Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/US

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Esto perpetua. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esto Perpetua Award

Esto Perpetua Award (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - there do not appear to be multiple independent non-trivial references to establish notability. Otto4711 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Esto perpetua. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it comes up over 200 times on google Ulysses Zagreb 09:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Counting raw numbers of Google hits is not a proper method of determining notability. The majority of those hits are either from sources affiliated with the state of Idaho (and thus are not sources independent of the subject) or are trivial mentions in articles on other topics. The award itself is not the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. Otto4711 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete per nom. That's 55 unique G-hits. Just FYI, Ulysses, by our standards, 200 Google hits is pretty pathetic. If it was twenty thousand hits, that would be more significant. RGTraynor 19:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously kept in 2005, I believe consensus on notability has moved on since then. Specifically, of the cited sources, four are from the subject (not independent) and those which are independent do not appear to include the name Kinsella. Does this person pass the primary notability criterion? If so, the article does not indicate it. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sizeable, impressive resuume of publications that certainly demonstrate his importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's a resume. Now add the independent sources about the individual. Please. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Nom doesn't even make sense given Wikipedia:Notability which clearly states that Notability is generally permanent. As the guideline states,

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time.

Here are multiple independent sources:

1. citation of Kinsella by Robert P. Murphy and Gene Callahan re: Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics
2. CV for Walter Block listing four articles coauthored with Kinsella and published in notable venues (Block even tests his Law & Economics students on Kinsella's IP views)
3. Notable debate about intellectual property with Kinsella and Ilana Mercer on one side and James DeLong on the other, from Insight Magazine. (linked article above is hosted on Kinsella's website, although not originally published there)
4. Google Scholar search for "Stephan Kinsella" that yields 232 results (including a lot of his patent work, his articles in various journals, and many, many citations in the work of other notable scholars, including Walter Block, Roderick Long, et al.)

I think it is abundantly clear that Kinsella is notable enough for inclusion. DickClarkMises 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, and as the initial author of the article (my first contributions to Wikipedia, I should add :), I think it is important to note that the nom is correct about the fact that the article needs improvement. I fully intend to expand the article using the sources I found above. Right now I am just a little busy. Others are obviously encouraged to expand the article if they have time. DickClarkMises 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dick, just slap them in as external links. That will fix a substantial part of the problem. Although come to think of it your username does rtaher suggest WP:COI... Guy (Help!) 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. If someone as academically insignificant as Tom Palmer has a Wiki, so should Kinsella, who (as the previous poster noted) has a huge CV with numerous impressive articles, referenced by various sources. Kinsella also has a well-acclaimed book on International Law that has been published, and is available on Amazon.com. Along with a 9-part treatise on the law of commerce. And a book on Online Contract Formation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Seems to have plenty of non-trivial references. It sets a bad precedent to start reevaluating selected articles simply because elements of Wikipedia policy have been modified. Are we going to have to do this with all other biographical articles, or certainly this one once Wikipedia notability policy changes again in a year or two? 23skidoo 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per all. Consensus has moved on to a point where we see the wisdom of keeping a topic like this in this project. Prolific writer published by major publishers. --Oakshade 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think the stricter policy would have affected this article. The subject is clearly notable as an author. The older articles whi ch might be more appropriately challenged are the ones without sources. DGG 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per all. --JayJasper 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but could use more independent sources. Realkyhick 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Author of an abundance of literature cited by scholars in his fields. Ikilled007 11:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descendents of Isaac Allerton

Descendents of Isaac Allerton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. There is no indication that any of these people are notable. Corvus cornix 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This sort of thing is explicitly mentioned under WP:NOT#DIR as something Wikipedia is not. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The first thing to do when creating a new article in Wikipedia anymore is to cite WHY you feel it is notable. I don't know why editors can't seem to grasp that. Slavlin 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Rowan High School

North Rowan High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not Notable - Mike Beckham 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel so? Small townships with population of 5 have Wikipedia articles with nothing more but demographics. Tgpuckett 02:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Because for some reason, the policy is that all cities/towns/villages are notable. No such policy exists for schools (which is why I hate when people try and say that "all schools are notable" as their only reason for voting Keep). TJ Spyke 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 02:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It contains little informational content and only houses sections with little to no content. Has no encyclopaedic content. - Mike Beckham 06:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No signs of notability. TJ Spyke 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As above. If every school of this size had an article like this then it would take up most of Wikipedia. ANHL 11:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You have a strange notion of digital content. — RJH (talk)
• Delete Well I guess I agree, there's not much here. Tgpuckett 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)— Tgpuckett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All high schools are notable, as I argue here Noroton 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no consensus at Wikipedia that high schools are or are not notable, as evidenced by the fact that high school AfDs are closed as "keep", "delete" and "no consensus". This article should be deleted pursuant to WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep high schools are notable, yet this one has no specific notability. --Masterpedia 02:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as I contend with all high school articles, though this one is borderline even for me. Realkyhick 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above, with the added remark that it would be helpful if the nominator would put more time and consideration into future nominations. Burntsauce 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep — It's adequate but could be improved. — RJH (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Butseriouslyfolks points --Xarr 08:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. High schools are generally notable, provided they make an attempt at establishing notability. This one does a mediocre job of establishing notability, but I at least see enough of an attempt.--Wizardman 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my belief that all secondary schools are notable, article successfully meets all relevant content policies. Yamaguchi先生 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep schools are notable due to their influences on the hundreds of students that pass through them.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Alkivar. Schools are notable and this article can grow. bbx 09:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 06:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Keep arguments are very weak here, but delete arguments aren't much better. I don't feel comfortable closing in this state, so am relisting to see whether notability and attribution can be addressed, as late comments indicate they can. Shimeru 06:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• bbx and alkivar, how about basing you decisions on GUIDELINE and POLICY rather than your personal belief? Almost all of the keep votes consist soley of that BS opinion that all schools are notable. Their is no guideline or policy that says this, so I hope admins ignore people who only say that and don't actually state something to support them. The article fails WP:N, which is a policy and not just an opinion. TJ Spyke 07:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Mere comment. I'm staying out of this one but I would like to point out that WP is built on consensus. WP is not a democracy but one of the very basics is that policy is not set in stone - please don't dismiss other's opinions (in this case, that schools should be exempt from WP:N or that they should by default always be notable unless proven otherwise) as a mere policy violation. -- Seed 2.0 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no consensus that all high schools are notable. It used to be that most were kept by default, but thankfully others users have started to crack down on this and realized that schools are not exempt and that they have to follow the guidelines and policies arleady established. TJ Spyke 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There was even an consensus at one time that all middle schools were notable, and that one has thankfully be laid to rest, though there are a few dissidents. The rational part of the concept that all high school are notable is the assumption that if the subject was examined closely enough, then something notable would eventually be found and eventually documented. This may even be true of some schools--many large long-established schools might prove to have the minimum of two notable graduates if sufficient search were made. But a similar argument could be used about almost any subject. It could for example be made about apartment buildings, which might quite possibly turn out to have had at least two notable residents. Or hospitals. And hospitals also have an influence on the thousands of patients that pass through them. WP is apparently to not be a collection of indiscriminate information, except for [whatever your favorite subject may be]. DGG 01:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per TJSpyke and DGG Baristarim 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:37Z

[edit] Northfield Park

Northfield Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable local race track, {{prod}} was removed. John Reaves (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia already has many articles on other notable horse racing venues. --Eastmain 05:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable race track. It is certainly a big part of Northfield's history. Also, the issue of casino gambling at horse tracks was on the ballot in Ohio in 2006, as noted in the article. The history section needs work however. Overall, this article does not need to be deleted. --DangApricot 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- Eastmain 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with the above. It's a notable racetrack and there are 3rd party published works about it. --Oakshade 21:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There's no reason for a notable race track to be deleted. Suriel1981 10:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Google search for "Northfield Park" Ohio turned up 19,500 hits. Leaping to the 30th page of results revealed that the pages were still turning up exact matches. I think this is an indication of notability. Suriel1981 10:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not an easy decision, but a review of the sources shows that several have little or nothing to do with John Machemehl. Much of the information can be sourced only to a genealogy, and most problematically, the claims of notability are not sourced or supported. The sources do provide evidence for the notability of relatives, such as Louis Machemehl, but this does not confer notability on John by association. While I dislike deletion of historical biographies, what's needed here is a reliable (preferably secondary) source backing up the claim that John was a leader in the migration or the subsequently-established community. If we were to remove the uncited claims, the claims not properly supported by their citations, and the material relating to descendants from the article, we would be left with a very sparse collection of family data, mainly consisting of dates of birth, marriage, and death. Regrettably, this is not enough to meet WP:BIO. Shimeru 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Machemehl

John Machemehl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable person, fails WP:BIO. No reliable, independent sources establishing notability, only genealogical sources or sources about his descendants. He may have many notable qualities, as claimed on the talk page, but these aren't recognized in any independent reputable sources, which makes this look a lot like original research. Article fails WP:ATT. Fram 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Second attempt

Fram has already attempted to delete this article once before. The article John Machemehl was shown to be a notable article as John Machemehl is a historical figure within the German-Texan historical context. Thanks. User:Bhaktivinode 28 March 2007

In addition, Fram fails to state why these sources are not independent and/or reputable. They are valid sources and Fram should show otherwise if it believes so. Thanks. User:Bhaktivinode 28 March 2007

Please read WP:ATT and WP:RS to see what are reliable, reputable sources per the Wikipedia definition. The main source, dericbownds.net, is the page of someone who has created his family tree. This is not independent, and certainly not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. The other sources are not clearly reliable either (austinoldies.com / wintermannlibrary.org (a copy of the former), rootsweb.com) or have at first sight nothing to do with John Machemehl (visiteaglelake.com, reflectionsofyesterday.net, texas-settlement.org, sportsillustrated). In fact, all info on John Machemehl except for him being the father of Paul, comes from one source, Dericbownds.net. Fram 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I can't find evidence of a previous AFD discussion, but Bak may be referring to this diff, where it was nominated for Speedy A7. -- saberwyn 07:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was tagged for speedy deletion (db-bio) by user Evb-wiki on March 21, and deleted by me the same day. It was recreated by Bhaktivinode on the 23rd (as is his right), and tagged by me for db-bio on the 27th. This was removed by FloNight, with the mention on the talk page that it could go to AfD. This seemed reasonable, and so I did just that. The article was not "shown to be a notable article" expect by these statements on Talk:John Machemehl by the creator of the article, Bhaktivinode. As I indicate in my response to Bhaktivinode above, his one main source is not a reliable (nor an independent) source per WP:ATT, and neither that one nor his other sources are indicating any notability for John Machemehl (I have e.g. no idea where Bhaktivinode gets the idea that John Machemehl is a "notable German"). Fram 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I believe Fram is only refering to the old version of John Machemehl. The new version explicitly establishes his notability first as the forester for Annaberg, Saxony. Then for leading a group of Forty-Eighters to Central Texas from Saxony. Another issue is his involvement with the German Texan community during the Civil War era. User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

No, I'm referring to the current version. Besides, all the info was already in the article when I started this AfD notice, and even when I nominated it for speedy deletion[1]. Being a forester etcetera is interesting, but does not mean he is notable. And I can't find anything in your sources that indicate that he was "Leading the Voyage to Texas"? The genealogy says that "Sometime between 1845 and 1850 John Machemehl, his father Michael and very young son Paul came to Texas from Germany. Their coming to the U.S. was part of the sizeable German migration". It seems like he was just one of the many migrants, and that only in the next generations did the family become somewhat notable locally. I would like to urge everyone judging this AfD to go through the sources provided in the article, to determine for themselves their value and the notability they give to John Machemehl, per WP:ATT and WP:BIO. Fram 10:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues and Sources

It is issues such as these listed above - that makes the John Machemehl entry a notable one. in addition, sources such as The Eula and David Wintermann Library is a proper source. [2] & [3] User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

Perhaps the Wintermannlibrary is a notable source (it is not directly clear), but it only gives some info on Paul Machemehl, none whatsoever on John Machemehl, so this source cannot be used to determine the notability of John Machemehl. And I don't agree that the "issues" listed above make him notable at all. Fram 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment That is not true.

The Wintermann Library says that around the time of the Civil War that, "John was discussing the hostility between the North and the South with Paul Machemehl of Bellville, Texas. Many Germans did not believe this was their fight and many joined Paul Machemehl and rode south to Mexico to sit out the war before returning."

This is just one source. Thanks. User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

The "John" referenced there is Johann Struss, not John Machemehl. Nothing there suggests that it is about John Machemehl. Fram 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per reasons for nomination. What is verifiable through reliable sources may be merged to the more adequately sourced descendants. Genealogy homepages crowding the refs do not meet WP:ATT, nothing to verify "noted forrester" or "leader of men", and there is currently advertising posing as a reference. MURGH ^disc. 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would like to add that there are many points to consider in debating the notability of the John Machemehl article. Being the forester for the city of Annaberg, or the size of the migration are just a few of these points.

Aside from these points above is the context of John Machemehl in German-Texan history. Here, what is historically significant, aside from the points above, is that John Machemehl led a group of Forty-Eighters from Germany to Texas, not to any normal destination for German Forty-Eighters. This in itself is an important and notable event in the context of German-Texan history. There are many points to be considered. They should be treated one at a time. Please. Thank you. User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

• Keep There is no reason that the information in ths article should not be added to Wikipedia. It is valid historically information that can be categorized in a manner to make it available to people interested in this type of information. FloNight 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

* Keep Some early pioneers will be notable, if they were political or community leaders. DGG 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs a little work, but the subject seems to be a notable historical figure on a regional basis. Realkyhick 04:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And on what reliable source do you three base that assertion? We only have a genealogical site by a direct descendant as "evidence" for all this... Fram 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment In this situation that type of sourcing is adequate. We need not hold every type of subject content to identical standards. That is the reason that content is always decided on an individual basis, article by article, by groups of editors rather than rulings of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. If you carefully read our policies and guidelines related to content, you will note that sources written by individuals or groups can be used for articles about the individual or group if there is good reason to think that they are true and are in fact a good source for the information. If we did not take this approach, we would not be able to fulfill our mission of collecting free, encyclopedic information on all possible topics. Many topics would not be covered adequately. Historically some groups were not covered by what we consider reliable sources today. Pioneers, historical women, U.S. slaves and other minority groups are examples of groups that are not adequately covered by traditional sources for varying reasons. Therefore documents such as letters, other historical documents, and well documented oral histories can be used if the information is not contentious. I hope this explanation helps explain why I support the inclusion of this article. Take care, FloNight 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the above. Also, I would like to add an additional point to those listed above. The fact remains that this is a new article and both minor and major events have yet to be filled in historical gaps. An example would be that I only recently came across the birth, death, and cemetary records for both John Machemehl and Henrietta Borel Machemehl found at [4]. This is just one example. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

Thanks for replying, FloNight, but, well, I have a completely different understanding of our WP:ATT policy here, and I feel that this interpretation opens the door (or more precisley the floodgates) for almost every person willing to spend an hour writing something down to have an article on Wikipedia as long as they have a trustworthy looking source about themselves, no matter who writes or publishes it. The claim that we have no reliable sources for historical groups and figures and completely irrelevant and is plain wrong: we have no contemporary reliable sources, but there is no reason we can't have more recent reliable sources,and in fact we have such sources for every notable person (since that is exactly the definition of being notable of course. If those more recnt reliable sources are absent (as is the case here), then the person fails WP:BIO (which John Machemehl clearly does) and fails all but the most liberal interpretation of WP:ATT.Anyway, even accepting your interpretation of the use of self-published or questionable sources: this is the full extent of the sole source we have: Sometime between 1845 and 1850 John Machemehl, his father Michael and very young son Paul came to Texas from Germany. Their coming to the U.S. was part of the sizeable German migration which resulted from the unrest in the various German principalities in the revolutionary period of the 1830’s and 1840’s. John’s wife, Henrietta Borel, brought with them on the 10 week sailing voyage a china set which now is in storage at the Mohle Drive home of Helen and Marlin Bownds where my son Jonathan lives. John had a university education, was forester for the city of Annaberg in Saxony. His wife Henrietta, born in Switzerland, was a French Huguenot who was a governess for the family of a Russian prince of Courland whose estate was on the Baltic. She met John Machemehl in Saxony while traveling with the Russian Family. Henrietta died in Texas in 1850. John married two more times, had four more children, and died in 1880. Why would you want to have an article on this person, even if you would accept the source as good enough? What distinguishes him from thousands of other persons? The only thing that distinguishes him is that someone has put this info on his personal website... Fram 15:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fram if you bring this back to a debate on what distinguishes John Machemehl, you are returning to our early debate for speedy deletion, which was denied. These reasons are:

• He was a notable member of the German community of Annaberg as he was the city's forester.
• He was a member of the Forty-Eighters.
• He was an early German-Texan settler.
• He provided leadership for the early German-Texan settlers.
• He was the central figure in an historical German-Texan family.
• He was the father of Paul Machemehl.

These were a few of the items which distinguishes him. Thank you for your reply. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

Comment. I completely agree with Fram. No matter how inadequately one may feel someone is covered by the chronicles, it doesn't expand licence to overlook Verifiability. WP as a tool to connect with reliable sources is diminished by accepting article material on this basis. How can this article get away with just claiming JM was the forrester of Annaberg, leader of men etc. A valid article will point me to trustworthy doccumentation of this. There's that, and additionally the genealogy flavour about this. MURGH ^disc. 16:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article does need work. This is for certain. It is only a few days old. There is still new information to be filled in. I have only been researching this for the past few days. Today I found a reliable record for the Machemehl Cemmetary. This link can be found at [5]. Also, I recently found that he recieved his American citizenship in 1856 at this site [6]. There is informatin concerning his father and sister at this link [7], and more on another sister here, [8]. Also for general archives conerning Johns involvement in the German Texan heritage of Bellville can be found at [9]. These links helps fill some more information about these early German Texas settlers. I will be adding more when I come across it - BUT, frankly I believe there is already enough information to substantiate and article entry. Thanks again for your comments and review. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

I am not bringing it back to a debate on notability, notability is just one of the aspects in this deletion debate. And an article that is not speedyable is by no means exempt from deletion through AfD: the requirements to delete something through speedy are much stricter, and it is enough that one editor (apart from the creator) disagrees to make the speedy impossible. For speedy, you need an article that does not assert notability. To survive AfD, you need to show that notability with verifiable, reputable, independent sources. I think this article fails on both accounts, since all the claims made are not enough to make someone notable (interesting, perhaps, but not notable), and those claims are not supported by verifiable, reputable, independent sources: all we can verify is that he lived and where and when he died: I have no trouble accepting that he was the father of Paul either. But I have seen no evidence that he "provided leadership" or was a "central figure" beyond being the father of one barely notable person and the grandfather of one notable person: notability is not transferable. Information on his family is irrelevant for this discussion: it may be interesting to add to the article if it is kept, but it plays no part in the decision to keep or delete it. Please check out WP:BIO and see for yourself how John Machemehl thoroughly fails this. Fram 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You start out saying you are not taking the debate back to notability, but your article above is centered on this question of yours alone. John Machemehl was an early German Texan settler. That is enough. He does not have to part any seas as Moses did. I have shown above that there are many sources. I strongly disagree with you and am confident that this is the beginnings of a sound article. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

comment I have edited the article on John Machemehl, added soucrces and primarily - I have tried to place the disagrements over sources within context. If others are willing to assist, I would be more than appreciative. Thanks for review the above. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

• Weak delete I think that being among the first European settlers in an area is potentially notable, depending on the historical circumstances, especially if the person is one of the leaders of the group. The problem is sources. The sources you are using are primary sources from which a biographical or genealogical account could be written. But if you were to do so--and it does look as if you are setting about it in a reasonable way--this would be the first time the material had ever been compiled, and would count as OR. I am not very restrictive about NOR--I think that assembling together obvious public sources into an article is legitimate. I believe that an article about a person based on a suitable secondary work but incorporating something from the primary public record is justifiable. But gathering a number of primary sources, checking the inscriptions of tombstones and on library collections of primary sources in unpublished genealogies and (in some other articles) prison records or social security records or deeds or immigration records, or the Sanford map series, --not here, but in other similar articles -- is OR, in the most basic sense. This is what local historians do. I'm not sure that there is yet as suitable wiki for the purpose, but there surely will be--and then we can discuss whether compilations there count as reliable secondary sources--I think it would depend on the standards of the Wiki. I might be prepared to accept such as site as the Wintermann library site as RS for the purpose if it gave sources (which it doesnt) --but not for this particular subject as he is only mentioned in a summary account of another family. So in conclusion, weak delete as probable OR. DGG 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We have no indication that he was "among the first European settlers in the area" though. Among the first German ones perhaps... Fram 05:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Since information discerned from the Bownds Archives has at times been at the center of this debate, I have placed it, within the article, in sequence - as an afterthought. Please do judge the article in this new context, with a much reduced reliance upon this source. Thank you for considering these issues. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

I have added a series of edits to the article in order bring it into line with some of the criticisms leveled above. I now please ask for any responses concerning these recent edits, in this process, from people yet to be heard from, or those who have some constructive input. Thanks you for reviewing these comments. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Machemehl Family House. The person is generally notable for a few things but lacks attribution in places, such as being a forester; the article reaches too far at present. On the other hand, he and his father describe the beginning of the USA branch of the family tree in which contains Paul Machemehl, Louis A. Machemehl, Chuck Machemehl, and Charles W. Machemehl. As a result various facts about the historical roots of this family will become attributable over time, and the Machemehl Family House article is the best spot for them to land on wiki. John Vandenberg 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve I agree with the above but only in part. While I do think that the Machemehl Family House is a page that should mention John Machemehl, as a member of the Forty-Eighters who led his family and companions from Annaberg to Austin County - John Machemehl should have a page in his own right as such an early German Texan settler. Right now, the article does need to improve more, but it has improved over the past few days, and I suspect it will continue to improve quite more over time. Presently, I and am open to any and all constructive ideas. Thank you for reviewing the above. User:Bhaktivinode 30 March 2007
• Keep relevant to German Texas history.

User:Merknorton 1 April 2007

• • Comment This is the first contribution by user Merknorton. John Vandenberg 22:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Because this debate has gone on for five days and the above parties, who have either commented, voted to keep or delete, have made their case in the comments above. Should this debate be closed? Thanks you for reviewing the above. User:Bhaktivinode 2 April 2007

very weak keep On a site brimming with commercial junk & pop culture fan noise, it's good to see actual historical data. I would prefer a merge to a deletion, but I pick keep by a thin edge. Ventifax 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously kept in 2005, I believe consensus on notability has moved on since then. Specifically, of the cited sources, four are from the subject (not independent) and those which are independent do not appear to include the name Kinsella. Does this person pass the primary notability criterion? If so, the article does not indicate it. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sizeable, impressive resuume of publications that certainly demonstrate his importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's a resume. Now add the independent sources about the individual. Please. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Nom doesn't even make sense given Wikipedia:Notability which clearly states that Notability is generally permanent. As the guideline states,

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time.

Here are multiple independent sources:

1. citation of Kinsella by Robert P. Murphy and Gene Callahan re: Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics
2. CV for Walter Block listing four articles coauthored with Kinsella and published in notable venues (Block even tests his Law & Economics students on Kinsella's IP views)
3. Notable debate about intellectual property with Kinsella and Ilana Mercer on one side and James DeLong on the other, from Insight Magazine. (linked article above is hosted on Kinsella's website, although not originally published there)
4. Google Scholar search for "Stephan Kinsella" that yields 232 results (including a lot of his patent work, his articles in various journals, and many, many citations in the work of other notable scholars, including Walter Block, Roderick Long, et al.)

I think it is abundantly clear that Kinsella is notable enough for inclusion. DickClarkMises 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, and as the initial author of the article (my first contributions to Wikipedia, I should add :), I think it is important to note that the nom is correct about the fact that the article needs improvement. I fully intend to expand the article using the sources I found above. Right now I am just a little busy. Others are obviously encouraged to expand the article if they have time. DickClarkMises 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dick, just slap them in as external links. That will fix a substantial part of the problem. Although come to think of it your username does rtaher suggest WP:COI... Guy (Help!) 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. If someone as academically insignificant as Tom Palmer has a Wiki, so should Kinsella, who (as the previous poster noted) has a huge CV with numerous impressive articles, referenced by various sources. Kinsella also has a well-acclaimed book on International Law that has been published, and is available on Amazon.com. Along with a 9-part treatise on the law of commerce. And a book on Online Contract Formation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Seems to have plenty of non-trivial references. It sets a bad precedent to start reevaluating selected articles simply because elements of Wikipedia policy have been modified. Are we going to have to do this with all other biographical articles, or certainly this one once Wikipedia notability policy changes again in a year or two? 23skidoo 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per all. Consensus has moved on to a point where we see the wisdom of keeping a topic like this in this project. Prolific writer published by major publishers. --Oakshade 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think the stricter policy would have affected this article. The subject is clearly notable as an author. The older articles whi ch might be more appropriately challenged are the ones without sources. DGG 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per all. --JayJasper 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but could use more independent sources. Realkyhick 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Author of an abundance of literature cited by scholars in his fields. Ikilled007 11:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to TSMC. (What, TSMC, a company with market cap USD 50 billion only has a puny stub?—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:42Z

[edit] WaferTech

WaferTech (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was originally a db corp case, but the article was improved and the speedy tag removed (validly, I think). There's some discussion on the talk page from when it was a contested speedy. That said, there's still no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Of the four references, the first is the company's official website, the second and third tangentially mention the company's power consumption, and the fourth is broken. Nothing about this company particularly stands out. It seems to be just a boring commodity semiconductor fab, with no particularly unique features. Deranged bulbasaur 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete nominator says it all. /Blaxthos 10:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Betaeleven 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 19:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article now has references. --Eastmain 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the NY Times link you've added doesn't really assert any notability for the company, just that it has been bought by another:

"Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing agreed yesterday to buy out some of its partners in WaferTech, a joint venture that operates a wafer plant in Camas, Wash. It will pay $350 million for a 23 percent stake belonging to the Altera Corporation, $60 million for a 4 percent stake belonging to Analog Devices and $40 million for a 2.7 percent stake belonging to Integrated Silicon Solutions. All three transactions should close this month, Taiwan Semiconductor said, giving it about 97 percent ownership of WaferTech." [10]

- Ozzykhan 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Possibly boring, but still notable according to the published references. If the current owner paid $350 million to buy out a partner who owned 23 percent of the company, that puts a total evaluation on the business of about $1.5 billion, which is fairly impressive. And I added an additional reference, Hoover's, at http://www.hoovers.com/wafertech/--ID__113377--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml --Eastmain 03:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm still not convinced that mentions of that kind establish independent notability. At most, that advocates for a slight merge into TSMC since, by the sound of it, they were never an autonomous operation and are now almost totally subsumed into Taiwan Semi. Deranged bulbasaur 07:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If you ask my suspicion I'd tell you that the only reason the plant hasn't been identified directly with its parent company is that associating with a foreign government tends to create negative brand implications in the domestic market. For an example, notice how British Petroleum refers to itself exclusively as "BP" in the U.S. Deranged bulbasaur 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I just don't think that the 3 sentences in NY Times asserts the notability of WaferTech. If anything, it is adding to the notability of TSCM (who now have a $1.5 billion subsid!). At most, the WaferTech information could be merged into the TSCM article, if infact it is one of their largest assets - Ozzykhan 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • The article also has several other external references. WaferTech is one of the largest corporations in Clark County, Washington and a significant presence in Silicon Forest. As far as affiliation with TSMC, maybe we could add "A TSMC Company" which shows up on their webpage. I will do some more research and add links/entries showing their interaction with the state of Washington. From what I understand, they are owned by TSMC and considered part of the family but are treated with some autonomy. Rms1 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Rms1

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