Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 4

< 3 April	5 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latzke

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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia–Serbia relations

non-notable relational article. Merely having relations does not make it notable. Tavix : Chat 23:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only significant result from a Google search of 'Malaysia Serbia' is Malaysia's ambassador to Serbia being expelled from the country after Malaysia recognised Kosovo's independence. This isn't the kind of in-depth coverage needed to meet WP:N as it only concerns a single incident, and the incident would be better placed in Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence or a similar article as several other ambassadors were also expelled. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the only thing that can be found is the Malaysian ambassador was expelled due to them recognising Kosovo's independence, then it's hardly notable. When added to the severing of ties between the two countries in 1992 (and then re-established in 2003), and the lack of a Serbian embassy in Malaysia, this is a non notable relations. Like a lot of the rest of similar articles. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability easily established The usual way. Why a handful of editors think bilateral relations should be held to a much higher standard of inclusion than any other set of articles has not been articulated, that I've seen. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] - hopefully this is enough to dispel the charade that this relation is "non-notable" - I can dig up many more sources if the show must go on, however. WilyD 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As their only interaction appear to have been over Kosovo, why not just add another footnote in the relevant place at International recognition of Kosovo? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is difficult to answer a question that rests upon false assumptions. Please review the sources I cited before deciding what they contain. WilyD 16:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did review them. If there's anything more to add, add it to the article, and we'll take things from there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You may be unaware, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. Some articles are still in development (the general thinking is that all articles are still in development, though some are farther along than others). The usual practice is to keep and work on articles that meet the standards of WP:N, which this transparently does. Why should we treat this articles as a highly unusual case, as you're asking us to do? Wily D 18:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 15:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond the existence of relations (non-notable) and the Kosovo bit (covered, or able to be covered, elsewhere), there's nothing of substance to the relationship. We keep stubs with expansion potential, but delete them when that is out of the question, as in this case. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is already a start, not a stub, class article, and could certainly be expanded a fair bit more. It wasn't hard to locate a few nice sources with only a modicum of searching - someone devoted could push much farther. WilyD 01:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment A bunch of sources covering only a single incident is basically a sign that there's only been a single incident between the countries, so WP:NOT#NEWS applies. As the article is an uncited paragraph its a stub BTW. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both of these statements are flatly false. It doesn't make a good argument to simply misrepresent the situation. Wily D 12:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and ___location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced since the article's creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the facts that have surfaced during this discussion. Hilary T (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically? --BlueSquadronRaven 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ones provided by WilyD which show that the topic passes WP:N. Hilary T (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This info can be better organized into other articles, and WilyD's snide responses don't really change the fact that his sources better belong in International recognition of Kosovo, as that is the logical place to find that info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No real sources on this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:53, 6 April 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Jones

previously speedily deleted, recreated page still lacks 3rd party references, band has not received significant coverage. RadioFan (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is still being completed, I'd say give the article a bit more time before deleting. ∗ \ / (⁂) 23:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Delete - Pretty sure this doesn't have a chance. ∗ \ / (⁂) 23:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - band is hardly going to become notable in the near fixture. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral in respect with underconstruction tag, however, a cursory google search / news check turned up nothing useful in terms of reliable third party sources. Will change my vote to keep if sources turn up within a reasonable timeframe, delete otherwise. MLauba (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I speedy deleted it the first time because it failed to make a clear assertion of notability. It still doesn't; the only notability claimed is in a local area. I don't see anything that meets WP:BAND, and there are no independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just another facebook/myspace/garage band. Hell, garageband.com is one of their external links. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pleas see my talk page for a discussion with the main contributing editor; he provided references (that are not in the article yet afaik) that show notability. I will check again in a couple weeks to see how it is coming along. Note that this reverts my previous "CSD" tag that precluded this AfD. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should have been Speedy Delete. No claim of notability. No reliable references. Untick (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --NN garage band, no major labels, tours, or coverage. Ronabop (talk)
Delete: trivial coverage, no awards, no charts, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.Nrswanson (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 15:02, 5 April 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 Withdraw due to expansion of disambiguation. Tavix | Talk 16:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

98.6 (disambiguation)

This is an unneeded disambiguation with no incoming links. 98.6 links to the normal human body temperature article and if someone wants the song, there is a hatnote on that page. I figured this would be uncontroversial, but my prod tag was removed. Tavix : Chat 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If 98.6 already redirects to human body temperature and there's a hatnote for the song, than there's no reason for this disambig. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary disambiguation page. _blur ^peace ☮ 23:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful disambiguation page. I've expanded it to include a novel, a radio station, and a steam locomotive. Cunard (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's expansion. It now disambiguates between 3+ articles and is justified. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've got the song by Keith--It's good to have you back again, oh hey, 98.6, the loving is the medicine that saved me. Oh I love my baby... And I love this disambiguation. Eauhomme (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Nrswanson (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The recent expansion of the page justifies keeping it around. fuzzy510 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here Tour 1975

Non-notable tour that mostly consists of a setlist and tour dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All other mayor rock bands have all their tours detailed, like Zeppelin, The Stones, even Queen, except for Pink Floyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto077 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason for inclusion, though. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for more information. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This tour marked the final rift between Pink Floyd and the critics, with about all major publications writing articles against the band. Storm Thorgerson attended the tour, looking for inspiration for the Wish You Were Here artwork as mentioned in Saucerful of Secrets by Nicholas Schaffner. It's where Thorgerson came up with the idea of shrink-wrapping the album in black - lifted from Country Life. Nick Mason writes about several speaker malfunctions on the tour in his book Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd besides other anecdotes. The concert in Knebworth (July 5, 1975) was pure desaster leading to much attack from the press, and Floyd not playing live for about two years. This is reflected in Bruno MacDonald's book Pink Floyd: Through the Eyes of..., while Echoes and In the Flesh by Glenn Povey feature the whole tour on several pages. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing that you mention actually constitutes "substantial coverage". Mostly it's writings about the band coming from people and sources that write about the band, and write about the tour BECAUSE they write about the band. Pink Floyd has a very devout fan following, and because of that nearly every part of their history has been covered in detail by these sources. However, this is not "substantial third-party coverage" that proves notability per the general notability guidelines. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my notes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Winter Tour '74, and please read again my !vote. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Matt Damsker from the Philadelphia Bulletin and John David Kalodner from the Philadelphia Inquirer saw it different, back in 1975. I guess The Press Reports (1966-1983) by Vernon Fitch would bring up even more. But I doubt it's here with me before you delete the article... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 01:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Hum.. It's difficult to think that a tour by Pink Floyd in the 1970s was not notable (WP:NTEMP). The article can be expanded using available reliable sources like this one. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per RS's included on this page. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - How is this not notable, exactly? Granted, it does need massive improvement, but not deletion.--Unionhawk ^Talk 02:06, 10 April 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 Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Tour 1972-1973. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obscured By Clouds Tour

Non-notable tour that only consists of a setlist and a list of dates. Nothing to suggest that the tour is notable on its own per WP:NOTINHERITED. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: non-trivial 3rd party coverage includes Echoes and In the Flesh by Glenn Povey, Saucerful of Secrets by Nicholas Schaffner and about EVERY serious book about Pink Floyd because the last shows at the Rainbow (London) included the first ever performance of their magnum opus Dark Side of the Moon. Especially these Rainbow shows were heavily featured in the English press, incl. Derek Jewell's famous article for the Sunday Times. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But nothing that you mention actually constitutes "substantial coverage". Mostly it's writings about the band coming from people and sources that write about the band, and write about the tour BECAUSE they write about the band. Pink Floyd has a very devout fan following, and because of that nearly every part of their history has been covered in detail by these sources. However, this is not "substantial third-party coverage" that proves notability per the general notability guidelines. Besides, a lot of the sources you call "famous" are only famous among diehard fans, but still don't serve WP:GNG. Also, the fact that it was the first tour where they played a certain song or album does not make the tour notable, as the tour's notability cannot be inherited from the notability of the album. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my notes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Winter Tour '74, and please read again my !vote. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - besides my keep above I propose a merge into Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Tour 1972-1973, as it is considered the pre-Dark Side tour and was not officially called ObC. The tour dates currently stated are wrong [13]. I didn't find Derek Jewell's review of the Rainbow shows on the internet, just "In their own terms, Floyd strikingly succeed. They are dramatists supreme." Derek Jewell, The Sunday Times, reviewing PF's 4 day gig at Rainbow, but could quote from my German versions of Schaffner's Saucerful of Secrets, also quoted here. Those Rainbow concerts, where they premiered Dark Side to the press, were certainly some of the most important in their career. The Brighton gig was reviewed by NME [14] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 02:15, 10 April 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 Pink Floyd French Summer Tour 1974 . MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Winter Tour '74

Non-notable tour. While the band is certainly notable, the article is just a list of tour dates, with nothing to suggest that the tour itself is notable as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Pink Floyd French Summer Tour 1974 - the tour certainly is notable. It was the first UK tour after their magnum opus Dark Side... was released - note the few English dates in Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Tour 1972-1973. The tour is heavily featured in standard Floyd secondary like Schaffner's Saucerful of Secrets (five pages, incl. one for the French dates), Mabbett's Complete Guide in the chapters for Wish You Were Here (album) and Animals (album), as well as Mason's Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd. Other non-trivial coverage includes the famous review from New Musical Express (November 23, 1974) by Nick Kent about David Gilmour not washing his hair. This and Pete Erskine's follow-up from January 11, 1975 fill almost 20 pages in Bruno MacDonald's Pink Floyd: Through the Eyes of... - and yes, it's mostly about the show, not the hair. Echoes: The Complete History by Glenn Povey and Comfortably Numb by Mark Blake also cover the topic as does Vernon Fitch's Pink Floyd - The Press Reports 1966-1983. Chris Charlesworth and Karl Dallas wrote feature articles about the tour for Melody Maker, Derek Jewell for the Sunday Times. Together with the short French tour - which were somewhat a trial run - these shows brought several novelties: Mr. Screen, the famous circular screen was first introduced on these tours (not to mention the expensive videos that were made especially for the tour and are still used in solo and band concerts) as well as three of the most important Floyd songs: "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", "Sheep (song)" and "Dogs (Pink Floyd song)". Both tours were heavily bootlegged (most notably as British Winter Tour '74, some fans thought this album to be official) because half of the show consisted of unreleased material and "Dogs" and "Sheep" were only released almost three years later on Animals in early 1977. Other anecdotes include the "Gini Bitter Lemon" incident that resulted in an unreleased song called "Bitter Love", and in technically terms a new mixing desk especially maufactured for this tour as well as a giant rotating mirror ball. The tour is also remembered for its humorous tourbook ([15]). --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing that you mention actually constitutes "substantial coverage". Mostly it's writings about the band coming from people and sources that write about the band, and write about the tour BECAUSE they write about the band. Pink Floyd has a very devout fan following, and because of that nearly every part of their history has been covered in detail by these sources. However, this is not "substantial third-party coverage" that proves notability per the general notability guidelines. Besides, a lot of the sources you call "famous" are only famous among diehard fans. A review that calls out the band for not washing their hair may be legendary among devoted fans, but that still doesn't serve WP:GNG. Also, the fact that it was the first tour where they played a certain song or album does not make the tour notable, as the tour's notability cannot be inherited from the notability of the album. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the articles by Nick Kent, Pete Erskine, Chris Charlesworth, Karl Dallas and Derek Jewell to state they're not substantial enough? And I don't think the New Musical Express, the Melody Maker and The Sunday Times only write about Pink Floyd at all. Did you even read my notes (not to mention a bit of own research) or did you just copy your comment under all my !votes? Please note that the cited books mainly reflect newspaper and magazine articles, especially Schaffner's book, while MacDonald's book is basically a collection of important articles and interviews. Sorry, but it's much easier to buy a few books than collecting myriads of old newspapers, don't you think so? But I guess most of those articles could be found on the internet, too. [16] [17] and more: [18] [19] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Pink Floyd French Summer Tour 1974 into Pink Floyd Tours/1974--Buster7 (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a short concert tour not even used to promote any releases. Pink floyd had some huge tours but sadly this isn't one of them. TheClashFan (talk) 10:56, 9 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JEDEC memory standards

Not notable; Article centered on a small subset of a definitions section of a standard, apparently only to reinforce the creators in an everlasting Wikipedia Manual of Style debate SLi (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, I believe the authors have quite heavily interpreted the document to mandate the use of non-IEC prefixes (which I obviously dispute), even as IEC prefixes are clearly mentioned in the standards document.

If there's any doubt that this article was created merely as a response to a WP:MOSNUM dispute, please search the debate archives (especially Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive_B11 and all /Archive/B?? pages for ?? < 11) for "JEDEC" to see the bashing. In any case, I doubt that an article like this that writes about a single tiny aspect of a frigging term definition in a standard is notable, unless there has been significant publishing done on this very aspect of the standard (only) outside Wikipedia. --SLi (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditionally keep~~. What information is in the article seems to be factual. More important, the information is clearly less trivial than—for instance—articles dedicated to individual episodes of The Simpsons. For me, the important objection cited in nominating the article for deletion is that it discusses only a “small subset of definitions of a standard.” This shortcoming—if true—*might* be able to be rectified by disclosing that fact in the article so that readers don’t think the entire scope of the JEDEC Standard 21 is limited to what is discussed in the article. For me, the salient questions is this: is the ‘meat and potatoes’ of JEDEC Standard 21 intending to address the meaning of prefixes like “kilobyte”, “megabyte”, etc.(?) and the rest of the standard is relatively less significant housecleaning? If the nominator can provide additional information on the other terms covered by JEDEC Standard 21, then a more informed decision can be made here. I think the key litmus test should be whether or not the article is misleadingly overly focused; that is to say, does it accurately describe an important and significant section of the standard, or just a truly minor subsection. Greg L (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I had to check what the standard is actually about. Here's a description of the document JESD 21-C from [JEDEC catalogue]. It only seems to tell what the revision is about, but it does give a good hint of the subject matter. FWIW, the name of the standard is "Configurations for solid state memories".

This revision of JESD21 is substantially different from previous issues because it reflects advancement in semiconductor technology and computer design needs. A new class of memory devices, the multiport DRAM (MPDRAM) C also know as 'Video Ram' because of the most common application for the devices C is represented. A new family of SRAMs which addresses the increasing need for high speed is introduced. Additional families of devices in the SOJ and Zip packages are included. The material in this revision is organized primarily by function (ROM, EPROM, SRAM, DRAM, etc.) rather than by technology and word length. Pinouts for SIMM and DIMM are included along with presence detect schemes. A current set of terms has also been included. JESD21-C is a compilation of all memory device standards that have been developed by the JC-42 Committee and approved by the JEDEC BoD from September 1989 to present. This latest issue has changed to a loose-leaf format and comes in a three-ring binder so that new drawings can be added without requiring a new publication. Time of publication of the material is identified by release number, i.e., if marked Release 8, this item was approved and released in 1998, if marked Release 13, this item was approved and released in 2003.

--SLi (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Very) Conditionally keep~~ Thank you SLi. Judging from the article, I never would have imagined that JESD 21-C covered so much ground. The article fails WP:Undue weight, and is therefore not up to Wikipedia standards. I would argue that the proper remedies in this situation are any of the following three options:

For a volunteer to step up to the plate and expand the article “JEDEC memory standards” to properly describe the full scope of JESD 21-C and to do so before the disposition of this nomination for deletion; that is, expanding the article is a prerequisite to allowing it to stay; which is to say, it is an Expand and keep rather than a Keep and expand, or,
Move the article (and provide a redirect for old links) to one with a new article title that is properly descriptive of how it covers just a subsection of JESD 21-C; e.g.: “JESD 21-C, Subpart IV”, which would properly address WP:Undue weight, or,
Delete the article.

My strong preference would be either option #1 or #2, above—each is perfectly fine with me. Option #2 has the virtue of requiring the least effort. Option #3, I think, is unnecessary but is preferable to the status quo. Unfortunately, options #1 and #2 requires the attention of someone with access to the standard. I will contact SWTPC6800 on this. Since he was the first major contributor, it appears he might have such access. If so, it should be trivial for him to move (rename) the article to one with a more descriptive title. Greg L (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the documents would be reference 5 in the actual article (pdf). It might be worth taking a look at the other references too. That's a terms and definitions chapter/whatever, and even if the subject matter was only that document, I think separating the prefix issue from it would be undue weight. The document is reference material and mostly does not talk about the IEC/non-IEC prefix issue. --SLi (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. Looking at reference 5 makes it clear that no amount of renaming the article would resolve issues with WP:Undue weight. To be compliant with WP:UNDO, the article title would have to be “JESD 21-C, One backwater little entry in the glossary regarding binary prefixes”. It was a worthwhile tool for battling Wikipedia’s absurd practice of being the only general-interest publication on the planet to use the IEC prefixes (and in a routine “oh… didn’t-cha know?” fashion). But it shouldn’t have ever been in article-space. Furthermore, the first major contributor is not interested in trying to address this shortcoming in the article (I wouldn’t blame him). It should be considered, IMO, as abandoned and broken. Greg L (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly delete While apparently factual this article describes a minor subsection of one of many JEDEC publications relating to memory. By my count there are 436 publications listed at the JEDEC site and I gave up counting the number related to memory. Clearly this article is incomplete and therefore inappropriately overemphasizes the binary prefix issue. Most if not all of what is here is also in the MOSSUM discussion where it is appropriate. Tom94022 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Integrated circuit memory is arguably one of the great inventions in human history. Mundane standardization efforts devoted to pin configurations, voltage requirements, timing and the like are an important part of the story. There is no question that JEDEC memory standardization efforts are notable. They helped enable robust competition in the market and arguably played a role in its rapid progress. No doubt there is more to be said on the topic, but an article falling short in covering its subject is not basis for deletion. Also, the MOSNUM discussion is in talk space and content there in no way makes content in article space duplicative. Improve the article, don't delete it.--agr (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand (and cleanup as well). The JEDEC standards are of extreme historical importance, and many are still used. That some did not like how the IEC prefix war turned out is no reason to delete this article. That being said, the current version is in a sorry state, and could use a lot of cleanup, and be expanded to cover the other major parts (dealing with speeds, etc). Could be moved to something like JEDEC Standard 100B.01 and JEDEC Standard 21-C or similar if these are worth individual articles. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim. The section of this article that is actually about memory standards is worth keeping. It should have a list of JEDEC standardized memory types (which, I believe, includes DDR SDRAM, DDR2, DDR3 and GDDR). It shouldn't have a huge quantity of description of why JEDEC has decided not to use kibibytes etc in their descriptions of memory sizes, as that is an entirely different topic, which may be worth merging to binary prefix. JulesH (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Tom94022 suggests but does not spell out, this is a blatantly obvious case of undue weight, not to mention wikipoliticking. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of which issues can be fixed without deleting the article, just by trimming the inappropriate content as I suggest above. JulesH (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article is notable because most memory chip producers use the standard. No memory chip producer expresses their product with the IEC prefixes. Not using IEC prefixes is correct according to existing Wikipedia policy because hardly anybody else uses IEC. If SLi wants to try to claim JEDEC is "not notable" then SLi would also need to remove all references to IEC prefixes because IEC is even more of "a single tiny aspect of a frigging term definition". Given that IEC prefixes is muchy less used than other standards. Glider87 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SMcCandlish appears to be confused because WP:UNDUE does not apply to the JEDEC memory standards since the JEDEC standards are notable and commonly used. WP:UNUDE does apply to the promotion of IEC prefixes though. I can see how removing this article would be the first step in trying to promote IEC prefixes by removing any material that described the current situation where IEC prefixes are not used. In that case calling for this article to be removed is wikipoliticking and pointy [20] by causing the omission of a relevant widely referenced topic like the JEDEC memory standards. Glider87 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you got that right. I think the prefix issue fails notability if you can't find a single reliable source that discusses specifically the prefix issue in that document. In fact there is serious disagreement on whether the standard says that the non-IEC prefixes should be used. User:Matt Britt actually asked for a clarification of the issue from JEDEC, and received a reply very clearly stating JEDEC does not mandate the use of non-IEC prefixes. The contrary interpretation is just trying to read something into the standards that is not there.

For any of this to be notable enough to warrant inclusion of "binary prefixes in JEDEC standards" in Wikipedia, I believe you would have to find a source discussing just that issue, not just decide to focus on that part of the document because you happen to like what you think it says.

Unfortunately the tone of the discussion drove almost everyone interested away way back at the latest in 2007 as I pointed out back then -- including, I now see, User:Matt Britt (who for that reason is no longer active) and me, and I'm sure a zillion other people who once were interested of the issue but didn't want to take the bickering. In fact I think it's no wonder you don't have but a few people arguing about it any more since most were driven away years ago. Not that I have any willingness at all to revisit the issue, just so you know I don't think the current "consensus" in the IEC prefix in Wikipedia issue was reached by anything other than outright harassment, but I really don't care enough to return to that discussion since it's obvious from the recent discussion that it's just as hostile.

But for this article the important point is that I don't think the issues discussed are notable unless you can find a source which writes about them quite specifically, and that what the currently used source means is actually disputed too. --SLi (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the archive link you provided and it doesn't support your claims and actually does harm to your case. The claimed clarification of the issue actually doesn't clarify it at all and is contrary to the statements made in the standards documentation. I note Matt Britt is someone who was promoting IEC prefixes, also to find a claim without any reliable evidence that supports his point of view which is contrary to already existing evidence is at best unreliable and unusable. The statements in the standards documentation do support the statements made on the JEDEC memory standards page, to claim the contrary is ignoring the evidence cited from reliable sources. So when you wrote "The contrary interpretation is just trying to read something into the standards that is not there" that statement is already shown to be incorrect according to the reliable sources used on the page. As for "bickering" upon reading the article I see you insulting other people when they correctly point out why your point of view is incorrect. So not only is your point of view unsupported you attack others who demonstrate why. That's why posting the link does harm to your case. The "harassment" you speak of, I witnessed first hand the large amount of harassment being caused by Thunderbird2 to other people because I posted a link to the talk page earlier which shows Thunderbird2 getting very close to being banned for repeatedly misrepresenting others and being pointy. From reading the archives with fresh eyes most of the harassment and bickering seems to have come from those wanting to support IEC prefixes who then claim to have gone away when their pleadings are rejected by consensus. Given your historical supporting of IEC and given your biased comments on this page I have to say that justification of deleting a page is not because you don't want to believe something. You claimed the topic is not notable but obviously it is because the memory chips produced by manufacturers will often reference the JEDEC standard. You also don't have it right because "the use of non-IEC prefixes" is mandated by Wikipedia because of WP:UNDUE and not the other way around as you first claimed. This is because WP:UNDUE applies to IEC prefixes, read the comments from Gwen Gale on Thunderbird2's talk page about why it is pointy to ignore that consensus. Glider87 (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about Wikipedia using or not using IEC prefixes, I'm talking about this article. And specifically, I don't think the interpretation that it "mandates" non-IEC prefixes is correct given the footnote that very explicitly says IEC prefixes are an "alternative" and not mentioning anything to the effect that they should not be used (and note that I'm still not talking about Wikipedia using or not using them):

The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage. IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states "This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated." Further confusion results from the popular use of a "megabyte" consisting of 1 024 000 bytes to define the capacity of the familiar "1.44-MB" diskette. An alternative system is found in Amendment 2 to IEC 60027-2: Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology – Part 2. --SLi (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading "alternative" and thinking that means "alternative that can be used according to the standard" which is an interpretation of the standards document that is not correct. I asked the JEDEC "Can I market a memory chip using IEC prefixes and claim to be in conformance with the document here?" and the answer was "No. Only use the terms kilo, mega and giga as described.". This answer contradicts your point of view. If your point of view is correct then you should be able to show a memory chip maker who uses IEC prefixes in their technical documentation and who claims conformance with the JEDEC standards document. You have not produced any evidence like that and the reason is because the standard does not allow IEC prefixes to be used. Glider87 (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been no good reasons given to remove the page and stronger arguments made for keeping the page. This AfD is yet another example of a vocal minority trying to fight against very established Wikipedia guidelines and policies but failing to provide any good arguments for changing those guidelines and policies. Wikipedia is very clear on this, minority points of view that have very little adoption in the real world do not have as much weight as points of view that are widely used in the real world. Fnag aton 23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NAK. This has absolutely zero to do with the IEC prefix on Wikipedia issue. --SLi (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, you made it a "IEC prefix on Wikipedia" issue by referencing in your second and third edits to this page the subjects of WP:MOSNUM and its talk archives and how you think this article "was created merely as a response to a WP:MOSNUM dispute". So you're wrong unless you strike and retract anything to do with MOSNUM that you have written on this page. Fnag aton 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I have the power to make this a IEC prefix on Wikipedia issue? The issue is notability, that's policy, and it cannot be nullified by whatever I reference anywhere. I could not make this a IEC prefix on Wikipedia issue even if I wanted. Articles just must adhere with the policy whether you like it or not. --SLi (talk) 17:55, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese star names

Per Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information this is a table of the Chinese names of all stars. There isn't any commentary or history to the names. MBisanz ^talk 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a disappointment. The article was apparently written for a limited audience of people who happen to be fluent in both Chinese and English. Even then, you have to be somewhat familiar with the Greek alphabet to spot that 九州殊口三 (九州) ξ Eridani is referring to Epsilon Eridani. "Traditional" names has no meaning here, and the nominator is right-- this is nothing more than a directory, and a rather useless one at that. Mandsford (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This entry actually refers to Xi Eridani, which we don't have an article on. Spacepotato (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What an excellent list! --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent list, but should be transliterated. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not just about the Western World. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally, and I would love to know more about Chinese astronomy from someone who cared to tell us something about it. But this article does not add to our understanding of the topic of traditional Chinese star names. Somebody who is able to read Chinese characters might say "What an excellent list!" -- I'll take his word for it -- but for those of us who can't, it's more of a case of "What a mediocre cut and paste job!" I don't suppose anyone in this discussion would be able to transliterate any of the Chinese characters. Mandsford (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be problematic, considering that transliteration depends on scheme and dialect. Since various books on the subject most likely use Wade-Giles, while the People's Republic of China prescribes usage of Hanyu Pinyin, they will look very different. And the large Cantonese diaspora in the world (particularly those using the Hoisan diaelct, for North America, historically) also have different transliterations and multiple schemes, there are several possible values. I think that the transliterations to be listed should be Pinyin, WG, some Cantonese scheme, some Hoisan scheme. Also, some stars may be better noted by the Japanese pronounciation of their name (which uses the same Chinese character) in some English contexts. So the transliterations should also include Romaji (Hepburn and Wapuro), Korean and Vietnamese. (US soldiers in Korea, Vietnam and Japan will have brought home some of those native renderings.) 76.66.193.69 (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be improved by adding translitarations, not deleted. 189.105.37.115 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a highly notable topic as a brief inspection of the sources indicates. I have started a section on the history of the matter by citing one of them. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This needs improvement, not deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while it isn't well-written in its present form, let's give it some time for improvement.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been changed since January 2006, and the original author appears to have stopped contributing to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as this is a wiki, that shouldn't be a problem. There are literally millions of other editors around, and at least some of them should be able to help. :) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. This article should be improved, not wiped out. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, and no more indiscriminate than any other list of visible stars would be (which is a well-defined, naturally limited set). Needs romanized names STAT. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a chinese-to-engilsh dictionary, and that's what this is.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad article. It is, however, a start on a useful article (one that actually talks about Chinese stargazing). Keep. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a shame that it seems to take a deletion discussion to get attention to various articles (and I'm not saying I haven't used deletion discussions to achieve this effect in the past). I'm generally of the opinion that it is better to present no information than wrong/misleading information (e.g. categorising transliterations of Bayer designations as traditional star names, as appears to have happened), but rescue is certainly better than deletion. It would be better to have this article have some discussion of origin/etymology than just be a plain list - if that can be achieved so much the better, as a list would probably fall foul of the WP:NOT recommendations cited above. Since the rescue flag has been put there, I'll say qualified keep to see what can be done. Icalanise (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are not transliterations but are, as the article says, traditional names. These names are constructed by appending a serial number to the name of the traditional Chinese asterism to which the star belongs. For example, the name 河鼓二 for α Aquilae is constructed from the asterism name 河鼓 (Hé Gŭ, River Drum), followed by 二 (èr, 2), which indicates that it is the second star in this asterism. The other two stars in the asterism, β and γ Aquilae, are named 河鼓一 and 河鼓三. Spacepotato (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's a useful, informative list. Spacepotato (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand. I agree that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a list or whatever else along those lines, and that this article could be categorized as such. However, the article does present informational and useful data, which should be kept within Wikipedia. A translitteration is primordial, and an explanation of the origin of the terms would be very important as well. CielProfond (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Lists are important and this one shows potential and is hardly indiscriminate. -- Banjeboi 09:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in chinese for goodness sakes. How many editors here are qualified to deal with this at all? For all I know the characters claiming to be betelgeuse are the characters for pork fried rice. To someone who isn't bilingual, this is worthless. To someone who is bilingual, there are already translation dictionaries that serve their purpose much better than wikipedia could be or should be.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article has not shown much improvement and is not likely to do so in the future; there is simply not enough possible content to merit an article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy See–Qatar relations

Non-notable relational article. Just because these two entities have relations, doesn't mean there should be an article for them. Tavix : Chat 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom: I can't find any evidence of a relationship other than officials from the Vatican attending a Muslim-Christian dialogue in Qatar nearly five years ago. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - strong precedent indicates that mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strong precedent indicates that mere existence of diplomatic relations is not necessary to create a diplomatic relations article on Wikipedia. Eauhomme (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This statement is radically misleading. While the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability, it is very strongly correlated with notability, to the point where the two might as well be nailed together at the hip. Wily D 14:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no evidence of any notability. Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow... They're getting obscure now. Have we already exhausted Kiribati-Swaziland Relations and Papua New Guinea-Andorra Relations? Eauhomme (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ; all Vatican relations are notable ; Qatar is apparently a friend to the Vatican, much like it has worked along the USA and Europe. ADM (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Most purpose builty article one could imagine for establishing notability[21][22][23][24][25] and so forth. No argument has been articulated by those so eager to delete such articles on why they should be held to a much higher standard than the usual practice. WilyD 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles tell us essentially nothing more than that relations were established, which is covered (at least by implication) at Holy_See#Diplomacy. More in-depth coverage could easily be placed at Roman Catholicism in Qatar, given the pretty bad state of that article, and the fact that the country has "very few" Catholics. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They establish notability the usual way. Do you have any reason we shouldn't follow longstanding precedent on inclusion, beyond personal dislike? WilyD 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mere existence of relations has been shown (shall I supply you with links?) not to be notable, and that's what we have here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And yet subjects covered in depth by multiple, third party, reputable publishers have been established to be notable, as explained in WP:N. In fact, almost all of your handful of examples are flaws from insufficient research into the subject. What we have here is a case where someone has done the research to demonstrate the notability that we all knew was there. Wily D 18:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem with your argument is the only relations these countries have is the fact that Qatar has an embassy and Holy See has a nunciature. That is not notability, that is trivia. Tavix | Talk 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And yet subjects covered in depth by multiple, third party, reputable publishers have been established to be notable, as explained in WP:N. Please read my comments before responding to them, unless you meant to present a strawman argument. Wily D 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Stop dodging the subject at hand. I know there are some topics that are notable, but not THIS one. Tavix | Talk 20:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Stop using straw man arguments. This topic is notable, and that has already been demonstrated. Willfull blindness is not a substitute for an argument. Wily D 00:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is nothing in this article that cannot be adequately represented within the main articles of each nation. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It turns out many countries are so significant more than one article is required to cover them to an appropriate depth. WilyD 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Buddy, put your money where your mouth is and expand these articles to the point where they are worthy of inclusion as a separate article. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That has already been done. This is a work in progress, that an article isn't finished isn't a reason to delete a sensible start on a highly notable encyclopaedic topic. WilyD 00:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it isn't done and frankly, I don't think it can be done. The fact of the matter is that these relations have next to nothing of note that isn't trivial and is worthy of inclusion. Tavix | Talk 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it is (and the fact that it has been done demonstrates that it can be done). The relationship meets the usual standards of inclusion. What makes this such an exceptional case that we should require a much higher standard? "Worthy" denotes some sort of ethical principle, why should we adopt your values for what's worthy of inclusion? Nothing in this article can reasonably be called trivial - it's only pertinant, relevent information. 01:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The article fails to claim why this relationship is notable. The links here are mostly short descriptions of normal diplomatic visits and normal non-notable things that go with relations. Gigs (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, X-Y relations are not inherently notable, even when X = the Vatican. As with any other article, notability is established by demonstrating that significant coverage of the topic exists in independent, secondary sources. This has not been done. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article also has to stand on its own merits, not just the supposed existence of secondary sources. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't much more than the establishment of diplomatic relations: A cardinal at a Muslim conference in Qatar, and a breakthrough allowing the construction of churches in Qatar. It's absurd to have an article just for that, the information can go elsewhere. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:44, 8 April 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leri Mchedlishvili

No notability. Tomdobb (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —I'^mperator 20:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability in news or GS searches. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO in that it provides no evidence that person has been the subject of multiple articles.TheRingess (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. In fact, a Google Scholar search returned ZERO hits.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:49, 8 April 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher's colony Deoband

no references, notability not established, no useful mention found GDibyendu (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't make heads or tails of this... the map ___location given is extremely close to the one found for Deoband (a city), leading me to suspect this is a neighborhood or something. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and clicking on the Google Maps link and zooming in (clicky) suggests that it is indeed some sort of neighborhood or offshoot of Deoband, well under a square kilometer in size. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to say it, but as per nom unless someone else can find something, I couldn't. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No useful sources found. Non-notable residential colony. Salih (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, I dont see it as being notable. This is just my opinion.JimmySmitts (talk) 09:30, 8 April 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 speedy delete. already deleted by User:Thingg - WP:CSD#A7 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College Cooking Show

Very spammy article created with a conflict of interest about a nonnotable website that fails WP:WEB. The site has recieved no coverage in the news nor can any reliable sources be found in a google search to prove its notability. Them From Space 19:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JNW (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact, it's a borderline speedy because I can't find any credible claims to notability at all. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:07, 4 April 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 Speedy Delete by Manning Bartlett as A7. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bake (Aninote)

Non-notable, COI R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, previously removed IIRC. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable - Google hits [26] brings up no reputable sources Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for "Robert Blake" using Google news and got quite a few hits. There are several people in the news with this name - an American ambassador, a drowning victim, even a high school student who makes and sells T-shirts- but I couldn't find news coverage of Robert Blake the web site designer. I tried cross-referencing with the names of several of his web sites, and got no hits at all. Note that the title of this article is misspelled, and the person in question is Robert Blake, not Robert Bake. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Also the website would have failed WP:WEB. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website doesn't even exist anymore R3ap3R.inc (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is a delete; someone please do so R3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An AFD runs for five days, we can't delete it just because Four people !vote that way. If after another day or two it is still all deletes, then maybe someone will. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 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 Arnold Meri, since opinions seem split between keep and delete, redirecting until more sources become available seems to be the middle path. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Anti-Fascist Committee

The sources given aren't enough to prove the existance of this organisation; the article lacks in content ~~and lists a person who recently died after being very ill for a long time as the leader of the organisation.~~ DubZog (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be more information in the Russian version, and some references, of which some at least appear reliable and very detailed DGG (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)..[reply]

Then it should be speedily improved, as after two years of existance it is still not longer than one sentence. Especially as a half of the sentence is obviously incorrect, it leaves just "Estonian Anti-Fascist Committee criticises the policy of Republic of Estonia concerning World War II.", which is not an article... DubZog (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, this one man show is just not notable. Martintg (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I remember the 'committee' included around ten members, including the sadist-chekist Uno Laht and some relatively unknown figures. It's a show similar to those Soviet era 'Finland-USSR Friendship Association', 'Committee of the Defense of Peace' etc.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mentioned at president.kremlin.ru. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is another source that just mentiones the organisation, yet says nothing about it... I doubt if there actually is a serious organisation behind the name... DubZog (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arnold Meri unless notability can be established past a general mention. Indepth writing of the committee is going to be required to establish this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the article on Arnold Meri should still explain who are the other members. I think Meri was a figurehead. he was simply too old and obviously senile (based on impressions of his TVappearances) to form an organisation himself. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that is suitable, yes, as it will give some context, and won't turn into the BLP-fest/ideological battlefield that Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee has become. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a proper article, something about the notablity tells that there are not even enough sourcse to form more than two sentences. --Pudeo ⺮ 23:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the organization itself is unregistered name couple of people use to give more strength to their personal thoughts. There are so called branches in finland, latvia, lithuania and poland. Each of those "organization" consists of two or three people and some "guest members" which suddenly become the members of the organization when it's useful to say that THIS person was member of that organization. But unfortunately the organization "exists" only when someone needs to yell at something, thus there is no sources on the internet which could actually be used to describe the organization itself. Unless the member of the Finnish Antifascist Committee, Petri Krohn writes homepage for them with "convenient" citations of course. Suva Чего? 17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per above.--Unionhawk ^Talk 02:08, 10 April 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. Or redirect. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trash (manga)

Fails WP:N, and overrall is short and lacks the amount of information needed for even a C-class article. The only review I have been able to find is this [27], and it's unclear whether or not it should be considered a reputable site for reviews. Even still, I've searched high and low for other reviews and have come up with nothing. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a lack of information to reach a certain project rating doesn't have any relevace here. I'm surprised this has been nominated, being released in English by Tokyopop means there must be some sourcing, reviews or not. I actually have a source right next to me, and its a review in a major manga reference book. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference added, although it's a really short review :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Licensed and released in english, and with at least one review in a fairly major publication suggests that there is some notability. Enough to keep the article? I'm not convinced, but there is a good chance of other sources existing Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some references out there for it, though only for release dates and that one review. I see you've added reception from that book (thanks for that, by the way), but does it say anything else? Currently, this article should probably be at stub class (I listed it as start in April '08). Relevancy to class is debatable to some, but the only reason I brought it up was that it can't reach any higher. If that book can help, then maybe this article could be improved (also depending on whether or not that other review counts). This isn't an article I particularly want deleted, either; it's not well known and has almost no coverage, which is why it could. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't meet start but you can simply drop it to stub and add a stub template. At the end of the day the class of the article isn't going to affect it's deletion. The "review" really isn't much bigger then your reply, it simply gives a very quick idea to it's plot and that quote is pretty much the only revewing text (there is a comparison to another work by the same writer, but nothing of consequence). Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped it and added the manga-stub banner. I know current class has no affect on deletion (one of the points of going through with an AfD is to see whether the article can be improved and if more information exists, no?). Though, how much the article can be improved relates to class, which is why I mentioned it. That's too bad that it doesn't have anything more :/. Unfortunately, this seemed to be the start of a series that never was carried on. The story isn't complete and it left many things unanswered. Chances of it being carried on seem slim. So, that combined with the fact that it isn't well-known makes it hard to find much coverage, in terms of out-of-universe information and reviews. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it was translated into English, this by itself doesn't establish notability. And since this single volume manga has received very minor coverage since its release in July 2006, I seriously doubt that any extensive coverage is coming in the future. It could possibly be redirected to the author's article Sanami Matoh, which itself is in need of a serious cleanup and referencing. --Farix (Talk) 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a published work. If I was reading the manga creator's Wikipedia page and saw that listed in their works, I'd like to know that I could find out information on it in one click. Quistisffviii (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what ? There are thousands books published every years and not every single book deserve an article on Wikipedia. --KrebMarkt 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is subject to the eye of the beholder. You may not think it is notable, but a bunch of other people might, including someone who wants to learn about it. Quistisffviii (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is different on Wikipedia. There is a criteria; Wikipedia:Notability (books). The one-shot doesn't fit the criteria at all. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses the notability guidelines so that we can apply an objective test to determine if the subject is notable instead of relying on editors' subjective opinions. Without the guidelines, notability arguements would be a variation of either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 10:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every book deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/e/c) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was mentioned in an independent book about manga. "# ^ Thompson, John. Manga: The Complete Guide. Del Ray. p. 375." It got a review, although not a good one. Dream Focus 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manga: The Complete Guide attempts to cover every single manga licensed in English as of when it went to press. As such, while its entry is a reliable source for the purposes of series reception and verifying publication details, it conveys no more notability than the manga's being included in a book catalog. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Quistisffviii. It is a published book, which makes it notable. Havok (T/C/e/c) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because a book is published does not mean that it is notable nor should be included in an encyclopedia. Such a low bar will mean that an article would either be a permanent stub or a violation of WP:NOT. This is why inclusion guidelines, such as WP:BK, are around. --Farix (Talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sanami Matoh only two reviews, neither significant, is not enough to meet WP:BK and no other coverage found anywhere. Probably search term. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would actually challenge the teenreads.com as a reliable source for reviews because the reviews are user submitted and the reviewer, Jen Webb, isn't listed on teenreads.com's staff page. I'll also like to not that the last three "keep" !votes are by ARS members who have not done a single edit to the article and are once again acting as an illusionist voting block instead of their stated mission of improving articles at AFD. --Farix (Talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed then, that it is not a reliable review, meaning there is now only one. Is Matoh even notable herself? If not, would say delete all together. Otherwise, redirect should still be fine. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless another reference turns up that at least provides as much coverage as a small review. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sanami Matoh The manga only has one review from a reliable source, and that is a source that is attempting to be comprehensive in covering all manga released in English. I don't think that review alone is enough to establish notability, as the book attempts to cover even very obscure titles as long as they have been released in English. Sanami Matoh is notable as the creator of a notable series (the manga Fake). Calathan (talk) 04:16, 8 April 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 speedy delete under criterion A7. An unsourced article about a high-school athlete falls well short of the assertion of significance. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Calvin Amato

Fails to assert notability. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 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. AfD apparently withdrawn by nominator DGG (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish mother stereotype

Gaaah. Original research, virtually all uncited and much of it is not about a stereotype but just people with Jewish mothers. I'm sure the stereotype may exist, and that can be noted in an article on stereotypes or on Jewish parenthood, but I am equally sure that this isn't an article and that no article could be written without violating WP:OR and WP:SYN.

(This survived a deletion attempt in 2005, which can be found on talk, but I think we've matured since then, and 4 years of existence shows there's little cause for thinking this will improve with age.) Scott Mac (Doc) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to buy food today. But now I have to rescue this, with the ample sources that exist covering this stereotype, including discussion of its roots in Jewish culture and why it is a particularly Jewish stereotype (ISBN 9780878559534, chapter 1). I have to go hungry for you! Look how you make your poor Uncle G suffer! You never call. You never write. You never visit. You don't just zap the unsourced "popular media" and "characteristics" sections and start again with a stub and the several sources already cited in the article. The mighty Doc has no respect for the lowly article subjects, that multiple independent reliable source writers have worked their fingers to the bone to document in depth. And you haven't been eating properly, either, have you? Oy! Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, if you are genuinely going to work on this, I've no objections to you closing this afd and we can consider whether the finished product is encyclopedic at a later date. I've enough respect for your work to know you don't tend to rescue total hopeless cases. I've messaged WP.Judaism also, it would be interesting to get their take. I'm open to being convinced. Here, have a cookie.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsy Babies

Nominated for deletion by User:Grarap, who then forgot to write the actual nomination. I am doing it for him. No vote. JIP | Talk 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claims to notability. Article claims to have been written about in FHM but I can't find that, Bizarre magazine article is very very short - 3 questions and a link to the website. No other coverage, no awards, no reason for inclusion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and seems like an effort to advertise products. Edison (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be promotional with little second source coverage other than personal blogs. Gigs (talk) 21:07, 6 April 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 CSD#A7, article is about a person as much as a horse with no assertion of notability, no keeps at AfD, earlier declining admin agrees it is speedyable. No prejudice against recreation with sources demonstrating notability. Chillum 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Horner (horse)

Pulled from {{db-context}} queue. "Jack Horner (horse)" gets exactly 1 ghit; "Jack Horner" isn't a helpful search (it's a Mother Goose character); no ghits for "Singland Stud"; no recents Gnews hits for ["jack horner" horse]. Odds seem high that we're not going to achieve notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability asserted. ww2censor (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been speedied, as it makes no assertion of notability, but while we're here might as well do a plain old delete as nothing can be found in reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Them From Space 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see horses at WP:CSD#A7, only people, organizations and web content. You could make a case for a talking horse, but I saw no evidence this one talks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to support article inclusion. MLauba (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find it sad that somebody thinks it's ok to make such a useless article, with no sources, no reason not to think it's made up, and others are supposed to research it, and find sources. A person spends 5 seconds writing one sentence, and now we have to waste the time of multiple people, since it apparently can't be speedied. --Rob (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 Do we really need an AfD on this? While the name of the article is a horse, at least as much of the content is talking about a person, Michael Gleeson, with no assertion of notability. Often people write about themselves then name the article about one of their achievements, it is still about a person, a person who raised a horse. Chillum 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea; my only hesitation was that I patrol all the non-image CSD cats except for A7, and I didn't want A7 patrollers to think I was dumping a really annoying article on them for no reason. But I guess you're right. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google news search extended to all dates returns several results (fee required for non-abstract) of c.1925-30 U.S. newspapers. Is it possible it refers to 1926 Grand National Winner Jack Horner owned by Mrs. A.C. Schwartz? (I don't know.) Of course, with the article the length it is, knowing whether it's covering some 'notable'/'legendary' horse from days gone by, or just some current animal who's received little press or interest, is not made easy. :-/–Whitehorse1 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make the same comment. The Grand National winner seems notable. If this isn't the same horse, the article should be rewritten to cover the notable one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied this is not the same horse, but I still say redirect to Jack Horner (racehorse), the notable horse.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to no assertion of notability, but without prejudice; if this is a notable horse, the article can be re-created later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 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. Non-admin closure FunPika 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Nanda

I'm not seeing the claim to notability here, although I am quite confused by the wording of the lead sentence. Article appears to have been written by the subject, contains unsourced claims, and needs to be cleaned up if kept. لenna vecia 16:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be decided by Wiki India. There is a relation to Indian Rock star Amitab. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is decided by everybody, by the entire community of Wikipedia editors. And that decision has nothing to do with fame, importance, or being related to somebody else. Notability is not fame nor importance. For a biographical article to exist, independent and reliable sources must exist documenting the person's life and works, to provide a basis for the biographical article in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you by all means. What I meant is that Wiki India should be in this.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've rearranged the article content to make it a bit more presentable and to get the subject's own claim to notability in first, before his family background. The cited source from The Times of India explains Mr Nanda's notability, and there are plenty more sources to back that up found by a Google News search. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable as ED/COO of the Escorts Group. Nice cleanup by Phil. utcursch | talk 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that cleanup is being done. This is just my opinion.JimmySmitts (talk) 09:28, 8 April 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 Speedy Delete at G7 by TexasAndroid. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Petrick

Unsourced BLP. Assertion of notability as a professional hockey player. No sources, can't verify via g-search. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a pretty clear hoax. Finland doesn't have a competition called the "Elite League" or anything similar - the top league is SM-liiga - and anyone who had played professional ice hockey in the current decade would certainly have some mentions on the web, but a Google search under either speeling of the name finds nothing.[28] It's also very suspicious that the article doesn't even mention what team(s) the subject is supposed to have played for. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not listed in hockeydb, which means he never played at the ECHL level as the article claims. Teemu08 (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, Speedy Close: Author blanked the page, CSD:G7 R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:26, 8 April 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

68P/Klemola

Already referenced elsewhere, and the page in question is written in unreferenced gibberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3ap3R.inc (talk • contribs) 2009-04-04 15:34:55

Keep perfectly-referenced and its notability is documented in two distinct reliable sources. Them From Space 18:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is nothing wrong with this stub. The subject is notable, and the references are reliable. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I revert my decision to place the tag... it used to be gibberish, look at the first revision, but now it is good. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decoration (software)

Not notable, the creator of the article is promoting his own software. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLearnIt and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLearnItME). Simeon (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 13:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not asserted. A redirect to the decorator pattern might be appropriate after deletion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, no reason to have a WP article for every minor chunk of software ever created. No objections to inclusion if RS mentions of importance can be found Ronabop (talk)

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WNRG-FM

This appears to be an unlicensed U.S. radio station, according to the little I could find via Google (none of the sources qualify as per WP:RS standards). Does not appear to meet WP:N requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Possibly speedy for A1) for lack of notability SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A station in Minnesota would not have the call letters WNRG, in that there is already an AM station in Grundy, Virginia WNRG (AM) -- Pastor Theo might be interested to know that it's a Southern Gospel music station -- so I'm surprised that any hits were found for this alleged FM station at all. An identification that sounds like "energy" (N-R-G) would be popular for a fictitious station. The nearby Big Stone Gap, VA station has the call letters WLSD, which sounds like a fictitious oldies station but is also Southern Gospel. Mandsford (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 87.9 in Minneapolis? No license assigned at all and as it is on the Minneapolis side of the river, would not have a "W" call sign. Sounds like a pirate operation. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other stations that are unlicensed are on Wikipedia, most noteably in this area is Liquid Radio, WWRB-FM. Not understanding the difference between this station and that one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.120.136 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Liquid_Radio might warrant an AfD as well, as it seems like another NN station. Ronabop (talk)

For the record, Liquid Radio is now up for discussion at AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, looks to be vanity article for pirate radio. Ronabop (talk)
Delete Not a licensed station, and no sources presented to show it is or was a notable pirate station. Where is its transmitter? What is its power? Who owns and operates the station? Nothingverifiable, so no basis for an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is its transmitter? What is its power? Who owns and operates the station? If you have any information, please dial 1-888-225-5322 (1-888-CALL FCC) and ask for Mr. Lafitte. Mandsford (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Radio was judged to have some relevance, which is why it was moved from page title "WWRB FM" to "Liquid Radio". My suggestion is simular of WNRG FM. Instead of deleting entirely, enter new index as "Energy 87.9". This way it does not associate in search results of WNRG in Grundy, VA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.165.151 (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Complete Rewrite - The call sign WNRG-LP (a low power FM radio station) is licensed to a station in Palm Bay, Florida. A station which has been broadcasting since 2005. A complete rewrite of WNRG-FM (and move to WNRG-LP with information for the Florida station) is needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 6, 2009 @ 18:47
- Delete - With Dravecky's creation of WNRG-LP, WNRG-FM can now be deleted....hence I am changing my vote. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 7, 2009 @ 17:23
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 6, 2009 @ 19:11
Delete as this "WNRG-FM" is an unlicensed station without coverage by reliable third-party sources so it fails both the verifiability and notability tests and does not enjoy the general presumption of notability that a licensed broadcast station would. There's no need to "keep and rewrite" since there is nothing here of any salvage value. I have created a shiny new article at WNRG-LP for the licensed low-power Florida station. - Dravecky (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WNRG-LP as a plausible search term. DHowell (talk) 02:00, 9 April 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. There's not a tonne of independent coverage, but there does seem to be consensus that he meets the general notability guideline. Given that, whether he meets or fails to meet WP:ATHLETE is of no moment. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Luellen

AfDs for this article:

Fails Wikipedia:ATHLETE. Subject has never played at the fully professional level of a sport. Closing comments from past AfD said "I have no issue with Mr. Luellen's article getting renominated if in fact he, as a signed free agent, never in fact makes it off practic [sic] squad for the Chargers." He never made it off the practice squad so I am nominating it for deletion. Esasus (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 12:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recently signed as a free agent in the CFL [29]. Seems to have had a notable college career per WP:BIO: plenty of coverage in the news [30], including some fairly significant coverage. The Columbia Missourian [31], St. Louis Post-Dispatch [32], and Rivals.com [33] wrote feature article entirely on Luellen. He also had a feature article written on him in the St. Joseph News-Press as a high school track athlete [34]. The New York Times considered him a "key loss" for Missouri when he graduated [35]. The article could definitely use some work and expansion, but it is possible as evidenced by the news coverage and those are surmountable problems. Strikehold (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N RenegadeMonster (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he has never played a game in the CFL either, and his name is not found with any roster at CFL.ca [36]. Keep argument fails for reason of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Esasus (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You only attempted to refute one small part of the keep argument, so it doesn't "fail" simply for that reason. We have proof he recently (October 2008) signed with a CFL team, which was essentially the same reason the first nomination was closed (he had signed with an NFL team). The CFL season ends early November, so he likely hasn't yet had the opportunity to play. There is no proof he has been waived or released by the Tiger-Cats, as they often have information about former players (e.g. [37]). Additionally, pro career notwithstanding, he has a pretty solid case built for meeting WP:N through media coverage cited above. Strikehold (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about the fact he is NOT listed on the roster? However the sources mean he should probably stay and yes he was signed, but was released, non-notable players don't get news stories on their releases in America or Canada.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he has a bio page on the Tiger-Cats website saying something to the effect of "coming soon" shows they aren't too on the ball about updating their internet content. "Non-notable players" as you call them, do get press releases or at least a record of their release/waiving. You even provided me with proof of this [38], where, as you pointed out, it is shown Luellen was released on October 14. I agree he still meets WP:N. Strikehold (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah what I should have added is that like you said, they do get a record such as on a transaction wire, but they don't usually get press releases, unless their former college or hometown cares enough to publish a story about their release or signing.--Giants27 ^T/C 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- WP:ATHLETE is there to provide a bit of wiggle room for some athletes who wouldn't quite meet the general notability guideline, not exclude those who pass it. The sources that Strikehold has provided are enough, I think. Reyk _YO! 21:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He was part of a team at the professional level, (but not in regular season games), and we have RS content on him. Ronabop (talk)
Weak keep, he truly does fail WP:ATHLETE (never played an actual game; simply signing isn't enough), but the press coverage discovered by Strikehold makes him notable simply by the general notability standards. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per sources given, but trust me he doesn't play for the TiCats, I'd know since I update the roster templates, plus CFL.ca, the team's official roster both don't list him.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The AfD for another athlete (Kendy Batista) was recently closed as deleteLink. A point that is applicable to this discussion was made: "Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N." Esasus (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is applicable to this discussion, and no one here has claimed statistics meet WP:N. However, the four feature articles entirely on the subject do constitute significant coverage and satisfy WP:N. Strikehold (talk) 22:40, 8 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee

Not notable enough. I visit all major Finnish newspaper websites daily , and I've never heard of this organisation eventhough I know all the news subjects this is covering. It is not a registered organisation either, which is not much demanded. All it has is a blog and one moderately famous member. Shouldn't that biographical article cover this as well? I clicked all the links in the article I could, but didn't find a mention of this "organisation", only about events it is described to relate here. So it is unsure if it's more than just a blog and "organisation" of the same level as LAN video game players of the local village. Pudeo ⺮ 11:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --Pudeo ⺮ 11:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Johan Bäckman. Colchicum (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Johan Bäckman. Agree with Colchium Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Backman article. as per others --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not a place to debate merge (this should be done later and separately). A person (Backman) and an organization (the Committee) are obviously two different things. It is sourced.Biophys (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not debating merge but deletion of a rubbish article. This article is of a blog and a unregistered "committee" , that the Internet is full of. It is not notable, while Bäckman just and just is. If Bäckman writes the blog of the "commitee", it doesn't make it significant when the person itself is on the edge of being notable enough for an entry. By the way, a few Counter-Strike LAN boys were featured in one major newspaper that is based in the city as well, and their organisation is even a registered one (ry) unlike this.

Juridically, this organisation is on the same level as a 10 year olds' own mafia with plastic weapons as it is unregistered. And when the only activity is a simple generic blog, well.. --Pudeo ⺮ 15:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Biophys - While AfD is not the place to discuss merging, after an article has been nominated for deletion, other editors can suggest a merge as a valid outcome to the AfD. You can think of it as a variant of "keep" in that the article is kept with the condition that it be merged. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Biophys (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While many of the actions that made this Committee notable tie indeed to Johan Bäckman, not all of them are of this kind. For example, the very highly hyped so-called "Nashi" protest in Helsinki a few weeks ago -- the event that became crucial in deciding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Bäckman (2nd nomination) as keep only a few days ago -- was formally a Safka event, together with a Safka press conference in the kitchen of a nearby block of flats. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 16:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A publicity stunt by Bäckman. Finnish Wikipedia deleted this article already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peltimikko (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Unfortunately, a notable publicity stunt. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? It's a Finnish organization and I can't find any sources in Finnish. I went through all the links in the article. All I could find is their rather comical blog. Maybe it's just your Estonia―Russia battles. But we others are quite fed up with these fights. The links in the article are about Nashi and/or Bäckman, not about this. --Pudeo ⺮ 22:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it civil. If one does a google search on the term "Suomen Antifasistinen Komitea" and sift through the results, one finds several references in the Finnish media here,here,here and here. The question is whether it is sufficiently notable according or Wikipedia criteria not. Do we have a source that states it is publicity stunt? That source would be useful here. Martintg (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were mostly about Nashi (well the third source had quite nicely about this one as well). Well, Helsingin Sanomat's expert calls the demostration that all those weirdos made as "an attempt by a marginal group to get publicity." [39]. But there as well it's mostly about Nashi, Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee has never been the main subject of the news article but a minor subject to Nashi. But remember that sources, even not that convincing in this case, does not mean something is notable. --Pudeo ⺮ 08:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One article that specifically deals the Committee is Ärileht 27 March 2009: Stalinism sünnib Soomes uueti by Heiki Suurkask. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A peculiar aspect of the Committee is that it is more famous in Russia and Estonia than in Finland. Strange but true. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The protest organized by the Committee was highly notable in Finland. One indication of this is that now, two weeks after the protest, it is still on the front page of the Uusi Suomi on-line news paper. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Here is one news item that is not about the "Nashi demostration" or about Johan Backman. For some reason it made number 4 spot on the list of most read items for the week on Uusi Suomi. I do not know whether this was because it mentioned Jussi Halla-aho or because it was the first mention of the "retroactive zero-option" in the press. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand Finnish? Those are not analyzed news, they are just brief news flashes and probably based on Suomen Tietotoimisto news release based by Bäckman's release [40]. And those are dated before everyone saw that "The Emperor Wears No Clothes". Peltimikko (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could be convinced, but I'm not so sure at this stage. Maybe this article could be merged into the Johan Backman article if it is a publicity stunt. However there is an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonian Anti-Fascist Committee ongoing, that article would seem to be even less notable than this article, yet at this stage it looks like it is headed for a "Keep". Martintg (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the committee does not have entry in the Finnish Wikipedia, the activities of the committee and its members have received wide coverage:

The protest organized by the committee was featured in the news section on the front page of Finnish Wikipedia, with illustration.
fi:Leena Hietanen
- fi:Viron kylmä sota (book)
fi:Johan Bäckman
- fi:Pronssisoturi: Viron patsaskiistan tausta ja sisältö (book)
- fi:Saatana saapuu Helsinkiin (book)
- fi:Johan Beckman Institute (update, 6 April 2009)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. These people and books are worth of articles. The three-person Committee do not. Peltimikko (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently sufficient sources. DGG (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the committee is more than just Johan Bäckman, there are other members too, so merging with that article won't do. There are few news items in the Finnish and Estonian media, but the real audience of the committees activities appears to be Russia, given the coverage documented in Talk:Finnish_Anti-Fascist_Committee#Some_Russian_language_sources, so it is definitely notable in Russia Martintg (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's not a committee, just the three of them. You don't hear about them next week and you don't remember the week after. --87.94.227.247 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users are not allowed to vote. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users can indeed vote. -- Martintg (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although this artilcle was created by my long-time nemesis, I must agree that international media coverage establishes notability. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A person named "Petri Krohn" is a member of the Committee of three persons. Peltimikko (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even spokesperson, it seems. See [41] for Petri Krohn reading the Committee's manifesto in a press conference. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And historian too, apparently[42]. Google translate is a bit flakey, perhaps Petri could translate Petri Krohn's article about this secret SS Gladio style organisation hiding Chinese AK47s under their beds waiting for the order to neutralise their ideological opponents. I'd like to add it to the article. Martintg (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It seems he is approaching the threshold of notability for wiki. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah great, just what we need, another article where the usual suspects can engage in egregious WP:BLP violations and original research. Regardless, has User:Petri Krohn confirmed if he is this person? He is under no obligation to do so, so discussion on his identity is entirely inappropriate, and may constitute WP:OUTING. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about Petri Krohn the SAFKA member. The only one associating this person to User:Petri Krohn in this thread is you. Martintg (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course am, after you changed what you wrote above, where you clearly wrote perhaps Petri could elaborate on his discovery of this secret SS Gladio organisation. I honestly can't believe you would think people would be so stupid as to 1) not notice your change and 2) believe that you have not made that link yourself, like you did at User_talk:Alex_Bakharev/Archive23#Tomb_of_the_unknown_rapist. WP:OUTING is a serios form of harrassment, and User:Petri Krohn is under no obligation to confirm or deny if this is him, and unless he links to such material himself, you are engaging in a egregious form of harrassment. Pull shit like that again Martintg, and I will alert an admin to it, although I would advise Petri to do so himself now. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I get it right: you're claiming that it's a violation of WP:OUTING to say, in public, that Petri Krohn is Petri Krohn? You might not have noticed that the very first userbox at User:Petri Krohn states: "This user's name is Petri Krohn.". Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insinuating that somebody completely unrelated might have improperly taken the moniker of User:Petri Krohn? Because if that's the case, WP:U might require that he do something about it, perhaps even that the account be turned over to the real Mr. Krohn. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insinuating anything. You guys are the ones doing all the insinuating, and it is a form of harrassment, particularly when the user rightly doesn't respond to it. It is off-wiki, and has nothing to do with editors on wiki, so I would suggest you let what you are doing drop. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are insinuating that my request for assistance to transalate an article as an attempt to out User:Petri Krohn, you even called my clarification a "bald face liar" in the edit comment, that is a personal attack and an assumption of bad faith. Please cease and desist from your WP:BATTLE behaviour. Wikipedia:REALNAME policy is quite clear: "If you share the same name as a well known person, or you are a well known person, and you wish to edit under your own name, then your userpage should make it clear whether you actually are the well known person or not. Usernames that appear to violate this policy to the extent of being problematic are likely to be blocked, as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using his or her real name". Martintg (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you what Martintg, I'll stop feeding you trolls. Petri Krohn is not a well known person (regardless of the redirect that people rushed to create). I don't know how many times you have to be told discussion of editors real-life identities, and in such a way as you wrote perhaps Petri could elaborate on his discovery of this secret SS Gladio organisation can constitute outting and harrassment of editors. You only changed this to a suggestion to translate after I pointed out that discussion of people's real life identities can constitute harrassment. Blind freddy can see that for themselves. Anyone can claim anything on the internet, hell, you can claim you have a clue, it doesn't make it true. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the same old insinuations again, this time peppered with the incivility "you trolls". Thank you for that. Martintg (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. A clear violation of Thou shalt not discuss the ruler of the evil empire editing Wikipedia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, our friend is as wrong as usual. A self-published ukaz is by no means a reliable source for anything other than its own content. Colchicum (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English Petri could elaborate on his discovery doesn't necessarily imply that it was Petri's discovery and not a discovery by some other third person singular male. I understand that Russavia would love to see outing here, but amazing though they are, allegations of outing produced by the well-known outer are not very plausible. Petri Krohn has not hidden his identity so far. Colchicum (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a typo, and should have been "elaborate on this discovery". Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the question of identity, we have Andres Kahar, the Canadian journalist and Andres Kahar, the Kaitsepolitseiamet inspector. Can we say on Wikipedia that they are one and the same person? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't a User:Andres Kahar. You need to indicate on your user page if you are "Petri Krohn" of SAFKA or not, per WP:USERNAME. Martintg (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your enjoyment: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee#Possible future content of Petri Krohn article. ...and maybe you should continue this off-topic discussion there. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Russavia: "I tell you what Martintg, I'll stop feeding you trolls...." Your histrionic personal attacks are becoming quite tiresome. As I understand the WP rules, if your name is one that is known, you need to indicate on your user page whether or not you are that person, plain and simple. It's not up to you, Russavia, to decide if Petri is obscure or not. It's not up to you, Russavia, to decide whether a person's association with the FAFC is obscure or not. Petri is well known on WP with a long-standing history. Whether or not our Petri here is the same Petri as associated with the committee is his WP obligation to indicate on his user page, plain and simple. PetersV TALK 03:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakdance crews

Unsourced, most dancers on the list aren't notable. Guy0307 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and unverifiable list. Useful neither as a navigational aid (almost all crews are insufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article) nor as a piece of encyclopedic information in itself due to verification issues. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pop it, lock it, and drop it (delete as NN list of NN groups filled with NN people) Ronabop (talk)

Delete Completely unverifiable list. fuzzy510 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A textbook example of why some people dislike "List of..." articles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Magnet for unverifiable cruft. Gigs (talk) 21:09, 6 April 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 Speedy delete g1, nonsense neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snovel

Delete as unsourced Neologism (at best).OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - appears to be a joke based on a surname. MuffledThud (talk) 10:48, 4 April 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M A Yousuf Ali

Delete-Person does not seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Although, the person has won an award, that does not necessarily meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Wacko Jack O 09:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - New references and information have been added to the article after I started this AFD. Although, the article is still written like an promotion for this man, I guess I ~~would~~(might) recommend closing this AFD and keeping the article(if it is improved).Wacko Jack O 09:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since another editor has expressed a good-faith delete opinion, a speedy keep based on a withdrawn nomination is probably not appropriate. See WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Guy0307 (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Could you explain how the article violates the guidelines you have stated? Anti venin 11:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Special emphasis on awards, unsourced promotional claims in lead (widest, popular). Guy0307 (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has some neutrality problems, but the man clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography — he has received several awards and at least two of those are of national significance, given out by the President. —SV 11:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jeez, Louise. This just needs a cleanup, especially removing the "glowing praise," which is the only thing making it appear to be spam. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 11:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most of the awards mentioned are rubbish, I gave it a pass on removing some peacockery. Ronabop (talk)
- Comment - Do you think the awards that are not of any real note should be removed as well?Wacko Jack O 08:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As to whether or not some of the awards (some of the content) should be removed, that's really a content-level issue, not an AfD issue. I didn't know enough about them to pick/choose which ones to remove. Ronabop (talk)

Comment. The issue isn't whether most of the awards are rubbish, it's whether at least some of them are not. Padma Shri has been awarded to 2095 people in over 50 years of existence in a country with a current population of over a billion. Any recipient is clearly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepMight be know locally.--yousaf465 05:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being known locally doesn't assert notability. However, I don't think WP:N is the problem is, I think it is WP:NOTADVERTISING. Guy0307 (talk) 07:05, 7 April 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. Consensus is that the article fails WP:SYNTH. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India and state terrorism

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This information would seem to belong in the article about India and/or State terrorism. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "information," I am referring to the 3 events being discussed in the article. Recommend Merge to State terrorism. --

OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 13:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot vote on this, as my opinion would be slightly biased (being an Indian), but it looks as if this article should be merged into the article about the Research and Analysis Wing. It is not notable enough to merit it's own article. In all fairness, it does warrant a mention in the RAW article. I think every intelligence agency (including Pakistan's ISI, to a very large extent) has been accused of spying, and RAW is no exception. Antivenin 09:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I have no issue with the content presented, it just wouldn't seem to stand up as it's own article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. In my opinion, I think this article needs to be cleaned or "wikified" as they call it, and needs more facts since the stuff written here is only a small proportion. Furthermore, adding this info to the actual RAW article would be a very stupid move because the RAW article should just entirely be focused on the intelligence agency itself with little amount of controversies written. Even if this info is substituted in that article, I doubt if it will exist even for a week, since pro-Indian users will have no hassle of removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colombianstar (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Presenting a new article as a way to "get around" the community process regarding another article does not seem to be a valid argument for the article to be kept without merging. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a 'pro-India' editor, and I would keep the 'controversial' information in the RAW article, provided it is marked as such. The information does NOT deserve it's own article, wikified or not. Antivenin 10:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Antivenin, how can you guarantee that sensitive issues like these can be well preserved, especially on an article that is directly written about an Indian intelligence agency? As a note of reminder, I remember there was once content written about India's widely-alleged case of funding the Baloch rebels in the controversy section, and it was only after a short time that the info was deliberately removed from the page. You can now visit the page yourself, and you will find absolutely nothing relating to the so-called Baloch insurgency. If this kind of content cannot be tolerated overthere at all, I want you to clearly justify to me how it will be, once this article is deleted to your satisfaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colombianstar (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot personally guarantee anything. However if it follows Wikipedia policies, it will not be deleted. The 'controversy' about India supporting the Baloch rebels isn't even worth a mention. It was a baseless accusation by ex Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf which has hyped up on Wikipedia. It didn't receive significant news coverage. Heck, it failed to satisfy so many Wikipedia criteria that it was removed. If the controversy is well-sourced and written from a neutral point of view, then it will stay. Antivenin 10:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A "baseless" accusation? So I am assuming that you are right now just ignoring some dozens of links worth of it in Google plus the fact that the weapons discovered are entirely Indian? Anyways, this is going off the topic and should not be brought up right now. The bottom line is that, apart from your opinion of this being "baseless", I can rightfully also personally assume that Pakistan supporting Assam militant outfits is totally a baseless accusation too and heck, I can challange you that half the people don't even know what associations ISI and Assam have in common. The most funny thing is, that despite the validity of this alleged accusation, it has still been listed in the Pakistan section on the State-sponsored terrorism article (and only with one source) whilst something like India supporting Baloch rebels can have up to as much as 20 links. Its funny how you can have no exceptions with these one-sided type of things and call something in opposition "baseless."
      And one more thing, instead of worrying what is baseless and what isn't, I think you ought to get back on the actual discussion, which is based on this article because this argument can go on and on. While Indian users will of course, have exceptions, I think it is neccessary to get "third-party" reviews. 123.211.83.75 (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)— 123.211.83.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Strong Keep".Indian support for LTTE and BLA both are well documented fact.Support for LTTE is confirmed by Indian,Sri Lankan, Tamil and American sources.LTTE was created and nutured by Late Indria Ghandi[43] in her own word to "Teach Sri Lanka a lesson".Even Tamil tigers(LTTE) confirm that they have been trained by Indian army[44](this make it separate from Raw's recruitement).Offical tamil webiste here [45].For India role in Afghanistan see [46].This should be kept.It is a seaprate article Indian army is also involved.yousaf465
- Dear me. Your arguments are all over the place. Please stick to the topic. This is not a political debate, it's one of content. Anti venin 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although, there are other articles regarding certain countries and state terrorism(United States and state terrorism, Iran and state terrorism), the references regarding state terrorism in this case(as the article currently stands) don't seem strong enough to warrant an article devoted to the subject. Additionally, the article seems to focus on charges from a small group of countries(Pakistan and Sri Lanka). So, I would personally support deleting the article in it's current form.Wacko Jack O 13:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In not only the Two countries American and other sources support this.yousaf465
Comment: If possible, I would like to try to steer this discussion back toward whether the article should be deleted, stand alone as an article or whether it would be best served by being merged, or the information included somewhere else. I'm not sure that getting into a political discussion will be at all helpful. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should stand alone as article.There is some much information available it can't be merged with anything else.Some information is publish just a day ago.yousaf465
Delete "X and state terrorism" articles are generally always a synthesis of sources to push a point of view that, in this case, India, are evil for supporting a group that some people think are terrorists (I think,in the seventies, India was pro-LTTE). The third section is about an ALLEGED terrorist attack in the planning (as opposed to one that has been carried out; if it hasn't been carried out, it could easily be anti-Indian propaganda.) All of this article can be covered in Research & Analysis Wing if it's encyclopedic; however, I doubt it. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again It's not only Raw it's more than that.Indian army is also Involved.--yousaf465 15:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yousaf465- Your comments reek of POV-pushing and COI. Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe you're Pakistani. You should stay away from voting on this. For obvious reasons. You might have noticed, no Indian editor has voted here either. You seem to be familiar with Wiki policies. NPOV is a fundamental one of which you seem to have no clue. Antivenin 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I was just replying to it.O.k will follow advice.Npov I know that is why I'm trying to present both view Points in the said article, you may check .--yousaf465 15:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems simple to me, equivalent articles exist for other countries. Can't be merged only into RAW or India pages, best it's kept like this. Often when articles like this are delete, factual info can go astray. Muzher (talk • contribs) 15:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles exist for other countries so why delete it in the case of India? If this article is deleted, it will be nothing more than an act of deliberate censorship.. Mik357 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to caution about using the community process of consensus to justify including information that may or may not go astray or be perverted somehow in a different ___location in the future. I have no political interest in having this information squelched. I just want it clear, that we are discussing guidelines, notability and content... not nefarious plots to censor politically uncomfortable information. Many articles are targeted for political reasons, but that's what page protection is for.--OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 16:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. except for the shady article at The Barossa (whose credibilty is in question), no reliable sources claim that all the events described in the article is state terrorism. It is a beautiful work of synthesis and original research putting together a lot of random and unrelated information under this invented title. may be try in a reliable journal first and in wikipedia later on. --Docku: What's up? 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a noteworthy subject. However, the current content deals with something that is arguably of lower importance (except in terms of foreign policy) than other matters. Consider other aspects of state terrorism which include the low intensity warfare within parts of the country, most of which do not involve any other country. Similar low intensity warfare of course is being carried out by many other countries now, including Pakistan.

And, ofcourse there should be a corresponding article for the terrorism outside its borders that was / is being sponsored by Pakistan; i.e. within Punjab and Kashmir in India, and within Afghanistan. This is much better documented than anything carried out by India, if only because it has been much more extensive and much more successful. Imc (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and both topics could be covered in the articles State terrorism or State-sponsored terrorism, thus keeping the information preserved, without preemptively creating articles for the 200 or so countries who might have shady domestic intelligence operations. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 01:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easy per WP:Original research. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for a variety of reasons. 1. someone above said X and state terrorism is synthesis -- if that's the case then all the articles of said matter shouldnt be there. 2. as per the immediate above comment, the user doesnt explain what he finds violates the rules -- sources are there and they are not all Pakistani either. 3. To a neutral observer (ie- non-India/Pakistan) and anyone who studies IR, it is well documents that India too has perpetrated this. And there are more than whats listed too.
Update: Having been contacted by an advocate for the article, I spent some time digging through all of the 30 references/sources. I will not list them all here, but currently, refs 14-29 are actually all the same story, which appeared in syndication. This means that half of the 30 or so sources for this article implicating State terrorism in India all come from the same article regarding one incident. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 11:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Synthesis, also created by banned Strider11 (talk · contribs) - Colombianstar is a STrider sock. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The most significant portions of this article are detailed in much more depth here: 2009 Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricket team. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 13:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced also other countries also have same kind of Articles so. I dont see any point in deleting the article Oniongas (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't keep articles because "india blames Pakistan for state terrorism" and "Pakistan also blames India". We do however, delete if the article is entirely WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis as this one is. To understand these policies, one has to see how the sources have been manipulated to push a certain agenda. The conclusions that the article makes are from the author whereas the sources only deal with fact, hence synthesis. Also it seems that the creator has been proven to be a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Gizza^Discuss ^© 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update The quotes in my first sentence were from a comment by a banned user now removed in case anybody was wondering. Gizza^Discuss ^© 01:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bunch of synthesis. A lot of this is the "he said, she said" type of accusations between India and Pakistan. Given the history between India and Pakistan, it's obvious that there's a lot of bad blood between these two nations. Unless there's accusations being leveled by third-party governments or the United Nations, I don't see any merit for this article. Besides, some of this information seems to be misleading. The Pakistani government cleared the RAW of any involvement in the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team. In addition, the LTTE and the BLA are militant, not terrorist organizations. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I add that the article's creator was a known Pakistani POV pusher, who I blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE is a Know terrorist group.For which you may see [47],[48],[49]and [50].For BLA is also a Known Terroist group see [51] and [52].For Pakistan reaction you may see the latest news [53].What you are referring to as clearing was intial reaction and he said that "currently" we don't have such evidence.But after investigations have started he gave the above statement.Also Shabaz Sharif is confirming it again and again.There remains no question of non-existent of that reportGovt was warned about attack but did nothing .It presence has been confirmed over and over againof attacks on Sri Lanka cricket team was ignored.Report of Investigation is to published in a day or two.Today judicial commission will be completing it's investigation.It will confirm all the facts.--yousaf465 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a valid argument for the LTTE, but nothing for the BLA from a governing third-party group (not the Guardian). In addition, the alleged Indian involvement was reported on March 4-5, but according to the Lahore attack article, Pakistani government officials ruled out Indian involvement in a statement made on March 6. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But his statement is dated March 9-10.--yousaf465 04:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I am sorry to say but this is a bad faith article developed by Yousuf. The user was prevented at State-sponsored terrorism with his POV push ( he was even blocked for this) but now attempting a POV fork out of this article. MOst of the references are attributed to Pak dailies which cannot be attributed as Reliable sources in this case for the reason that is obvious. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this edit was it done in Good faith [54].--yousaf465 04:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has also been a lengthy ongoing discussion on my talk page with Yousaf, about these topics. I was not aware of the sockpuppet allegation until recently, so I was having an ongoing dialogue with Yousaf about the article. If it is at all relevant, please feel free to view it. [55] --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For RS you may see this discussion[56].--yousaf465 06:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article looks to have strong sourcing, there doesn't seem to be any reason for deletion. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article creator has used the sources only to synthesize the article to make it look legible. Salih (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, sources 14-29 are actually all the exact same story, making it look like "an orgy of evidence." Understandably, this has been done because of this AfD discussion, but spending some time on the sources yields additional arguments for this being synthesis. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article seems like someone's original research. It also does not seem important/notable enough for an article of it's own, at least in my very humble opinion.JimmySmitts (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. This article, if allowed to remain on WP, would become a place to push PoV. --GP Pande 15:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and based on non-reliable sources. None of the Reliable Sources used in the article refer to "Indian State Terrorism" or "Indian State Sponsored Terrorism" that I could see. Using only reliable sources there is no article. Priyanath ^talk 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Any article that contains even the slightest amount of original research and synthesis should have no place in Wikipedia if that article put a country in poor light. Salih (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV synthesis of biased sources. I wouldn't object to such articles if they had a backbone of neutral in-depth scholarly source(s), but basing them purely on partisan media reports and statement of politicians from rival nations makes them no better than a soapbox. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as articles doesn't have much PoV. 207.233.65.6 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The concept "India and state terrorism" is unique to Wikipedia (a google search reveals 7 articles, four of which are wikipedia) and an encyclopedia is not the place for new concepts. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - "Also, in our bid for the moral high ground, let's try not to forget that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the LTTE of neighboring Sri Lanka, one of the world's most deadly terrorist groups, were trained by the Indian Army" These are not my words.They exist on web.here [57]. And "As he emphasised New Delhi’s support would be critical, but we should be fully aware of the India’s hand in destabilising Sri Lanka. Actually India should publicly regret her actions which created monstrous terrorist organisations which wrecked havoc in Sri Lanka." [58].This is not a unique concept]. "Indian trained LTTE terrorists have brought nothing but continuous mayhem to Sri Lanka destroying the fabric of the Sri Lankan society." [59].State-Sponsored Acts of Terrorism, Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing [60]. “state terrorism” by India [61]. Indian Involvement: State Sponsored Terrorism [62]. Gujarat events are state terrorism: Top Hindu religious leader [63].Does it still constitute synthesis? Well this might not be enough! --yousaf465 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My god, you couldn't have picked a worse rag-tag group of sources to back up your claim. Half of the accusations come from officials on the opposing spectrum of an India-<insertcountry> feud. I have yet to see any third-party groups publicly state that the Indian government had facilitated state terrorism. Your reasoning that India was involved in state terrorism in their early support of the LTTE is unfounded. This is simply guilt by association (no actual state terrorism has been alleged by third-party sources) except for the instance when Tamil Nadu government went rogue and started supporting the LTTE in the early 1990s. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources for this article are abysmal, as Nishkid64 points out. If only reliable sources were used, there would be no article, even with original research allowed. I assume the closing admin will take that into consideration. Priyanath ^talk 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that if we take examples from the world and attach them to a concept of our creation, that is WP:SYNTH. If the examples are attached to a concept by some other reliable source then we can write an article on the concept. In this case, the concept 'India and State Terrorism' is the creation of wikipedia editors and that is not something we should be doing. Research is best left to academic journals where they can be adequately peer reviewed. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 04:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but should be made clear it is alleged. Article does seem to make statements as if fact too much. Ninj4 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)— Ninj4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: this is the editor's first edit in one and a half years. There's likely some off-wiki canvassing going on. Priyanath ^talk 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking the same thing...Wacko Jack O 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of this, it looks like User:Muzher(who has also !voted in this AFD) is a sock of User:Ninj4.Wacko Jack O 14:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Delete What is this?. LTTE started by Indira Gandhi?. Next you people will start false accusation on Mahamata Gandhi. This is far enough. This whole article is anti-india. This article fails many policy which many of them are available here. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read sources before forming a opinion. As far as third party sources are concerned I think I have provided enough on that too, but they are not something absolutely necessary check WP:RS.--yousaf465 06:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of reliable sources, 90% of the sources cited in the article are Pakistani newspapers. They are not third-party sources with a NPOV which is absolutely essential. Anti venin 13:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, most of the sources are not neutral, and much of the article is original research.Wacko Jack O 14:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yousaf, your source for the Indira Gandhi-LTTE connection is an editorial from a Sri Lankan newspaper. Yes, you clearly understand WP:RS. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:10, 9 April 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Maria Czartoryski

The subject does not seem to be notable. I originally asked for a speedy deletion, but the template was removed by another user with a comment that "nobles are notable". I couldn't find a guideline though that all people of noble birth are inherently notable. And, since there have been millions of nobles throughout history, such a rule would make no sense. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —— Kpalion^(talk) 11:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete A Google search shows that Michal Maria Czartoryski is not notable, due to a lack of third-party references, and therefore information about him/her is unverifiable. I also agree with you about nobles not being inherently notable. That's an absolutely ridiculous argument. Anti venin 09:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete providing no one comes up with notability evidence. I agree with Antivenin about the notability issue. Generally, notability has to be demonstrated via independent sources. For people, we have specific guidelines, at WP:BIO, and none of those guidelines say that a person is automatically notable just because he/she is born into a particular family...a view which is also stated in WP:NOTINHERITED. Granted, there are certain subjects that the community has deemed to have inherent or de facto notability, but being a noble is not listed as one of those subjects. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think there is agreement that the Polish Szlachta are generally lesser nobility, corresponding roughly to English Baronets, and are not automatically notable. (The WP article gives their number as one million, in a country of a population of about thirty million when the rank was abolished in 1921--and many fewer during most of its history. But his title is given as "Prince" , would would make him part of the higher nobility. True, they too no longer had any legal status during his life. I think our current rule for higher nobility after they no longer had legal status is that they are not necessary notable, unlike when they did. Bugt has any serious effort been made to see if he was perhaps individually notable--has anyone looked for actual sources, per WP:BEFORE? DGG (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't give us any hints whatsoever that he might be individually notable. The only article that links to this one is about his father, Roman Jacek Czartoryski, who is barely notable himself. No interwiki links. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. I've done several searches for sources and have been unable to find anything to verify this noble's notability. Cunard (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed the speedy with the incorrect edit summary of "nobles are notable". Nobles aren't inherently notable, but since the article states that Michal Maria Czartoryski is a noble (assertion of notability), A7 (which requires that the article asserts no notability at all) does not apply. Prod or AfD would better in deleting these types of articles. Cunard (talk) 22:30, 4 April 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 Speedy Delete as A7 by SchuminWeb. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagship Brigade

Does not appear to meet notability WP:BAND. The band is ubiquitous in a google search, but I couldn't find any WP:RS. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 - does not indicate the importance of the subject. Now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:23, 4 April 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 already deleted. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

عائلة ابوبكر

doesn't seem to meet wp:n for several reasons uncited and seems to be in concern to a family or organization this article failed to meet csd A2 Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 07:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Wait it out Since we don't have a legitimate translation to judge this article by, we should wait for two weeks, per policy, for a translation. If none is available, then the article should be deleted. Wiki policy states: If the article is not rewritten in English within the next two weeks it will be listed for deletion and/or moved to the Arabic Wikipedia. Also, please note families can be notable. We just don't know which family this article is referring to. Anti venin 08:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading Google's translation of this page I believe this article describes the history of a certain Arabic family (complete with migrations and descendants) that is not encyclopedic and is not verifiable. For these reasons this article should be deleted. Anti venin 08:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Anti --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability - "AbuBaker Family Group on facebook has pictures of some of this family members." Radiant chains (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though in this case you are correct, lack of sources does not usually rule out notability. Anti venin 08:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The machine translation of the text is hard to understand, but it sure looks like a listing of the family genealogy with no assertion of notability. Delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Abu Bakr is undeniably notable, that's no reason to devote an entire article to his family tree all the way to modern times. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't have time to read the whole thing, but I think that if there were a claim of notability, it would be in the first couple of sentences. Instead, we find that the Abu Bakr family of Hijaz is related to the Abu Ghosh family of Jerusalem, the Al-Hut family of Egypt and the Al-Batina family of Jordan. Ordinarily, I think this would be disposed of by speedy deletion, but I don't want to make that call without reading the entire article. --Cbdorsett (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Raff

Unremarkable comic book character OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failure to meet WP:NOTABILITY. The character does not meet the requirements for his/her own article, the character could meet the requirement for inclusion in a list of characters for the series/strip, in an article about the comic/strip as a whole, which would be more along the lines of encyclopedic value and WP:N, per WP:FICT.
Judicatus | Talk | Contributions
07:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Fails all three criteria of WP:WEB. (No multiple third-party coverage, notable awards, or content distribution through a respected, independent website) Anti venin 08:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- A Google search yielded nothing a handful of youtube videos and a lot of stuff about unrelated people named "G. Raff". Fails both WP:V and WP:N. Reyk _YO! 21:26, 4 April 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 Mfield (Oi!) 05:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Rios

Nothing to assert WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 06:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:COMPOSER and WP:MUSICBIO. Not notable and no significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Anti venin 08:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any verifiable significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unionsoap (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he appears to fail WP:N and WP:BAND. Them From Space 18:05, 4 April 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 both Mfield (Oi!) 05:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four year memory

I am also nominating the following related page:

Both articles seem to be violations of WP:NOR. These are definitions that are not notable enough to merit their own articles. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected 4 year promise to Four year promise as the content was identical. Should the latter be deleted, the first probably should be as well per CSD G8. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, whether you consider this an WP:NOR, WP:NOT a dictionary, or a neologism issue, it is clear these terms have not at this point merited a place in this reference. Erechtheus (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICT and WP:N
Judicatus | Talk | Contributions
05:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: as per nom. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep four year memory, delete other. Sources are admittedly weak: [64], [65][66] [67] [68] plus [69][70] which are unreliable but show the term is used. It's probably a WP:NN, however I see this term/idea used quite a bit. It certainly is an idea that gets a fair bit of discussion on college campuses (It's been a part of all four schools I've worked at or gone to). So the keep is on the basis of WP:N and IAR as I believe this is an important concept though one not hugely documented. Hobit (talk) 20:52, 5 April 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 The Foreshadowing. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Vega

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 12:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Member of non-notable band - band article deleted under AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dope Stars Inc.. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Membership of one non-notable outfit is not a good reason to delete. There could be others. Klimt 1918 is mentioned in the article and their notability should be investigated. The discography looks promising. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable musician. JamesBurns (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Klimt 1918 or The Foreshadowing (if it survives its own AfD). Untick (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a plausible search term to the band The Foreshadowing. Doesn't show any stand-alone notability per WP:MUSIC. No point redirecting to to Klimt 1918 since he isn't in that band any more. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:41, 4 April 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Centre Trust

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just saying something is non-notable is not enough. You need to show you've done the legwork and have good reason to believe it isn't. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please see WP:V#Burden_of_evidence: "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. That's a cop-out, to make it into Somebody Else's Problem. The burden before article deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy of long standing, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, and indeed per Martin Harper's original formulation of the verifiability policy, is upon editors to show that they've looked for sources and failed. Editors who think that the responsibility is for everyone else to provide sources, and that their responsibility lies solely with sitting on the sidelines nominating articles for deletion and demanding that everyone else do the work, are not actually helping to write the encyclopaedia. Collaborative writing involves sharing the burden, which includes doing the legwork of looking for sources onesself before nominating things for deletion on grounds of notability or verifiability. It also makes an argument that something is unverifiable or not notable hold water. One cannot, after all, honestly say that something is unverifiable or isn't notable if one has made zero effort to determine whether that is in fact the case. Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. When this was nominated there were few references anywhere to it. I followed policy. I have now withdrawn the nom.. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - When this was nominated, many of the references now cited had existed for several years. Indeed, a few of them have been around longer than Wikipedia itself has been in existence. You did not follow policy. Policy requires, and has required since Martin Harper first wrote it in 2003, that you look for sources yourself. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Looking for sources yourself beforehand, where the history of what has always been policy and good practice here, is traced out. Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has no references to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by WP:N, and a Google News search throws up no hits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I seriously recommend doing proper research before you make sweeping statements like that. I will find the book reference I used to start the article later. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand by my statement: the article did have no independent sources, and there are no google news hits.
    I suggest that in future, you add references to an article when you write it, rather than pitching up afterwards to make sarcastic comments to other editors who are unaware of what refs you have used because you were too lazy to add them in the first place.
    When you create an article, there is a clear warning above the edit box: "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted". Which part of that sentence was unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article was created when I was newbie three years ago at a time when I was baffled with how the referencing system worked. And given that I went out of my way to start the article I would hardly call myself lazy, I go out of my way to help wikipedia. You really could use a few lessons in civility and learn how to research articles properly. As an admin you should know better than this. Perhaps its time to go blonde, but I guess at least you have hair unlike myself! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine, you were a newbie, and we all had to start somewhere. But if you blame others for not fully second-guessing your sources, don't be surprised if the response is to point out that the basic mistake is yours, for not referencing the article. If you don't like a sharp reply, don't make sarcastic put-downs to others.
        You're still at it now, pouring out more personal abuse, contrary to WP:NPA. If you want the article to be kept, please provide evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources, rather than sniping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Nobody is pouring out personal abuse, I just think you need to lighten up thats all and not take things so harshly. Try googling Counterpart Caribbean which it seems to group is now called. The article has been considerably improved since the nomination and the affiliation of the NGO with the UN and the wider global sustainable development movement clearly asserts notability as does its presence in eco-political decision making in Barbados. It was run by the President of the Caribbean Development Bank which again clearly asserts its signifance in the Caribbean region. The book I have on Barbados is an excellent one but one which covers only notable topics related to the island. If it wasn't notable to Barbados or significant it wouldn't have a whole page dedicated to it. I'd imagine a great deal exists on paper sources too in newsapers and journals etc in Barbados seems as the organisation is highly active in newspaper and the radio. If I'm not feeling "lazy" I meet even see if I can find an email address of some organisations in Barbados and ask them to email me any information they might have on the group, or some sources to develop it further. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the article as it stands now proves both mine and MacGyver's points that you shouldn't nominate articles for deletion and dismiss them as "not notable" without a strong claim to do. Fair point made by Brown haired girl though. Yes it did need referencing!, yes it did need reliable sources in abundance! and yes it needed expansion! A google search under this groups current name -I count 602,000 google hits. It always looked like a notable subject otherwise I wouldn't have started it, just needed expansion and referencing as do several hundred thousand of our other articles. Buenos Noches. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dr. Blofeld's improvements[71] make this a sure keep; it is now notable and verified enough to keep for sure. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced and clearly notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it has references. The Afd nomination should not have stated unnotability as clearly its notability hadnt been looked into by the nominator. Also, BrownHairedGirl, as admin you should be keeping a clear head and not biting back even if you feel other editors are sharp with you,it lowers the tone of the debate. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to be appropriate for Wikipedia (maybe some improvement necessary).Ans-mo (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn because it is renamed and substantially improved. Now complies with NN V and RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Lebane-Kane

No support offered for notability or significance. Author(s) continuously delete maintenance templates. Google hits appear inconclusive. JNW (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no mentions in third party sources, fails our criteria for notability. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find no independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Rnb (talk) 18:44, 7 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWWiki

Lack of notability; development ceased on 2006-Oct-01, according to the newest file timestamp in the source archive -- Dandv (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dandv (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability is shown in the news and no other in-depth discussion can be found of it online. Them From Space 21:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, abandoned project, no third party sources evident to establish notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a module for DotNetNuke, not a stand-alone piece of software. Either delete due to lack of notability, or redirect and merge to DotNetNuke and mention it there. Not sure which is appropriate. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:24, 4 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runyon Ave. Records

Non-notable independent record label, fails WP:COMPANY. Karppinen (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable label fails WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching shows no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 4 April 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' Mfield (Oi!) 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zena (software)

Non notable software with no third party reliable sources. Was prod'd and deleted but restored even though user states the product is not notable and must use wikpedia for advertisement [User_talk:Xymmax#Zena Removal] 16x9 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 16x9 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of current third-party references is due to the fact that there has not yet been any official stable release for zena. As a developer of zena, I want to make sure the tool is stable and secure before making a lot of noise about it. I would really like to avoid having angry users because they lost valuable data.

From this, we could argue that the page should be removed until the software is properly announced. This argument holds, except that there is a gap between "lot's of public noise even if the tool is totally immature" and "no visibility until stable release". We happen to stand in this middle place because invisibility is too hard for the moral of the troops when you don't get paid for your work. But this is just a matter of months since the stable release should be announced before summer 2009. Gazoduc (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If morale if a problem, adding articles to wikipedia isn't a solution, be that the morale of people working on a new product, playing in a garage band, editing an unpublished book, a movie not released, (etc.). Speaking as a fellow developer, with 28 years of experience, I would recommend that you start seeding technology reviewers with 'pre-release' versions, much as other companies do, in order to generate buzz and RS articles that can be used to make an article. Ronabop (talk)

Delete. I'm afraid that there simply aren't independent reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. I'm not aware of an appropriate merge target, either. As stated above, I did delete this article as an expired prod, and restored it upon request. Obviously, I will won't be involved in closing this AfD :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-stable, non-released, non-verifiable, non-notable... non-wikipediable. Ronabop (talk)
Delete per above arguments, just not notable enough.TheRingess (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verdi NTNU

Can't see the notability of this student's organization. Punkmorten (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't what I wrote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Verdi_NTNU) good enough arguments for this article to exist? What kind of "notability" are you looking for? Jhannisdahl (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Student group at a single school with no particular notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is secondary sources in Norwegian, like these:

I can probably find more. Verdi NTNU is a local organization with a national reach, and as our members scatter aorund the world for employment and further education, I figured that an english article on WP would be a good source of information on the organization. Jhannisdahl (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable local students club. Clearly self-promotional. Media-attention is all trivial, and relates to the competition they participate in as such, and not about local NTNU group. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no more arguments. Delete if necessary. Jhannisdahl (talk) 14:29, 5 April 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. I will userfy the article for improvement upon request. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Traffic Measurement and QoS Monitoring

Essay-like WP:OR filled look at something that isn't easily understandable from the article. It reads more like a dissertation than an encyclopaedia entry. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have a useful stub at network monitoring and a rather curious stub at internet traffic that want expansion. This article seems to have been created to serve as a redirect target for the deleted article Monitoring and Measurement in the Next Generation Technologies, a spammy article about some kind of consulting project of dubious notability that was deleted before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monitoring and Measurement in the Next Generation Technologies). It may constitute the re-creation of deleted content. The only things that link here, besides deletion related transclusions, are the several links that were inserted into other articles into that deleted article. Note also that the people behind that former article are linking to Wikipedia from their main page, essentially using this article as a free web host. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entries "Network Monitoring" and "Internet Traffic" could be linked to the "Traffic Measurement and QoS Monitoring" article but the content of this one does not fit into any of them. MOMENT is a project like ETOMIC, MOME, etc that have their own entries in Wikipedia. The contents of the article "Traffic Measurement and QoS Monitoring" has been modified to fulfill WP style although it could be improved, but, if you think mentioning MOMENT is a reason to delete it, I will accept and let interested people in its development and achievements consult MOMENT web site directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvillarro (talk • contribs) 10:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not for cleanup. The article provides adequate information to establish WP:N and provides links to WP:RS. This article is in need of copyediting and needs inline citations and a References section. These are editorial issues and are things that are typically corrected per the normal editing cycle and are not reasons to bring this article to AfD. This article is clearly under construction and the editor creating it is obviously trying to write good material that would be beneficial to Wikipedia. I think the {{prod}} and immediate AfD were premature and the nominator is not allowing time for this article to develop. Just because an earlier article did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines does not mean that a better written article about the same topic will not. In looking at the "webhost" link concern, I don't see that this article is being used as a webhost. In fact, the website the link above points to seems to host all it's own material and only provides an extra link to the Wikipedia article. This is no different from many other websites linking to Wikipedia articles as a source for additional community-written information. Tothwolf (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD isn't for cleanup, though; cleanup is "well, article X has issues". In this case article X is one massive issue; we're not commenting on the validity of the topic, rather on the validity of this page. Thank you for your concerns about my AfD technique; I assume that since the user who created it has edited it 18 times since I first touched it, starting at this and ending where we are now, such concerns are unfounded. Ironholds (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BEFORE if a page can be improved through regular editing it should not be nominated for deletion. Here are two more examples of this (check the edit histories): HS-14 and Them Terribles. Tothwolf (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So far as I can tell, this is effectively a recreation of the deleted article Monitoring and Measurement in the Next Generation Technologies. Rather than describing the general topic of IP traffic measurement, it's describing a specific project which we've already determined to be inappropriate here.
Worse yet, it's not even factually correct. For instance, the introduction describes MOMENT as providing data from "MOME, LOBSTER, ETOMIC,DIMES, BART, RIPE, [and] GEANT2/Perfsonar", suggesting that these are all "projects [...] to deal with IP traffic measurement", when, in fact, many of them aren't: for instance, GEANT2 is a research network, RIPE is a network policy group, and BART is an application used for measuring point-to-point bandwidth.
In short, while there might be an article to write at this title, this isn't it. (And, as Ihcoyc notes above, there are articles with much better titles which need expansion first, like network monitoring.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Zetawoof removed [72] and reworded a key portion of his argument after Spasemunki left the "per Zetawoof" response below. Tothwolf (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zetawoof's change was fairly minor, and doesn't affect my vote. I was already aware that jitter can be an SLA parameter, or at least is intended to be in next-gen network architectures. Even if that one fact was correct, the majority of my objections still stand. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Zetawoof. Appears to be purely a description of the architecture of a particular project, rather than something of general interest. No assertion of notability. There are hundreds of research projects of this sort going on at universities and labs around the world- a proliferation of acronyms doesn't necessarily mean that this one is particularly important. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:36, 5 April 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus

It is a partial copyvio of [73] - it's likely the whole thing was lifted and patched together. Would need an overhaul of overhauls to stay. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A post-secondary education institution. Being a "partial copyvio" is not a reason to delete an entire article. This should be cleaned up to look less like an advertisement though. --Oakshade (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade --Bduke (Discussion) 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. This should be cleaned up and expanded from the many sources available. TerriersFan (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep AFD is not cleanup, extensive precedent and stable consensus on notability of spun-out articles on university campuses. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:22, 6 April 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flo (Progressive Insurance)

What is wikipedia coming to when we have articles on just any advertising character that kids find "funny"? Yes, I realise that this character has a sizeable internet following but most of it is along the lines of "who would you rather bang, Flo or Erin Esurance?" What's next, an article on the Free Credit Report.com singers? My God! Delete post-haste. Silk Knot (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly meets notability requirements. While I am usually prepared to assume good faith this smacks of a pointy nomination. ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge to Progressive Insurance. Some of the links to sources appear to be broken, although there are at least two reliable sources which are linked. I should note that I see this character in commercials several times a day, although I can't remember her being called by name as "Flo" in the commercials; hence, it might be easier to find the information about her if it were merged into Progressive Insurance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All four of the links work. The Boston Herald article is now old enough to be in their archives, and although the online version of the archives is a pay website, public libraries still have copies available to read for free. The other three links all work without any obstacles. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Progressive Corporation has a one-sentence Advertising section which mentions solely her, so if I didn't know her name, I don't think it would be difficult to find this article from that article. Her name may not have been said in a commercial, but it is on her big tricked-out name tag. --Geniac (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:RS, WP:V and WP:PSTS without violating WP:OR. --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above.Nrswanson (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well sourced, and this fictional character has somewhat of a cult following. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Snowball close anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep THD3 (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaolaeux

Hoax. No refs. Google has never heard of it. The description seems very dubious. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it reads like a hoax, but stringing together a set of encryption algorithms is probably not going to lead to a notable software product. Shadowjams (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has nothing to do with how a program is constructed. Uncle G (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One is supposed to do more work at AFD than simply look at the article and form an opinion as to whether it reads like a hoax. One is supposed to look for sources, double-checking the nominator and other AFD discussion participants, so that we can be confident that multiple pairs of eyes have all independently applied our deletion and content policies, and that the conclusion is thus the right one.
The article cites no sources, and, searching, I can find no sources at all, anywhere, documenting any such thing. This article is unverifiable, which is our standard for hoaxes and falsehoods, just as verifiability is our proxy for accuracy. No sources, therefore no article, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This encryption type is currently in development, but is not yet complete. You will not be able to find it on google because it simply hasn't been released yet. --Fejj the ritual (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Wikipedia is not the place to come. This is an encyclopaedia. It is not a publisher of first instance for new inventions and ideas. For publishing new things, proper channels exist. You want to tell the world about new advances in computing? Submit a paper to CACM or to an appropriate IEEE journal. Go through the proper process of peer review, fact checking, and publication in a reputable journal (or other work) by identifiable people with good reputations for accuracy to uphold, that is required before things can be in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiability problems. X-san, which it mentions as a 'root language', I can only find mentioned as a file system format for large disks. The claims regarding the compression capabilities of this... thing is a little odd too, given that 1) you can run always run inputs through compression before encrypting, and 2) the compression ratio of a compression system will always depend on the source that is fed in, making blanket statements about compression suspect. What is meant here by 'encryption language'? Is it a language for writing encryption algorithms? An algorithm? A script that runs input through a batch of several existing algorithms? --Clay Collier (talk) 12:49, 5 April 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. And potentially rename. After reading through the discussion, I've found no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon mania

This topic is about a non notable neologism. Further some of the sources used to support the topic, while reliable, often don't even use the term "bacon mania" in them or use the term "bacon mania" only in passing. The article is really the product of original synthesis. There is not enough independent coverage of this term where the term itself is the main subject of the source to establish notability. It appears that this is a media buzz word which may or may not have a lasting use. Other media has chosen the term "Bacon Nation" instead of "bacon mania". If you notice, all of the sources using "bacon mania" are from the last several months, so its a very new term. Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 04:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 04:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a better title I'm open to considering it. The phenomenon is clearly notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleta and others...the bacon cabal will give you treats if you vote **keep**...you know you want it...cooked anyway you like it!

(EC) Merge and redirect to Bacon. There seems to be some legitimate content here, but I see no reason for it to stand as a separate article. 04:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Comment - I made that m&r comment. I have no idea why I got logged out when it posted. (I'd been logged in and editing just prior!) Aleta ^Sing 04:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the bacon cabal is involved in an interweb conspiracy that has clogged your computer's arteries? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no, but if you are admitting to it... Aleta ^Sing 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the nominator I agree that a lot of the content is valuable. A better article might be titled "Bacon in American culture". Obviously some of the content would have to be changed accordingly to fit the new topic.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth considering a retitle/move, but I think the present name is well sourced, short, and best reflects the article contents. The article isn't really about bacon in American culture, but about bacon mania, a crazed enthusiasm for bacon and the absurdly preposterous and somewhat grotesque dishes that can be created with it. I think bacon in American culture is a is a very worthy topic, howver, and I hope you'll write that article. Bacon is a much neglected area of study and the lack of coverage for all things bacon on Wikipedia is deeply troubling. Hope is on the way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I don't think it needs its own separate article, the valuablecontent in it only can be merged into Bacon. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Bacon (meme) - The topic is notable per the multiple references in the article. A rename should be discussed, either here or on the talk page, since the current name is leaning toward original research. Perhaps a better name would be Bacon in American culture, Bacon in popular culture, or Bacon (meme). I oppose merging to Bacon, because it would give undue weight to this meme in the bacon article, unless it was ruthlessly trimmed down to a couple of short paragraphs. Since there is enough material for a stand-alone article on this, we should have an article on it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that this Salon.com story [74] titled bacon mania is from the middle of 2008 and is very substantial coverage. If anyone is vegan or kosher I think they should disclose that conflict of interest when voting. I've been planning to do a facon bacon article for some time if that helps (first I have to finish working on the turbaconducken). ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That article is not really substantial coverage. The only time "bacon mania" is even used is in the title. The term is therefore not really discussed at all. Now if the article had actually used the term in a sentence it would be a much more useful and substantial source.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's closing paragraphs, quote: The turkey is the unofficial mascot of Americana, the 20-pound plumper we dutifully cook on our most sacred of national holidays. But really, it should be the pig. Bacon is our national meat. The pig is not an elegant animal, but it is smart and resourceful and fated to wallow in mud. A scavenger. A real scrapper.
"I see bacon as a celebration of an American birthright," says John T. Edge. "Four slices of Hormel Black Label, hissing in a cast iron skillet on a Sunday morning. To wear the bacon colors, to sport a bacon tattoo, is to announce your belief in the possibilities of bacon, in the American goodness rendered by a low-on-the-hog meat, transmogrified by smoke and salt." What do you think this article is about if not the bacon mania of a bacon nation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a title for an article about bacon within American culture. I doubt the author was intending to use "bacon mania" as an actual defined term.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the term in the title is fairly well established, but I also would not oppose a renaming per the Linguist's comments. As for the content, the phenomenon has much less to do with bacon than with American attitudes toward food, health, and other abstract nouns. Bacon has been called the ultimate democratic food, for crying out loud. (Disclosure: I wrote that section in the main Bacon article, which some vandal obviously renamed to "Bacon in popular culture.") Seriously, there is so much of this right now in the US (Baconlube, anyone?), and sure, that's ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than calling American Idol a talent show. It's a topic, and it's established, and it has been written about often enough. (Disclosure: I did NOT eat any bacon this morning, in order to approach this AfD in a fair and balanced way.) Drmies (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed "Recent bacon popularity" to "Bacon mania" last week, thinking they were the same thing (if that is what you were talking about).--kelapstick (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, indeed, you vandal. BTW, after plowing through a number of references in Bacon mania I'm convinced now that "Bacon mania" is the proper title. I wish the editors below who are proposing merge and delete would actually look at and respond to those references. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... I have read through all the sources. I've just come to a different conclusion than you have.Inmysolitude (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything referenced to Bacon. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bacon mania may be a neologism, but it is certainly a notable one with five reliable sources reporting on it, using that exact name.--kelapstick (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is hopelessly original synthesis in addition to being a neologism. Any relevent material can be merged into bacon.Inmysolitude (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Articles on neologisms are appropriate when it is a notable neologism, like this is. See WP:NEO. About original research, can you explain exactly why you think it's original research? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article smacks of an April Fool insert --Snowded (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, just look at the accompanying summary for the article's creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A small joke in an edit summary between a group of editors who refer to themselves (with tongue-in-cheek) as the bacon cabal, and have created articles such as Chocolate-covered bacon, Clams casino, Chicken fried bacon and bacon explosion (all of which were featured on the main page as DYKs), hardly suggests that this article is an April Fool's day prank, especially when the article was created on March 24th.--kelapstick (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research? Synth? Take your pick. COntent fork from Bacon absolutely. Unencyclopedic and a joke at Wikipedia's expense? Of course.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have an opinion on this, but am so strongly addicted to bacon that, alas, I question my own objectivity. (Full disclosure: I have been known to deep-fat fry bacon). Edison (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete sourced content (of which there is much). Merge + redirect to Bacon (probably a separate section) or keep. Bongo matic 05:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or rename as suitable for improving wikipedia, where bacon products have an inherent notability. I do not always agree with Bongomatic, but I certainly can here, where deleting sourced content is never in the best interests of the project. Further, San Diego Union Tribune [75], Creative Loafing Atlanta[76], ABC News [77], The Insider [78], San Francisco Bay Area Digest[79], and Salon Life[80][81] would seem to be indiative of this term being itself in use. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Almost all of those sources are trivial mentions of the term, most of which only use the term in the article's title. The first source actually references the wikipedia article on bacon mania. Not exactly reliable media reporting there. Many of these are simply advertisments. None of this is substantial enough to lend weight towards making this a notable neologism.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The depth and cohesiveness of the article speaks for itself. The links I included were in no way intended to be used to source the article, and offered simply to WP:Verify per WP:Policy the fact thet "Bacon Mania" is not a neologism, is not a "new" word, and is in fact an existing term used in the media even if one makes the (percieved) error of itself refering to wiki when trying to make their own report as balanced and inclusive as possible, but then... they have far different criteria for inclusion than does wiki... so that must be respected. And with your statement above, I do not think ABC News, The Insider, and San Diego Union Tribune can be discredited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not to discredit the News sources but to point out that the majority of these sources use the term in a highly trivial manner. For example, the ABC News source never even uses the term "bacon mania". Its just the title of the video which follows a News story on a bacon cooking competition. As I said above, the sources use the term in such a trivial non-substantial way that notability can't be established.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own view, and in partial agreement with you, is that the title "Bacon Mania" is simply that... a title... 2 words used in the wiki article and many reliable sources to describe a growing cultural notability. I also feel that the extensive coverage of the notability as described in reliable sources, even ones that do not use that specific title, gives it the foundation for encyclopedic inclusion in these pages. The title of the Wiki article might change, but the well sourced substance of the article stands up to scrutiny. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no doubt that much of the article's content could be used in another wiki article on bacon in American culture (see my comment above). I just don't think the term "bacon mania" is notable enough to warrant its own article.Broadweighbabe (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we can at least agree to disagree and both keep a smile. The individual article describes a cultural phenomena and is itself well sourced and encyclopedic, no mater the final name it will wear in these pages. Guideline allows and recommends it may exist as a seperate article if inclusion of the article's information would gravely overburden the more generic parent bacon article. If it was unsourced, or could not assert and show notability, I'd probably be opining delete. But since that is not the case.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article's creator I've followed the discussion (and participated in it). I have no objection to a retitle to Bacon in American culture if that's the consensus. It was originally titled bacon in popular culture, but other editors felt the title suggested TV, film, music and other pop culture significance which isn't what the article is about. There is a lot of sourced content in the article. It covers the very notable "mania" as its called that is a function of bacon's popularity with a segment of American culture. I oppose the merge because there is too much content and it would overwhelm bacon and it's too U.S. focused for that more general article. Have a nice day. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bacon. I suggested doing this on the article's talk page while the article had a different name. I'm not sure that this phenomenon is notable in itself or if the term "Bacon mania" is referred to in reliable sources, but this information is encyclopedic and will bolster the Bacon article immensly. Them From Space 07:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename to Bacon in American culture per nom. I don't think a merger is really doable here, at least not easily. The problem is that much of this is original synthesis and any merger is therefore going to require a substantial re-write. Its requiring a lot of the closing admin to weed through all the material and basically re-organize it all. Further, any merger should avoid using the term "bacon mania" per WP:Neologism.Nrswanson (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/renameIt's funny, yes. It's somewhat obscure, yes. But it's fine. It's a real phenomenon, well sourced, and delicious. Huadpe (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's title is not a neologism as there is no new word here. The title is a descriptive phrase whose meaning seems plain enough and so conforms to WP:NEO. In any case, improvement of the title is not a reason to delete as changes are effected by a move which any editor may perform. And I can confirm the notability of the topic as I have seen news items about it myself in London. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a section in bacon and redirect. This will improve both articles. Jonathunder (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While a merge is sometimes a suitable compromise, inclusion of this article's information would gravely overburden the more generic bacon article. The individual article describes a cultural phenomena and is itself well sourced and encyclopedic. Guideline allows and recommends it exist as a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't think an article on Bacon mania should be on Wikipedia. Maybe take a couple of the bits into Bacon, but it really should be deleted I think! dottydotdot (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dotty, we would appreciate your reasons for why you don't think this article should be here. Please see WP:DEL. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic is well-covered in reliable third-party sources, the article crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds, and the article is properly referenced. Combining with with the bacon article would imbalance that article on a basic foodstuff. Renaming is a possibility but that is a discussion to be held elsewhere, not at AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the exact time to consider a name change or merger. Right now a broader spectrum of readers has just given their opinion on the article. That's not likely to happen on the article's talk page, particularly with the canvasing that goes on on bacon pages.Broadweighbabe (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Dravecky been canvassing in favor of bacon? Shocking! We all need to make sure we treat all foods fairly and equally, no matter how magical and wonderful they may be. It's vital that we ensure Wikipedia's impartiality and that we hold ourselves to the highest standards. This is the best way to make ~~Oscar Meyer~~ Jimbo Wales proud. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Dravecky has but other editors have. See this observation made by another editor [82] above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I plead guilty to bribery, though I'm not sure if it amounts to canvassing; WP:Canvassing (see footnote 1) does mention solicitation, but does that apply here? Anyway, it was extended in the best of spirits, win or lose, and you are included in this offer, Broadweighbabe. Especially bacon cabal members need levity; our earthly mass tends to weigh us down more than others, especially given the new addition of chocolate to this "yummy" food, as one editor called it. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have not made any sort of contact with any editor about this article not has any editor contacted me on this matter. I spotted it only because it had been nominated at DYK and while it's true that I do enjoy yummy bacon, my !vote above was made entirely on policy grounds as stated above. (Apologies will be accepted graciously.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. An illustration of that kind at an AfD and an offer of bacon as a form of vote buying and bribery is highly unusual and irregular. It also lards up the discussion. I'm glad that Dravecky wasn't involved, and I apologize if I in any way implicated him or associated him with any sort of impropriety. I trust he will stay on the straight and narrow and refrain from any efforts to grease the wheels of this AfD process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by now I'm too fat for the straight and narrow, especially since I recently discovered the Baconator. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to imply Dravecky had either, I just meant to point out that canvasing had gone on and that this consensus was more likely to draw an impartial conclusion than one on the bacon mania talk page.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you Broad. But you might be surprised. I don't see any strong objections to a rename. I'm not 100% sure it's superior (the current name seems pretty focused and well sourced) but I can live with Bacon in American culture. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite legitimate quibbles about the title, the article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish the notability of the phenomenon. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well-sourced and sources show the title is used correctly. ^Law_shoot! 03:17, 8 April 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 speedy delete (by DragonflySixtyseven). --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PENOS

Future operating system being developed by students.

No sources to even verify this is being developed, let alone notability requirements. <ref>http://linux.org/</ref> was added by author while removing proposed deletion tag, but there is nothing on that site about this OS. —SV 03:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a crystal ball. WillOakland (talk) 03:50, 4 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 College Basketball on KFZX schedule

It's just a broadcast schedule, nothing more. In my eyes, flies in the face of WP:IINFO. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aspernom Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as indiscriminate information. Wikipedia is not a radio guide. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:INFO problem here. Hobit (talk) 20:55, 5 April 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scale-A-Ton

WP:CRYSTALBALL - Speedy delete was removed with the following edit summary: "the album is set to be released May 5, and can be found on CDUniverse.com and Amazon.com-if you have a fetish for deletions, let's get consensus and take it fo AfD!" Untick (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, eyh, it appears likely to be released, and the artist is clearly notable. In a sense this is crystalballery, but is it really worth deleting now only to restore it in a few weeks time? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment WP:CRYSTAL does allow for future album releases provided they meet the same criteria as albums that have already been released, ie it meets notability guidelines and verifiable sources are provided. If that can be sorted, its keep. If not, wait and see what happens when it comes out. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until and unless it charts. It could flop, and there's no sense going through this again in six months. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability of album yet to be established. JamesBurns (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The article can always be re-created if the album becomes notable later.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. So being the debut album of one-half of a platinum-selling, Oscar-winning hip-hop duo doesn't count as notable? Then what does? Also, I don't believe in "notability restrictions". I believe Wikipedia is not paper, so that discussion is irrelevant. Tom Danson (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: notability is not inherited. JamesBurns (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read the last part of my above comment again. There's a reason Wikipedia is not paper is first on the WP:NOT lists. Tom Danson (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think we're close enough to release to fall under the WP:NALBUMS caveat. DJ Paul is notable in his own right, so I think we can suffer this article for another month. If there's no consensus to keep, per WP:NALBUMS the contents should be merged the artist's article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Sports Curse

Pure original research, no references. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gets 9 ghits excluding WP, and none in news. This is a WP:NEO and/or WP:OR. JJL (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original, but incomplete essay. For future reference, all curses have to have to be traceable to a particular event, or, better yet, a person who has placed the curse, like Norman Green moving the North Stars to Dallas and saying "A pro wrestler will be Governor and a comedian will be U.S. Senator before anyone wins here again!". Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:35, 5 April 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DriveSavers

AfDs for this article:

Assisted listing that was requested at WT:AFD by Headbomb. Headbomb's rationale there was "Vanity page for a corporation". I personally have no opinion on this deletion discussion and my listing it should not be taken as a !vote either way. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first AFD was closed 3 years ago as "delete". It's doubtful CSD G4 would apply but perhaps an admin could do a look-see anyway. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Looks like somebody's PR team got a little over-zealous on article text, but they're easily sourced and notable. Ronabop (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tips appreciated. I would like to keep within the guidelines and do apologize for the heavy article text. I will try to add more sources and remove text that is not necessary, but would also appreciate any additional tips to satisfy any other concerns. Mfisherkirshner (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.168.129 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 9 April 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MineCam

I myself am neutral, but I'm concerned about this being a vanity page for whoever is making this product. Not too sure about notability either. Listing for discussion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Share noms concerns - author seems to have WP:COI too (also authored I.A.Recordings). MineCam isn't a product as such either just a one-off creation from what I can garner from the references. If this was a vote I'd vote delete Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid that I am completely confused by Wikipedia policies. MineCam is definitely not a product, but it is unique and I would have thought a worthwhile subject for an article as it has been used by volunteers to explore underground industrial archaeology and re-discover lost subterranean buildings. The text is based on a published source and there are verifiable citations and references. I have read many similar specialist articles on Wikipedia and I wrote this one in good faith, but I am disillusioned now. Please delete it if you want to. John Logie (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disillusioned, that's one reason to bring articles here to AfD: to get consensus on whether they should be included. On reading the Radio Shropshire reference again,maybe this article could be merged and redirected. The problem is, as a one-off piece of kit its very difficult to establish its notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if it were not one-off it would be a product, so wouldn't the article be criticised as an advertisement? This doesn't always seem to be a problem judging by two named product articles in the Video_hardware category and several in the Robotics category. Some of the latter describe a specific device in much the same way I have and do far less than I have to justify any claim of notability, so I am still confused about what I have done wrong.
Would it help if I mentioned some specific sites it has been used at and discoveries that have been made with it? Unfortunately I will not be able to cite many independent references, as the results are video recordings and not necessarily published in written form. Some were recorded at sites which the landowner wishes to keep private. All recordings are kept in the I.A.Recordings video archive for posterity. John Logie (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the crux of the issue - to be in wikipedia it needs to have verifiable references from secondary sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, understand that this is not a matter of being wrong or not, or having done this in good faith or not. There are other things on Wikipedia that might be less than appropriate, especially if they were written before tools like User:AlexNewArtBot were around (which is how I found this article in the first place). Note that no one is saying delete so far, but we're trying to establish notability. This is a protection measure against people who want to use Wikipedia as an advertising space. As for references, you can use material from whoever is making this, especially when things like specifications, design information, etc... are concerned. You just can't use it to establish how "useful" or how "good" it is. Aka if the page says it outperforms any other similar products, we obviously can't trust that.

Using references for sections like "History" would help, and rewriting it in more neutral/encyclopedic terms would help a LOT. Sentences like "Why not lower a video camera instead?" should not be used, see WP:TONE for more detail on this, but the jist of it is an article should not read like a conversation, or a story told by someone over email. The external links could be turned into references for a lot of the stuff mentionned and certainly do make a case for notability.

I'll withdraw my my nomination for now, as it seems my concern are dealing with the actual state of this article more than its potential state. Someone can close this now.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and the re-write. The 'chatty' approach was chosen because I had seen an article with a WP criticism box complaining about its terse style and suggesting it should be made more readable! I obviously went too far.
I have made changes as suggested by your in-line comments and added the first citation. Unfortunately without referring to 20 year old equipment catalogues I can't find a source for the the next two - the notion that in 1988 portable electrical generators were expensive or cumbersome, or that miniature video cameras were low quality; so I had to re-word those sentences. I hope that is acceptable. It seems to be extremely difficult to find documentary evidence of the state of technology or the cost of equipment at a particular date in the past. I haven't even been able to find a detailed enough timeline or chronology of video camera developments. Best Wishes, John Logie (talk) 13:30, 5 April 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. Nom withdrawn after evidence that player passes WP:ATH. Black Kite 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Borja (American soccer)

Carlos Borja appears to be an athlete who has never competed in a first-division professional league or represented his country at the national level. He does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for athletes. faithless (^speak) 02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only playing in second division at the moment, and does not appear to meet WP:ATHLETE. If he ever gets a game with the main team of Chivas USA he'll meet the notability criteria, but that does not appear to be a foregone conclusion at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CD Tapatio play in the Primera División A which is a fully professional league and Borja has played for them[83][84][85][86]. Nanonic (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated this article I was unaware that Primera División A was a fully professional league (my fault, I should have been more careful). Given the sources provided by Nanonic, it seems that Borja has appeared for them. I therefore have no objection to this AfD being closed. faithless (^speak) 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ATHLETE. Article needs renaming though...Giant Snowman 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your citing Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion in your argument. Are you suggesting that there is unsourced contentious material in the article which needs to be deleted? I don't see anything contentious at all. If it is the lack of sources that concerns you, well, that's a reason to improve the article, not delete it. Best, faithless (^speak) 04:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that unsourced BLPs should not exist, and that if there is no sign of interest sourcing it, then it should be deleted. I do improve articles where I have the knowledge to do so, however there are 30000+ unsourced BLPs, and only a small number of editors fixing them. Kevin (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - four refs added to confirm he has played regularly for Tapatio -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper new evidence.GauchoDude (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Lower Elements. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Elements Police

I've been thinking about WP:WAF, and I think that this page perfectly represents a page that should not exist. It has zero notability outside of the book series it's in (which is fiction). Should it go, or not? That is the question. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a mention in the "Characters" section of Artemis Fowl (series). No real-world notability outside of the fictional book series. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to the page The Lower Elements, as there is a section of "Goverment" and there is also a mention of 'Lower Elements Police" in the "Society" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leolisa1997 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 8 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Valverde

Autobiography that has been recreated 3 times now. IMHO fails Bio Notabliity has no reliable sources Skier Dude (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Salt to prevent recreation.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Looks like a cross-language (cross-cultural?) issue of notability, along with a lack of understanding what counts as a RS. Will gladly vote Keep if another editor can cleanup. Ronabop (talk)

Delete He is not notable as he is basically a supporting actor for TV commercials. There are no references to any substantial carreer in media. After a Google search these seem to be his only work experiences which are brief and scattered. I am a Hispanic Television aficionado and his apperance on Telefutura was quite brief as the program is still on the air with other hosts. I recommend deletion as he is not a recognized television personality. Not notable enough for Wikepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.120.85 (talk) 22:15, 5 April 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. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Comedy

I've decided to hit this article up for deletion on notability concerns, because a Google search didn't turn up many results for this competition. Maybe someone else can have better luck, but as of right now this article is completely unreferenced, so verifiability is a concern as well. Tavix : Chat 01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The competition and it's importance are easily verified. How hard did you look? The yearly finalists/winners might be harder to independantly verify, but that isn't an AFD task. The-Pope (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should probably be renamed 'Raw Comedy Competition' or even 'Raw Comedy Award', in which latter case it could be classed as an Award stub (or become an Award list maybe?). (Sorry, I'm new at this & don't really understand how these things work. If it was renamed - which is the same as moving it, right? - would it be considered to have been kept or not?)

I want to eventually see all the major Australian comedy awards referenced somewhere on Wikipedia, as emerging Australian comedy is one of my main areas of interest. (I might go ahead and change the article to an Award stub soon, I'd hate to see all that info lost.) I have found referencing this a bit tricky too, but there are references out there. The topic is very important culturally to many Australians.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Rebecca (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - one of Australia's premier stand-up comedy competitions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:33, 8 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Locke

Can't find any suitable net references as to notability, no reviews, no write ups from reputable sources, no indication of sales Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The work by Annie Locke, that has been listed, is what she produced before the Web began so it should come as no great surprise that you haven't been able to find much about her on that basis. There were no New Age charts to speak of back in the 80s. I know Hearts of Space did play her music but we don't have data as to how often. There are one or two hard-copy write-ups kicking around from the 80s that I may be able to find if I dig around.

As I stated in the article, she has sold in the region of 100,000 albums across her three titles. Inner Harmonies Music, UK; Serenity Music, USA; Fonix Musik, Denmark; Aquamarin Verlag, Germany; New Age Media, Australia; all distributed her music back in the 80s to early 90s. She appeared on a number of radio shows - Michael Van Straten, LBC, comes to mind, also Tina Baker on Radio Leicester - I can dig around for more.

After a 20 year or so break she is relaunching her music career this year - with a new piano album.

Questions:

   * It would help me to know how much evidence you consider would be enough to substantiate the article.
   * Should you decide to delete the item, Annie Locke, can I ask what rights I have to claim back her photo.

I hope we can work something out.

Thanks for your feedback.

Francis O'Neill (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanfromthenorth (talk • contribs)

Comment A good guide to notability for musical artists can be at WP:BAND. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your advice. I've taken a look at the page - very useful.

If I read it correctly, I have 5 days from notification before this article is deleted. Also that I can continue to edit to bring up to requirements. However I anticipate it will take me a little longer than what remains of the 5 days to acquire the info I need for this.

I'm anticipating it might be better to rewrite/resubmit this article at a later time. Can you confirm that one can resubmit, given that the updated item meets requirements? Also will it still live in my personal area after being deleted from the public area?

Francis O'Neill (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can resubmit an article that has been deleted. However, it is likely to get immediate scrutiny so you should be careful to make the article neutral in tone, cite independent sources for any material that may be challenged, and give evidence of notability. The content in your personal area will not be deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This musician's listing at Allmusic.com [87] includes a discography of three released albums. They have all been widely distributed, therefore she meets the criteria for notability. Untick (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The albums do not meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles: Serenity is not a major label, and the albums do seem to have been on any national music chart. If there were non-trivial independent sources, that would do it, but I can't find any. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete We have 12 criteria for listing musicians, meeting any single one is criteria for inclusion. Serenity might be considered in important indie label [88], as they have been around since 1984, (more than a few years), and they have a roster of 12 musicians, but most of the musicians are genre-specific, and may not be considered notable. Ronabop (talk)
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:06, 6 April 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. This needs cleaning up, but a look through sources sees that he is a member of a notable music duo and has played around Europe as well as his other activities. Enough to be going on with, I think. Black Kite 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jenkins (musician)

AfDs for this article:

Non notable musician CTJF83Talk 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - Although, the article is not referenced(and is in a poor state), I searched Google news, and came up with numerous references for this guy. It looks like he has been covered by multiple sources, and has done reviews and interviews for NPR. However, the article - as it stands - is clearly not in a neutral state, and has been written mostly by the man himself(Markjenkinsmusic). If the article can be cleaned up, made to sound less like a resume, and referenced properly, I would support its inclusion. Additionally, I was originally on the side of deleting this article(until I did some research on the subject).Wacko Jack O 03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "numerous references" link, links back to editing this page. CTJF83Talk 04:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, had the wrong link copied to the clipboard, it has been corrected (thanks for the heads-up!)Wacko Jack O 04:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep per above sources. Hobit (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. AfD is not the place for notable, RS'ed, content to receive requests for better wiki-style content. Ronabop (talk)
- Umm....I didn't come here for a better article, I didn't think he is a notable DJ. CTJF83Talk 08:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ctjf83, just out of curiosity, do you still hold that view(after looking over the sources, etc)?Wacko Jack O 08:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What sources? On the page I see 1 link to a book, 1 to a Planetarium, and one to a myspace page? How are those sources??? CTJF83Talk 08:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - These sources , the article obviously needs to be cleaned up, and proper sources added.Wacko Jack O 08:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have seen this too many times. Somebody types in the articles name in Google news or Google scholar and gets a couple of hits. He or she therefore proclaims that there are numerous sources for this article without ever checking the sources themselves. As far as I can tell these "sources" are reviews by Mark Jenkins of other bands. Those cannot be used for a biography of Mark Jenkins. I therefore challenge you to find just one of these numerous sources to use in the article. --Maitch (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Many of them are reviews/articles he has done for mainstream news organizations(such as NPR, The Washington Post, and other notable news organizations).Wacko Jack O 08:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        here are some sources that are not reviews by him.
        You still don't get me. I wasn't asking for another google test. Find one source and use in the article. --Maitch (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's a couple [89] and [90]. Also, like I have said, he has written a large amount of articles and reviews for NPR, The Washington Post, and other media entities.Wacko Jack O 12:04, 6 April 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lorello

declined prod; signed with a pro team, on their website, but apparently hasn't played a game with them yet. On the cusp of WP:ATHLETE, but seems just on the nn side. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says he was released before the season, so he's not technically signed. Being invited to a training camp is very different then playing regular season games, correct? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, he's never actually played, thus failing WP:ATHLETE, delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 9 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dureska

Doesn't appear to be notable. Only one source is given. Campaign manager for one unsuccessful local campaign. Jd027 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage about him -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we generally delete articles on unsuccessful political candidates, therefore I think it follows that articles on their campaign managers are fair game as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything to source the article for notability at all. Rnb (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"". Sourcing the notability of a campaign manager cane only be done by referring to candidate coverage. The race Ryan Dureska worked on was one of the top congressional races of 2008, was widely covered, and drew national attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliot P. Ness (talk • contribs) 01:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the page because while it is not typical to keep pages up of a campaign manager, the strategist in question here managed a campaign that was victorious in a high stakes primary that had major implications in a key congressional race. Campaign manager is considered a rising star in the Ohio Republican Party as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Cummings (talk • contribs) 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reliables sources that show this person was the campaign manager for the Schuring campaign, or is a Republican campaign manager? I haven't been able to find any. Rnb (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though the campaign website is no longer operational beyond the welcome screen, so I'm going to look elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Cummings (talk • contribs) 18:32, 7 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starnotti Ilio

Does not meet WP:Creative. The only google results are this page and wikipedia mirrors. This was already deleted on the Italian wiki [91], and if he isn't considered notable by Italian speakers, how can we consider him notable in this language? Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE - the only coverage I can find for this person is directory entries and Wikipedia mirrors. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom.Artblogs (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 8 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astrigawood

This was nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, because of the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astriga Film Industry. However, the new article is substantially longer than the deleted version, so I'm taking it to AfD instead. This is a procedural nomination; I take no position myself on whether it should be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I'm the one who nominated it for speedy deletion. I don't believe the length is relevant. The longer article has remedied none of the problems that led to the original decision to delete. In fact, it continues to confirm, openly, the group's non-notability, letting us know how limited the audience has been and how little money has been grossed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks 3rd party references. lacks notability.--RadioFan (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources available in article or through a quick web search. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:52, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animate Objects

I can find no notability for this band; a my space link and a youtube video do not qualify. Further, this article lists "friends and associated artists"; this leads me to believe this is some rinky-dink group that is trying to be famous. They aren't there yet. Further, this article's orphan status leads me to believe this article is purely self-promotion. Timneu22 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND T-95 (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the rather gushing tone of the article, this group doesn't appear to meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. If kept, this needs a complete rewrite. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete per nom. Poorly written too. Deletion Mutation 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantial coverage ("CONCERTED SOUL; Anything goes for Animate Objects", "Animate Objects take broad view of hip-hop", "Animate Objects, illustrious hip-hop; Group raps about struggle, triumph"[92]). Icewedge (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - group won a significant award [[93]], thus establishing notability (in addition to all the articles that have been found). Untick (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multi-nation tour, covered by multiple sources. Ronabop (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete. Article is not being worked on, which was the main reason the previous AfD was closed as no consensus. If someone does want towork on it, it can always be userfied and resurrected when it is significantly improved. Fram (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Davis (comedian)

There was no consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Davis (Female Comedian), in part because of a Keep without Prejudice !vote based on an editor's assertion that the article would be improved. It hasn't. Editing has ceased (except for a SPA who tried to remove the birthday). This is a non-notable stand-up whose claim to notability is "won the Raw Recruit in the 2008 Raw Comedy competition." Judging by how few of the previous winners of the overall competition have gone on to independent notability, it's quite questionable whether winning Raw Comedy is a "notable award or honor," but even if it were, she didn't win: she got a consolation prize as the best first-time entrant--a prize that isn't even described in the Raw Comedy Wikipedia article. That's twice-removed from notability. There is no substantial independent press coverage, and it reads as a cross between an advertisement and a directory entry. All the sources are press releases or a sentence or two in a larger article. This isn't going to improve unless lightning strikes and she's the one in a thousand standups who becomes notable. THF (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Last AfD was about 20 days ago, this is a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. See also WP:TIND.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Your only reason for !voting Keep last time was that it might be improved. It was your comment in the original AFD that said that this should get renominated for deletion if it didn't improve. It didn't improve. So why did you change your opinion? There were a total of four !votes without consensus, so this is a legitimate relisting, and what has changed since the last listing is that the original author's claim that the article would be improved to meet WP:N was proven wrong. So why do you think this meets WP:BIO? THF (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF, 20 days is not enough time to judge.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me how this article is going to be improved. It's not being edited. It's an orphan. There aren't any reliable sources to add. What the heck? THF (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said about three weeks ago the last time someone raised this at AfD, an editor has made a good faith assertion that the article's being worked on. Let them do that. Bring it back after a reasonable space of time, please.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor (who has admitted a COI) worked on it. The editor has effectively acknowledged that he is not going to work on it further. There's nothing more for them to do because there are no reliable sources to add. Why is waiting a month going to matter? THF (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That editor has, yes, but I was talking about Konsole4.2's assertion in the previous AfD.

As for "there are no reliable sources" — I accept that you can't find any (and I can't find any either), but it's a logical fallacy to assert that because we can't find sources, sources don't exist.

I agree with you, and I've always agreed, that the article should be deleted if no sources appear in a reasonable space of time. All we're disagreeing about is whether the time since the last AfD is "a reasonable space of time".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no deadline. Tag it as a stub/for expansion, or if you don't think it currently meets the standard for WP then fix it. Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fixable, at least not until the subject of the article actually meets Wikipedia notability standards. That's why it should be deleted. Shall I make an article about my ten-year-old cousin on the theory that she might be notable someday, and there's no deadline to improve the stub? THF (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disagreement on whether the awards are notable, you say it's not others said it is. Unless your cousin won any awards, or appeared in the newspaper for some reason, such a disagreement is unlikely to occur in a discussion about an article regarding him/her. Unless something blatantly meets speedy deletion criteria, it should get a chance to be salvaged. -- Mgm|^(talk) 15:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My brother won "3rd funniest comic in Austin" one year, and maybe someone will buy his screenplay. There's a stub for the future. THF (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you disagree with the outcome of the previous deletion DRV is the way to go. When people get a chance to improve an article, they should be given more than just two weeks. (Writing a good article takes time) Renomination of a page should occur no sooner than one month after the previous debate unless a DRV discussion says otherwise. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again -- the previous AFD was not "Keep", it was "No consensus." There's nothing to DRV, because that no-consensus decision was correct, there wasn't a consensus. We now have further evidence that the original deletion nomination was correct -- and that is proven by the fact that not a single "Keep" !vote has given a reason that this article shouldn't be deleted. THF (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete if no improvement very soon: I generally go along with "If in doubt, give it a chance", but I think nom is right on this one, just a bit premature. On present showing this woman is just not notable (of course in a year's time she might be but let's wait till she is) so there is no point at all marking it as a stub for expansion. I don't agree either with your analysis of the time issue: there has been quite enough time, if anyone were serious/in good faith about it, for at the very least some token of the possibility of progress to be given - and there has been nothing. The original "rescue" date was 12 March: give it another month - ie, until 29 April 2009, for the avoidance of doubt - and then if it's still no better, it should go. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a miracle happens and the article is improved so that notability is clearly evidenced apart from her one event. Empty promises at AfD are too-common these days and since nothing was done after the last AfD it must be concluded that either the article is insalvageable, or nobody is willing to do the work. Neither of these bode well for a BLP. Them From Space 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, she won an award at a competition that itself doesn't seem all that notable (Raw Comedy is itself up for deletion). The case for notability doesn't look all that strong. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Subject passes general notability (assuming http://www.chortle.co.uk/shows/melbourne_2008/r/15994/raw_comedy_final_2008/review/ counts as a reliable source, which it probably does, just), but she does not appear to have appeared in numerous notable shows or have a wide following, and thus fails WP:ENTERTAINER. IMO, the article has had its chance.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Getting a minor place in a comedy competition that is itself only borderline notable does not seem to me to be a convincing argument that this person is notable. No prejudice against recreating the article if she ends up becoming a successful comedian. Reyk _YO! 21:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it was judged 20 days ago to have potential for improvement, then it still has potential for improvement. AfD is about removing articles that don't. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false premise. It wasn't judged 20 days ago to have potential for improvement. It was judged "no consensus." I'm still waiting for anyone to show how this article can be improved given the lack of reliable sources. THF (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the specific terms of the decision, there was a previous AfD on this that resulted in a Keep less than a month ago. You claimed above that the no consensus keep was an incorrect result because it was predicated on the claim by certain editors moving to keep that the article could be improved. 20 days isn't long enough to wait to show that was a false premise. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did not result in a keep. It resulted in "no consensus." !Voting "keep" because the earlier decision was no-consensus is a complete non sequitur. There's no Wikipedia policy against back-to-back AFD nominations when the earlier nomination by a different editor resulted in no-consensus. WP:NOTAGAIN is not a reason to keep an article that flunks WP:N and cannot be improved. THF (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three weeks is ample time for improvement to become noticeable. Nom is right that we might as well start making stubs for newborns, because some of them will some day become notable for sure. WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 08:50, 6 April 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 already deleted. by User:Jimfbleak per WP:CSD#G11 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resource On Demand

Not entirely clear what this article is about but I think it is an advert for a software package. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have no idea what any of this even means or what it is about. I can't identify a subject, nd it appears to be some for of ad. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an advertisement for a software package masquerading as an article. It's even sourced to press releases by the company selling the software. There may be a subject to be had here. But this content isn't it. It isn't even a good stub. It's an advertisement. We should not host it pending the arrival of an actual encyclopaedia article. Uncle G (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand exactly what the article is about (resource allocation software, to, oh, handle a storm outage event where you need to restore power, which means you have to send utility guys up thousands of poles, and you only have 100 guys to work with). That being said, This isn't much of an article, and certainly isn't much of an encyclopedia entry. Ronabop (talk)
Delete. Nothing but promotional content. Looks like an excerpt from marketing collateral, detailing the results of a survey carried out by a company that makes resource allocation software demonstrating the need for resource allocation software. Color me surprised. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and I'm not finding any sense of notability when I search. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 5 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Magro

Another on-the-cusp WP:ATHLETE; he has played a pre-season game in a fully professional league. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing a training camp game and being released notable enough? They invite TONS of prospects to training camps that never make it through... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. One pre-season and practice squads aren't enough to constitute notability. However, the subject was apparently interviewed several times for MSN sports net: [94] [95] [96]. Not sure about its status as a source, but it seems like a fair amount of attention for a college player. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:05, 5 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Glenn

contested prod; there is more here than usual for a short-term football head coach. He coached a few seasons, including a Sun Bow appearance. Is that enough? You decide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He would need non-trivial coverage in secondary sources... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some in here to bad most archived newspaper articles are pay-per-view... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article may require some cleanup and removal of superfluous information, but I think it does rank as notable. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and a re-write per MightyWarrior. T-95 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Henry Show

Non-notable radio show, fails our notability standards. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does - delete as per nom Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep sources seem to exist at lagniappemobile.com [97] for example shows up on a web search. But I can't see the article (which apparently discussed this topic in detail) or the other two that at least mention it [98]. Interestingly, there appears to have been a show with the same name from 30s that might be notable. [99] Hobit (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 4 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Club of Kota Bharu Central

Declining db-spam and taking to AfD; a "cultural sensitivity" judgment call, since this is a Malaysian philanthropic/fraternal organization. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local organization. The Leo Clubs are the youth affiliate of the Lions Clubs International, of which this is a single local branch. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 5 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Phillip Smith

Not sufficiently notable to qualify under WP:AUTHOR - has only published a handful of books which dont seem to be well known. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to be fairly active in the area of Gnosticism; not obviously non-notable. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Turns out he's a fairly serious writer, at least to the extent that academic libraries are willing to buy the books-- and one was translated into German, which is ordinarily a sign of at least some significance. Most importantly, his translation of the Gospel of Thomas is in over 1000 worldCat academic and public libraries. [100] . DGG (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Could use a few more references in the article though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 8 April 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 or "nomination withdrawn". There's no point in letting this nomination collect dust for another 4 days (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solido Design Automation

No claim to significance or notability. Refs are ambiguous: some appear to be public relations releases, others refer to 'top 100 rankings' within the industry--perhaps someone knowledgeable in this field can speak to the sources' import, but I think this is questionable enough to merit discussion. I speedied this as an anonymous IP; template was removed and management team was added. JNW (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of response, I'd request that an admin close this if they believe the article establishes notability. JNW (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I was going to close this as the nominator suggested but let's give it another day or so. If nobody chimes in, then it can be closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 4 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Foreshadowing

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 12:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted this article, but on request restored it and moved it to the user's space. For the record, I had nothing to do with it going live again in the main article namespace. In terms of notability, they only have one release on an important indie label. They need two or more to meet WP:BAND, and there is no information about them touring or charting or anything else. The Metal-Archives source I believe is a wiki (or at least user generated content), so it fails WP:RS. Metal Hammer is a notable publication. I'm not familiar with the last two sources (but the interview is a primary source, which may exclude it from counting towards notability). This article might barely slip by based on WP:GNG. But it really doesn't have much going for it. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, for the existing review in metal-observer, but also the Allmusic review as well. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more non-trivial mentions here, here, here, and here. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by EG. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets minimum criteria for notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music). Untick (talk) 23:56, 8 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seduced Milkmen

I'm not sure how notable or encyclopediac this is; also is a stub with no sources. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of reliable sources that discuss this sketch as their subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss this sketch found by Google News and Google Books. I've cited a couple of them in the article, including an academic study. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough Python sketch. I'm a bit iffy about having articles on individual sketches, but the principle is well established (Category:Monty Python sketches), so... Rd232 ^talk 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. The nomination's uncertainty indicates that proper deletion process has not been followed. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've been down this road already, eg, [101]. Radiopathy (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article looks fine.Quistisffviii (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same reasons as the last sketch was kept. It was on the show, and one of their films. Dream Focus 12:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to Merge to list of Monty Python sketches but that's been redirected. The google book and news hits show that it's famous but I don't really see much in-depth discussion. Deletion is obviously not appropriate. Nerfari (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a suitable and nicely sourced stub. It might grow... it might not... but it meets the criteria for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:18, 7 April 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 - Nabla (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Morgan

Not yet notable NationalTreasure (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--indeed, not notable, since this Google News search produces only a passing mention. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is it fair that she, a television contestant gets an article, yet there are countless others who do not? I do not think being on a game show is enough to establish notability. T-95 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 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. Almost certainly a hoax, as the second sentence proves. Black Kite 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British and Commonwealth Sauna Championships

it's either a hoax or made up event, no notability whatsoever. Skarebo (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no indications it's not a hoax. A Google search of "Nick Hurst" +sauna brought up brought up no relevant hits. Seems like a hoax. TJ Spyke 01:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Novak

Adverty bio totally self-referenced, does not appear to have done anything on his own or is notable in his own right. MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. T-95 (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, self referenced only. Acebulf (talk) 03:35, 4 April 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. Little discussion, but an unsourced BLP that makes no assertion of notability. Can always be resurrected if sources are found. Black Kite 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Mansour

Disastrous. A "needs more refs" tag and an "expand" tag have adorned the article since January 2007, and the last edit was in November 2007 (a wikification.) Nothing to show notability...does this deserve to stay? Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's another COI: Firas Ked created the article, and Ked seems to be the shortening of a last name already in there (a child of Mansour) with a first name of Firas. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She's only notable for founding a school, and I'm not even sure that that makes someone notable. Other than that, there's nothing to derive notability from - all it has is that she went to University and has children. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 4 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Schlesinger

He wrote a few books, and that's about it. What demonstrates notability? Here, the trio of templates are gravy. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and it's a conflict of interest: the creator is Kschlesinger.) Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a few Gnews hits, so he might have notability, but I can't access the pay-per-view articles to tell. The WP:COI issue isn't too relevant, since COI editing is only a problem when it affects Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based upon Google Books, Google News and plain ol' Google Search which all seem to indicate that there is likely enough available to improve the article once it finds its way up through the stacks. Being templated for improvement should not be a call to nominate for deletion. With the nearl 3 million articles on wikipedia, it is is not expected that all be made better within a few days or weeks or even months. Wiki hopes to be timeless enough so it can all be dealt with. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable poet, fails WP:BIO and most significantly WP:AUTHOR.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of review; editor of journal; publisher of press; body of work on Creeley. pohick (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the review. DGG (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Is the creator of the article the guy it talks about, or someone who just registered that name, and started the article, posting once and never gain? [102] Most of the editing was done by others though. Dream Focus 12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once it is in mainspace, it belongs to wiki. As long as it is not full of hyperbole and avdert, a decent encyclopedic article is {usually) welcome. That others have improved the article is a sign that the system can work.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:15, 7 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steilmann

There is no notability asserted. Because I have little info, I thought an AfD best. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep little in terms of independent referencing also in the de-wiki article but this Stern article shows notability. ~~It appears that the firm has gone under since, so advertising is not an issue.~~ Agathoclea (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It's a defunct textile group (I've expanded the article a bit from the German version and an extra source), probably notable enough (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) but I'm not enthusiastic about it. Rd232 ^talk 01:17, 4 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UTS Writers' Anthology

fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep, there are enough sources listed in the article that this may be notable - unfortunately none of them are available online. If someone can verify that these references actually describe this series of books, then the article should be kept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:23, 4 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Regular Association for Poker

Some college club, several self generated wiki-like mentions around, but no reliable sources to establish notability. Telegraph article linked in article does not mention this group. Could get one sentence in article about University I suppose, but again no notability to be found. 2005 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2914856 http://topokergames.com/poker_night_3_churchill_regular_association_for_poker_crap http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/~gw288/constitution.pdf http://jcr.chu.cam.ac.uk/theforum/index.php?topic=3428.msg%msg_id% 88.109.252.59 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is a copy of a Wikipedia bio article with nothing to do with article. The others are nothing links -- announcing a game, the rules of the club... 2005 (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first link is a copy of the article Bill Chen presented by some devious route via Russia, but all it says is that the Chen is the Association's Hon. Chairman. The others are all listing-type mentions; I don't see the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required for notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - I agree with JohnCD that notability si the issue. It certainly is a grey area as to what is allowed, especially when Wikipedia wants to expand. As said by someone above, College boat clubs all have their own pages. What makes this less notable? It has more references than nearly all boatclubs. I've seen far worse articles. I am inclined to keep the article, but maybe reduce it to a smaller article. Deletion does not achieve much. 88.106.231.180 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What makes this club less notable? The paucity of independent reliable sources, mainly. Note that the first reference used in this article, from The Daily Telegraph, would be an independent reliable source ... except that it doesn't mention this club nor does it have anything to do with the statement it is supposedly being used to support. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - My opinion is that I have put a lot of work into this article and referenced it as much as possible. The link to the Telegraph article is about a notable member. The nature of the club means that it is very anti-media and is not mentioned well known outside of Cambridge and academic circles. If you think it isn't then you might as well delete all of the following articles about Cambridge University Societies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Automobile_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_SPS_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Philosophical_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Law_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Apostles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CICCU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembroke_Players —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWebbie (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Please go back and compare this Wikipedia article to the Telegraph article and try and figure out the connection between them. There is none. The Wikipedia article uses the Telegraph article as a reference to indicate that Anthony Hewish is a member of the club, but Hewish is not mentioned in the Telegraph article. The main person mentioned in the Telegraph article is Guolong Li, who is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article and is not clearly notable anyway. The Telegraph article does not even mention poker. The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that somebody linked the wrong article from the Telegraph. If the club is so anti-media that it doesn't get discussed in mainstream press sources, perhaps it is for the best that we leave them out of this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If it is refenced as best as possible, and the Club is anti-media, then it obviously does not deserve an article since it plainly doesn't meet the criteria for an article. Mentioning other articles is irrelevant. Other stuff exists, maybe those articles should be deleted or maybe not, but this article is not even close to meeting the criteria. 2005 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - I've heard of this Society and know that it is notable. How many of the people in this discussion are actually from Cambridge? 88.110.81.213 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding your comments in four different places is not appropriate. Being from Cambridge is irrelevant. The subject is not notable under the encyclopedia's guidelines, even if you have heard of it or are a member. 2005 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject of the article doesn't meet notability requirements. Rray (talk) 07:56, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 1803

Non-notable radio show. Fails to meet WP:NOTE. No significant coverage or reliable coverage. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Studio 1803 is a credible Radio program!!! i listen to it every Thursday on USF Radio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.200 (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable campus radio programme, no significant independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and JamesBurns. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 5 April 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 closed as keep, nominator withdrew. Non admin close --Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Push Up Championships

Non-notable commercial event, with no history (first year), no substantial claim to the name "World" and no independent coverage. Scoop reference is a reprinted press release, as is nzlive.com. Infonews is a "publish your own news" website dramatic (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.

Delete - there are no reliable sources covering the event. Reprints of press releases don't count. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dominion Post has an article [103], satisfies WP:N. XLerate (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have updated the article with a link to the Dominion Post article mentioned. It also appeared on Prime News New Zealand. A copy of the coverage is available here...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrY3Yx4Bw0M. The 'World' title is only by default as it is the only event of its kind in the world (Maigheo11 00:14, 3 April 2009)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sourced in multiple reliable sources = notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per meeting wp:n nobility there is enough reliable source for this article to be kept.Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 06:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability shown since first nominated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn - looks like a keep now. dramatic (talk) 00:07, 6 April 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.