compare this tournament to the All-in tournament is highly inaccurate. That was a one-off, purely PR-driven, tournament that allowed entry to 1,200 members of the public, based predominantly on how much of a certain drink they purchased. The Caesars Cup is a new annual event that features only the very top players in the world and the opportunity for one member of the public to qualify based purely on poker ability. To say that it is not notable just because it is the inaugural event makes no sense. All of the major poker sites are talking about it as one of the events of the year. Why have similar events in other sports been accepted in their inaugural year e.g. soccer's Wembley Cup? Why is that event notable but not this one? I can tell you as a poker fan and soccer fan, the Caesars Cup is much bigger to poker than the Wembley Cup is to soccer. They're not even in the same league.

  I also don't understand how is it justifiable to remove the Caesars Cup from the list of events on the WSOPE page? Whether or not you at Wikipedia feel it is a notable enough event to warrant its own page, it IS on the schedule of events, FACT, and warrants some description and explanation[1].--Jtrentonjtrenton (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrentonjtrenton (talk • contribs) 08:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been asked to update the Betfair Poker Pros pages and other related pages. — Really? Who by? Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm guessing that is confirmation that our suspicions were correct about the motivation behind writing these pages.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your questions are better asked at WT:POKER, but as a general rule events have to reach a certain level of notability. But just about every year there are different tournaments held in conjunction with the WSOP, and those events are not covered on the WSOP page. As for the Caesars Cup tournament itself, at present it probably deserves mention on the 2009 WSOPE page. Heck, the page might even attract enough attention that it does become notable this year. Right now, the event is being talked about, but only insofar as the press releases of Betfair. It might garner enough independent coverage/interest to warrant its own article, but right now it is completely unproven and a publicity stunt.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Also, you might want to familiarize yourself with wp:COI and wp:SPAM---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I've also put a coi tag on the article because it appears that the editor the nominator is in conflict with may represent some kind of "management company". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Ecclestone

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

The article is a poorly written publicity entry. I have made several attempts to make it more encyclopedic, but my changes are continually undone. As the article stands, it is not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability can also be questioned, although this is NOT my reason for proposing deletion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you read WP:BEFORE? AfD is supposed to consider what the article could be like, not what it's like at the moment. "Poorly-written" and "publicity entry" are very clearly not reasons to delete.

  If the problem is that changes to improve the article are being reverted, take it to the talk page; if the reverting person refuses to talk to you, ask an admin to help.

  The notability concern would be a reason to delete, if it wasn't for all the coverage in national newspapers she's had.

  Overall, I'm going to go with snow keep because there's no chance whatsoever that this will be deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I did read WP:BEFORE. Thanks for the advice regarding resolution. The talk page already has some delete questions, which is why I chose this route. I'll revert the article back to my previous edits and we'll see what happens.Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Keep, while the article is poorly written, there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources already to show notability. Article should be fixed not deleted. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - No valid rationale advanced for deletion. The issues are raised are ones of editting and are not resolved by deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trying to avoid closing by the numbers as several of the delete votes are slightly worthless per nom efforts but the issue here seems to be with whether there is a clear definiation to allow these lists to have a proper criteria and the latter votes came after the discussion and suggest that the consensus view is that the nominator's view on the vagueness of the definition has prevailed so delete the lot. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of megafauna

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

The term Megafauna is vague, open to interpretation and has at least one meaning that would require these lists to have literally millions of entries. Since no definitive list is possible - these are unencyclopaedic at best SteveBaker (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the following lists should also be removed:

List of African megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Arctic megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australian megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Central and South American megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Eurasian megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of island megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of marine megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of North American megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Prehistoric Megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

... on the grounds that they are unencylopedic. The term "megafauna" (as explained in Megafauna - which most of these articles link to by way of an explanation for the scope of the term) is vague, open to interpretation and has at least one meaning (any creature visible to the unaided eye) that would make the lists above require LITERALLY millions of entries (most of which would be species of beetle!) in order to stand any chance of being complete.

My problem is that if someone sees that animal X is included on one of these lists and animal Y is not - they are going to come away with the impression that the term "megafauna" has a cutoff somewhere between the size of X and that of Y - and that X is DEFINITELY a megafauna because it's on the list - and Y is not a megafauna because it's not on the list. That's just wrong - it is a flat out untruth to place either X or Y onto the list or to leave either of them out. Further more - given the vagueness of the term, it will be impossible to provide references for the vast majority of species that might properly be considered because nobody who writes on the subject is using a hard-and-fast rule for the naming.

Since no DEFINITIVE list is possible - we should not attempt to create half-assed lists just because we can.

I would cite the fate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercars as 'case law'. That list was removed because the term is ill-defined - and the exact same problem exists here.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is the title isn't descriptive enough it can be clarified. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So...What? "List of animals weighing more than 100lbs"? I'm pretty sure that such an arbitary list would get AfD'ed pretty quickly! SteveBaker (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I weigh more than a 100lbs. Are you saying I'm fat? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Does this dress make me look fat?"..."No, no, no. Megafauna perhaps.":-) SteveBaker (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lists such as this are inherently original research, as there is no precise definition possible.  Chzz  ►  01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Absent a definition the article is valueless. With a definition, OR. They just don't have a chance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm trendiong towards extinction...sorry deletion here. The lists include thinsg which are not very big - Nile Perch, Red Foxes, Dodos, and are very incomplete if such small creatures are covered by the term. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just an FYI, the Nile Perch can get up to something like 400 lbs. Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ummm..... I came here expecting to cast my vote as a "keep" and that the lists would be definable and manageable, but when I see domestic cats on a list...I am not so sure...surely there must be some more precise definition allowing some discretion in the list?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As noted the definition is vage and the included animals are very arbitrary. In the case of hte Prehistoric list, that is a list that would include the vast majority of all fossil animals ever described as that is what was preserved, and thus making the list completely useless.--Kevmin (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Standard term. . Some books with it in the title American Megafaunal Extinctions at the End of the Pleistocene By Gary Haynes, Springer 2009; "Megafauna & Man By Larry D. Agenbroad, Jim I. Mead, Lisa W. Nelson, Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Northern Arizona University, 1990. See also [2], where they agree it can not be precisely defined, but go on to talk about it. Most things can not be precisely defined, but we talk about them anyway:The article on Rock Music starts "a loosely defined genre of popular music" cf. Biophysics, sovereign State,and thousands of more. Lists such as this are not the least OR if they rely upon published lists of which there are many.DGG (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that we're not talking about deleting Megafauna, but lists of megafauna. APL (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tidy. Agree with DGG. "Megafauna" is a common (and scientific) term. Use of an external standard to define this term and then removing those that do not apply would be the appropriate course of action here. Not that it is really relevant but I was always under the impression that "megafauna" was roughly defined as "larger than the average human". Of course this is just my opinion/recollection and not supported by anything in the way of facts. :-) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mattinbgn. Clearly some cleanup is required in order that an appropriate, neutral definition of megafauna is correctly applied, but the list is notable and worthy provided that is met. Do we have a list of charismatic megafauna? :) Orderinchaos 07:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who claim that there is a definition for "Megafauna" really need to read our article Megafauna which offers no less than EIGHT different and contradictory definitions and says: "The more commonly found meaning, discussed in this article, is of "giant", "very large" or "large" animals — although there is no standard definition of a minimum size.". It's a common term, indeed but so are many other vague words. Would you accept "List of big animals"? Well, "megafauna" is much more vague than "big". Under some definitions, an ant is "megafauna" - under other definitions, an elephant isn't. Who gets to decide what the threshold is? Who gets to decide which definition to apply? Megafauna means either:
    1. "Visible to the naked eye" - produces lists that would need millions of entries.
    2. "land animals roughly larger than a human which are not (solely) domesticated" - certainly not the standard that the present lists seem to be using because we have things like cats and dogs in them and an entire list of marine megafauna.
    3. "the giant and very large land animals considered archetypical of the last ice age" - eliminates most of the lists above and is still vague.
    4. "the largest wild land animals surviving today" - the 10 largest? the 100 largest? marine animals are excluded?
    5. "Giant, large or very large" - define one vague word in terms of three other vague words. How are we to judge what is "large"?
    6. "giant aquatic species" - same problem.
    7. "definitions of size however go down to as small as 40–45 kg (90 lbs)" - which contradicts "roughly larger than a human".
    8. "animals (usually extinct) of great size relative to a more common or surviving type of the animal," - vague, and again eliminates almost all of the lists above.
  • I believe the "Keep" respondants owe us a coherent explanation of which of these definitions is to be applied and why that definition should be used instead of one of the other seven - and how we're supposed to keep the lists referenced and accurate as well as complete. This is an encyclopedia...we are supposed to report factual things that can be referenced. You CANNOT find consistent references for whether any particular given animal is considered "large" under the meaning of "megafauna". SteveBaker (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The literature I can find pretty much all says 44-45kg or greater. None of the other definitions appear in scientific literature. And our "megafauna" article, it would seem, needs fixing like so many others. Orderinchaos 11:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the "macroscopic" definite does appear , but only in very specific context, notable soil biology, but for the main generally understood meaning which is what should concern us, Orderinchaos is right. DGG (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct - it is used in that way as well - I meant more as a precise definition given in the literature where it appears, I consulted a scientific search engine through my university access. Orderinchaos 05:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to say that these sound like legitimate lists, but I would be like creating List of fat celebrities. How do you define what fat would mean? By weight, it might be William Conrad, but I bet that Shaq or Hulk Hogan had a reasonable chance of weighing more without being fat. Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Megafauna" is a common scientific phrase, but it has different meanings in different contexts. At its most liberal this list could become simply "A list of macroscopic animals" which is obviously not appropriate because it can never be complete. Even in the context where "Megafauna" is means "An unusually large animal" there is no hard definition. Wikipedia should not be in the business of arbitrarily defining scientific terms for the sole purpose of creating lists. APL (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list is effectively meaningless; it serves no useful purpose. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  • As: "The list is ill-defined" and "The list has millions of possible entries" are mutually exclusive possibilities. They are presented as concurrent.
  • And: 15,700 Google Scholar hits for "Megafauna". The term, and therefore the list, is not "vague, open to interpretation", "half-assed", nor "ill-defined."
  • Therefore: The remaining problem, numbers of possible entries, is merely a matter for those who preserve the article by eliminating less notable additions. The list is not invalid because it is not exhaustive. This is an invalid proposition for deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point does not make logical sense. It is entirely possible for a list to be both ill-defined and massive. Trivially so. "List of Mean People", "List of Good Books", etc.

Your second point also confuses me. It is true that there are many Google scholar hits for 'Megafauna', but how does that necessarily mean that term is well defined? I don't see how one follows the other. It's perfectly common for a book or paper to use a vague term and then say something to the effect "For the purpose of this paper, I have defined X as Y". In such a case the researcher is communicating precisely, but the term remains undefined outside the context of the paper. APL (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I wonder how many Google Scholar hits there are for "mean people" or "good books". I'd bet several. But you are correct, that wouldn't make a good list. Again, Archangel just counts ghits and says "see, it's relevent", without looking at the content of each article. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said that the list is EITHER ill-defined OR has millions of entries - not both at the same time. There is a well-defined definition for the word - which is "visible to the naked eye" - but that would result in millions of entries. The other definitions are ill-defined.
  • Google scholar has 44,000 entries for "good book" and 10,000 for "mean people" - so if GS is a valid benchmark for us then "List of good books" ought to be OK. Ergo, GS is not a valid benchmark for us and may safely be ignored. People writing scholarly works use vague terms all the time - it being generally possible to infer the meaning from context. If we take the first GS hit for "Megafauna": "Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna of Georges Bank" - it is quite clear that (a) the definitions for "megafauna" that only relate to land animals or to prehistoric animals cannot apply - and that since there are no "benthic" (bottom-feeding, mud-dwellering) animals in Georges Bank - or anyplace else for that matter that are larger than a human or larger than 40kg - readers of this article would presumably assume that "megafauna" in this context means "visible to the naked eye"...and indeed, when you read the paper, the term is qualified as: "bryozoans, hydroids, worm tubes". The problem is that our "List of megafauna" will certainly never contain bryozoans, hydroids or worm tubes - unless it has literally millions of entries. So using scholarly works as an argument for keeping these lists is blown away on the very first paper I try to apply it to.
  • You may not (without a major argument) delete entries for (say) bryozoans from "List of Megafauna" because I have a solid reference (see above) where a scholarly work in a peer-reviewed journal describes a bryozoan as "megafauna". If you can't delete an entry for a creature that's only 0.5mm long - you stand NO chance of keeping out "cat" and "pidgeon" and all sorts of other contentious entries. Hence you're back with millions of entries again. SteveBaker (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would need to much explanation for a category. It can be based on RSs, so improve, don't delete. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? There are categories already and they don't seem to have much in the way of explanation. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per list of supercars. The term is so vaguely defined that authors need to clarify the scope of the term in every published paper. We could not create a definitive list of megafauna without either being hopelessly incomplete or committing original synthesis. Zunaid 08:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Stellarkid (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous comments. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Daniels

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

Non-notable rapper with no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independant sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Astronaut (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has been in music for a very long time, and yes not in the U.S. but all the same his biography is true. This is why he does need this article on wikipedia so he can reach a wider audience. Bobby Taylor (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the biography is not in question. The article has been nominated for deletion because Duncan Daniels does not appear to be notable as defined by Wikipedia's policies. And Wikipedia is not the place to promote someone's work "so he can reach a wider audience". Astronaut (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIONo assertion of notability. No sources showing songs that charted. Lack or reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the information in this article are facts. Duncan Daniels is a renowned music producer, singer, song writer, with a lot of fans mainly in Africa. you can search Duncan Daniels on Google. Duncan Daniels music is also available on Itunes, Napster etc. click http://www.facebook.com/pages/Duncan-Daniels/38555846853?ref=ts&__a=1 to see Duncan Daniels Fan page on facebook. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkishrock (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the truth of what is written is not in question. The article has been nominated for deletion because Duncan Daniels does not appear to be notable as defined by Wikipedia's policies. I did search Google and found many mentions of various people all called Duncan Daniels. Unfortunately, all those that were about this Duncan Daniels were in places like blogs, forums, social networking sites, and other unreliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first Album Titled "I don Taya" was released and Published on Itunes, and on Napster. you can search the album on itunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkishrock (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did that album chart on a national music chart? Astronaut (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -^^; Facebook and Myspace aren't exactly reliable. Neither is Twitter... Airplaneman ^talk 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @120  ·  01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaux with an x

Margaux with an x (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I had prodded this for deletion; author removed prod without commentary in the edit summary or on the talk page. I will repeat my motivation: Book is not notable: nothing to be found outside the usual brief notices from libary journals and such; author ("Koertge," not "Koert") does not even have a WP article. Article has no references, and makes no real claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete blatant advertising. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like a book report advertising the book. BrianY (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @121  ·  01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana High School Forensics Association

Indiana High School Forensics Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Facebook-like page for a state chapter that lacks sources for notability. Deprodded. Compared to some of the other state level leagues which have Wikipedia articles, this one has so few Google hits (23) that it really makes me wonder. Abductive (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 1 gnews hit. Fails WP:CLUB. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thoroughly lacking content to substantiate any claim for notability. Just a brief promo-sounding intro and a list of members, officers, and some competition stats. This article is the equivalent of using wikipedia as a free webhost for a small local organization interested in promoting itself online. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glossary of musical terminology. (X! · talk)  · @121  ·  01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Con brio

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a glossary of musical terms. Powers ^T 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Glossary of musical terminology. Hairhorn (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & cleanup Redirect I've done a brief rewrite thinking that keep was where I was heading - but then investigated further and found Tempo#Common qualifiers, which is probably a better redirect because it gives the association described in the stub. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Con brio is a style direction, not tempo, though. (I believe it's listed on the tempo article because it's often suffixed to a tempo (e.g., allegro con brio). Powers ^T 12:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But when one comes across con brio by itself allegro is implied. One certainly wouldn't play adagio or even andante given such a direction. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well yes, but the opposite is true of dolce and I don't think anyone would consider that to be a tempo direction. Powers ^T 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @121  ·  01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)

List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. All of the article's important infomation can already be found at Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates. The rest is mindless WP:TRIVIA, making this article the jewel in the WikiCrown that is WP:LISTCRUFT. DJ 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. We also have lists for 2008, 2007, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and the main articles for 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000 all have list format Housemate sections. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a different case. The Big Brother 2009 (UK) article has a comprehensive, sourced and detailed section. The other articles you mention do not. DJ 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note for new entrants, not a debating point. If you had that reason in mind, you should have mentioned it in the rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And other crap exists, once the other nine main articles have been revised those articles will also be nominated for deletion. And there is no need for a nominator to give all the reasons for deletion in the rationale, the reason can be expanded, in fact that is the point, to discuss the reason for keeping and deleting the article in question. So far, Mick, you have not given a compelling reason to keep this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did you not understand about this is a note not a debating point?. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you the right to tell people what they can and can't talk or debate about? Read up on WP:CIVIL before continuing the debate, please. DJ 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right to point out the obvious, this was a note about related articles, it was not a voting ratinale, and it does not warrant threaded discussion. This is standard practice, that occurs every single day in Afd's. Civil has got nothing to do with this issue at all. MickMacNee (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates is a total unreadable mess, and looks to only have been puffed up to that size as a breaching exercise for this Afd. The nature of the material means that it is easily justifiable to have a separate 'List of...' type article, and the section headers serve a purpose for pipe-linking. LISTCRUFT it most certainly is not, it is not even close to resembling any of the 10 meanings that that essay suggests people might mean when they throw out that particular WP:ACRONYM as if it is a replacement for an argument. MickMacNee (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What infomation does this article provide that the section in Big Brother 2009 (UK) does not? DJ 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honeslty don't know, because I am never going to waste the hour it would take to try and read that mess in the main article to be able to compare it to the list, to verify your claim. And as we don't have a paper shortage, even if they are exact duplicates, it wouldn't honeslty matter, because being in different formats is good enough reason to keep the list. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your answer is that you don't have an answer. I think that says it all. DJ 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide a valid valid reason for deletion, I might try harder (and no, a list is not a content fork of prose). As it is, it should be pretty clear to anybody that an Afd is not the right mechanisim for justifying using prose over lists, irrespective of which has more information. Your wall of text prose only seems to list age/sex/job/location anyway (you are no doubt under the mistaken impression that all other detail is TRIVIA), but just in an unreadable, and arguably totally banal way, so I could just as easily argue that we can convert that section to a table. I would not need to Afd this list before doing that. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to !keep this article but you cannot be bothered to read the shorter version that has been put into the main article, which is the main reason for deleting this article? So why bother to say anything, Mick? This is not a vote, but a discussion. The main crux of that discussion is that this article is nothing more than a copy of information already in the main article, which you call a "wall of text", although it is just six short paragraphs (limited to ASL, mainly). The activites of the house are contained in the summary, the details of the housemates are in the housemate section, so what exactly do you feel is missing from the main article which is in this article? Benazir's hair colour? Cairon's living arrangements? Marcus's delusion that he thinks he is Wolverine? There is nothing more than trivia in this article. The winner will get their own article, the others will fade into obscurity. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are really hard work. Right - this list should not be deleted because there is no reason in policy that justifies deleting a valid stand-alone List article just because someone thinks the information is adequately dealt with elsewhere, whether that is a smaller summary or not. Does that satisy you, even though my view was already abundantly clear in my previous replies and backed up in policy and not essays that the people mentioning them barely understand. It is not LISTCRUFT, and it is not TRIVIA (even if some of it is, again, that is not a valid reason for deletion), and a List format is more than appropriate for this kind of information, especially over a wall of unreadable text which we at least agree is merely a list of ASL in prose form. It is frankly unimportant that you won't personally be monitoring the list for appropriate content or BLP violations, those are not valid reasons for deletion either. Your idea that this is a list of small aricles implying independant notability for each contestant is just nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "a wall of unreadable text". It is a few paragraphs of text, much like millions of articles on Wikipedia. If you have trouble reading five paragraphs and need to have them in a separate article as 22 paragraphs (most of which will barely contain more information than age, sex, occupation, day in eviction %) then the problem is with you not the "wall of unreadable text". And BLP concerns are serious. The main concern is not, however, the trivial elements (although Halfwit, Dogface and Noirin contain massive unsourced chunks of trivia) are not the concern, the BLP violations are not the concern and the list-y elements are not the concern. This is a content fork which repeats all the information in the article and adds nothing but trivia. If all the trivia was removed this article would be nothing more than the info already in the main article. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we've discounted everything that isn't a reason why we delete things. Great. So, quite obviously 22 paragraphs versus 5 paragraphs is not a content fork, by any stretch of the imagination. But you think this is just down to trivia. But if your definition of trivia is 'anything else that is not age/sex/job/location', then for the content of articles about reality TV shows and contestants, I don't accept your definition at all, not even in the slightest. This is information about reality TV contestants, which by definition, will include much more information than your simple telephone directory stuffed into prose. The content meets all the requirements for stand-alone list articles, IDON'TTHINKTHATSWORTHMENTIONING and NOBODYWANTSTOKNOWTHIS is not a reason to get rid of it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But trivia is. Also what is in this article and not trivial which could only be in this article? Look at the Dogface or Halfwit sections, outside of tasks and basic bios there is nothing worth keeping, just trivia (Halfwit the most nominated, Dogface kissed Kris!, Marucs had an argument!!). You want to keep this, why? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nominator: this is trivial information, even if much of it is verified. The main article already has plenty of such info. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is a useful article for people wanting to know more about the individual housemates. More will be added once the series finishes.Mark E (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the nomination. All that is achieved here - Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates. DJ 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates includes no information. It is just a big wall of text with the order the housemates came in, their occupation and age. I understand that almost everything fails WP:TRIVIA but what about official warnings, arguments, nominations, notable things the housemates have done in the house? Why does all that fail WP:TRIVIA for this year, but there's all that information on the pages for the housemates of previous serieses? I see that the housemates haven't done as much as they've done in previous serieses, therefore there is not much to write about, but I still think this page should be kept. Will what the housemates do after the show be included in the big wall of text (Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates) - cos I cannot see that happening. If this page gets deleted, then the pages for the housemates of all the previous series should be AFDed. 83.70.71.2 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)— 83.70.71.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All of the "official warnings, arguments, nominations, notable things the housemates have done in the house" are included in the section Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Summary. "there's all that information on the pages for the housemates of previous serieses?" - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "Will what the housemates do after the show be included in the big wall of text (Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates) - cos I cannot see that happening" - Simple, if any of the housemates do anything notable then they will get their own articles. Are IPs allowed to nominate at AFD? DJ 08:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" Are IPs allowed to nominate at AFD?" if you mean vote then yes, but this IP has only two edits. Also "If this page gets deleted, then the pages for the housemates of all the previous series should be AFDed" is a valid comment, and once the information has been re-integrated back to the relevant articles then I would expect an AfD for each, but the focus of this AfD is this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more than being just a list it is an unnecessary content fork. I doubt Benazir, Sree or Cairon will ever do anything notable, and if they do then a separate article for individual housemates (like the winner gets) would be more appropriate. Kenneth spent 6 days in the house, other than his entrance and exit he did nothing of note. This is simply a magnet for trivia and BLP violations, and all the information can be covered in the main article. As for previous years, once the information is trimmed and incorporated back in to the main articles then they can be deleted as well. The !Keep votes seem to be leaning heavily on other crap and it being useful, however without the main article this page would not meet the bar for notability. We used to have separate Summary pages but they were deleted and the information put back, the same principal applies here. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reason that the information is duplicated in Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates is because that section started off as a direct copy of this article with a bit of tweaking to make it into prose. Since then I have agonised over it and rewritten it a couple of times but I'm not proud of it and I'm not happy with it. Furthermore, no-one else has succeeded in improving it. Surely a fundamental requirement of a section of prose is that it be readable. The problem is that it just doesn't work as prose without adding other content that would almost certainly be considered trivia, and so it would be much better off as a list in a separate article. MegaPedant (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that over various times, and still can't see why you want to keep this article. All of those issues there appear to be editorial - you are stating that we should keep one article because a section on another is unreadable and this is not a valid excuse for a Keep vote on AFD. DJ 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the need to add your own comments to every Keep vote? Have you not had sufficient opportunity to make your views known in your proposal? Can you not accept that some people hold a different viewpoint from your own and that your comments are not going to change their minds? It's possible that some people might find them just a little bit annoying. MegaPedant (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simply a vote, it's a discussion, if you want a reason to keep this page then it is appropriate for editors to ask why. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way the two of you are going round trying to get everyone voting Keep to change their mind... well, frankly, it doesn't look good. Let me have another go at explaining my point of view: faced with a choice, I would rather keep this article than the Housemates section of Big Brother 2009 (UK). MegaPedant (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the opposite. It shows that the delete argument is so strong that we can disprove everything you say. Remember- this is a debate, not a vote. And this argument you've proposed is also full of holes. It's not about your personal prefference, it's about keeping to Wikipedia's rules and guidlines, which say that we should keep infomation together and not create seperate articles willy nilly for the sake of it. You haven't been on Wikipedia for long, I suggest you read some policies and guidlines. In this case, I suggest WP:SPLIT and Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article. DJ 07:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's no different from any other Big Brother UK List of...article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.188.163 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is, in previous years the information has been removed from the main article, this year it has been trimmed down and incorporated. The last four year's don't have this information in the respective main articles, this one does. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And besides, that argument is yet another example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and probably WP:ILIKEIT. DJ 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the list is fine. It's well-sourced and well written. It is a much better reference point than Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates is. While I do acknowledge that the it does contain small amounts of trivia, it does no harm and many editors work very hard to keep extremely trivial and irrelevant comments off the list. As a side note, WP:LISTCRUFT isn't even policy, so I'm taking it with discretion. Jozal ^(talk) 14:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That argument fails WP:EFFORT. DJ 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh DJ, how did I guess that you would attack me for stating my opinion? Also, I don't care if it fails WP:EFFORT because it's not policy. Jozal ^(talk) 18:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my previous comment. It comes across as quite rude, so I'd like to apologize. I see what you mean about WP:EFFORT but the fact is that information in the list is much better than the information in the article. Jozal ^(talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that the nominator doesn't like lists like this, and would rather reply this high quality, well sourced list, with a load of crap in the article. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the "crap" (as you called it) in the main article has co-existed alongside the list well up until this point. In fact, I don't understand why we cannot have both. The main article, with the simple details on the housemates and the list with more detail. Feel free to criticize this, it's just an idea. Jozal ^(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a sensible one - I can see where you are coming from. You should suggest it at the discussion on the main article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sourced, notable. Dodgy nom. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and notability is not the problem. If you'd have read my "dodgy nom", you would have realised that the page has been nominated for deletion as it is a re-creation of content elsewhere on the encyclopedia. DJ 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there's a strong and reasonable precedent for housemate lists as separate articles in previous years - this is a reasonable compromise to guard against individual crufty articles on each and every housemate. While I agree that the information can be presented as part of the series's main article, if previous years articles are anything to go by there ends up being quite a lot of sourced coverage; and the housemates list becomes a very valid article split under summary style. I don't see a compelling reason that this series should be any different - the main article is already rather long. ~ mazca ^talk 17:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I hate the programme, but we have a list in this format for every year. If something different has been done with the main article this year, then fix that, don't delete this. And don't feel you have to respond to me with a paragraph of text about how I'm wrong, either.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that since all the objection is to the information being in two places, I have removed it from the main article, which now looks like all the others in respect of how it handles housemates. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that without concensus. Therfore, I've reverted that edit. DJ 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:Fancruft Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appropriate spin-out to keep main articles concise and readable and easily editable, as with other years of the show. Sure, both articles currently need some TLC, but the basic structure is a good one. Jheald (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment its worth noting that WP:SIZE suggests an article greater than 60KB should be split. The main BB 2009 article is 69KB with the housemates section, so thus this is a valid split. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without refs or the nomination table the article is barely about 30k. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per bad faith nomination Jordan Payne ^T /_C 18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep More than enough sourcing on the topic. Spin out of main article is appropriate. Show is stupid but that's not a reason to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a BB fansite. The other years' lists should also be merged into the main articles. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The NOM invokes WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT. WP:TRIVIA concerns not having a section which contains unrelated facts of limited interest and RECOMMENDS keeping such information with other related information, as is done here. WP:LISTCRUFT concerns standalone list articles and RECOMMENDS the current article's approach where "...the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles...and ... the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out." While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid counter to some arguments, it doesn't apply here, where the example of previous years merely shows that this worked out to be a reasonable handling of similar information. Celestra (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. The outcome of this discussion needs to be applied to the American and Australian articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: (ec) There, as far as I know, there are lists for every season of Australian Big Brother. Meets WP:NOTE and WP:RS (by means of the Big Brother UK website), and theres been precedent set before with every other Big Brother contestant list, so this article deserves to stay. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a precedent set with 4 out of 9 of the previous BBUK series, but not the first 4. ANd I don't deny they meet WP:V but without the series they fail the GNG. And there are very few secondary sources that talk about the housemates other than to say they entered and were evicted (or walked). Darrenhusted (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What would be achieved by deleting it?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is achieved by keeping it? Darrenhusted (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing to be achieved by deleting it. By keeping it, we will be keeping a tidy, well-written and well-sourced list. Jozal ^(talk) 11:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sourced, notable, useful, etc.  Chzz  ►  23:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable? Darrenhusted (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Listing all twenty-one contestants on the Big Brother 2009 (UK) article would lower the quality of that article because it would make it far too long and make it look very untidy - For this reson I am opposed to a merge to that particular article, and since there is no other article this one could be merged with I am completely opposed to a merge. This article follows a trend set by the most recent five series of the UK version, so if this article should be deleted, then in theory so should all of their "List of Big Brother housemates" pages. The information on this page is well sourced, and the page is well written. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The links to the infobox on the main page will not work if this page is deleted MSalmon (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor rationale for keeping an article. Do you have other reasons? lifebaka++ 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's been no reason given that the content of this article should be deleted. WP:TRIVIA applies only to content appearing in a section title ==Trivia== or similar, and only states that such content should be merged into prose instead of residing in a trivia section. There has been no explanation of how WP:LISTCRUFT applies, and the list does not appear to match any of the 11 common uses listed at that essay. So, the best the nominator can reasonably hope for is a merge, which would make the article longer than would be liked. So, the article should be kept. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep past precedent on other years has established that we keep these lists. Otherwise, they become too unwieldy for the article. Majorly talk 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an appropriate break-out list from the main article which isn't immense but is still quite large. Additionally both article seems to be full of sources. What we have here is a conflict of style compounded by recentism. This is quite common on reality show articles. There is no reason to delete this but one could quibble on merging which also wouldn't seem to help in this case. I suggest waiting a few months after the show has come and gone and see where things are - some of these folks will have scandals or even get their own articles. Hindsight will help clean-up the main and extra details can rightly be sent to this list and individual articles which would be summarized here. -- Banjeboi 11:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are 21 housemates at about 1KB each. Having a seperate list is the only sensible course of action.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Compromise? - Could a "Big Brother UK Housemates" prose article or "List of Big Brother UK Housemates" list article be created that includes information for all ten series' worth of housemates onto one page? Not sure if that article would exceed page size recommendations, but it's a thought. If one merge will not work due to size issues, then I would lean toward Keep because I cannot watch the show from the U.S. but I do come to the houseguest article occasionally to see what happens to particular houseguests. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 5 UK housemate lists, each containing 22-23 housemates. Including references and such, one combined list would probably be too long and would be very unreadable. Jozal ^(talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @122  ·  01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay bathhouse regulars

List of gay bathhouse regulars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) NOTE:article name has been changed to List of notable gay bathhouse attendees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Teahot (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no objective standard exists as to what constitutes a "regular" at a bath house. How many visits over what time frame make one a "regular"? The article itself points to the problems in trying to objectively quantify someone as a "regular" with its inclusion of Justin Fashanu as a "regular" when the source supporting his inclusion explicitly describes him as a "newcomer". Although most of those currently included are dead, there is also serious potential for WP:BLP issues since labeling someone as a "regular" at a facility for which a primary purpose is to engage in anonymous sex with multiple partners is quite likely defamatory. Otto4711 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, for the case of Justin Fashanu quoted above, a reliable source has been added showing that he was going to gay bathhouses before his visit to Chariots gay bathhouse on the night of his death. Further discussion should be on the article talk page.—Teahot (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This list was put up for deletion on the basis of "no objective inclusion standard as to what constitutes a "regular", possible WP:BLP concerns". Responding to the two parts of this challenge:

1. With regard to BLP concerns, this list is carefully sourced with good quality published reliable sources. The list has already existed on the Gay bathhouse page for more than a year without any source or name on the list being challenged. The list was recently split from the main page. If there are any particular BLP concerns (presumably only for one person still living; this means that the concern can only relate to the inclusion of Scott Capurro where the quote from Time Out seems a perfectly reliable source) it would be helpful if they could be elucidated for a more detailed reply as it is not possible to counter unspecified concerns.
2. For the term regular, I was going by the standard dictionary use of the word, the OED defines this as "doing the same thing often or at uniform intervals". The list could be renamed List of people who have often been to gay bathhouses or List of gay bathhouse patrons but, honestly, the word "regular" seems a perfectly good one to use. If there is a logical reason to use a different word then I would be happy to move the page. You will note that wp:List states "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so", consequently if the word regular needs explanation then this can easily be added to the current explanation of inclusion criteria in the lead text, though again the current text appears sufficient.—Teahot (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the wording of the AFD reason has changed since the last attempt, I note that Fashanu has been picked as a key example. If this is the issue then I suggest that this reference is discussed on the talk page, or Fashanu removed from the list until that discussion occurs. Deleting the entire article seems a heavy handed way of dealing with "potential" BLP issues for a dead person.—Teahot (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I didn't cite a dead person to support the assertion of potential BLP concerns. In fact, I explicitly stated that "most of those currently included are dead". The length of time that some of this information existed in another article is not relevant to this discussion. And again, how many visits, or at what interval, do visits to a bath house have to be made to qualify someone as a "regular"? What is the objective standard used to determine that exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, by "most" you mean all except one, and that one is backed up with a good quality reliable source? And are you discounting the idea that the lead text can be clarified due to the guidance at List not being applicable for some reason?—Teahot (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to WP:BLP concerns. The phrase "regular" is also very subjective and the list will never be complete. DJ 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain which, if any entries are BLP issues. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on WP:BLP and WP:N concerns, as well as DJ's point that this list is and always will be incomplete. Powers ^T 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All lists are generally incomplete, we have {{dynamic list}} for that very reason. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as partial as I am to a spot of cottaging, I'm not sure I see the encyclopedic value of this article. Also, WP:N and WP:BLP. Crafty (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: While I agree that WP:BLP doesn't, of course, apply to dead people, this list isn't named "List of dead gay bathhouse regulars" and obviously won't stay to zero live ones. Beyond that, while I dislike reaching for the cruft argument, this is as crufty a list as I can imagine still existing; no doubt you could also source a List of sitcom actors who wear string ties in church, but that scarcely makes it encyclopedic. And despite the citation of the OED, this will remain a desperately subjective notion which smacks more of prurient interest than scholarship.  RGTraynor  20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cruft argument seems weak if your argument is based on precedent; surely this list is more notable (purely on the basis of general public interest) than List of bow tie wearers or List of knitters in literature both of which seem to be considered encyclopaedic?—Teahot (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: And if I had launched an argument based on precedent, a rebuttal based on one might have made sense. That being said, no, I don't think that this list is more notable than the examples you give; upon what basis do you think this is notable or informative, or that any pertinent information couldn't be merged back into the main article with a single sentence: "Historical patrons of gay bathhouses include Oscar Wilde, Rudolf Nureyev ..." That much might be illustrative to those with a burning desire to know the names of celebrities who hung out in gay bathhouses. It doesn't support a standalone article.  RGTraynor  04:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must have misunderstood your justification of "cruft" being based on the example of "List of sitcom actors who wear string ties in church" being un-encyclopaedic and so I responded with close counter-examples. I am pleased to see you have shifted your argument to a form of Merge rather than just Strong Delete, perhaps you could amend your vote accordingly? By the way, to clarify your example text; I do not believe there are any reliable sources claiming that Oscar Wilde went to gay bathhouses, though there is evidence he enjoyed the company of rent boys, witness statements at his trial provide a perfectly reliable source.—Teahot (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or merge & redirect to Gay bathhouse (which is where it was to begin with, wasn't it?). Exploding Boy (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this list is still embedded in Gay bathhouse. If the rationale for deletion is unspecified BLP concerns then the same arguments should apply to the names and sourced material there. Those who propose deletion here should note that the following RFC raised for this exact same list, Talk:Gay bathhouse#RFC is the list of Famous bathhouse regulars encyclopaedic?, concluded that the list was encyclopaedic. I guess the AFD process rather ignores pre-existing RFCs that may have been conducted? —Teahot (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my comment accordingly. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the definitional reasons given above. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Per Teahot; also, the title problem has been fixed, thus invalidating the major argument for deletion. I don't get the WP:BLP objection either. It's sourced. Zazaban (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the page move/title change doesn't alter a thing viz deletion. It's still crufty and not encyclopedic. Check out RGTraynor's comments. Crafty (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to being unencyclopaedic, perhaps you could point out why the conclusion of Talk:Gay bathhouse#RFC is the list of Famous bathhouse regulars encyclopaedic? was the wrong consensus to come to?—Teahot (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aside from that much of the commentary in that RFC was, well, yours, of course you're aware that consensus on Wikipedia does not bind future discussions; we don't do stare decisis. That being said, a number of people are answering you with their comments in this AfD.  RGTraynor  04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge. This was a break-out list from the main and itself has sourcing. I see reason to merge back to main but certainly not to delete. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article. It is redundant given that this information is copied from Gay bathhouse. As per my comments on that article's talk page, this information is a useful part of that page. It elucidates that article's subject matter, gives an idea of real life user's opinions on bathhouses over different eras. I do not see what function it serves when removed from the article which gives it context and meaning. The original section should remain in the gay bathhouse article. Format (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would seem a reason to merge/redirect as it's not the information that is wrong or unencyclopedic, just misplaced. -- Banjeboi 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes the content is fine. Technically there is no need to merge as the information is currently duplicated in gay bathhouse. We do not need to return it there, it is already there. But for the sake of collating opinions, I guess mine should be keep/merge redirect. Format (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP issues and the impossibility of precise definition  Chzz  ►  01:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The WP:BLP argument is compelling. And defining a "regular" is impossible. Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Still delete. A section in Gay bathhouse carries exactly the same material. And just because the page says it's got to be well-sourced does not mean that people would not add unsourced stuff that offends WP:BLP. Also per the well-reasoned arguments of RGTraynor.Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So a rationale for deletion is that someone may edit it in the future and then fail to meet a guideline? You may find the guidance of NOTCENSORED helpful as it covers this exact issue. I'm sorry but I can't help but get the impression that the real issue here is some editors are struggling to accept the gay sexual nature of the topic rather than factual compliance with BLP, Lists or RS. In comparison to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom (which in over 3 years has never been challenged) this list is far more reliably sourced, in compliance with guidelines and far less controversial and yet is put up for deletion within days of being created and with no attempt to follow up on the pre-existing discussion on the article talk page.—Teahot (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will say for the record that I have no problem with gay people whatsoever. None. I'm persuaded that WP:BLP concerns are at a minimum and does not justify deletion. But a big problem is that the list, by those criteria, would never be approaching completion - or even near. Not only because there will be likely new notable attendees every day, but also because the strict criteria necessary to avoid WP:BLP also made the list grossly underinclusive such that it would be of very limited usefulness to a person who wants to find a list of notable attendees. If the list is for illustration purposes - and it indeed does not claim completeness - it should be in the article it is intended to illustrate, not as a standalone page. Now, if there are 90 instead of 9, even though the list would still be underinclusive, I can understand the need to have a standalone article. But since there's only 9, I would normally vote merge, but as it is already there, delete. Tim Song (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - Please be clear I am not accusing anyone here of having a problem with gay people, this is different from accepting "the gay sexual nature of the topic". Someone who supports gay rights and lifestyles may not support the open existence or discussion about organizations where public gay sex may occur. On this page the terms "prurient" and "awful" have been used to describe the prospect of this well sourced list being added to Wikipedia which may lead you to conclude that the sexual nature of the topic is at issue rather than the unemotional issue of it being a stand-alone list or not. If I gave the impression of making accusations otherwise I unreservedly apologise.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I consider homosexuality and heterosexuality equal in all respects save for the gender of the participants. The primary reason I'm sticking with my delete vote is that the list should not be a standalone article, for the reasons stated. Its perpetual incompleteness renders it of limited use. Nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about "organizations where public gay sex may occur". Just like something like List of Chinese characters that are pronounced an1 is of little use except perhaps to illustrate that many different characters in Chinese are pronounced the same, and so should not be a standalone article but rather included in the article about Chinese, this list should have been included in the article it is intended to illustrate. I would not oppose making this into a redirect, however. Tim Song (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep with the name change, the remaining non-trivial coverage can clearly be sourced to reliable sources. with reliable sources, WP:BLP is not an issue.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Forum's comment that changed my opinion on the gay bathhouse page: "Attendance at a bathhouse was, many would say is contentious. It was possibly illegal too depending on date and region. Who attended bathhouses, which ones, and under what legal situation, illuminates the subject of bathhouses. The knitting and bonsai examples are not good examples because neither of those things are contentious, illegal, or particularly notable or uncommon. A famous person attending an illegal and stigmatised venue is notable." -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I protest a perma-nooboid nomination whose only reasons have been completely removed by only a change of article title. Irresponsible and negligent; a waste of WP resources. Anarchangel (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but what's a perma-nooboid? Zazaban (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:BLP for some of the living ones and vague inclusion criteria for the list. This isn't an issue of gay pride or homophobia. This is simply a list with vague criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be genuinely helpful if you could explain the BLP failure in the article, even if just for one case. Which living person and which sources are inadequate would be useful. I would be happy to take it up on the article talk page.—Teahot (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note; Capurro has now been removed from the list whilst the citations are under discussion on the talk page. Consequently, the number living people on the list is now zero, with obvious implications for current issues with BLP.—Teahot (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (proposal) I am increasingly concerned at how discussion on this page is changing the original opinions contributed. This AFD was raised without following the guidance of WP:BEFORE, in particular: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.", and "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."

This AFD was raised for a second time after the first was removed (not by me BTW) and discussion on the talk page recommended. Had this advice been followed then this same discussion would have been conducted in a less confrontational environment.

I would like to propose we follow the guidance of Wikipedia:DEL#Discussion "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." and move this discussion to the article talk page where, in my opinion, it should have started.—Teahot (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: Mm, but the problem with that is that the Delete proponents are, by and large, not saying "We think there are problems with the way this article is handling information, and it can be salvaged." It's much more "We disagree that this should be a standalone article at all, and it's inherently unsalvageable." That's an appropriate subject for AfD.  RGTraynor  02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if I take as true "inherently unsalvageable", how can this list be unsalvageable and yet exactly the same list that happens to be embedded in Gay bathhouse is perfectly okay? Surely the same rules apply and the embedded list should be deleted for exactly the same reasons?—Ash (previously Teahot) (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered above; while a sentence such as I've already given makes for a factoid acceptable in a larger article, it doesn't make for a standalone article - and I emphasize "article" as you're attempting to substitute "list" for my own wording. Again, obviously you don't agree, but that's for the closing admin to sort out; you really don't need to try to rebut every statement anyone makes.  RGTraynor  18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Awful list concept. Prurient, perpetually incomplete, unlikely to add value to the encyclopedia. That's not even beginning to consider privacy concerns if anybody living gets added to such a list. Ray^Talk 20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic, invites BLP problems. JN466 21:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and partition anything useful into the specific articles. List criteria are nebulous, and there's simply no way to keep it from being an Attractive Nuisance for BLP issues. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that "likely to be a target of vandalism" not one of the criteria for article deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also note that Jclemens has linked to an album cover, there is no such beast as WP:attractive nuisance as there is no such guideline.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "attractive nuisance" is a legal term that, even if it does not have a wikipedia article, is used appropriately here. although you are correct in that such a legal concept is not in place within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but WP:NOTCENSORED is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
• Strong Delete Not even close to encyclopedic, screams BLP problems, per User:Jayen466. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notable examples from the past should be kept in the main article. I accept the reasoning of the creators of this list and their efforts to avoid BLP problems. But the list will attract (even good faith) edits that are (at best) far from encyclopedic: the fact that Mr. X attends gay bath houses may be suitable material for a certain sort of newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Get Real. This is not what WP is all about. Stellarkid (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this fluff about fiction castles is somehow considered "encyclopedic"/"what Wikipedia is about" without the benefit of any third party sources, reliably sourced, real world acts with real social implications certainly are. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems a trivial intersection, grouping men together by an extremely minor activity. Why no "List of people that go to the pub"? People notable for going to bathhouses should be in the main article, notable people who just happen to go to them do not need listing.YobMod 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My interpretation of Lists is that there is no requirement that would mean a list of people has to be restricted to those famous "for" the topic. As you are using examples, a close match to the one you have given here is List of teetotalers where the criteria is only that the notable person has been teetotal for some part of their lives, not that they are famous "for" being teetotal. As this list is okay, then List of drinkers actually seems rational but actually both list concepts are far more trivial than this list up for deletion. BTW this list is not an "intersection" as there are no notable women who have ever been documented as going to gay bathhouses and if there were, then a simple name change of this list would solve the issue rather than deletion.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SAL says "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism." So that's where it's stated that lists of people should be restricted to those famous for the topic. And the "intersection" has nothing to do with gender; it's an intersection between "famous people" and "gay bathhouse regulars".

Thank you for explaining that. I have clarified the lead text in order to address the matter of notability of the individual for going to gay bathhouses and make the criteria and rationale explicit rather than implied. Please note (as stated at the top of this AFD) the list name has already been changed in order to remove the word "famous", there is an open discussion on the talk page with regard to the term "notable" as a further name change is likely better to comply with the guidance of WP:Lists.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kelly Clarkson. Have redirected but feel free to merge anything worthwhile. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I Ever Wanted Tour: 2009-2010

All I Ever Wanted Tour: 2009-2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article is not needed, tour hasn't even launched yet and is definatly not notable enough for it's own article. main artcicle has enough information for now. article is also orphaned Alankc (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Contested prod; violates WP:CRYSTAL when the artist is the only one announcing it. Maybe it'll happen, but until it gets closer and we have some anticipatory 3rd party coverage, there's no point. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Rather than kill, I think put a mention in the artist's article, a redirect on this article. This way the editor's work is not lost. Other than the fact that it doesn't seem to belong in WP yet, it doesn't seem to be bad... but it doesn't belong here.- sinneed (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:Sinneed. A brief sentence and a redirect to Kelly Clarkson will suffice for now; the article will probably need to be recreated at around September anyway and what has been created now will be valuable for that time. DJ 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what reason would there be to recreate it? none of her tours have their own article. None of them ever have anything worthy enough to create an antire article about the tour. All her tours are combined on one stub page with list of dates and small paragraph's about opening acts. Not much more to tell about any of them. Alankc (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be the responsibility of the adding editor. In very general, many of us like to avoid throwing out the work of other editors if we can wisely avoid it. Just because something doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it shouldn't... only that it doesn't. Just as wp:other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff.- sinneed (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

existing or not, until it happens, it does fall under wp:crystal as notable, and unless something spectacular happens during the tour, a seperate article will jsut look like a fansite page with biased opnions as most often do, also against wikipedia policys. That's my reasoning for a delete. the main article stub is plenty enough for it. beswides, how many people need to referance tours in detail? albums and such sure, but tours? i've yet to see an article with a show by show description of any tour. it jsut seems like overkill. (but i'm still open to opinions about it as every tour article on here seerms to have it's own concensus despite what wikipedia guidelines state) Alankc (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kelly Clarkson until such time as sufficient independent sources are available to support a separate article. Cynical (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tacheles

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

A list of dicdefs. Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as superfluous. No need for a disambiguation page with only one live entry. Deor (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deor. This is a strange article/dab page, and I don't see how it could be improved. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary, per WP:NOTDIC  Chzz  ►  01:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gina Lollobrigida. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Skofic

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

Not notable enough. Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Not notable enough for own article, this information can easily be added to Gina Lollobrigida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Notability is not inherited  Chzz  ►  01:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article says it all. His claim to fame is solely being married to someone famous. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @821  ·  18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Moore

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

While cleaning the article up following extensive editing by the subject, I realized that the "biography" section was just the history of the group. I clicked over to the group article and it's the same thing. The subject, Ariel Moore, is not notable outside of this group, of which she is no longer a member, and all relevant biographical information can be worked into that article. Previous version deleted per CSD-G12. Would like AFD decision on the matter for future use of G4. Lara 19:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My findings concur with nom statement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. She still has no notability outside of the group. Frehley 08:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sprouts (cafe)

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

fails WP:CORP, blatantly looks like something from a student guide. no third party coverage [3] LibStar (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge - I see two options either delete it because it is a non-notable cafe that has 1 location, or merge it to University of British Columbia in a pertinent section. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As the person who overturned this article's speedy deletion, while at the same time pointing out that it needed reliable third-party sources, I still lean towards deletion or merging. I would only observe that according to this source, the café is "the largest student-run food co-op of only a handful in Canada and the only co-operative campus retailer in B.C." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

even if that statement is true, that is not a criterion in itself, it needs significant coverage! LibStar (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are unrelated Sprouts cafes is other places (Lake Tahoe, Palo Alto), a redirect would violate WP:UNDUE. Abductive (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources  Chzz  ►  01:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Skip redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:NEO. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twiction

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

Was prodded a few weeks ago for failing WP:NEO, and it still fails it - the only reliable source given is a New York Times article that doesn't actually use the word "Twiction". McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not really relevant in the world outside of Twitter and I've never heard or seen anyone use the word. This is more of an Urban Dictionary entry, not a Wikipedia entry. --Blasterman 95 (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, it could use some work. But it does seem to me that there is value to keeping the article, as it seems to detail a valid trend on the internet. Especially since twitter is becoming much more popular, I think articles like this can be very useful. 96.242.163.72 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete At this point, doesn't seem notable, but it might be the next irritating word we have to hear endlessly in a few months (like Twitter itself). Conical Johnson (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to speculate whether it might be the next big thing. If it's not a big thing yet - if no reliable sources have yet written a word about it - then it shouldn't have an article yet. We could find a thousand minor neologisms on Twitter, any one of which might achieve widespread use in six months' time, but that doesn't mean we should write them all up now just in case. --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should elaborate that I wasn't saying we should keep it because it might be big soon. The wekness of my delete was only because I personally am not really into the Twitter world and wouldn't know if something was big within it. So, although it doesn't seem notable to me, I wasn't completely sure that this isn't something kind of big among Twitter fans. It seems to me that because Twitter is a new form of media, the memes involved might be disseminated in a way different from what we're used to seeing. In any case, I say delete as per WP:NEO. Conical Johnson (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:NEO. One mention in a NYT blog and some mention on Twitter sites (hardly neutral RS's) don't get past notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's worth emphasising that the NYT article doesn't use the word "Twiction"; it's a journalist writing about his own "Twiller" (a thriller created through Twitter). And he references the word "Twiller" as his own "cheap word play" rather than a widespread term. It looks like we have a while to go before there's an agreed word for these things. --McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. Made up in a day. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @125  ·  02:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox (magazine)

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

unsourced, and apparently utter rubblish. An "extreme" hardcore porn magazine sold in grocery stores? No credible claim of notability, no credible evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced, non-notable. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After a Google search for both the magazine and its purported publisher, Montcalm Publishing, it would appear that Montcalm filed for bankrupcy in 2008 and no longer circulates the magazine. I would have said it failed WP:N anyway, but a little-known magazine with no references and few relevant Google hits that doesn't even exist any more certainly fails WP:N. Neil Clancy 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Unsourced. Simple as that. Yes, and why would an "extreme" magazine be sold at a grocery store?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  Chzz  ►  01:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't see any notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brook, Hampshire. (X! · talk)  · @125  ·  02:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Farm House

Brook Farm House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. It is an old building, but there are lots of old buildings. Is it listed? Is there anything that makes it notable? Zero ghits, as far as I can see.

It is worth noting that it appears to have been added to wikipedia by its owners, so besides potential insignificance, there's a COI issue to consider. Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no assertion of notability. Hekerui (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find any evidence of notability on Google News, Scholar or Books. Qwfp (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. According to this pamphlet from the Hampshire County Council (page 2), the house is "Grade II listed". I have no idea what the significance of that is, but it answers the nom's question "Is it listed?" Deor (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks for that. Listed status is of significance - Grade II is defined at "buildings of special architectural or historic interest" - see Listed building#England and Wales. Equally there are 418,000 Grade II listed buildings in England and Wales. I'm not convinced that on its own a Grade II listing satisfies WP:N, not least with respect to an article which does not explain what the special architectural or historic interest is which got the building the listing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Brook, Hampshire, where it is. It is alleged to have been its manor house. That article is also only a stub, so that the merger will improve it. Delete the resultant redirectas unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That would be a good solution. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a solution that contravenes the project's copyright licences. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Depends how it is done. There is so little content ... adding a sentence to the Brook article which correctly records that there's a C18 listed farmhouse in Brook would effect a merge without using the words in the article. That being the case, the article could then be deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Worth including. Can be broken out again if substantial sourcing is found. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brook, Hampshire, the building is Grade II listed, but only dates from the C18th according to English Heritage (who should know about these matters). Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the last paragraph of this article to the last paragraph of Brook, Hampshire, as above (and correct the dating of the building per Mjroots's source). Deor (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List_of_Mobile_Suit_Gundam_military_units#Ra_Cailum_class_battleship. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ra Cailum class battleship

Ra Cailum class battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication at all of real-world notability. Prod was removed under the [incorrect] assumption that I don't think this should be deleted. The article contains no content that isn't written in an in-universe style. Mr.Z-man 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just like this is not a star wars/star trek wiki, this is not a "insert random fictional universe here" wiki. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Universal Century or Earth Federation; di-orphan non-free image afterward. --EEMIV (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is just the tip of a massive Gundam Universal Century cleanup that is long overdo. I'm not exactly sure what to do with this article, but it will require a complete restructuring of UC articles into a series of lists. --Farix (Talk) 01:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ... as The Farix says. There is even a navtemplate ({{Universal Century ship classes}}) listing them. Would the nominator be amenable to withdrawing the nomination in favor of a mass merge proposal of these articles into a list, and remanding the work to the relevant WikiProject? I ask because it'll take more than five days for the work to be done properly. A list of Gundanverse ships can demonstrate notability, as there are multiple books devoted to just that subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have no problem with a list, but as it stands, the content in the article is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what there is to merge. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would need trimming down to size during the merge, and then the list built up with out-of-universe sources. Not a quick project. (I note btw that content can be inappropriate for a separate article but completely appropriate as a subsection of a larger article or list -- WP:N explicitly states this.) —Quasirandom (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units seems to be an appropriate target for merging. Right now, I'm trying to clean up the overlinking and converting the infoboxes to {{Infobox fictional vehicle}}. --Farix (Talk) 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to an appropriate list. Edward321 (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Quasirandom. Extremepro (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per proposal. Certainly I can see the reason why it was nominated, character pages are another example of the type of page which is typically written in highly inappropriate manners for wikipedia. However the merge proposal above is the preferred way of dealing with it in this case (although it may not be in other cases). Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I also support the merge but as Quasirandom pointed out it will take time and the workload alone can burn fews editors. Gundam's articles are a major headache for the anime project for years so i don't think it will be solved in the instant. --KrebMarkt 07:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article has effectively been merged into List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units#Ra Cailum class battleship, all that is left is to redirect. --Farix (Talk) 12:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a decent target for now, pending the massive cleanup overhaul needed. I endorse this merge. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack, since that's where it appears first. Jtrainor (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In reviewing the article, its references and the comments put forth in this discussion, it is clear that the article is far removed from the requirements spelled out in WP:ORG. I would have no difficulty in welcoming the subject back in the future if it is shown to meet WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel

Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of nobility. SGGH ^ping! 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if I'm allowed to make a comment on this page, so I apologize if that's the case. I created this page and I got notice on my discussion page that the article is being nominated for deletion and there was a link to this page. The reasons for deletion is somewhat cryptic so I'm not sure what to make of it. Granted, the Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel is not the most "notable" organization out there, but it is somewhat notable. The basic structure of the organization had been around for some 20 years, although under under different names and different directors. Sullivan County is a relatively poor county and the vast majority of criminal defendants in the county are represented by the Legal Aid Panel. Thus, the Panel is quite notable within the county and somewhat notable in the county's environs. I don't know if this "asserts notability", but I hope it does.

  Originally I planned on making a more comprehensive article on the organization, but I lost patience after a while. The article was being prepared at User:Pink_Bull/Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel. I removed large parts of content before I created the article for real (for the lack of a scientific term) because I was not happy with the way the article was going and was hoping that by making a minimal article other more experienced editors can help with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete like other local organizations--unless thee is somewhere to merge. DGG (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If I can just add one more point in response to the comment above: An impression might be given off that we are dealing with some small non-for profit legal organization. Although this is partly true, the organization is neither small nor just another legal organization. As governments are required by law to provide legal services to indigent criminal defendants, public defenders or legal aid officers take on a quasi-governmental role. To this end, these type of organizations are on par with District Attorney offices of a given jurisdiction. The point is strengthened where - like in Sullivan County - the vast majority of criminal defendants are indigent. There are multiple articles about District Attorney offices and I see no sense in distinguishing between DA offices and their opposing party, legal aid organizations. Moreover, there are other articles on Wikipedia about legal aid organizations. Some examples include, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc., Arkansas Legal Services Partnership, and Downtown Legal Services. Other organizations can be seen at Category:Legal aid. Sincerely, ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AFD discussion is for this article, not others. Articles stand and fall on their own merits. And Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly, as you are erroneously doing. Your subjective opinion of an organization's "worth" has nothing to do with whether it satisfies our criteria for having an article. Uncle G (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if that's how my position was understood. I was trying to explain why the organization is notable in that geographic area, not why I consider it to be notable. I just added another source to the article, which I hope would now cause the article to satisfy all notability requirements. Sincerely,Pink Bull--Pink Bull (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As outlined above, this organization meets the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Org. It is an important and notable quasi-governmental organization that has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:N and in particular, WP:ORG completely. Google news returned no hits that's actually related (it returned an unrelated hit). Google for the precise term returned 79 hits. Most of the legal aid services Pink Bull cited are state-wide and therefore inapposite. I just prodded Downtown Legal Services which also fails WP:ORG entirely. In addition, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.Tim Song (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no objective need to delete this article and it seems pointless to exclude a reference point for and hopefully more information about an organisation with an important function at US County level. The issue of legal aid provision in poor communities is of wider interest - it's currently the subject of controversy in the UK[4]. The Executive Director of the Panel is the chairman of the county's bar association, suggesting that the organisation is one of some local significance[5]. Opbeith (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've entirely failed to counter the argument that no in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. You have also erroneously conflated notability and significance. Notability is not fame nor importance. If you want to make an argument that actually holds water and that is in accordance with our policies and guidelines, cite multiple independent reliable sources that document this subject in depth. The source that you've cited doesn't actually document this subject at all, I note. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get hysterically confrontational. Rules are there for guidance with a view to achieving a desirable outcome. Wikipedia administrators' interventions enforce a rigid and uncompromising consistency aimed at ensuring an arm's length relationship from the dangerously controversial notions of truth and reality, but you might have the courtesy to accept that other people's views are advanced in good faith in the attempt to seek some sort of negotiated engagement with the real world. Please don't scream. Opbeith (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ORG. These types of orgs exist everywhere. Nothing making this one look notable compared to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I stand by my previous vote. County-level legal aid is simply not notable enough absent some special factor that are missing here. Issues over legal aid do not require keeping every legal aid-related article. And simple local significance does not satisfy WP:N - see WP:CLUB. Tim Song (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Pink Bull. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pink Bull & Opbeith. Stellarkid (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Coverage in reliable sources is lacking, and as such, fails to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice activated sequencer

Voice activated sequencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. No reputable third party sources can be found using Google, mostly a self promotional article and author has COI as he is the inventor. Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Non-notable product being promoted by its inventor. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spamola. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio boot

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

Contested Prod. No outside sources can be found using Google, mostly a self promotional article and author has COI as he is the inventor. Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Duplicating Talk Page Post in Relation to Deletion Nomination) "NOTE TO WIKI: After reviewing the entire wikipedia website we feel this invention warrants being presented on Wikipedia with the other inventions, being it's the only one of it's kind. The invention is interesting and unique in a number of different ways. It's as creditable as any other description and invention on this site and we feel the general public should be able to read about these recent discoveries. Because it's a fairly new invention is no reason to deny the article. If someone wanted to read up about new midi devices and how they work, this would be what they are looking for and where they would look. We ask that you would consider our article as equal to others of the same stature. We understand this reply must be removed in order for the article to remain, therefore we will gladly remove it upon request." Added by author User:Kevin_Mixson to article. Rcurtis5 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--advertising. The claim made above of having reviewed the entire Wikipedia is a bit of a stretcher, and those readers (royal plural?) seem to have missed the fact that many articles on Wikipedia have references from reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Plausibly a {{db-spam}} speedy. Seems to be primarily advertising rather than any kind of neutral third-party-publication-based overview. I can't even find any evidence that this exists as an actual company; when I try, I find instead a different Studio Boot, some sort of design firm in den Bosch, the Netherlands [6], which is still not sufficiently notable. Fails WP:ORG. And the author's "warrants being presented" seems to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia: we're not here to provide a soapbox for people to present new stuff, we're here to document what's already sufficiently well known. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like spam to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lubbock, Texas. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Lubbock

List of tallest buildings in Lubbock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The buildings in Lubbock are not of a substantial height to have their own list. This type of list is meant for cities with large skylines, not every city in the United States. The tallest building in Lubbock is under 250 feet (which wouldn't even be in the top 30 in Cleveland) and the city doesn't even have 5 cities over 100 feet. This makes this list worthy of deletion. Fryedk (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. I have merged the content into the Lubbock, Texas article and changed the article under discussion into a redirect. I suggest the redirect be deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging and then deleting can cause GFDL and CC-BY-SA problems. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect - not notable enough for its own article, and has already been boldly merged/redirected by Tagishsimon. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dream Focus makes a good point, I found plenty of sources in the other articles. Although I think a merge would be better (since the parent article isn't that long), I'd be OK with keeping too. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The description of the taller buildings in the city can better be included in the city article.Gasp2009 (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some of these buildings have their own articles about them, so they are notable. I see nothing wrong with this, or the dozen other similar articles also nominated by the same person for deletion. Dream Focus 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Really a pointless list. An 8 story building makes this list? My county just built a jail addition that was taller. I really fail to see the notability in the list. One of the buildings on the list didn't really have it's own article. The article it linked to was a much taller building of the same name in Dallas. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the same reasons as discussed at the ongoing List of tallest buildings in Amarillo AfD. I really don't see which of the usual criteria for deletion were met for this to be nominated. If the standard criteria aren't the reason for deletion, then (per MissionInn.Jim at the other AfD): 1)What criteria will be used to decide what buildings are "substantial" enough to warrant being on such a list, 2) How many are "enough" buildings to warrant creating such a list, and 3) What criteria will be used to decide which cities are the "cities with large skylines" that deserve such a list? Altairisfar_talk 04:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But when would you draw the line? Lubbock has less than 5 buildings over 100 M. If every city in the world that had 4 100 m buildings there would be hundreds of such articles. Fryedk (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect lists of this sort serve little purpose - I think that people would look for this information at Lubbock, Texas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect -- belongs at Lubbock, Texas at best. Doesn't make any sense to do this as a standalone article. Stellarkid (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - It's very vauge and not notable enough to be a stand alone article, although the information should stay. Airplaneman ^talk 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ogilvy & Mather. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animals in the Womb

Animals in the Womb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm fairly unclear on just why this article exists because there's nothing here which states why it is notable beyond who was responsible and who it is for. Seems like a fairly normal ad campaign (balancing on the back of a notable documentary) so basically it's failed WP:N, lacks sourcing (WP:RS) and seems to have been created out of WP:ILIKEIT. treelo _radda 15:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unsourced areticle about a non-notable ad campaign. (Is it just me, or NickelodeonFan = SpongeBobFan = GreenBayPackersfan09 = Zach Benjamin = all the rest?) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there is an issue of a sockpuppet drawer then I'd point you towards this SPI case and add a few bits about it here, AfD isn't really for checking up on sockdraws. treelo _radda 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the National Geographic series In the Womb as this is a likely search term. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge with Ogilvy & Mather - The campaign has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and has been nominated for a Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival award in the "film" category. A few sources: [7] (German), [8] (Swedish), [9] and [10] (Swedish, sources for the award statement), [11] (Swedish), [12], [13], [14], [15] (Swedish), [16] (Swedish), [17] (RS?), [18] (RS?), [19] (RS?), [20] (RS?), [21] (German, RS?), [22] (Swedish, brief mention). It was also nominated for "best advertisement film" in a well-known Swedish award, Guldägget: [23], [24], [25]. The name of the article is wrong, though, because "Animals in the Womb" isn't the official name of the campaign. Next Generation (Ford) or something like that would be more appropriate. Theleftorium 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of those sources are industry press articles which don't amount to much more than veiled press releases or announcements. Quite a few are very brief mentions, some are in relation to a nomination for non-notable awards and the several DagensMedia references really do only mention it in passing whilst others are regarding the product, not the advert itself. A nomination for the Cannes Lions is somewhat notable but seeing as it wasn't a win it doesn't seem encouraging. If you're going to source, please at least run them through a translator or otherwise read them because most every one of those "sources" are not good enough, by the same metric every high profile advertising campaign can be considered notable. treelo _radda 19:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I changed my mind while looking at the Ogilvy & Mather article. Merging it there is probably better, as the article won't become any longer than a stub with the little information available from the reliable sources I provided above. Theleftorium 20:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the parent article Ogilvy & Mather. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although I can't determine the level of coverage in the non-English language sources above, the nominations it has received establish notability. If "keep" is not an option, then merge to advertising company, per above.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keeps either debated how other articles should be deleted (not a relevant argument) or failed to clearly establish notability, as opposed to the delete vvotes which were clear in their arguments. I am also salting the page, given the consensus for that here. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 404 podcast

The 404 podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has been recreated several times without significant improvement over the version which was deleted as a result of this AFD. An administrator has declined G4 speedy deletion due to questions about the result of that previous AFD. Reopening the discussion. RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• delete it's been tagged already and it's bieng worked on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlueCottonCandy/The_404_podcast Antonio López ^(desu) 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am amenable to speedy deleting the article (G4) and not salting the title, if it's going to be worked on in userspace. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and salt. Complete failure to provide independent reliable sources. I speedy deleted this yesterday under criterion G4, reposting of deleted material (see WP:Articles for deletion/The 404). When I deleted it yesterday, I also userfied the text, advising the editor to locate independent reliable sources. Discussion about that was placed at Talk:The 404 podcast - and that page was tagged {{g8-exempt}} and was visible even as the next iteration of the article was created. It's still there as of right now. Since the article was recreated today, I take that as a sign that other editors concede that there are no further independent sources to be found.

I considered opening a deletion review thread about the non-speedy-deletion today. While I feel that the first AfD was closed properly, I think it's best to get a clear consensus on the merits of the subject, specifically its verifiability. However, if this AfD closes with a delete result, I think the title should be salted - since twice attempts have been made to create it but in neither case would a good article have come of it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This podcast has more notability than many other articles on Wikipedia, so I am wondering why this particular podcast is under fire. The article could use some work and is slightly one sided, but that can be worked on. I say wait 30 days and see what becomes of this article, then if the article is still one sided with other errors, then reconsider deleting it. I still would not salt the article either way. It seems like people from other competing podcasts are trying to ensure that 404 doesn't make Wikipedia. Patman21 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's focus on this article not others beside WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument to make in an AFD. This isn't about a podcast rivalry (do those really exist? that's really sad) It's about meeting the same notability and reference guidelines that apply to all articles.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt until such time that a userfied article can be produced that meets notability guidelines. This has been recreated too many times and I don't see a problem with the conclusion to the previous discussion on this article. Apparently the kinder method of userfying it and allowing it to be moved back when improved wont work.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep It passes very well the google test for notability. - avsa — 189.122.80.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment what exactly is the "Google test for notability". All the google news hits are coming from CNET, it's producer which makes it a primary source and not applicable as a reference to show notability here. This subject may be notable but not in its current form. Better references are needed and its the responsiblity of the editors who add the information to properly cite it. Leaving it for X amount of time for someone else to do really isn't a good option.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, counting Google hits is specifically excluded as a measure of notability. So, a "Google test" accomplishes nothing. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Based upon the logic presented prior and as I am returning from an extended hiatus relative to Wikipedia, I can only state that if we are obliged by standards to vaporize this and salt the title then all podcasts should be considered non-notable and thereby be deleted and salted. The same opprobrium reserved for garage bands and your first grade teacher would likely be well applied to all podcasts that presently have entries. Smk (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further to my vote: While noting the raising of ALLORNOTHING, I will also say that a look at TWiT also shows a paucity of verifiable sources and references only materials TWiT or its collaborators have produced. The body of literature out there on podcasts is small as is anything that looks at the media landscape. For the reasons enunciated over the history of this ill-fated article, I do not see a way for it to be resolved without violating No Original Research. Smk (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You say keep. Then why are you marking all the TWiT podcasts for speedy deletion? Either I'm missing something, or you're being a hypocrite (no offence intended)! --DanielPharos (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Smk - All podcasts which fail our inclusion guidelines should be deleted, yes. As should any articles that don't meet the criteria. If that means we have to ravage podcasts, they deserve to be ravaged. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I'm not all that impressed on how Graeme Bartlett overturned Julian Colten's close with a simple "I think it should have been a no consensus". Then take it to DRV; you don't simply recreate it. Tan | 39 22:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, I did not recreate the article, just declined the speedy delete, if the issues raised in the earlier AfD were addressed it is worth having another AfD. The previous AfD was very evenly balanced on keeps and deletes with apparently valid arguments on both sides. It looks like there may be lobbying from somwhere to keep this article. And Tan could even now speedy delete, I would not restore it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and salt. The 404 podcast as a topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are no sources that address the subject directly in detail, and significant original research was needed to extract the content of this article especially the 'Inside Jokes & Common References' & 'Notable Guests' sections.There is no significant coverage more than a trivial mention other than the podcast's own blog. I question whether it is ethical that the show hosts are actively directing their listeners to re-create the entry because they were unhappy it was correctly deleted before (http://twitter.com/the404/status/2778778767)I see no sufficient coverage from reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline.All the sources provided for the article are links from their own blog (cnet website) - primary sources. One link is from the personal blog of the former main host of the podcast who is also a current regular guest. I posit that the current hosts have a massive campaign to re-create the entry based on a need to self promote. There is evidence of an ongoing attempt to get their listeners to re-create the article and add as much detail as possible in the hope that it is not re-deleted (http://twitter.com/the404/status/2798784442). I propose that the show is simply not notable. The show has significant hits in Google owing to their status of being one of the podcasts produced by CNET (now CBS interactive), a for profit concern with a huge footprint on the web. CNET has had years of google search engine optimization to appear on the top of pages as part of their business model is to attract advertising for their podcasts. Even if google search results were a credible reason to demonstrate notability - this fact should be considered.If re-deleted the show hosts will undoubtedly lobby their listeners to repost the article(http://twitter.com/the404/status/2798784442)This has happened before and will happen again.

user:callsfromthepublic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.37.148 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This is clearly a notable article, The 404 is a podcast produced by CNET, a notable organization that produces notable content including other podcasts that have been considered notable by Wikipedia standards. From the information on their page they have clearly had notable guests and are reporting notable news and information. The charge that the hosts are making an attempt to create a Wikipedia entry for the express purpose of self-promotion is ridiculous. I seriously doubt that a Wikipedia article will drive that much traffic to a podcast. The idea that this article is not notable enough for wikipedia standards seems to be more a akin to some sort of juvenile internet flame war. There is no reason this article should be deleted so it should remain and hopefully as time goes on any references and sources can be appropriately added.--DavidPomeranzRox (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — DavidPomeranzRox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If you do some additional research regarding C-Net, hardly any of its writers and editors have their own Wikipedia pages. So, I wouldn't use the argument that C-Net by association should make it notable. Notability is not by association. Also, the hosts are not behind this article - the fans are. And last, notability is not a work-in-progress activity. You don't create an article and then months later become notable. The article should be notable the very pico-second it is published no Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The desire by the hosts of the 404 to get a listing on Wikipedia (by bribery if possible, see http://www.cnet.com/8301-13952_1-10083743-81.html?tag=mncol;title) is only a means to become 'legit' (http://www.cnet.com/8301-13952_1-10154721-81.html). I would think one becomes legit/noteable, then gets a wiki page, rather than the other way around. That aside, while they do put out a mostly enjoyable show to listen to, it at most merits mention under CNET, not on its own. CNET, being as big as it is, could easily host its own wiki for the fans of the show to list all the inside jokes, notes, etc, that is often listed as a reason for the wiki page to exist. Wikis != Wikipedia, after all.--Psychopez (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — Psychopez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Interesting that the last two votes were by completely new accounts. Tan | 39 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bribery?" I think not. It was a joke (the show is funny, after all). Unfortunately, I think some personal biases have entered this debate, as neither of the 2 above references are accurate. As I mentioned before, discussion about a Wikipedia page (by the hosts, listeners, or anyone) should be irrelevant. If the entry is notable (which I think it is) and worthy, then it should exist. I don't think that anyone is attempting to circumvent the Wikipedia guidelines, either (by first creating a wiki page and then making the show "legit/notable"). Whether or not discussions have occured about a Wikipedia page is irrelevant, in my opinion. People talk about Wikipedia and its contents for a variety of reasons, all valid. And CNET should not have to "host its own wiki;" Wikipedia is here for all sorts, regardless of affiliation, so long as entries meet certain criteria. Jcfay (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem: The evidence provided by Psychopez prove that The 404 is asking people to create the page for them. I'm assuming The 404 is aware that it is not allowed to create an article about itself - that would be a conflict of interest. I don't watch the show, but I've been told by friends who do that The 404 wants to use the Wikipedia article as reference, for example, to look up the inside jokes related to the show. The reason why this information is relevant is that it demonstrates motive to circumvent the notability requirement by creating the article, and then spend the following months developing the notability. I'm a deletionist, and we believe in establishing the notability before the article is created. We don't like creating articles just for the hell of it, and then wait for the article to develop. Too many articles like this become lost, and fall into stub land for eternity. Deletionists used this same argument when the Michael Jackson death article was created before the fit hit the shan, and the article was deleted. The article was re-created about a day later WHEN it was determined that the death was not natural. This is an example of proper procedure - let an issue marinate and develop before creating the article. In the case of The 404, you assume that the show will be a success and will be notable. That's what inclusionists and optimists believe. Groink (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there IS an active wiki about the hosts, the inside jokes, etc: see http://the404.wikia.com/ with 500+ pages. — Catherine\^talk 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About ten more references added since my last mention, but all the new ones still point to within the C-Net domain. And, @the404 sent out a friendly tweet "Thanks so much to all contributors to our Wikia: F*ck Wikipedia, [Wikia] is all we need, feel free to dive in and edit!" I told you they were trying to use Wikipedia as a reference tool. Groink (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it is a well known podcast with many devoted followers who want to spread the 404. the longer the page is up the more external sources will be added. this is much more notable than some of the other items on wikipedia, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimoisaka_Station which is a one sentence article. the 404 is continuing to grow in popularity, they deserve their own wikipedia page — 99.135.33.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Several problems with your argument. First, all train stations in Japan are documented on Wikipedia as a wiki project. Second, inclusion is not an argument that has credibility on Wikipedia. All inclusion means is that all the other articles are also facing the same issue as this article, and may lead to action being put on those articles. Groink (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I'll admit first that I am a listener of this podcast. At the same time, I do think a lot of the extreme opposition against the existence of the article (and the podcast itself) seems a bit premature and somewhat unwarranted. Yes, the article itself definitely needs some clean up and professionalism. At the same time, in terms of notability, this is a podcast for one of the largest tech resources on the web. This podcast has repeatedly entered among the top rankings on iTunes among its category and has become among the first of the CNET shows to receive official corporate sponsorship and advertising (from Becks Beer). There is at the very least room for argument for legitimacy and notability for this podcast and it should only be fair to grant a fair amount of time for users, fans or not, to append the wiki with relevant information and references. If really after time, the article is still not up to standard, deletion can be considered. However, accusations of "bribery" and insidious Twitter campaigns and the calls to salt the page seem to be a bit excessive for a seemingly innocuous article (this article is far from anything controversial). The nature of this show is a bit playful and cheeky - but to allege some conspiracy by the hosts to damage the integrity of Wikipedia would be very debatable. Finally, against the proposal of salting, the podcast is also continuing to grow in viewership - even if the decision later on is to delete it, the option to revisit at a later date should be available. Dc82 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Premature"? Five months is plenty of time to find sources. None have been found, and there have been editors working on the article since the last AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "five months?" As far as I know, this wiki had been deleted and unavailable since it's last deletion. The podcast has definitely continued to grow during the past few months when the wiki was deleted. It's very hard to edit/add anything if the article is extremely difficult to reach (in a deleted state). At the very least, as the wiki is up now, time should be granted for users to attempt to address many of these issues and fix the article.--Dc82 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Dc82 on this. As someone who is relatively new to Wikipedia, I found that navigating and locating deleted items is challenging. I would also agree with Dc82 that some of the criticism here really seems unwarranted, inaccurate (regarding the alleged Twitter "campaigns," "bribery," and circumvention of Wikipedia rules), and perhaps of malicious intent. Jcfay (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Failure to understand notability guidelines and the irrelevence of other articles that don't meet them  Chzz  ►  01:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt And I use Buzz Out Loud as a baseline for this. BOL achieved notability by becoming the top podcast on iTunes, among other reasons. The 404 comes nowhere close to achieving any form of notability. Remember now that notability does not mean thousands of people know about the show. The show, rather, should contribute something that reaches the general popular culture. This article relies too much on WP:SELFPUB, and I'm afraid that we're going to see a flood of fans creating content on their web pages in order to be used as sources for this article. As I suggested in the talk page, create this article off-line and then publish it when it has satisfied notability and include reliable 3rd-party sources, rather than creating the article and then spending weeks making the article compliant. I see far too articles being create prematurely. Groink (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"BOL achieved notability by becoming the top podcast on iTunes" By that standard, the 404 is valid, as it (the video podcast version) has definitely made it on the iTunes top 10 in tech, I believe under it's "new and notable" section.--Dc82 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BUT, besides doing your own primary source research, are there other reliable sources that state this fact? Thing such as looking at a top-10 list, Google search results, etc. are all examples of original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. Groink (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More about the current references. Of the fourteen currently listed, only four are outside of C-Net or Ziff-Davis (Z-D owns C-Net.) One link is to Apple's iTunes - its distributor. One link points to YouTube which is actually not a reliable source under WP guidelines. One links to IMDB, and has nothing to do with the show, and the others are blogs which to date are generally not reliable sources under WP guidelines. Groink (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since this article was just speedy deleted with the instructions that it doesn't have a place in mainspace until there is notability backed up by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt I listen to the 404 podcast and it is an entertaining show for people of a certain taste. However, it is plainly obvious they have been caught doing what has become their modus operandi of self promotion. To those who say the show is notable since it has reached the top of Itunes before; do you know how that happened? not organically, the show solicited its listeners to post 5 star reviews on Itunes in order to game the system. This is well known to regular listeners of the show. The only saving grace is that this method of gaming Itunes is temporary. The show hosts have similarly repeatedly lobbied their listeners to 1. create a wiki page and 2. add external sources to prevent deletion (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2804423274) This last message explicitly links to THIS discussion page to get their listeners to vote to keep the article. It is humorous to see they even think there is a hidden wikipedia insider agenda againsts them (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2805762921) (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2781736545) What I find most blatant is that whereas the show hosts declare they will themselves not edit their own wikipedia page, they tell their listeners EXACTLY what to put on the page (evidence: The404 episode388 http://feeds.feedburner.com/cnet/the404video?format=xml 15:05 minute mark). I implore you to watch this part - they are 'begging'

67.82.206.9 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)DarthMaul/DarthWiki[reply]

Perhaps I haven't gone far back enough to past episodes, but at least during the time I did see the 404 video podcast on the top 10 in iTunes, I don't recall them telling people to post 5 star reviews. And with that point, BOL has actively asked for 5 star posts during their shows and for a while, even called out each person on air who gave them such a rating. To your point about the hosts "lobbying," I think what you call "blatant," it's definitely one extreme view of what they're doing - one can just as easily make the argument that they're trying to respect the rules of Wikipedia by asking third parties to edit the page. I'm sure especially as people in the tech industry, it's probably not that hard for them to log on someone's computer and edit the page themselves if they really wanted to. Even in recent episodes as the Wikipedia issue arose, they weren't asking listeners to sabotage or ruin Wikipedia; they were trying to address the issues brought up here, in terms of notability, references, etc. They asked their listeners not to just post up filler or useless information, but to try to find references outside of CNET, relevant information, etc. I just find it funny that there seems to be so much anger and opposition directed towards this page and the hosts; what some try to spin as "self-promotion," others might see as their opinion as a right to exist (as an article), that they do do legitimate work and it should be worth nothing. Again, we're not talking about some kid's webcam show that reaches 15 views. It's one of CNET's top podcasts that not only is continuing to grow in viewership (currently nearly 100k downloads and 200k impressions of their podcasts each month), and is notable enough to attract corporate sponsors (Becks Beer).--Dc82 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt (as recreation expected). Many sources, but nothing reliable. Little notability, and certainly no inherent notability "because it's CNET". Seems an obvious close to me, so I'm slightly perturbed by all these keep !votes with very weak reasoning. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 19:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we must be going for a record for comments from WP:SPAs here.--RadioFan (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This podcast should be kept because of its unbelievable ability to land amazing/Famous celebrity guests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.226.83 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2009

• Comment Ripping through all the dialog here, the "keep" is making the following arguments:

1. The show made a top-10 list on iTunes. I asked for a third-party reference pointing this out. None so far.
2. The show pops up on Google a gazillion jillian times. Google search results are not reliable, and proving such figures is considered original research, which is against Wikipedia policy.
3. The show has a large following. As I said in the past, this does not qualify as notability. A guy who ran over a crowd of people, and then appear on CNN, MSNBC and FOX does not make him notable.
4. The guys at The 404 are encouraging its fans to better the article. All I've seen for the last 24 hours is a bunch of notable guests added to the list, and a bunch more references pointing to C-Net, which I pointed out as WP:SELFPUB. Why isn't this point being made to these editors? Under WP:OR, the show is not its own resource!! It is like trying to prove Jesus exists by quoting from the Holy Bible.
5. Each of the notable guests may have his/her/its own article on Wikipedia, but none of them has the Midas touch where just appearing makes the show notable. Living in Hawaii, a tiny burger joint in Honolulu where Barack Obama once worked at does not make the burger joint notable.
6. The show has a major sponsor. That also does not qualify as notability. The PBA Tour has a major sponsor, and Lumber Liquidators the sponsor isn't even notable to have an article of its own. The Tour itself makes its own notable status.

Treat Wikipedia as if it is a research paper you're writing in college. Any college professor would tell his students that qualifying sources, avoiding using POV, and using itself as a source are taboo. Groink (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability criterion set forth in WP:WEB by virtue of being produced through a respected online publisher that is independent of the creators(CNET and CBS Interactive). Ngaskill (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The 404 is NOT a web page. It is a podcast. In case you think podcast = web, it doesn't. Podcasts are the same as a radio show. Groink (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I never claimed this was a webpage but that not withstanding the guideline is NOT called WP:WEBPAGE. This is a WP guideline for all web based content which verbatim includes podcasts. Ngaskill (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't meet criterion 1 as it is not "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." It doesn't meet criterion 2 as it has not "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." And it doesn't meet criterion 3 as it is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". It is distributed by CNET who, the lead says, "it is produced by". That's not independent; hence it fails all criteria. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This article fails WP:WEB in that it doesn't meet any of the 3 criteria. As discussed above, there is a lack of significant coverage in 3rd party sources (nearly all sources found so far are primary sources or blogs), there is no indication of any well known awards, and based on the arguments above ("produced by CNET"), the distribution is not independent of the creators. This last point makes me think that maybe the best course of action is merging into CNET. The "morning zoo" type antics on the show itself regarding encouraging listeners/viewers to astroturf only hurts notability arguments here and is just plain disruptive.--RadioFan (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It really seems like there is no assumption of good faith on the part of many of the no votes here. While this podcast's tactics, many editors may find distasteful, they are not a disqualifier for the page's existence. I am not defending this article in its current form, it needs significant work but I stand firmly that the notability standard set forth in WP:WEB is met here. The distribution is clearly different from the creators here. This is a podcast by editors that is published by a major media outlet (CNET) which is in-turn a subsidiary of a major media conglomerate (CBS). The way I would interpret that guideline is preventing self-publications (i.e. I set up a microphone in my basement and put it on my own website.) It seems that minimum bar has been met to me. If we can agree that this standard is met, the article then needs to be edited for an encyclopedic neutral point of view and removal of original research. Ngaskill (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I, and other editors here, disagree. This is clearly a CNET production. The shows email address is @cnet.com , the podcast is listed in iTunes under artist "CNET.com". Previous comments on this article identified it as a CNET production. That was when it was used as an argument to show its notability. Now its being argued not to be a CNET production in hopes of fitting it into WP:WEB's criteria. This isn't a game of save the article, we cant have it both ways. Also, please don't accuse editors of bad faith and let's focus on discussing the merits of this article. This isn't an us vs. them contest. This discussion is quickly becoming very polarized. Disagreement doesn't equate to bad faith. Also, while the podcast's tactics are not a disqualifier for a Wikipedia article, they need to be taken into account by the closing admin in determining if creation protection should be applied should the outcome here be delete.--RadioFan (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, disagreement isn't bad faith but I'm also not casually calling the other side's position "morning zoo" type antics. The guidelines don't state "the sources must have different email addresses" but rather that "the content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." I contend that CNET both on its own and as an affiliate of CBS Corporation meets that standard because it is not editing, scripting, choosing the content, scheduling guests etc. for this podcast. To draw an analogy, we don't assume that Chris Matthews's TV program is "the same" as MSNBC though they likely supply him a paycheck and an email address. Ngaskill (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see your argument at all. As publishers of the content, they are not independent and hence not reliable. They don't script the program, true. But they do have a conflict of interest. By promoting content that your website is in charge of the distribution, you are not providing a reliable source. I don't see how you can contend that at all. Chris Matthews's TV program isn't the same as MSNBC (I assume as I'm English), but we wouldn't use MSNBC to prove the program's notability. MSNBC and CNET are involved in the 'fore mentioned situations, and thus cannot be treated as independent or reliable sources with regard to that subject. Picture it like a conflict of interest, if that helps. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 23:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This argument doesn't fit the policy. We aren't arguing about sourcing but about notability (I'll admit the article needs worked on for multiple things like sourcing and neutral point of view.) You claim that "but we wouldn't use MSNBC to prove the program's notability" however the guidline for WP:WEB says otherwise. Sorry to quote it but it seems that perhaps people would like to assume what it says:

"web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria." ... "3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)."

To me that indicates that the threshold of notability is met when a major media organization publishes web content provided it is independent (i.e. a press release or public relations statement wouldn't qualify nor would a company's blog itself.) If someone wants to make an argument to delete instead of improve for reasons other than notability I'm open to it. Ngaskill (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't understand why you're keep pointing out that The 404 and its people who produce and star in it are "independent" of C-Net and CBS. Wilson, Jeff and Justin are employees of C-Net, just like the others such as Ina Fried, Tom Krazit and all the other writers and editors of C-Net. The article itself says they are. Is there any source outside of C-Net that establishes the fact that C-Net has absolutely NO editorial, control or other input in the program? Would the show dare to trample over a C-Net sponsor? C-Net is "respected" when it reports un-biased news reporting. BUT, when C-Net entered the blogging and podcasting business, its respect amongst the Internet community can change. Many people do not consider blogging to be objective reporting, much like for example people do not respect Fox News or MSNBC because of its leaning towards the right or left respectively. If one were to read the comments in many of its news articles, there is mass confusion between what C-Net sees as news vs a blog. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia itself mentions that blogging is meant to bypass the editorial process. And as such, people may no longer respect C-Net as a neutral news source. So in short, if you're declaring WP:WEB #3, you have the burden of proof that The 404 is factually independent of C-Net, AND that C-Net is still a respected news source. Groink (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: One other thing I want to point out, and that is WP:FANCRUFT. This essay basically suggests that if a large percentage of this article, such as the inside jokes listing or the guest list, cannot for the life of it be verified by independent sources, the article can actually lean towards WP:NOT, where "the specific focus of the discussion may be that the article is a compilation of facts that reliable sources outside of fan-based reliable sources have not found interesting enough to publish." To paraphrase, others can WP:SELFPUB in order to boost the independent sources, but if these kinds of sources are overwhelmingly being used, then the article can be interpreted as not being notable. Sources outside of the clique should be talking about show. Groink (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The standard is not a respected news source but a respected source right? CNETTV which is the "catch all" for all of their organization's video podcasting was a nominee and people's choice winner of the webby awards 2009 as per http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?media_id=97. As to establishing the process of their story selection this seems to me to be an unreasonably high bar to set, I highly suspect this level of specificity in an outside published resource exists for very few broadcast or media sources in general. Certainly there are copy editors and guidelines set by the network and you're probably right that it would be frowned upon to deride a sponsor but I suspect that would be the case for almost any commerical broadcaster, not really sure how that threatens its independence.
  • Two problems there. First, it is a known fact that the Webby Awards is a pay-only award. If C-Net did not pay to be in the award selection, then it would not have been picked in the first place. The article's criticism section explains this, therefore that source is not credible. Second, what you're basically saying is that a company as a whole can be reliable, but its services may not. That's like saying AT&T's 3G network sucks, but AT&T is still a reliable company. I beg to differ on this logic. If C-Net loses its credibility on its primary product - news and information, then I can't see how one can still stay that C-Net is a reliable source. It just does not click! Groink (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • In looking at the listings on Alexa, CNET averages the 70th most visited site on the internet and from what I can tell is fairly consistently the top rated English language technology themed website in their daily listings. It seems that in general the public is using this as a respected source. Additionally, NewsCred which is a feedback service to rank the credibility of stories through sources is ranked 99.03% credible with a large same size. http://www.newscred.com/source/show/name/cnet Additionally while I understand there are complaints about the Webby Award system you must also take into account that this was the winner of the public vote award and I am also not aware of any comparable alternative major awards to use otherwise perhaps other editors can assist in that regard. Ngaskill (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As to the fancruft subject, I do agree this article needs significant work in that regard but that can be fixed, I don't think this is a reason to delete. There is at least enough objective content for the page to exist in a form comparable to many of the other podcast articles on wiki. Ngaskill (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are thousands of Wikipedia articles out there that are less notable than this podcast. The 404 is a podcast from CNET, a popular technology news site. The 404 was also featured on FOX News' Strategy Room a while back. I don't think you can say that about villages with less than hundred citizens. Clearly they have plenty of listeners, otherwise we wouldn't be having this heated discussion about the article. For me, this just proves their noteworthiness. --Pdedecker (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following must be cited via references (and make them in the article - NOT on this talk page): WP:Notability. Also, notability must be permanent (WP:NTEMP).
  • Wikipedia is not a work in progress or a first draft (WP:IMPERFECT)
  • Avoid the following arguments and references: WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:INHERITED, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:POPULARITY. Groink (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. but wikify. As Doc and Niteshift said, they have charted twice. That passes WP:MUSIC. (X! · talk)  · @822  ·  18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top authority (rap group)

Top authority (rap group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Found this while new page patrolling yesterday. I was tempted to speedy, but the group does exist and it has an appreciable number of Ghits, but not much, if any, seem to be reliable sources. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User created the page as Top authority some four hours after creating the page nominated for deletion here. It was previously A7'd as Top authority (gangster rap), but no previous deletion discussion has taken place. Given the user's seeming proclivity for recreating the article, I think it's a good idea that that be done, to open it up to G4. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing in the article to show notability and apparently no intention of the author to supply it. Favonian (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Top Authority's Somethin' to Blaze To was #21 on Billboard's Top R&B Albums chart in April 1994 and Rated G reached #16 in early 1996, satisfying WP:Music. "Correct title and improve" would be good. 86.44.29.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I've never heard of them, but they do indeed have a handful of charting albums and one entry on the Hot Rap Singles chart. That sufficiently passes WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Barely notable. They did chart twice: Rated G at #144 and Top Authority at #192. The only chart that really matters is the Top 200. Heatseekers etc. don't really establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If the article is going to be kept, it's in serious need of wikifying. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments for keeping the article do not appear to address notability concerns. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talyst

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

Non-notable company, created by employees of the company. Cannot find independant sources with infomation about them. Bacchus87 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient notabilty to meet guidelines. This AfD doesn't seem to be listed on the article page... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

twinkle didn't want to put it there apparantly, fixed now Bacchus87 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--I agree, there's no notability that I can find. I looked for reliable sources but all I found were press releases and such. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete--I am new to Wikipedia and trying to follow the rules. I followed the wiki template for one of our competitors, Omnicell and am trying to inlcude the same sorts of information. We are a young, privately-held company, but have appeared in Inc. magazine, dozens of helathcare publications, and have recieved a number of national awards. I am working to correct the content so it does not have some many marketing adjectives. perryholz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator, (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Brothers Brewing

Two Brothers Brewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not meet Wiki standards for notability. Article exists solely for advertising purposes. Lighthope (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject matter meets WP:NOT as there are numerous references to the brewing company in reliable sources, including multiple references in the Chicago Tribune, e.g. [28] and [29], as well as others. Not that the article couldn't be improved and/or rewritten, but it is at least adequately sourced at present, and there are more sources that could be added. Geoff ^{T C} 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 is a bad link. Reference 1 itself reads like a paid advertisement, says nothing about the business other than its name, address, and menu, imparting no information of interest to anyone doing research on the subject of brewing or micro brewing. Therefore, this fails to meet notability requirements. Lighthope (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google News link. Nominator's assertions are unfounded and without merit. — goethean ॐ 18:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is far from advertising and includes multiple reliable sources. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 20:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable brewpub. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Not hugely notable, but worth including. If there were a merge target I woul dbe okay with that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welford Street Miracles

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2009 July 23 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.[30]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self-published book, held in zero libraries. Tate is among the more responsible self-publishing firms, but it's still self published) DGG (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was nominated twice on the same day. I have merged the nominations. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources indicating any notability. --Crusio (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT DELETE. This is not a self-published book. It is published by chrisitian publisher, Tate Publishing,(not a self-publish firm) and was released on July14, 2009. I am the author, R. Merial Martin. What more reliable source than from the author and his backup links and websites. Check its similarity to "The Shack", which is in same format.Shikabuck (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Shikabuck: at multiple occasions I have tried to explain to you that WP requires independent reliable sources to establish notability of a subject. Nobody denies that your book exists. The problem is that there is absolutely no proof that the book is notable in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. Please follow the wikilink in the previous sentence and read that guideline, it will explain clearly what is required for this article to be kept. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable book published by a vanity press. Edward321 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, a company called Tate Publishing is a vanity press. Which one actually published it? In any case, the book lacks notability. Amazon sells it, but it ranks #781,840. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 | ^Talk 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleonize

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

Procedural nomination - was originally tagged for speedy but refuted. Article editor has placed a comment asserting notability/importance of the band at the article talk page. For discussion by the wider community. --VS ^talk 11:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Quite aside from that the tone of article is about one cut above a Myspace entry - and it's telling that of the miniscule 41 G-hits, most of the returns are Myspace, blog and YouTube entries - I can't see anything suggesting that this outfit fulfills any of the criteria of WP:BAND for notability. Any reliable sources out there which would hit WP:GNG? I couldn't find any.  Ravenswing  11:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original speedy tagger. The band is unsigned, and there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 | ^Talk 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]