The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the numbers are relatively even the consensus needs to be jusged against policy not headcount and the keep side has not refuted the delete side argument that notability has not been demonsrated by multiple non trivial sources. Happy to review but would want to see better sourcing if I were to consider relisting or reversing myself Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Luke Heron

Luke Heron (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This is the second time this article has been nominated and was previously deleted in August 2008. As with the original AFD, this article does not pass on basis of notability as per WP:BIO and potential conflict of interest as per WP:COI. The subject of this article does not meet notability standards. Nearly all references to this subject have been prompted by the subject himself (i.e., personal website) with only a trivial mention in a reputable news article as one of many professionals. As per his own website, there is nothing particularly notable about his career and he has not garnered any significant coverage from any real news source. Additionally, as with the previous article that was deleted, this article was created by a Single-purpose accounts whose only other edits relate to linking two articles to this one, prompting concerns over WP:COI. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Looking at a facebook group [1] ("We Think Luke Heron Should Mellow Out") and the fact that his biggest claim to fame is being sacked from Merrill Lynch, the inclusion of this article strikes me as particularly inappropriate for an apparently ambitious but non-notable individual. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, it was me that published the article. I am wanting to develop a series of pieces on young and note-worthy pioneers in the junior venture capital and entrepreneurial space. Heron seemed an obvious first choice as he was a well-known share tipster (I couldn't remember or find out with which organisation so have not detailed as such - though his website references several). The reason he is interesting was the formation and development of a number of funds in the alternative investment asset space. He set up a company called Storyboard Assets Plc which invests in original illustrative art (I found one seperate link referencing his purchase of a winnie the pooh book which i detailed in EH Shepard page), is a director of alternative investment assets plc (which i found from companies house, again with no independent references so have not detailed it - but from printed media (antiques trade gazette) he has launched a Titanic Investment fund. My point is that you are clearly very experienced in venture capital, but this is not an advertisment (I am not sure what it would be advertising), nor have I included any references to his website (which I agree makes stupid boasts about Merrill Lynch), but he is a fascinating character that is pioneering an interesting area. The FT article mostly talks about his company Storyboard Assets Plc (www.storyboardassets.com - I see he founded it). I want to publish pieces of a similar nature on Tom Winnifrith, add further to Conrad Windham, Luke Johnson etc as my interest is young (I cannot define this, though at 42 I consider myself too old, wrong profession and, alas, too poor for inclusion) entrepreneurs and venture capital players. I read over the previous Luke Heron article that was deleted. I hope I have addressed your concerns. I will continue to add more as i can dig it up, but the four sources are all independent. I have checked him out on facebook - I agree he needs to mellow out too, not sure we can link that into wiki though - surprised facebook hasnt deleted as surely that is libellous. Needless to say, I am in no way connected to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyraSendak ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete There is no significant coverage of this individual in reliable sources. The first ref (financial times) is just a passing mention; the second is nothing at all, just his name on a list. The third ref is self-published, and the fourth is also a blurb written by him. Nowhere is there an article about this individual. Plus, the article's self-congratulatory tone ("well-known", "winning a job", "forging a career") is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 00:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment The article is currently being trimmed right back to the bare bones to remove all the peackock wording, and I am encouraging the editor to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic nature. I would ask that the closing admin gives this AFD the full length of time to allow for the rewriting, and does not speedy delete this article. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• CommentI am a little perplexed at the strength of feeling about this. I have read through Wiki deletion information and notability guidelines and still nonethewiser about the specifics that are relevant with this individual. I think perhaps my contribution was not very well crafted and perhaps not deposited in the right place. I have cut it back to its bear bones and will now look to build it back up. Not that this is the right forum for discussion of his notability but in the UK, he is a fairly well known character. Heron was a presenter of a Net based TV game show called Trading Places (struggling to find links - he devised the show), he was one of the most quoted share tipsters (again not sure how to detail this short of finding links to articles that quote him) and was responsible for moving share prices on the London markets everyday for a number of years (I was one of many investors that both suffered and gained as a result of this). Again, I want to keep this relevant as I think the interest and notibility in this character is with his transforming unique areas of collecting into legitimate investments and vehicles.
  
  Following your comments I have re-read the Financial Times article. Lets be fair about it - I would say 30% of it is about Heron and his company Storyboard Assets Plc, the rest is on the wider collectables market. It is untrue to state that the FT piece makes only a passing mention of his efforts in this arena. If the FT has covered it there will be other papers too and I will try and dig these up whilst also working on other investors. As I say, I think the 30% of the article that talks about Storyboard and illustrative art and specifically turning the art into an investable asset class is clearly a breakthrough and most certainly notable.
  
  I am new to wiki - I have a genuine passion in junior venture capital and those in the UK markets that are developing it within the smaller company scene. Heron, Duncan Bannatyne (Dragons Den, BBC2), Scott Fletcher (North England Entrepreneur of the year), Tom Winnifrith (Serial tipster, entrepreneur and fund maanger), James Caan (Dragons Den and venture capital) etc are investors that are changing the landscape. These are "celebrity" investors that are infectiously impacting how money is made (and lost!) in the UK and further afield. They have collectively developed the concept of retail venture capital. ie venture capital for everyone. Again, this is very difficult to substantiate, but I am hoping that other contributors will in time find the time and will to offer their input. Again, I am hopeful that some more experienced wiki users that know more about Heron's background can usefully add some value to the article.
  
  I have decided to join the Task Force that overseas this area on Wiki. I hope (rather selfishly) that I might be able to learn more about this area and contribute in areas where I feel comfortable. In the meantime I really would appreciate all advice and input in any way shape or form, to allow me to develop as a wiki contributor. I would like the time and help to develop this area of venture capital into a real hive of encyclopedic information for the benefit of all. Finally, I accept the comments made that it sounded overly promotional. This was in large part to the fact I read up a lot from sources that I accept provide an inappropriate slant. I have removed all of these. I accept Heron's sacking is not notable and I accept describing him as "well-known" is not acceptable - I have amended the article significantly and taken out these peacock expressions. Please allow me the freedom to develop it and add further pieces and contributions in this area. Again, feedback and advice is greatly appreciate. I am keen to listen and to learn from you all. MyraSendak ( talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • MyraSendak: I appreciate your comments, but unfortunately my !vote will have to remain "delete" for now. The sources you have given say more about Heron's company than Heron himself, and also I should point out that his Storyboard Assets PLC is a company with only 3 employees. If he is a "celebrity investor" and is "revolutionizing" the field along with other young investors, there should be more written about him; if you can supply such sources, I will be willing to reconsider. I am leaving you another message on my talkpage with some editing tips. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Also, to the admin who closes this debate: if you do choose to delete, I would suggest userfying to User:MyraSendak/Luke Heron instead, so the user can work on it. If there is any doubt over the notability or any possibility that the individual might be article-worthy eventually, I don't see any harm in doing this. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep I easily found enough Ghits to establish notability and was able to quickly add a couple of small bits of sourced content. I think the real issue is that the original author is new, and wasn't aware of the notability guidelines. The fact that Heron is indeed a pioneer-investor means that most of our sources will be online, rather than in academic journals, however I have found what are clearly reliable sources that can be used to build the article. I hope that editors who have already commented will perhaps monitor the article with an eye towards reconsidering. Doc Tropics 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Ghits don't automatically confer notability, and you have to be careful using them to gauge it. I just did a search and most of the hits are either open wikis, Wikipedia mirrors, or social networking sites; especially with common names like this, you have to realize right off the bat than many hits you get will be for regular people who happen to have the same name. For instance, one of the hits on the first page is this twitter page (probably not our Luke Heron; his latesttweet is "2 more sleeps until I have to go back to school. Ah it's a toug life in Grade 1"); the closest to "notable" that I saw in the first page are this (a photographer's blog mentioning that he went to Heron's house, not notable at all), and this (essentially a link to Heron's blog, also not notable). That's it for the google web search; the google news search returned no hits at all other than Heron's own press release. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment BLPs are especially significant areas of concern, and COI can often be an issue, so I backtracked the original author's talkpage contributions looking for evidence of it. At this point I'm reasonably satisfied that the author is what we might normally consider an "enthusiastic hobbiest" writing about a new wave of investment pioneers, rather than some sort of shill or puppet for the article's subject. Also based on talkpage comments, I'm satisfied that the author is trying to learn more about our policies, intends to follow them, and has a high probability of becoming a productive editor if encouraged, rather than discouraged, to contribute further. Doc Tropics 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed, I don't think MyraSendak is the article subject; this editor has expressed interest in creating lots of other biographies as well, and has edited some other articles, so I don't think s/he is just trying to promote the one guy. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am trying to please everyone here with my first real effort. I have taken out the green references. He owns the largest stake in a retailer called Green Baby but I cannot find any published detail other than at companies house www.companieshouse.gov.uk - but its not linkable as its a subscription service. His own website references Green Baby but does not detail how much he owns. Its a shame I cannot reference that as most UK people have heard of Green Baby - I will keep looking though as there must be an article somewhere. He historically owned one of the largest stakes in Good Energy Plc - the biggest green power producer in Britain. Again, the only references are shareholder lists and it seems he now holds his shares in a nominee account to hide detail of ownership. Good Energy is NOT listed on his own website. I think the article is now un-peacocked (is that a correct expression?). I have found links to articles about his art fund in some major press outlets so I will upload those. I am not sure why we cannot say Heron is pioneering collectables as an asset class. But I accept the input of other more experienced wiki people. I am obviously keen that this article should be allowed time to develop at the very least. I sincerely hope the article will be allowed to stay. Its not orphaned any longer it has had peacock stuff removed. As for notability, I am quickly getting the impression it all comes down to ones view on achievement or significance or relevance to the individual casting judgement. Clearly Heron is not Warren Buffett, but is developing an entirely new asset class which is surely fascinating and deserving of an encyclopedic entry. Again, I am very grateful for all the feedback that has been given. I am really enjoying editing and adding input - I have also applied for a mentor...here's hoping! MyraSendak ( talk) 21:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep The Financial Times story has pretty substantial coverage of this individual and his company. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I would suggest you read the article - the subject is mentioned only briefly as a bit of color - this does not constitute coverage. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The articles provide no significant coverage of the individual, and only the barest of the company. The FT story mentions the individual twice, providing exactly no information about him other than his role as owner of the company. Moreover, its coverage of the company itself is trivial--the story is on the business strategy. The other references have literally zero of substance about the subject. Coverage of a company without any reference to the accomplishments or actions of an associated individual do nothing to establish notability. Bongo matic 21:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per rʨanaɢ, whose sig makes my head hurt but whose deletion rationale is spot-on. Fails BIO; not notable. No sourcing to speak of. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 22:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I appreciate the sentiment wanting to help the author here having gone through this myself. But focus on the subject himself. He is a young business person much like many others. His net worth, at an impressive GBP 6 mln for a venture capitalist is nothing of particular note. He owns some businesses, so do a lot of people who fail WP:BIO. He was once mentioned briefly in an FT article to provide some color, there are people profiled like that in the FT and the WSJ every day who still fail WP:BIO. And aside from that most everything else on the web about Luke Heron is self promotion and clearly Wikipedia should not be a platform for promotion (WP:SOAP). I never want to discourage a new user but I am concerned that even putting this article in the userspace just means it will reappear sooner or later but still fail notability. Remember notability is not a reflection on the quality of the article but on the subject itself. Having been the founding member of the Private Equity Task Force, I am more than happy to help the author find other venture capital related topics that are in dire need of help that are far more notable for an enthusiastic hobbyist. I would look on it as a privelege to work with a new user but still I stand by my nomination to delete this article, now for the second time |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Whilst I am in total disagreement that the subject is not notable and believe him to meet WP:BIO I accept all constructive comments. I will continue with this and other pieces in this space of investment pioneers. More importantly, I am very encouraged by this debate - this process is so very important in legitmising all articles and it is comforting that such care and attention is spent with all entries. I hope I can make an important contribution too. I am looking forward to working with you Urbanrenewal on the Private Equity Task Force and would be delighted to accept any suggestions for where to devote some time on this important topic. MyraSendak ( talk) 13:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Insufficient coverage to establish notability. The FT article is a brief mention, and done as a writing hook in the lead paragraph. The article in not about Heron or his company and quickly move on. The business week items are just directory entries. And rest are just mere mentions. There is no coverage of any significance. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep and *Comment - I have exhausted this process now. The subject matter is notable and I will continue to add to it as I am able. When this thread started there were several question marks around it - was it promotional - was it an orphan article etc. These issues have been resolved. I think an unneccessary amount has been deleted - the bits that make the subject notable (calling him a pioneer and using some of his tips as references - this does not discuss him it discusses a specific subject matter) have been seen as an advert. Advertising what I dont know. I have deleted anyway.

I do not understand some people's focus on the Financial Times article. It is just one reference and in this case is mostly about Heron and his alternative investment concept. But it is the fact (and I sound like a broken record here) that he is pioneering these unusual alternative investments into a seperate asset class that I have focussed on. Those that have said the article hardly talks about Heron haven't read the article. But I have added other references now so there shouldn't be such a focus. There are thousands of media quotes which all relate to his career as a tipster though I have not focussed on these. I have deleted claims about his wealth (gleamed from Sunday Times Rich List, the 2006/2007 edition ( http://www.amazon.com/Sunday-Times-Rich-Philip-Beresford/dp/0713672366/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248907113&sr=8-1). I amended wealth down from £13m to £6.5m (I found a different claim in a magazine) and then deleted altogether as wealth in this case is irrelevant. My interest in investment pioneers and "celebrity" investor types is genuine and this seemed the obvious person to start with as all the other principle ones are somehow connected. Tom Winnifrith (presenter of Channel 4's Show Me the Money and editor of t1ps - heron used to be an editor within Winnifrith's organisation. He also owns a declarable stake (cant find exactly how much) in Rivington Street Holdings, the influential publisher). Duncan Bannatyne (one of the Dragons on BBC's Dragons Den, was a speaker at an event with Heron on more than one occasion - Master Investor). Conrad Windham (there is already a Wiki article about Windham which I have added to, but WIndham used to work for Heron at a tipsheet).

My interest is in a totally different area to those that are commenting about venture capital and private equity (I may have filed this article incorrectly) - I have joined the private equity task force.....I notice it is all about big wealth and big deals as opposed to those that are changing the landscape. My interest in Winnifrith, Scott Fletcher, Conrad Windham, Luke Heron, Simon Cawkwell, Peter Jones and others is how they have popularised investing in venture capital among mere mortals by leveraging their celebrity. Heron's move to make alternatives a legitimate asset class is a very interesting one and the wider alternatives market needs more substance on wiki. Again, another area I am interested in. MyraSendak ( talk) 22:47, 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. notability requires sources that discuss the subject not simple assertions Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Bosnian American Library of Chicago

Bosnian American Library of Chicago (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Zero Google hits for this organization apart from Wikipedia and the Library's own web page (or cached copies/excerpts thereof). This rather strongly implies it is both non-notable and non-verifiable. Where is the independent third-party coverage of this institution? — Psychonaut ( talk) 23:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Firstly this article has been in place for one week. It might have been appropriate to wait a little to see whether the text was expanded with other material and references. Secondly it is surely not unreasonable to try searching on "Bosnian-American Library" or "Bosnian Library" and "Chicago" before pouncing with your request for deletion. You're starting to give the impression of lying in wait for Bosniak. Opbeith ( talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • This is not the place to question the motives for this proposed deletion. Please stick to discussing whether the article meets Wikipedia's policies for notability and verifiability. If you have evidence that the subject of the article is covered in independent third-party sources under another name, then post it. — Psychonaut ( talk) 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Reasonably notable events organised by and at the Bosnian(-American) Library http://www.mfa.gov.ba/HTML/Arhiva/Eng/DKP_09/D090309_B.html http://www.bosnianlibrarychicago.com/past-events.html (pictures) http://www.cgbhchicago.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=38&Itemid=12&lang=en&limitstart=6 http://www.cgbhchicago.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108:saopenje-za-javnost&catid=38:vijesti&Itemid=12&lang=en (Bosnian Consulate-General site) http://www.genocidepreventionmonth.org/overview/genocide-prevention-month-pledge.html Dream for Darfur's Genocide Prevention Month - programme of lectures and cultural education "Educating Against Prejudices" Section http://www.bosnjaci.net/prilog.php?pid=31610 "Educating Against Prejudices" Section http://www.bosniaks.net/prilog.php?pid=34702 CHICAGO: REMEMBERING THE DAY OF THE SREBRENICA GENOCIDE event presented by the Bosnian American Library in Chicago and American Music Festivals with speakers including Jonathan Moore, prospective Deputy Head of Mission, US Embassy in Sarajevo, Semuel R. Harris, Director of Holocaust Museum in Skokie, Philip Simmons, Founder and Music director American Music Festival: Personal remarks on Holocaust and prominent Bosnians

There is a large Bosnian community in Chicago. This is a respected community institution housed in the Conrard Sulzer Public Library. You could do worse than contact Sanja Seferovic Drnovsek, director of the "Educating Against Prejudices" Section, an organiser of events involving US and Bosnian personalities. Opbeith ( talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• If these events are notable, then they themselves may qualify for Wikipedia articles. However, notability of the events does not imply notability of the venue. (However, it would be highly unusual for a locally organized lecture series to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.) — Psychonaut ( talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I was simply mentioning these events and the participants as evidence that the Library is "adequately notable" for inclusion. But you knew that. Opbeith ( talk) 06:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Improve Thank you for inviting me for this discussion. I opened the article and I did not have time to expand it. I hoped other people would join and help me improve this article. Bosnian American Library of Chicago is central to the cultural life of Bosniaks in that area, and probably in that state. It hosted some high profile guest speakers, one of them being Holocaust survivor Mr Sammuel R. Harris (aka: Sam Harris) (see http://www.bosniak.org/report-remembering-the-day-of-the-srebrenica-genocide/ ). I believe this article deserves a chance and would appreciate if we could expand it as part of cultural life of Bosniak diaspora in the United States. I thank you all in advance, and I will be contributing more to that article over the weekend. Bosniak ( talk) 23:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

As I understand it, this is a wing of a regional branch of the Chicago Public Library. Neither of the two regional branches (Sulzer or Woodson) even has an article. Leaning toward delete.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

(i) Re the original nomination: from WP:AfD "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. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." So why was this article nominated in the first place?

(ii) Tony the Tiger, if the absence of an article about the higher elements of a hierarchy means that an article about a lower part cannot be included, article creation must follow a systematic programme, and one which imposes one-dimensional hierarchies. However helpful that might be, it is not reconcilable with an open access principle that allows editors to contribute articles based on interest and enthusiasm. It's common sense that allows a reasonable compromise to be achieved. The Bosnian American Library, although housed in the Charles Sulzer Library, plays a specific role of wider than regional interest and the references now cited indicate that. The Charles Sulzer library may well justify its own article but no-one has yet created an article, or at least a substantial enough one to survive. And even though the Bosnian American Library is in any case of more than local and minority interest, the history of the last fifty years has shown that it is inappropriate for a majority to adopt a model of systematic disregard of minority community interests and values.

(iii) (Personal comment) Wikipedia is seen and used as a useful resource in the real world. I hope I don't need to cite references in support of that assertion. I don't think that's just a value judgment on my part. In the absence of a "wider picture" perspective Wikipedia risks becoming weighted towards a demographically driven Trivial Pursuits resource whose rules give well-crafted articles about video games and TV-serial and comic-book characters de facto a greater right to existence than less-complete articles about institutions and events with a substantive relevance to real lives.

Wikipedia is something more than a post-modernist virtual concept. Wikipedia rules have developed as a safety-net with one over-riding purpose - to ensure that the democratic principles/operation of Wikipedia don't risk damaging its real-world usefulness/credibility. That constant tension is mediated - albeit imperfectly, as in real life - by common sense. Properly validated articles about video-game characters are part of Wikipedia democracy. But rule-heavy policing should not be used to evict information whose presence a reasonable person would consider beneficial rather than harmful. And above all it should not be used in a way that deters editors who use expend personal time and energy in good faith to share that information.

Opbeith ( talk) 07:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I can find no sources. The ones offered consist of self-published information, press releases, and event announcements. It doesn't matter is if an editor spent personal time in a good faith effort if the material does not meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

For purposes of establishing notability, however disparaging you may be about press releases issued by the Bosnian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Sarajevo and the Bosnian Consulate General in Chicago, surely those bodies are eligible to count, in this context at least, as reliable sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines you direct me to? "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - it's difficult to see why straightforward reports such as these should be vulnerable to challenge as coming from unreliably sources. Opbeith ( talk) 01:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I can't argue against unyielding rules, I can only suggest that their interpretation could take account of the implicit acknowledgment of notability indicated by the support for the BAL of the State Department, the Bosnian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the organisation representing the Bosnian community in North America. If establishing the notability of an institutions whose primary focus is on providing a specifically native language service to a minority community is dependent on English-language sources, it is not unreasonable to give some consideration to alternative English-language evidence of its activities. If the rules don't allow that sort of flexibility, then you just have to kill off the article. Opbeith ( talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

There is no prohibition against non-English sources, nor has any editor here stated a deletion opinion that excludes non-English sources. For that matter, nobody has even offered up any non-English sources. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

At the Srbrenica massacre/genocide article it was insisted that the twelve words of Bosnian that accompanied 8000 names on the list issued by the Federal Commission for Missing Persons made it unacceptable as confirmation of the identities of the victims. Is it the case that non-English sources are allowed? Opbeith ( talk) 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I have no idea what the issues at that article might be, but per WP:NONENG, non-english sources are acceptable. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that's a helpful reference. Opbeith ( talk) 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Merge? If, as Tony the Tiger states above, this is a branch of the Chicago Public Library, perhaps we can merge Bosnian American Library of Chicago into Chicago Public Library. I'm not sure about the Wiki policy regarding mergers, but perhaps that can be an approach that is a better alternative then deletion. -- Pink Bull ( talk) 02:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid I disagree with the helpfully intended suggestion to merge. The significance of the Bosnian American Library is not simply as a library, it lies in its role as an institution serving the specific social, cultural and linguistic needs of a large exile community. Opbeith ( talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Just to be clear, I support keeping the article. I was only suggesting a merge as the worst case scenario. Sincerely, -- Pink Bull ( talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • On what basis would the article be kept? I can see a case for a merge (although I don't agree), but I don't really see a case for keeping a stand-alone article. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• The library is notable enough to be mentioned in wikipedia. The article needs to be improved, so instead deleting it, let's improve it. Bosniak ( talk) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Owen, can you please put your position in "bold" so we can have an overview of all votes. Thanks. Bosniak ( talk) 02:04, 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 keep. ( X! ·  talk)  ·  @957  ·  21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Newsrail

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

A non-notable magazine with the sources provided to date only demonstrating its existence, not its notability. The article and the sources provided do not demonstrate the magazine's significance to anyone other than the members of the Australian Railway Historical Society (Victorian Division).

This is a contested PROD, reasons for contesting are provided on the article talk page. While I concede the article may be of some use, being "useful" is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Being the 37th most cited publication on Wikipedia's merely reflects the extremely large contribution made to this encyclopedia by railfans rather than being an intrinsic measure of a publications notability, i.e. it is selection bias. Mattinbgn\ ^talk 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Objection withdrawn. Clifflandis ( talk) 12:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'd argue keep. This magazine should be measure for what it's scope is: Australian train-related stuff. Verifiability is met, and I consider "serious" magazines to be inherently notable. The article can be massively improved though, and Wikipedia will not have improved if we delete this article. Headbomb { ^ταλκ _{κοντριβς} –  WP Physics} 04:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Topical journal that's been running for decades, one of the central publications in its area. Clearly notable. Rebecca ( talk) 06:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep per sound comments above by users Headbomb and Rebecca.-- Pink Bull ( talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable, it will never be significantly larger than it is now, so it isn't even really useful. Jonathan Hall ( talk) 18:53, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Too Sweet

Too Sweet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Seems like a load of nonsense, and fails WP:NEO G W … 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Nominated for speedy deletion. Speedy delete Non-notable Neo and the articles creator seems to have a COI. Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment - What do I need to change to keep this on the site? This was an actual gesture noted by WCW. Msuplayer212
  • Find reliable sources that prove the gesture is notable and add them to the article. Greg Tyler ^{( t • c)} 22:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete non-notable wrestling trivia, merge to an existing article if reliable references per can be found- existing refs fail WP:RS. Per Ardua ( talk) 04:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to New World Order (professional wrestling) youngamerican ( wtf?) 13:20, 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 keep. can b merged at editorial discretion but no consensus here except to keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hardbag

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

No references. Searching for any of the supposed "classic examples" along with "hardbag" receives very few Google hits, none of which approach reliable sources. PROD was removed with term has enough usage to warrant inclusion, including making The Oxford Dictionary of New Words (see also: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Hardbag%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a); however, I don't think that appearing in the Oxford Dictionary of New Words means there's enough information to have an article on it (even if it is true, I have no idea - googling yielded nothing) and the Google News link has only about 50% actually related to this genre and they just mention it in passing. Wickethewok ( talk) 18:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep - not the most widely used term, but there are sufficient sources to establish the notability of it as a sub-genre. The Oxford dictionary reference reads "A related term is hardbag, recorded since the mid nineties, which denotes a

popular electronic dance music derived from techno and incorporating elements of..." which is where the free snippet ends. This doesn't establish notability by itself, but does show the term is well enough defined to enter into a respectable dictionary. You are also right that the news search returns mostly passing mentions. This was intended to such that the term is used by reputable sources - usually without explicitly defining it (which means they expect the reader to know what it means, again showing it is reasonably well-known term in certain circles.)

Sources to establish notability include:

Books with some info

• rave Culture
• Generation Ecstacy
• The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music (no free preview online)
• House: the rough guide‎ (no free preview online)

Newspaper articles

• The Independent - a bit of history

Other

• Used by Allmusic: [2] [3]

Now, I would say to merge it with the very closely related "Handbag" genre, but that genre doesn't appear to have a page. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weakest of weak keeps - Thaddeus beat me to it - I was going to suggest a Merge to Handbag House but that doesn't appear to exist! If you look at a definitive source such as Simon Reynolds' Generation Ecstasy, Hardbag is referenced only briefly as a subgenre of Handbag (here). Practically every other reference to it is based on the existence of this album, and there appear to be very few reliable sources which actually discuss the genre itself. Still, it verifiably exists, and rather than merge it to the next best target ( Styles of house music), it might be best to try and improve it with a few sources. Black Kite 19:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Edit - Handbag house does exist, under the American name Diva house. There's not much there, though I've created a redirect. Black Kite 19:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
    • There is also an article for Hard_NRG, which might be another candidate for merger. That;s something probably best handled post AFD. Also... "Diva House"? Who the hell calls it "Diva House"? Artw ( talk) 23:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps, since there is relatively little data on both, that "hardbag house" should share a page with "diva house"/"handbag house"? Even given all of the links above, there's barely enough for a dic-def sized article, as most of them only mention the genre in passing. Wickethewok ( talk) 21:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• keep - needs some sources of course, I've added the rescue tag to help with that, but yes, it is an actual genre of music. Artw ( talk) 22:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Diva house. I found the same sources, and there's just not enough in them to make a stand-alone encyclopedia article out of, as Wickethewok says. Fences& Windows 18:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My main concern with that is that I'm not completely convinced that Handbag as described by Diva House is the same as Hardbag as described by this article. Artw ( talk) 21:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Really, why? Because this article in the Independent describes Handbag house much as does the Diva House article: "Handbag house is often associated with catchy and commercial dance tunes featuring female vocals. Its accessibility and uplifting snare drum crescendos makes it popular both on the mainstream scene and on the glamorous, dressy, gay scene." [4]. Fences& Windows 02:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems to focus on an American version of Handbag, with particular reference to vocals, which very nearly matches Handbag but seems just slightly different. You'll note that Hardbag is frequently described as being vocal free. TBH It's not a genre of music that I am an expert in, so I could be wrong on this. Artw ( talk) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. At this time, the article includes numerous sources and is well written. It seems like the article was tagged for deletion prior to the addition of the sources. -- Pink Bull ( talk) 03:10, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

List of fictional appearances of SR-71 Blackbird

List of fictional appearances of SR-71 Blackbird (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Split off from SR-71 Blackbird in an attempt to protect the latter from pop culture trivia, but the argument was generally over whether such a list should be included at all. WP:PROD was refused. Mangoe ( talk) 17:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak Merge per WP:IPC--there's really not a whole lot here, but a sourced popular culture appearance is appropriate in the main article. Jclemens ( talk) 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Merge per Jclemens. KMFDM FAN ^{( talk!)} 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• merge Not enough to split at this point. DGG ( talk) 22:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete but hold on till end of August: Futher information Here and here please wait until at least to the end of August for the heat to die down. It received very positive influence that the addition of not notable materials are greatly reduced in number in the main article. And no merges please, everyone will delete the cruft from the main page including me. MythSearcher ^talk 08:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - if it isn't of sufficient quality for the main article, then it won't stand on its own either. That the main article can't be protected from fancruft is no reason to try and ignore the issue by hiving it off elsewhere. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, Like I said, it is not a place for hiving it off somewhere else, it is used to stop the 4~5 times per day addition of such material to the main article(in which the link above provided sufficient edit history to prove this point) just for the period of that specific movie's heat to die down. Or an admin can help semi-protect the main article for like 3 months from the beginning(also till end of August). No one from the main article, including me wanted this article, but it surely showed promising effect on what we hope to eliminate.(there are only a total of 2 addition of said unwanted material to the main article after the page was created, and we know the heat is dying down since the movie was aired for quite some time now and hopefully by the end of August, the addition of such material would be much more reasonable like before and people at the main article could reasonably rv such edits in reasonable amount per week.) MythSearcher ^talk 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - I don't like the idea of lightning-rod articles. It's not playing straight. Pseudomonas_{( talk)} 19:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Reply, if you are fine with reverting the article 5 times a day, be my guest. Never was this article meant to stay up for long, it is only used for a certain period where a pop culture item will be added over and over due to publicity. Choose the lesser of the two evils, and I see that not until this article was created to stop the revert spree(against bunch of anons that probably made some over their 3RR limit and luckily anons usually don't know how to report), people at the main article got time to do some actual discussion and editing to improve the article. MythSearcher ^talk 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Lists of X in fiction/popular culture are breeding grounds for subjective inclusion, original research, and general cruftiness, for almost all values of X. Pseudomonas_{( talk)} 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Reply This is always true, yet dire times need dire solutions. I see that not much people actually try to go through the editing history in which I have listed in the above linked talk page. And most involved here did not even involve in the 5 times/day removal of cruft. Easier said than done, talking about deleting this article is simple, but actually protecting the main article needs work, not talk. MythSearcher ^talk 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment Ok, lets walk through this for a minute. Starting with the MilMos, which states "'In popular culture' sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture", and working backwards, we do arrive at the conclusion that the SR-71 has had notable appearances in fiction. This includes alternative history, as well as real to life appearances. Its a plane that holds several Guinness records for speed and was and remains influential in the west, particularly among NATO countries and especially in the United States. Now I grant that the list is rather crufty, but if you are all willing to let me have 24 hours to work on the section I do believe that the material here can be recycled into a paragraph or two and added to the SR-71 article like what appears over on the page Iowa class battleship. That should solve the problem of what to do with the article and how to porperly address pop-culture related information for the SR-71. TomStar81 ( Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 06:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This sounds great, I will inform the main article and see if they like the idea or not. Since most of them hated any pop culture section because it normally attracts random passerbys adding their own favourites, and I kinda see that coming even if a well sourced and well written section is created. MythSearcher ^talk 07:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment I would be interested in Tom's rewrite but what currently exists in this fiction article isn't worth carrying forth to the main article. I'm currently leaning in the delete - no merge direction but will remain open-minded pending the rewrite.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 15:53, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Kimberley Stadium

Kimberley Stadium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

No such stadium exists or is being planned. There was a very short-lived period during the run-up to hosting 2010 in South Africa when a new stadium in Kimberley was proposed, but it was dropped early in the process. NJR_ZA ( talk) 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — WWGB ( talk) 00:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep? - There appears to already be a Kimberly Stadium in Kimberly. Though I can't find anything about a proposed new stadium and that's not what this article is about. If the article was changed to talk about the existing stadium it would be worthwhile. Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Lots of references to proposal [5] [6] but definitely no longer a World Cup venue [7]. WWGB ( talk) 00:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete definately not going to be a venue at the 2010 World Cup. Looks like the stadium never got past the proposal stage. After an internet search, I couldn't find anything of note that would be notable as per WP:N. -- Jimbo ^[online] 08:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. -- Jimbo ^[online] 08:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Research above indicates there's no such stadium, so deletion is the obvious recourse.-- Pink Bull ( talk) 04:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Z Block Records

Z Block Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines, reads like an essay, unreferenced, dead end, orphaned by all but one article. Delete. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Can't find any articles which assert notability whatsoever. Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 13:46, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Tereza Elizarova

Tereza Elizarova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Subject of article appears to be the lead singer of a New York City wedding band that specializes in Jewish Music from the former Soviet Union. The article mentions her birth date and country of origin, then shifts focus to discuss the band itself. The single reference provided is a 2002 New York Times Arts section review that discusses area "wedding bands," and mentions this band in one brief paragraph at the end [9]. Google News returns zero hits for either " Tereza Elizarova" or " Ensemble Tereza" and the Google hits for these two terms don't reveal any other reliable sources that I can see [10] [11]. I don't believe that this one mention renders a local wedding band notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. As far as I can see, this article fails the general notability guidelines, as well as WP:ARTIST, and WP:MUSIC.

I tagged the article for notability, references, clean up, and tone, but it has been improved very little since its creation on 7-12, and there have been no edits at all since 7-13. I have also spelled out my concerns on the talk page. Only one other article links to this one, the article Mountain Jews in which this person is listed as a "Notable Mountain Jew" by way of an edit made on 7-12, the day the Tereza Elizarova article was created [12]. PROD was contested by another editor (not the author of the article) when the NYT reference was found.

Finally, the article is named for one person, yet most of the article is about the band. Is this meant to be a biography? If so, then I have to say that this one member of this one wedding band is certainly not notable. If not, then, if the article is kept, it should be moved to the group's name. Transity ^{( talk • contribs)} 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I tried to find additional coverage about this person/music group and was not able to find any reliable sources to establish notability. The single NY Times piece is not enough. I did find this which indicates to me that this is likely spam, and is also a borderline WP:COPYVIO. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I don't see obvious COPYVIO or SPAM, so I'll assume good faith. But I cannot find sources to establish notability, so the article may need to be deleted. Cnilep ( talk) 16:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:33, 22 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)  ·  @854  ·  19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The Dazzle Dancers

The Dazzle Dancers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Completing a listing on behalf of an unregistered user (see below) Accounting4Taste: talk 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I find myself in the unusual position of nominating an article for deletion that I actually believe should be retained, but the unregistered user who wants to nominate it cannot complete the nomination. I've declined two speedy deletion tags where the reasons were not within the boundaries of speedy deletion criteria; among them, "obnoxious and sexually explicit... does not fit criteria of wiki:music". (The group is a performance group, which is in the first sentence of the lede, and wouldn't qualify under any reasons having to do with music.) I removed a prod tag after personally adding 16 references to the article, including the Village Voice, the New York Post and artforum. I advised the same unregistered user to take the issue to AfD, which s/he wishes to do, but is unable to complete the registration. Personally, I'd just like this over with once and for all; I dislike the fact that I've become emotionally involved with this article and would like to be able to step back from having to protect it, and so I offer this for the verdict of the community. Accounting4Taste: talk 16:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Notability apparent, sources adequate. (I confess I don't understand the above paragraph at all.) Rivertorch ( talk) 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment. My apologies for not being more clear; I was pretty cranky when I wrote it. I thought it would be necessary for people to understand that I wanted the article to be retained, and why, since it's usually the case that people who start AfD processes want to delete a page. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, I did understand that. What I still don't understand is why you're AFDing it if you want to keep it. I'm not criticizing—just puzzled. Surely it's not so urgent that it can't wait until the IP user gets their act together. Rivertorch ( talk) 03:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, now I understand your puzzlement. The IP user initiated the AfD process and was unable to complete it without registering a username; I actually thought it was my responsibility as an administrator to complete the nomination regardless of my personal feelings. At any rate, I believe this AfD will dispose of any further questions of notability once and for all, and that is definitely the outcome for which I'm looking. Accounting4Taste: talk 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, http://www.dazzledancers.com/map.html makes clear this is a music group. In fact, it directs you to itunes on its home page.

This group fails the notability requirements of wiki as a music group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.105 ( talk) 04:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The numerous press mentions seem to imply notability. When there is a lot of press coverage, it satisfies criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC: Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial epublished works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. The Dazzle Dancers are featured in the movie Adam & Steve, a film which must be considered notable since we have a Wikipedia article on it. The IP has made no case for deletion that I find convincing. I agree with User:Rivertorch that there is really no need for this AfD, but since it has started we may as well go through with it. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

DELETE Ive read all these references... They are not notable... Being an extra in a movie? Opening up for some other queer friendly groups?

Please state specific notability - what is it? music? ... How many people have their pic in a paper once in awile? or a passing refernce as a local act?

Not notable... Read the reference posts, id suggest... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.248.40 ( talk)

• Keep. As mentioned above, the level of media coverage indicates notability.-- Pink Bull ( talk) 16:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hypothesis-based modelling

Dear all, Thank you for your comments. The present article is work in progress. Indeed this is a unpublished article, that we are planning to transform to talk about hypothesis based modelling. Presumably, the experimental part will be reduced to a simple example and we will elaborate more on the actual method. Again, this is work in progress, and the authors are using the ease of wikipedia to do the editing work. Is there a way for us to work on wikipedia, while changes are not seen by users (a bit like the sand box mode)? maybe this would be best, then when we are ready, we can republish. Kuikuisven ( talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hypothesis-based modelling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This is not an encyclopedia article. In fact it isn't even about hypothesis-based modeling. It is a research paper (apparently unpublished) about hormone physiology that uses the technique. Therefore it is WP:OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Looie496 ( talk) 17:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 15:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not for publishing original research. The author will have to publish his or her work elsewhere. Kotiwalo ( talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete it about a particular model for insulin secretion, not the general subject, but it is OR -- or possibly copyvio DGG ( talk) 17:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete contents orthogonal to title. Bigdaddy1981 ( talk) 00:08, 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 redirect to Power Glove. will protect as well Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Powerglove

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

Recreated non-notable page Cazbahrocker ( talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Cazbahrocker ( talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - This article has been deleted several times now and has repeatedly been recreated. Only new information added is sourced from the bands own Myspace page about future plans for this band. - Cazbahrocker ( talk) 19:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• This article has never been deleted. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Amended my recommendation to Redirect, as that is what I meant by saying Delete. Cazbahrocker ( talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep/Redirect - A few more sources have been added since I first suggested that we redirect, so I'm not sure this fails WP:N any more. Regardless of whether or not it does, I don't think we should delete; it's still a likely search term for users interested in the Power Glove. If anonymous reverts are a problem we should consider semi-protection. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Those sources were added during the previous AfD discussion and they were deemed to be not be reliable third party sources (blogs, online zines, etc). Cazbahrocker ( talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - There are a lot more references now than there were when the 2nd nom was done. So, there may be notaility established now that wasn't before. I am nto sure whether the references meet the requirements though, so I am withholding judgement. If they do, then obviously keep, if not, restore redirect. Although the redirect has been overridden, that is hardly abusive give the added references provided (even if they prove not be adequate under WP:N). Rlendog ( talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Agreed that there are more references, but I am still not seeing anything that meets any of the notability requirements on WP:MUSIC. Most of what was added talks about future albums from their own Myspace page, or links off to non-notable blogs. The diff between the article as it stood when it was redirected to before I started this AfD does nothing to further establish notability, in my opinion. Cazbahrocker ( talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete - The only criteria this band has for notability is interviews with various magazines none of which seem to be notable in themselves. They fail every single other criteria. If more interviews and coverage could be found in more notable publications this would be keep Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Redirect and semi-protect considering the history. This has been turned into a redirect twice already based on AfD consensus only to have both reverted. Recommending WP:SNOW by analogy to WP:CSD G4, as there is no material difference between the version the last AfD addressed and this one. Tim Song ( talk) 15:35, 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. 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 22 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. [14]   — 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. ( X! ·  talk)  ·  @957  ·  21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Rossport Solidarity Camp

Rossport Solidarity Camp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article is part of a suite of articles involved with the Shell to Sea protest in Mayo, Ireland. It is a paraphrase of the Indymedia articles which have been used as references which themselves in turn have been written by people who have either been in the past or are still currently involved with the Shell to Sea campaign and/or Rossport Solidarity Camp. Indymedia articles are not suitable for referencing under WP:SPS and the fact that they are wrote by people involved with the campaign make them particularly inappropriate in this case. The article is being used for WP:SOAPBOX purposes and has been edited by at least one user with a WP:COI and has POV issues. GainLine ♠ _♥ 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — GainLine ♠ _♥ 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Despite the problems noted there do appear to be plenty of reliable sources to use: [15] - and that is only recently. The article does need an entire rewrite IMO however as indymedia should not be used as a source. Sorry I don't have time to do anything to improve it. Smartse ( talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete The protest is notable, but not every part of it. I see the articles talk about the protests--but only incidentally about the camp--in some cases, just that the protestors gave it as their address. If we do keep it, reduce sharply. DGG ( talk) 22:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete nn camp associated with notable protest. Bigdaddy1981 ( talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - completely non-notable. Protest is vaguely notable, this most definitely is not (as is the case with most of this Shell to Sea stuff Wikipedia has been filled with by activists.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - nn as per nom Féasógach ( talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Putting aside the reliability of Indemedia, a Google search reveals that there are plenty of other sources that give coverage to this camp. http://www.google.com/search?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22rossport%20solidarity%20camp%22&cf=all&sa=N&tab=nw If deleted, is a merge into Rossport a possibility?-- Pink Bull ( talk) 16:10, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

DistantStarr

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

Possible autobiography with very weak claims of importance. Gsearch turns up a lot of blog mentions (and myspace, etc), but nothing showing that the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Zero gnews hits. Author contested prod without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'll change my mind if the author comes up with sources backing up the subject's notability. Kotiwalo ( talk) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill ( talk) 20:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete no indication of notability. Edward321 ( talk) 22:35, 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 keep. ( X! ·  talk)  ·  @855  ·  19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

List of film series with two entries

List of film series with two entries (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

over-categorisation, nothing more than a list that could be better handled by existing categories, and it includes some very spurious entries Robsinden ( talk) 13:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete. Extremely overspecialized list, would be a great example of overcategorization if turned into a category and I have no idea why anyone would care to browse a list of film series with two entries. The list has minor definition problems as well (unrelated sequels, remakes, etc?). Kotiwalo ( talk) 15:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Just as appropriate as list of series that are trilogies, etc. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing--in this case the dates of the two. . Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. Better handled by a category is no argument. Whichever is better, we generally need the other also. How a list with four hundred entries can be over-specialized escapes me entirely. That criterion usually applies when there are 4 or thereabouts, not two orders of magnitude bigger. If there are some spurious entries, they should be removed, after discussion on the talk page. An exact definition is needed, and should be added. As for possible use, I found there a number of sequels to films I like that I somehow had never heard about. DGG ( talk) 18:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  In my opinion it's useless to have a list of trilogies as well. A better option in my opinion would be one large list with movie series grouped by the amount of films. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would be interested in browsing a list reserved just for two part series. If we had a larger list with movie series grouped by the amount of movies, the reader wouldn't have to browse each list/category to find the series he/she is searching for. Kotiwalo ( talk) 18:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Keep as there are not many articles on the film series with two films nor should there be. If categories were to be used all of the film series would need articles written about them. Just how long do you think The Bodyguard (film series) or Sister Act (film series) would last? They would be here in AFD in short order. Those articles would be the only meaningful way to properly list these films in a category. Any category with both films in the series would be jumbled and confusing alphabetically and numerically. There are film series like Rocky Horror Picture Show followed by Shock Treatment and The Secret Garden followed by Back to the Secret Garden (which does not have its own article) that would be separated in a category because their titles are not Foo followed by Foo 2. Even the films Escape from New York followed by Escape from L.A. would be listed in a category with the latter coming before the former which is incorrect chronologically. The list is the only way to keep the films in a series together and listed correctly.

These lists were originally separated to keep them manageable. There are hundreds of film series out there, probably over 100 on duologies alone. You also have to remember that long pages are, as far as I know, frowned upon. Just recently I upgraded my internet access to high speed. Until then I had dial-up. The longer an article or list, the longer it takes to load. When I first started editing the original list, it took almost 3 minutes to load the whole thing. Please remember that not everyone has access to high speed internet. All articles and lists should be written with dial-up in mind.

I have not been around a lot recently to prune it and the rest of the lists. I intend to do so next week after the original run of Torchwood: Children of Earth is over. Please give me until the end of next week to clean them all up again. I know they need it, but deletion is too severe. LA ( T) @ 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I think that the amount of films is not a good reason for giving this an article of it's own. Is there something special in film series that have two films? In my opinion it seems odd that a number of sequels warrants notability in a list. Two, three, four, there is no fundamental difference. And yes, you have good points, I forgot about the dial-up, but in my opinion there are still too much lists. Perhaps the less common amounts (exceptionally high) could be merged together? Kotiwalo ( talk) 07:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep The list is fine. Plenty of other wikipedia articles listed there, lists existing to help people sort through things and learn of their existence. Dream Focus 22:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Unnecessary overcategorization. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep per useful list to browse. It's more navigable than categories, even. In addition, just because there are categories does not mean there shouldn't be a list. WP:CLT says, "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists... The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." However, I would prefer a better naming convention for these lists of x films in a film series. "Duology" and "trilogy" are fairly acceptable, but "pentalogies" and "hexalogies" and so forth are just unnecessary, in my opinion. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —— Erik ( talk • contrib) 12:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As there are lists for trilogies (etcetera) I don't see why there shouldn't be one for "duologies". Still, is it the correct word for this? McMarcoP ( talk) 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• There is related discussion about the word "duology" here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:09, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Ang mundo ng Rosa/The world of Rosa

Ang mundo ng Rosa/The world of Rosa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Contested prod, completely unencyclopaedic and Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up G W … 12:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• 'Delete vanispam...ment. Bigdaddy1981 ( talk) 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:MADEUP. The author is clearly using Wikipedia to document the character development of a story she is writing, not to document characters in a story that has already been written. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 13:03, 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. Sources have now been added. I'm also moving this to Malta–Turkey relations to comply with bilateral naming conventions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Maltese–Turkish relations

Maltese–Turkish relations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

neither country can be bothered with a resident embassy, and there is a distinct lack of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral from my check of the first 60 in this search. yes they have signed an agreement on combatting crime and terrorism but most countries want to stop that. they also have the usual Agreement of Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investments and a Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of the Political Consultative Mechanism . and if you want to barrel scrape, they played a football match in 2007, which I know of at least 1 editor who would love to include this. LibStar ( talk) 12:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete I see no significant non-trivial coverage of relations between Turkey and Malta in independent reliable sources fo the topic of the article fails WP:NOTE. I'm sure someone will bring up historical interaction between the Knights of Malta and the Ottoman Empire but to be clear, those are not the same as Malta and Turkey, although an article on that topic would be very interesting. Drawn Some ( talk) 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep They have lots of geographical and cultural things in common. Relations between Malta and Turkey were established during the Ottoman Empire and have historical background. For instance, last Ottoman Sultan left Istanbul during the WWI and went to Malta. Also Turkish MFA have a page about the relations with Malta, which shows us how notable these relations.-- Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

a Foreign affairs website is a primary source, WP:N requires third party coverage. if it so important to Turkey, why don't they have an embassy in Malta? LibStar ( talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Maybe because Turkey's counsellor to Rome does double duty as ambassador to Malta, according to a news article on Turkey-Malta relations that it took me 10 seconds to find? [16] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 22:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

yes but resident ambassadors are a better indicator of an actual nation's interest in another country. out of the 300+ bilateral articles that have been deletion, most have had no resident ambassadors. although I will say this does not mean automatic deletion. LibStar ( talk) 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

WP:N is a guideline to which exceptions can be made. The reason for third-party sources is to prevent companies and individuals, for example, from using their own promotional websites as sources. However, I see government sites as being in a different category; in my view government websites can be taken as authoritative sources for their government's policies. TerriersFan ( talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep Two closely located countries. As expected they have many relations, & more will be found. Looking at the first 60 of a g news search that returned 2630 is very careless searching. And limiting it to after 1960 is not right either--let alone for material going back before there were newspapers in G news. DGG ( talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments below

• Two closely located countries is not a criterion
• using a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument is not really going to stick. 827 hits for Guatemala Bhutan does not prove notable relations.
• it's careless to !vote keep without actually providing examples of significant third party coverage, look at my search and see how the vast majority is multilateral and trivial coverage. I will reconsider my nomination once you provide 15 articles of non trivial independent coverage. I struggled yesterday to find 15 for Lithuania–Sweden relations (which is clearly notable). LibStar ( talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

15? The GNG is usually interpreted as 2 of more. That's a change of almost an order of magnitude. Good way to produce a very much more compact encyclopedia. If deletion can on ly be justified by raising the bar 7 X higher than what we usually do.... Ghits are not a reason for keeping--but this is not G but GNews, with a very different standard for inclusion, where--unlike G-- at least some of the hits usually turn out to be relevant and significant. DGG ( talk) 03:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

please provide actual examples of bilateral relations. does my Guatemala Bhutan search prove that they have notable relations? LibStar ( talk) 03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with User:DGG. The nominater always nominates articles for deletion after a Google search. He nominated Belgian–Turkish relations for deletion because he couldn't find anything except a football match between Belgium and Turkey. But I searched the MFA's website and expanded the article. This shows us that Google search is not enough for nominating an article for deletion. -- Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

a Foreign affairs website is a primary source, WP:N requires third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep as everyone, they are both Mediterranean nations. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

simply being Mediterranean nations is not a criterion. Your !vote has not addressed in any way how this article meets WP:N. LibStar ( talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep - significant relations exist between these countries. Sources are available from which the article can be developed. TerriersFan ( talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

which sources? you have provided none, and the article so far has none except a primary source. LibStar ( talk) 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It is not necessary for articles to be notable. It is necessary for article topics to be notable. Sounds like your beef is that the article fails WP:RS, not WP:N. Except it doesn't, unless you want to call a government website an unreliable source. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

you need WP:RS to establish notability. a govt website is a primary source. LibStar ( talk) 16:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It's not like we're talking about a MySpace page here. Anyway, it's moot: go look at the article now, now that someone's gone and Googled the information that you said doesn't exist, and tell us how much better the article is now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

precedent has shown in the over 300 of bilateral deleted articles that the existence of government website is not enough...it needs significant third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• keep - flag article for rescue. How is any two-countries-relations article notable, and/or what is the cutoff criterion? I'm certain there are sources available that can be used to build this article up. As for the article meeting WP:N - any international relations between any 2 countries will be notable to citizens of those 2 countries, and thus by the spirit of WP:BIAS and WP:IMBALANCE such a subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Now, at the same time, the article presently is in bad need of rescue. So let's clean it up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 15:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Common sense, raw ghits, gnews hits indicates there should be significant coverage.The problem is in narrowing search to eliminate dross. Added some articles in economic relations. Was also an extradition agreement for a 1998 murder suspect, stuff on football etc at gnews. John Z ( talk) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is no independent coverage of the topic shown as a reference, and therefore this fails WP:GNG. What we have here is a list of individual events that happen to involve both countries. -- Blue Squadron Raven 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• sigh - anyone read any history? How about Siege of Malta (1565)? That sounds like Turkey-Malta relations to me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

and well covered in that article. LibStar ( talk) 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

As there are other instances of bilateral relations in some other news sources we've found, I think this shows that Turkey-Malta relations are notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Some search tips. Rather than just plugging "turkey malta" into a search engine and skimming the first page, try focussed searches using techniques like "intitle". ((intitle:malta OR intitle:maltese) AND (turkey OR turkish)) OR ((intitle:turkey OR intitle:turkey) AND (malta OR maltese)) gives 650 hits in Google News, [17] and sifting through those hits is a lot more likely to give useful information about their relationship. Fences& Windows 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

didn't you read my nomination, I looked at the first 60 results not just the first page. LibStar ( talk) 16:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Apologies for the off-hand comment, it was intending to characterise a common approach rather than your specific behaviour. I hope you'll take my advice on making a better focussed search, as the search you refer to included Italy, Cyprus and Greece as search terms, which is a good way to find articles that don't focus on this particular relationship. Fences& Windows 18:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

as the search you refer to included Italy, Cyprus and Greece as search terms again you misread my original nomination, I excluded these countries in the search, please take care in reading nominations before criticising in future, thanks. LibStar ( talk) 12:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't know that, thanks. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• The 1565 battle still smarts in Turkey, so don't dismiss history too much. See [18]: "It was hard for such a proud people as the Turks to accept defeat against such a small island. Turkish tourists to Malta, upon seeing the memorials to the siege, have stated that there is a Turkish phrase, "Malta yok", that is, "Malta doesn't exist". A fleet did indeed sail for Malta, they say, but it could not find the island and had to turn back." I think the author is mixing his invasion attempts: [19], but the Turks obviously still remember their unhappy relations with Malta 400+ years ago. Fences& Windows 19:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• comment - I just went back to the article to add some info, but found it had already been added. In fact, I'd suggest everyone go back and look at the article now - it's much better sourced, and has much more content backed by non-trivial third-party coverage. Personally, I think this AfD now falls under WP:SNOWBALL and should be closed. I'd also suggest conscientious and open-minded google-searching before AfDing any more "international relations" articles, unless of course Wikipedia decides the entire category of such articles is non-notable for some reason (which I think would violate WP:N). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 16:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

the entire category is not all non notable, some are indeed notable but not all. I can tell you most of the bilateral articles I've nominated have been deleted, so whilst in cases like this sources are found, in most cases, significant additional reliable sources are not found. LibStar ( talk) 16:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep - article didnt have references to proof noteability at time of nom, but its now been significantly improved by John Z and others. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 14:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep Clearly notable and source exist. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:11, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album)

The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article should be deleted because it has no sources. Not only that, but the article clearly states it is from a fansite, and it is a rumored album. No reason to have the article if it isn't confirmed. Not only that, but everyone you claims it is real, can not even back it up with a reliable source. -- -Shadow ( talk) 04:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment it is a very popular rumour with thousands of google hits. Note that there is a singles collection for 2007 as well as this article on the possible 2009 album. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 09:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Doesn't change the fact that there is no source to back it up. -- -Shadow ( talk) 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Question where is the first nomination? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The 2nd nom is weird indeed. Hekerui ( talk) 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Question There are now reliable sources such as LiveJournal and even Sony BMG ITSELF confirming that it exists and will be released! So why do you delete those reliable and real sources and paste on the deletion nomination, claiming no-one has found a reliable source? Sorry, but last time I read WIKIPEDIA FOR DUMMIES, it stated that Sony BMG was a reliable source. The Rogue Leader ( talk) 11:30, 23 July, 2009 (UTC)
  

P.S. Please don't be insulted, I wasn't calling you a dummy.

LiveJournal is not a reliable source, and the site you linked to (Britney Bash, which is also NOT a reliable source) claims they added it, yet the site doesn't even link as proof, nor do you. -- -Shadow ( talk) 02:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, makes sense. How about this: Continue with deletion plans, and if Sony BMG directly announces its release, a senior editor will re-add the page? The Rogue Leader ( talk) 14:20, 23 July, 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm pushing for. Unless a record label or Britney's website confirms it, there is no reason for this page to be here. -- -Shadow ( talk) 10:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

But even if it is not official, but reliable sources start to cover the rumour, then we could have an article on the rumour or notable hoax! Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't think there is need for a page on the rumour. On the Britney Spears page it could mention a 'Rumoured 2nd Greatest Hits Album' and also maybe on the Britney Spears discography page it could be mentioned at the intro saying something like this: "A rumour has spread that a 2nd greatest hits album will be released in October 2009". There is no harm in deleting it because there is no comfirmation, And like I said before the rumoured album could be mentioned on the Britney Spears page. If it turns out that it excisted, then we can just re-add it! Pages about upcoming albums such as A New Chapter (Rogue Traders album), Light & Darkness & Celebration (Madonna album) have all been confirmed. This hasn't. Like I've said before, there is no harm in deleting it. In fact, that'll resolve the argument and whatever the future holds, then there'll be no complication. If we keep the page, things WILL get complicated, confusing & nasty when Sony announces either that the rumours are true or that there going to kill the idiot who started the rumour. The Rogue Leader ( talk) 21:56, 23 July, 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per above. As soon as the record label confirms it, it'll be an article with good legs to stand on! Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Even if it was released, it doesn't automatically make the album notable.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, at list until officially confirmed. Rlendog ( talk) 19:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. "The Singles Collection is a rumoured greatest hits album…" If that doesn't scream crystal balling, I don't know what does. — Σ xplicit 22:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hear, Hear (Or Aye or Agreed, whatever) The Rogue Leader ( talk) 14:20, 27 July, 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  ·  @855  ·  19:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The Horse Boy

The Horse Boy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

About an upcoming documentary which doesn't meet WP:NFF. Though it fails the requirements. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not "upcoming", as the film has already screened and won awards and international media coverage. So WP:NFF is in no way applicable. DePers - May 5, 2008, Variety - Jan 19, 2009, El Mundo - Jan 28, 2009, Radikal - Feb 18, 2009, New York Times - April 4, 2009, Columbus Dispatch - Apr 25, 2009. With respects, I believe the nominator did not practice WP:BEFORE, else he would not have opined WP:NFF. MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 20:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Even if the film did not meet notability standards the book is the subject of multiple non-trivial articles in newspapers all over the world as well as being a NYT best-seller. The subject of the book and the documentary also have a lot of independent coverage. Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• weak keep, split or redirect - The NY Times (paper of record) article is about the book "The Horse Boy". The Variety (paper of record) article is about the documentary movie titled "Over the Hills and Far Away", which is based on the book, was screened and got a Sundance nomination. Thus both are probably notable. However, unless Zeitgeist (the article creator) can tell us that they've changed the title for distribution, these should each get a separate article. So, recommend splitting off the movie info into its own article, and keep The Horse Boy as an article about the book itself. It is asserted to have made the NYT bestseller list, so perhaps we should have something on it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 15:32, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Civil Liberty (UK)

Civil Liberty (UK) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Company who is only notable for an alleged link to the BNP, and even that isn't sourced. Hence... Sceptre ^{( talk)} 09:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep.Useful article because it clarifies the possibility of confusion of this organisation with the pressure group Liberty. According to the Article History the link to the BNP indicated via the at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/membership/organisers/kevin_scott.stm was in place before this request for deletion. Other material referring to earlier website contents supporting the connection have been removed - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Civil_Liberty_(UK)&diff=prev&oldid=39369672. The website postal address and the photographs of Kevin Scott at the two sites are supporting evidence of the connection. Without digging deeper I cannot confirm my suspicion that this could be an example of article sabotage by attrition leading ultimately to an apparently objective argument for deletion. However I would say that Wikipedia's basic informational principles may be jeopardised by an excessive enthusiasm for "cleaning up". Opbeith ( talk) 07:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Evidence supporting a close association with BNP members and activities now sourced. Opbeith ( talk) 09:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No, it isn't. It's based upon a novel analysis of primary source material (the contents of some WWW pages), done by you, not upon actual sources that have performed and published such an analysis outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's "basic informational principles" include Wikipedia:No original research, which I suggest that you familiarize yourself with. Uncle G ( talk) 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Uncle G, you seem to be stretching the notion of novel analysis to a place that the various Wikipedia observations enjoining common sense would find difficult to accommodate. A BNP member operates a website whose pages purporting to describe the organisation's work refer only to work supporting prominent BNP officials and members and the only pictures show those BNP officials and members and BNP activity. Wikipedia does not demand that every nail should be hammered home to bury its head. WP:UCS I've added references for external claims. Opbeith ( talk) 23:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

n.b. The article appears to have arrived here as a result of an editing process which removed clear but circumstantial evidence supporting the assertion earlier in the article that Civil Liberty was alleged to be a BNP front organisation. [20] The evidence was unlinked/unreferenced but its source was clear. The removal of this evidence then led to the assertion being removed. This gradual removal of significant content has resulted in a request for removal. The notability of the organisation is clear. The redevelopment and verification of its content would not have been difficult. Instead the article is a candidate for deletion. Deletion would be destructive rather than constructive in effect. Administrative actions should surely be informed by a net constructive intent. Opbeith ( talk) 07:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/03/partyfunding.thefarright indicates that the organization is notable. Whether the evidence connecting the group to BNP is strong or not, shouldn't (as far as I can see) bear on the notability of the organization.-- Pink Bull ( talk) 22:54, 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 no consensus. Both sides failed to reach an understanding on pretty much every issue in the debate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 21:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Northern Artsakh

Northern Artsakh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article does not cite any references or sources, and appears to be an original research. According to WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Grand master 09:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply