Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 5

< 4 April	6 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nozio

Non-notable website that reads like an advertisement. I nominated it for speedy deletion, but User:Sj removed the tag saying "add references, please", although no sources had been added. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked SJ for his rationale in removing the CSD tag. The article had a HANGON tag and the author was seeking help, so at this point, I would not support a speedy deletion of the article---give the author a chance. But I do believe that in the articles current shape, CSD would not be wrong. The article has a long way to go to avoid deletion.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find sources to support a claim to notability. If any turn up, I can be convinced to change my recommendation. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, I'm seeing a few mentions in Google News hits but not what I'd describe as "significant coverage".--RadioFan (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should have been speedied as a not notable website or spam. Obvious promotional article by SPA. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nomination, I DID nominate it for speedy deletion, but it was declined. Same with the prod. Therefore, I brought it here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per notability. Alexa shows only 760 sites linking, which is pretty nominal in website terms. Also, judging by the traffic, this would only really be suitable for the Italian Wikipedia. Only 4.3% of the visitors are English speaking. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 11:05, 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. If a redirect is wanted, or a merger, the nominator or any other editor can do it. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Turbo

Merged/Irrelevant Tzaquiel (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems fine, on what basis are you proposing deletion? Your rationale is very unclear. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has not explained why the article does not meet WP:N standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ - My rationale is that a character who appeared exclusively in three advertisements and is noted at TurboGrafx-16 does not merit a separate page. - Tzaquiel (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're nominator, its assumed that you're voting delete, there's no need to really vote again. (I have no vote on the article myself)Umbralcorax (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Tzaquiel If you think the article should be merged, you can be bold and do it, or discuss it first on the talk pages of the articles to be merged to get a consensus. Or, if you already merged it, then you should just redirect this page to the article where the content was merged to. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 01:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with TurboGrafx-16, considering the lack of sourced content. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject AFD is not the place for requesting mergers, that is what article talk pages are for. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TurboDuo. I have taken the liberty of copying over the only referenced statement. Marasmusine (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TurboDuo as the character was meant to advertise for that peripheral. I cannot find anything else verifiable about him, so I don't think there isn't anything worth merging. MuZemike 07:46, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican Australians

Non-notable ethnic group. There are only 224 such people according to the article, and I can't find any reliable sources proving notability. Tavix | Talk 22:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:RS or WP:V standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and regrettably, not notable. The article made three claims:

1. that Puerto Ricans were involved in Australia's Federation and the formation of unions and the Labor Party.No evidence is provided for any of these claims and none of the traditional source texts for Federation, Ausralian unions or Australian political parties makes the slightest reference of Puerto Rican involvement.

2. that Puerto Ricans came to Australia to "protect it from the Japanese" then left with their war brides. This is possibly generically true for US soldiers during WWII, a proportion of whom may have been Puerto Rican. But it is not distinctive to Puerto Rico any more than it is distinctive to people from Guam, the Aleutians, Ohio or Rhode Island.

3. that Puerto Ricans had free migration rights to Australia due to the ANZUS Defence Treaty. This is provably false (ANZUS is defence-related, the text is here) so I have removed this from the article.

A Puerto Rican population in Australia of 224 might be the only thing in this article that is accurate, but that of itself demonstrates the reason why there are no verifiable sources for Puerto Rican-Australian history or culture. Euryalus (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability and the claims in the article are total bollocks. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides being completely unsourced, the topic is misguided. Puerto Rico is not a nation, any more so than Tasmania is, nor is "Puerto Rican" its own ethnic group. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 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 Speedy deleted G11 NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Ad Revolution

Blatant spam, but speedy reverted by another user with oddly similar interests to creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. See also Globaladrevolution and Imokdx. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as originally tagged. The person who removed the tag has failed to explain how G11 does not apply here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The hangon tag, still present, is accompanied by a comment which reads like this: This page is not spam, it is about an affiliate network just like azoogle and many other networks on wiki. This is general information for users who want to know about the back round and history of Global Ad Revolution. Admitting that this is right (and that would be really stretching it), that fails to explain how the subject meets our notability requirements. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:18, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwuma Onwuchekwa

Speedy deletion contested. No evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Tabercil (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails WP:MUSIC, unreferenced. MuffledThud (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:N. No references, http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=Chukwuma+Onwuchekwa only returns a few relevant hits...none of which give notability. Article in question doesn't even supply proper guidelines for writing an article. Cheers. I'^mperator 22:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No news Ghits. We need proof of notability. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An actor who plays a minor role in a movie coming out this month. IMDB doesn't have anything else on him. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:25, 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. Give this anothe rcoule of months before revisiting it if necessary Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs

This article does not appear to meet the notability guideline for fringe theories, which specifies that "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." The article does not appear to contain any such reference, nor have I been able to find one. Nor does the article appear to meet the general notability guideline. In my opinion the article should thus probably be deleted as being non-notable.Locke9k (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No external references to support current information, though this could prove a viable article if that was not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koryu Obihiro (talk • contribs) 23:56, April 5, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. This article has been mauled by nominator in a series of consecutive edits (diff.) where clearly relevant and notable text was removed asserting that it was unreferenced and not related to the subject. I have currently undertaken to reinstate most of this and encourage the use of maintenance tags such as reference requests instead of removing text if its sourcing appears inadequate. Nominator seems blind to the religious and metaphysical perspectives of this topic shown clearly by the (now removed) addendum to the introduction: "Such theories have received no support from the general scientific community." The support of the general scientific community is not the benchmark for our inclusion of topics that do not present themselves as scientific. __meco (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to be setting up a straw man. Regardless of how you wish to semantically categorize this article, by labeling it 'religion' or whatever, it still requires third party evidence of its notability. If you wish to classify it as describing a religious organization, then it still must meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which still requires third party coverage demonstrating notability. If you are trying to avoid any of the subject specific notability criterion, it still must meet the general notability requirement, which requires "reliable secondary sources". These are simply not present. Nor can I find any after a web search in an attempt to better source the article.
  As a side note, a theory can't simply opt out of scientific review. This article is describing a proposed explanation for observed phenomena; an explanation that is not accepted by the scientific mainstream. As per the arbcom decision on the topic (see wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories for a good start point for reading about this) that qualifies this as pseudoscience and a fringe theory. There is a very clear ruling on the matter that applies to this case. Finally, the material I removed in this article was rambling, not clearly related to the subject matter, had no third party references establishing notability, and appeared to exaggerate certain points of view through the promotion of non-notable facts. I don't feel that restoring it or removing it affects this AFD since the material includes no notability-establishing references. Locke9k (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a legitimate topic. I don't know what you think of the Fortean Times, but this article seems to provide a decent overview. Zagalejo^^^ 07:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the cause of this problem is the term hypothesis used in the title. That begs to have the article judged as a scientific hypothesis – which it isn't. A renaming should ward off any future nominations such as the present one. __meco (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I think perhaps I did not make sufficiently clear the grounds on which I think this article should be deleted. Essentially, there are no third party references in the article to establish notability. I dont believe that the Fortean Times (above) qualitifies as a major reliable third party publication. I don't see how a renaming would solve the problem. By any name, the article requires a solid body of reliable independent references to establish notability. Locke9k (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there are a few more mainstream sources that discuss the idea of "UFOs as demons": [1], [2] Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable theory within UFO circles (I don't believe a word of it myself, but that doesn't make it non-notable). For example, this (admittedly old) book: [3] has a chapter devoted to the subject, and I've read about in a number of other, more recent sources that I unfortunately don't immediately have to hand. Shaeffer, I'd say, reasonably qualifies as a third party source in this context. The article may, or may not, be particularly good, but I'd say it is (perhaps regrettably) notable enough for inclusion. Anaxial (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The area of study in the article is well notable as there are umpteen sources arguing said. There are shortfalls in the references provided, but this is something that is not unsalvageable.Constructive editor (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Locke9k (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while this article certainly needs additional citations, I think they can be found. I also think the Library of Congress publication already mentioned in the article provides proof of notability. LadyofShalott ^Weave 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott ^Weave 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a mess. Article needs serious cleanup: Citations need to be put into WP:CITET format and the citations to clearly notable works (e.g., Jung) need to be explicit, rather than implied. However, since AfD is not for cleanup, I must !vote keep and revisit this, if desired, in a month or two once the article has been cleaned up and references noted have been appropriately cited. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article had been significantly cleaned up at the time the AFD was initiated. Despite considerable work along those lines, I could not find any external reliable references to support the article. Since that time, Meco has systematically reverted all of the cleanup, and so that is the article you see now. Based on what was left after the prior cleanup (feel free to look at the page history, last edit by me to see what I mean) I don't think that the issue was one of cleanup but rather of notability.Locke9k (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reverted your removal of relevant text (deemed irrelevant by you). I have not removed any of the cleanup requests which have have profusely added to the article. __meco (talk) 07:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sploofus

Non-notable website. Article reads like an advertisement Untick (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject certainly warrants an article. It has recieved very significant coverage in three major newspaper:

'Web site attracts global fan base' by George Tanber in the Toledo Blade.
'Sploofus.com: It's the answer for trivia fans' by Rebecca Coudret in Evansville Courier & Press
'Where Trivia Knowledge is Power' by Dave Frownfelder in the South Bend Tribune

Article does not read like an advertisement. It's well written and well referenced.--Patton^t/c 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Note~~. The third of those sources can be viewed by people with paid subscriptions only, and is therefore ~~unverifiable~~ verifiable anyway because I omitted the obvious fact that it was referring to a newspaper source... Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's absolutly ridiculous. These articles were published in major newspapers, and are in the physicial copies. Just because they're not available to everyone online does not make not count towards verifiability. If that were the case books would have to be banned from Wikipedia as sources becuase they do not appear online in their entirety.--Patton^t/c 11:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, sorry, I oversighted that fact. Regardless, I'm struggling to see how these and the two sources I noted below justify alone an independent article. I'm assuming there's not somewhere suitable we can merge this to? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 11:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - They provide lots of verifiable information for a seperate article. Merging this somewhere would cause a mess. It deserves a seperate article considering the amount that can be written about it.--Patton^t/c 11:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        With around five sources? I'd say quite a few more are needed to justify notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        5 sources is plenty. It certainly qualifies as significant coverage.--Patton^t/c 10:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Hardly for a separate article. How many good/featured articles have such a number of sources? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        5 of my GAs have 4 or 5 sources.--Patton^t/c 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Eh, I'm still doubtful on basing the article on what's essentially three regional newspapers and a couple of sources from PRWeb; sure, it might bring the article up to GA standard, but FA, the criteria of which states that sourcing must be "characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature"? I'm not entirely convinced that these sources alone can bring the article up to such a standard. To be honest, though, I think I'll settle at a weak keep to give the article time to expand. I'm somewhat in a state of flux at this point in evaluating its notability, and I think only expansions based on the provided sources can resolve that. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Many of our articles have no hope of ever becoming FAs due to sourcing. Take any of our articles about retired athletes who wona f ew medals.--Patton^t/c 14:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability isn't the same as fame or importance, enough WP:RS to support inclusion. MLauba (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being written like an advertisement is an editing matter that ought not require the use of special tools, such as deletion, to resolve. Remember, we are a work-in-progress: content shouldn't be deleted for being unsatisfactory, which would be a particular problem since we keep changing the standards, but for being irredeemable. --Kiz o r 21:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (see above). The existing sources are far from sufficient, and Google turns up little notability either; the only significant coverage seems to be this and this, and, past there, nothing seems to stand out (Google News Search turns up nothing, either). This alone hardly justifies notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the given sources establish sufficient notability of the site. The tone of the article could improve, but I don't think it completely justifies deletion, especially when it's not blatant. MuZemike 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Odd nomination, especially considering that there are more reliable, independent, non-trivial sources for this article than a number of other articles the nominator typically votes "Keep" on (and for which he/she gets upset when I vote Delete and explain why his explanations do not follow actual notability standards). Seems to be part of a recent series of nominations made against articles I created... all of which have failed. DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew C. Miller

Notability disputed. Not everyone who has written emedicine articles needs a Wikipedia article. Current content fails WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although less puffy WP:PEACOCKing compared to Rashid M. Rashid article also up for deletion makes it seem perhaps more likely notablity could be established - getting to contribute to a widely used source (eMedicine) is weakly supportive - but overall I just don't see notablity for inclusion in wikipedia as yet established. David Ruben ^Talk 22:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails establish notability as per WP:PROF. Plastikspork (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't demonstrate notability. Zodon (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only eight papers in Scopus, none cited more than twice. Not yet an authority in his field. DGG (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per User:Plastikspork's rational. kilbad (talk) 11:50, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid M. Rashid

Notability disputed. If a doctor's main achievement is a report on a previously described condition occuring in pregnancy, then this falls well short of WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notablity for inclusion in wikipedia not established. David Ruben ^Talk 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 02:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I tired out from searching earlier today, but did major edits to keep only those pubmed articles that help meet WP:PROF criterion #1. I am not sure if more can be found but I gave up the search as this really takes more time then I thought. But I also find myself an involuntary spectator unable to unglue myself from this process. One person noted that just having publications doesnt cut it, and I agree, that is why I deleted a lot of what was in the article to only leave the more encyclopedic. I am sure the article could use more work but it may be an issue of patience and time... unless someone wants to really dig around over a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Skinobs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Notability is not sufficiently established per WP:PROF. Plastikspork (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there are forty peer-reviewed papers in Scopus, none of hem have been cited more than 5 times. This does not add up to notability in a subject. DGG (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to be the only one backing this. I think if as they said, scopus showed few citations. Then maybe this is an article that does not need to be on wiki. I am ok with its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this got me thinking. This is a great chance to improve wiki. Maybe for the notability guideline, a certain score system should be established i.e "number of scopus citations" or the such. It would avoid future articles like this and debates like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this belongs on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) rather than here. But we can't really pick a number because different fields have widely varying citation numbers, and for some fields (see footnote 5 of WP:PROF) Scopus is a bad choice because by focusing only on journals it ignores a large fraction of the literature. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. And I guess to emphasize this, I looked at the h-index of some dermatology greats such as Albert Bernard Ackerman and Ronald Rapini. THey were not remarkable at 13 and not even above 10. So if these people are considered notable, at least everyone in derm does, then the notability thing is really tough to figure out. And again, the issue to emphasize here is that derm deals with orphan diseases. And except for a few skin cancers and other things like psoraisis, almost everything is as rare as it comes and thus focusing on h-index is not a great way to go. I dont know, whats the best way to decide this? I talked to some other dermies and they are not interested in joining the wiki bandwagon. So it will be tough to get this area expanded and to know who are the notables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be very low. No news hits on Google News.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per User:Plastikspork's rational. kilbad (talk) 11:50, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crood Awakening

Apparently fails WP:NFF; no evidence that filming has commenced, and scant evidence to suggest that the project is still active. PC78 (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was only wondering about this the other day. As it was going to be an Adam Sandler/Aardman thing, then Sandler pulled out and Aardman pulled out, what is left is nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films. No problem with recreation down the road if the project is verified to be reactivated and to be filming (of course, WP:N should apply). —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:39, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joanie Bartels

Pulled from db-copyvio deletion queue. 3 problems: 1. I removed a large chunk of copyvio of http://www.mp3.com/artist/joanie-bartels/summary/ (click on "expand"). 2. Although one cassette is said to have sold 2 million copies, the deleted copyvio (check history) also says that she was only credited in "fine print", and that people began to recognize her "later", although nothing specific is said about how she was recognized or how many albums she sold after that, and I don't see other significant assertions of notability 3. The tone before I removed the copyvio could be considered promotional. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I see there are some reliable sources mentioning her work online, including NYT, Time and Entertainment Weekly. I originally speedied it for copyvio (see edit history), but am now having second thoughts about it now that Dank55 has removed the copy-&-paste. MuffledThud (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 11:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 11:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be very notable in the children's music genre going by her Allmusic bio, has released at least two albums on BMG [4] and has had an album certified gold by the RIAA [5]. Meets at least criteria #3 and #5 at WP:MUSICBIO. --JD554 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:MUSIC with a gold record. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet WP:MUSIC and the other reasons raised seem for clean up. StarM 02:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is a creation of an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:38, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos (2005 film)

The only real 'notable' thing about the film is that Roger Ebert gave it a 0 star review, the producer wrote back and Ebert responded, which the director later used to promote his film. Is that enough to warrant an article on it? CyberGhostface (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Deletion withdrawn--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would easily satisfy even the ridiculously high bar set in WP:MOVIE of wide distribution and review by "two or more" nationally known critics. [6], and even that's just a rough guideline. It would not have been reviewed by Roger Ebert if it had not been a theatrical release. Mandsford (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film was released and was reviewed by The New York Times, Variety and Hollywood Reporter, as confirmed by Google News: [7]. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:N and WP:MOVIE. Recommend a speedy keep. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:08, 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 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An elegant theory of time

Contested PROD - No reliable sources, cannot be verified independently, reads like an Advertisement MLauba (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in an elegant and timely fashion. This doesn't even appear to be a book, but rather a website, aneleganttheoryoftime.com from an author whose theory appears to be "been there, done that". Mandsford (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual content - just advertising puffery. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an apparent promotion. WillOakland (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even an advertisement; there's no product being sold there. Just a kook with a website. eaolson (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable nonsense. Cardamon (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Underneath the gibberish is a novel idea, but sadly, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much everything said.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:03, 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. Naming issues etc can be resolved outside of AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Kosovo independence

This article strikes me as an unsalvageable coatrack. It's an essay, and its contents are all summarised in better, more neutral fashion elsewhere. Some choice excerpts:

"These painful events, and the UDI violating Serbia's territorial integrity, pose a problem for Serbia and the international relations at large: do they or don't they set a precedent for other separatists, who are conflicted with their own central governments?"
"Given this stark brutality..."
"These politicians paid lip service to Serbian historicity of Kosovo, its symbolic and emotional importance as the cradle of the Serbian nation, yet, ironically, few Serbs showed any desire to leave the prosperous regions of Serbia and relocate to this neglected, impoverished outpost on its southwestern fringe, an unfriendly area teeming with speakers of quite a different language, espousing a different religion, and decidedly feeling collectively aggrieved."
"The question remains: was it a legal departure? What are its implications?"

It seems clear such speculations do not belong here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Biruitorul ^Talk 17:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Aymatth2's cleanup work, and given broad consensus for keeping/merging, I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does include statements that are far from neutral. That is a basis for clean-up, not for deletion. The many sources cited show that there is indeed a notable controversy. There is some overlap between this topic and Political status of Kosovo and considerable overlap with International recognition of Kosovo. Perhaps some very bold editor will undertake a merge into the latter. Until then, assertions that do not reflect a neutral point of view should be removed, but the article should not be deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(We also have neutrality flags on Kosovo, Kosovo War, Albanians in Kosovo, Demographics of Kosovo, International recognition of Kosovo, Kosovo Liberation Army, Serbs in Kosovo and Foreign relations of Kosovo. Clearly there is a controversy, which will probably take many years to be resolved. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on, there may be value in focusing as much as possible of the Kosovo controversy on this one article. That is, make the article on International recognition of Kosovo a strictly factual account of the current formal positions taken by the governments, move any controversial content to this one, and police International recognition of Kosovo to keep it purely factual: an accurate statement of current official positions. It may be harder to remove the controversy from the other articles, but worth an attempt. We then have one controversial article on the controversy where editors can do their best to preserve neutrality. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reorganize as Aymatth suggests. He asked my opinion of his plan, and I think it reasonable -- perhaps because it is essentially what I have suggested at other places also. For the more controversial parts of this, we cannot hope for neutral statements; all we can really expect is balance. Ethnic disputes will not find their final settlement on Wikipedia. Our goal is to present the agreed facts, and the interpretations of the different parties. DGG (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point: we can and should always expect neutral statements, and we should of course cover every point (the neutral way of which is quoting each point, WP:UNDUE provided); we do it in the same place, not all over the place. Other than quoting all sides and leaning on the side of caution in impersonal statements, I have no idea what "neutrality" you expect and how you define it. And I don't see how unforking the info is similar to find a "final settlement" for "ethnic disputes" - wikipedia finds no settlement, permanent or hourly, because that's not within its scope; what it does is record the controversy as it is, taking the necessary distance from opinions, and including only qualified opinions cited from reliable sources. The fact that editors consistently try to ignore that or find a way around that should set no precedent. Dahn (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree the article has unneutral wording, but this is not grounds for deletion. It does need a cleanup however, would you (the nom) consider doing this with a few other interested editors? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Undoubtly there is a great deal of controversy on the independence issue, but it could be sufficently covered by a merge of this article with Political status of Kosovo. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge COATRACK, but also a likely POV fork, another one of those cases where, if editors can't (or don't try to) agree on a neutral text, they start creating "read me! read me!" articles. Note: my comment does not address the persons who created the article, but the way in which such an article can, is and will be used. Dahn (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have done some broad edits to the article, taking out paragraphs that had no references, and in one case dropping a whole section where the url for the only reference pointed back to the article itself! Not a complete clean-up by any means, but perhaps a bit better. The result is an article with four very distinct discussions:

a) Legality of the secession, which could be merged into Political status of Kosovo - ~~I may just do that~~ did it
b) Status of Kosovo Serbs, which could be merged into Serbs in Kosovo - ~~I may just do that too~~ did it
c) Does Kosovo set a precedent for other disputes?
d) Impact on international relations.

I don't see an obvious target for merging the discussion on whether it sets a precedent, which is (or should be) much more about international law and the effect on other countries than about Kosovo itself, but it is a valid topic as the number of references prove. So maybe the content on setting a precedent should be made into a stand-alone article. The content in the last section is minor and ~~could be dropped~~ is moved to International recognition of Kosovo. Note that the target articles also have problems with neutrality and balance, and it will be tough to get them to generally accepted and stable versions. But they are legitimate subjects. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This disputed article is now reduced to one on the Kosovo precedent. I will try to neutralize the other articles that were victims of my content-merging. I expect the editors watching them have enough problems as it is. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new neutral version. Topic is notable and article is sourced. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the decision is to keep this stripped-down and neutralized version, I propose to rename it to "Kosovo precedent debate", which more accurately reflects the remaining content. Any views on the article name? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 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 delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kushindo

Seemingly an original research. I could not find any sources on the web. See also the discussion here. Oda Mari (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Oda Mari (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Oda Mari (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing showing this is anything other than original research. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be non-notable as it does not fit any part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability. It is troublesome that there are no web references. jmcw (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Brings no benefit to readers but confusion. --Mantokun (talk) 15:38, 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 Various. I hate multiple noms, and I hate closing them :) Mostly, this is because the arguments for deleting one article are "inherited" by another that may be sufficiently different. In this case, there is no single policy governing this kind of article, which means that mass nomination complicates, rather than simplifies this process and guarantees only that there will be disappointment for all sides. Nonetheless, that diatribe at an end, the discussion indicates a variety of results.

Greece-Guyana relations - no consensus: poor arguments on either side, few addressing the usefulness of the sources provided in an effort to establish notability
Cuba–Greece relations - no consensus: WilyD provided some sources (admittedly you need the right access to view them) and very little reason was given to discredit them. That said, the balance of argument does not indicate any consensus
Greek-Panamanian relations, Greece-Turkmenistan relations, Greece–Uruguay relations, Greek-Palauan relations - delete. No reason for retention was offered to counter the discussion's conclusion that these lack reliable sources.

Finally, can I comment that comments of the variety of "better in another article", "redundant to existing article" etc. suggest an editorial alternative to an AfD - redirects and merges, which can be done without us ending up in these rather complex retention disputes. Can I suggest, before I have to spend another 20 minutes picking another nomination apart, discussing this centrally first rather than coming to the melting pot of AfD? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece-Guyana relations

I'm nominating as a batch a few prodded articles that were contested (albeit without reason). Greece has very tenuous relations with all these countries: no embassies in some of them, no historic, cultural or significant political or economic ties with any of them. Where Greek communities exist, separate articles are already in place: Greeks in Uruguay, Greeks in Cuba, Greeks in Panama. Existence of embassies is covered at Diplomatic missions of Greece and at equivalent articles for the other countries. As relations between these pairs does not seem to go beyond mere existence of bilateral ties, the articles should be deleted, per strong recent precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldova–South Korea relations, etc. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - History shows that most of these articles are notable - debating them in batches only makes it impossible to see what's going on. WilyD 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do see recent AfDs, and do present evidence of notability (if there is any), rather than attempting to circumvent the process. AfDs run for five days, which should be plenty of time if any of these are salvageable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of the recent AFDs have closed as "Keep", or "no consensus". Block voting has been a problem, and trying to hold six seperate discussions on a single page is impossible. Grouping different articles only disrupts our ability to conduct any sensible process. For Greece Guyana, my inability to speak Greek is a problem, though it's fairly clear their relations are notable. In English [8] maybe. In Greek [9] is pretty nice, though it's hard to assess the reliability of a Greek source, not speaking Greek. Rather than disrupting the process by grouping articles that each need seperate considerations, list individual articles so they can be individually discussed. Wily D 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Other smaller discussions exist in English, [10][11]Actually, this is probably the best, itaddresses the WP:N need quite nicely, and so forth. Wily D 18:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Five days is plenty of time, and even if you've decided these all need AfDs (which is absurd), batching them will help us streamline them as we gradually get rid of this junk. 2) City medals aren't notable: they're purely symbolic and aren't even mentioned in biographies. Now, yes, it's true the Guyanese President visited Greece for three days, but that's news, not encyclopedic material evidencing any sort of meaningful relationship. "Greece has relations with Guyana, and by the way, the President of the latter visited Greece for three days, where he shook hands with his counterpart" - pretty thin gruel there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general thinking behind WP:N is that we should trust professional editors and publishers' opinions of what's notable over your gut reaction. Although you might think so, leaders of different countries don't just pop by for a beer and some televised sports, and spend half a week getting pissed and oggling chicks (or dudes, as gender and sexual orientation dictates) - it turns out they're often busy and devote their time to affairs of state - when their country has a notable relationship with another one that requires discussion, they go and have meetings - otherwise, not so much. Wily D 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it possible, though, that much of that is in the realm of news and not something of more lasting notability (or significance, if you will)? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I can't know the future, but international relations are typically a subject of enormous historical interest. These seem less likely to depreciate over time than most all our articles. Wily D 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three Groubani's, one Russian Luxembourger, and a Plumoyr --- and a continuation of the Biruitorul and Wily Show. Although I generally don't like mass nominations, these articles have a common thread of being mass creations by people who do not actually have any interest in whether there is cooperation or conflict between nation A and nation B. Although Greece-Turkey relations would be an obvious keeper, Greek-Turkmenistan would not. It's more of a stretch to find a bilateral relationship between Greece and the South Pacific island of Palau, or with the Latin American nations of Panama, Cuba or Uruguay. I have faith that WilyD can find evidence in some cases, although I'm not sure how much longer he wants to be doing Groubani's homework. Mandsford (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only tried Greece Guyana, because I'd rather we didn't allow Biruitorul to continually create problematic binnings like this. Argentine-Singapore's AFD was a mess because they were bundeled. My guesses? I'm not sure. Greece Palau wouldn't surprise me if it was nonnotable, Greece Cuba would, no guesses on the others. That Greek's use a different alphabet makes finding sources really irritating.
- For what it's worth, I fuckin' hate doing Groubani's homework, though I like Wikipedia, and between Birutriol and Yillosime, my motivation to write articles is more or less killed - why would I do that when far better parts of the encyclopaedia are under attack, and better articles than I've ever written are getting deleted? It seems so pointless. WilyD 19:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do yourself a disservice there: Peter Jones (missionary), is, you know, an actual article, and one to be proud of; this stuff, not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That article contributes far less to Wikipedia's value than any of those on the chopping block here. While it's better written, or more comprehensive, it's just not nearly as valuable as a reference (because one would want to reference it so much less often). Wily D 20:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as these countries have trivial, if any relations with each other. WilyD needs to take his drama elsewhere. There are obviously some relational articles that should be kept, but these are nonsense. Tavix | Talk 19:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot of them. There is no substance here at all, certainly nothing that can't be mentioned in an article on either country, if there is in fact notable diplomatic incidents between them. A list of places Greece has embassies, included in the main Greece article, is sufficient replacement for the content of these articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep how on Earth are we supposed to discuss the notability of so many separate topics in one debate? Hilary T (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only six of them, and they're all connected to Greece. It's really not that hard. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Only one of these pairs actually has embassies with each other (Cuba–Greece relations), and that one doesn't appear to be particularly important anyways, going from the reference. (Around $0.7M USD annual trade in each direction, limited tourism, no significant expat communities.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these pairings meet WP:N standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I've already shown that Greece Guyana meets the WP:N standard. I haven't had time to look into the others, but I'm sure one could find sources for at least some of them. Wily D 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to support a claim to notability for any of these pairings. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Greece and Cuba are, rather unsurprisingly, not hard to establish notability for. [12] + [13] + [14] + [15] + [16] and so forth. Not speaking Greek or Spanish is a definite disadvantage, but they're there if you look. WilyD 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of those appear to focus on Greece/Cuba relations. The second one (Scoop.co.nz) only mentions Greece in passing, the fourth is talking about Cuba's participation in the 2004 Olympics - which were in Greece - and the rest don't mention Greece in the publicly visible summaries. Simply doing a news archive search for "greece cuba" isn't a substitute for actual research. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Edit conflict) Links 5, 7 and 9 say nothing about Greece. Link 6 mentions Greece once, together with Cyprus, Italy, and Portugal, and says nothing substantive. Link 8 tells us Fidel Castro may or may not come to the 2004 Olympics, which, aside from being a pretty minor issue, is also glaringly anachronistic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merely lying about the content of sources does not a good argument make. 5 and 7 discuss the relationship between Greece and Cuba, and how Cuba is leveraging that relationship to build a better relationship with the EU. Wily D 12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I can't actually see what 5 and 7 are saying about the relationship but I know Biruitorul is a liar so I'm gonna trust Wily here. Hilary T (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, let's try to stay CIVIL here please. Understandably, feelings run high in debates over these articles, but we don't need to be accusing each other of being untruthful, overly dramatic, uninformed, etc. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In disputes of this nature where we are relying on judgements of character it's important that we remember who has been untruthful in the past. Hilary T (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there would be no reason for feelings to run high if people weren't trying to overwhelm the responsible editors by bundling six different relations in one discussion and not making any effort to look for sources themselves, presumably because they don't even believe in WP:N or simply because they feel themselves to be above such menial tasks. Hilary T (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or because we wouldn't be able to trust them even if they said they had looked for sources but not found any. Hilary T (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide proof that Biruitorul is a liar? I personally think that Biruitourul is an amazing editor who is doing great things for this project. Tavix | Talk 01:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He lied when he got my edits to Kavron deleted as patent nonsense, you can see them on my old page here: [17]. Confusingly he told the truth here before going back to lying here. Hilary T (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No indications of any notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This establishes Greece - Panama - same old story - inability to speak Greek or Spanish makes it tough to find additional sources. [18] This, too, at least establishes that multiple independent, reliable sources discuss the relationship in depth. WilyD 13:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most countries take a position on the Republic of Macedonia/FYROM naming dispute. Those positions are handily summarised right over here. If that's all there is to the relationship, we need not keep the present "article", as the information is given elsewhere. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles are redundant to articles with better organization and more logical scopes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. per everyone above. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Greece-Guyana, Greece-Palauan and Greece-Turkmenistan. Let's first open an Embassy in these countries, and then we can discuss again if we need such an article or not! E.g., he relevant page for the bilateral relations with Guyana in mfa.gr is this. It only mentions that Greece provided Guyana with development aid in 2004. I see no bilateral legal framework. Obviously, not an article which could be regarded as notable enough. With Turkmenistan there are also no bilateral ratified or signed agreements.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But with the other three countries there is a bilateral legal framework, and certain existing bilateral agreements. I will not elaborate in detail for each country (in summary 3 agreements with Uruguay, and 3 with Panama)! But, e.g., concerning the Greek-Cuba article, again per the relevant mfa.gr page, there are five bilateral agreements (Cultural, Protection of Investments, Economic and Technological Co-operation, Air Transport Memorandum, and memorandum for the Co-operation of the two mfas). Not being sure that just a list of bilateral agreements is enough to support a encyclopedic article, for these articles though leaning towards delete, I want to let you judge yourselves if there is any ground to save them.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - There may be sources out there, but these articles must stand on their own merits, and at present have none. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And under what criterion would we speedy this? 68.248.226.45 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: If I were the administrator, I would ignore comments like "delete all" and "keep all"; there are six articles nominated, and if these are to be judged on their own merits, there's no voting a straight ticket. Simply agreeing with the Bir or with Wily doesn't mean much as far as I'm concerned. In looking over what I think is the the strongest source cited in favor of each article (Wily might disagree), I see:

Greece-Guyana relations-- four sources found, President on tour; Athens Mayor presents City Medal to Guyanese President

Greek-Palauan relations-- none found

Greece–Uruguay relations-- none found

Cuba–Greece relations -- five found; Greece mulling over Fidel Castro visit to Olympic Games

Greek-Panamanian relations --- two found; FM meets Panamanian envoy and Greece pressures Panama's Ambassador

Greece-Turkmenistan relations-- none found

Based on that I'd say (easily) delete Greece-Palau, Greece-Uruguay and Greece-Turkmenistan. Keep Greece-Panama; and although I appreciate that WilyD has looked for references, I don't see the notability with Greece-Guyana or with Cuba-Greece, so delete for that. Mandsford (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yannismarou and Mandsford, based on their logic/reasoning, so Delete Greece-Palauan and Greece-Turkmenistan. The others, I'd keep just in case. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fletcher (baseball)

This player has only played in one single match in 1914 and, even if it was in the Major League Baseball, I doubt that makes him notable. WP:SINGLEEVENT recommends that if the role played by an individual is not significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. Laurent (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE would permit him to have an article based on having played the one game of Major League Baseball. Crazy? Perhaps, but that's pretty much the rule. Mandsford (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the notability requirement from WP:ATHLETE. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ATHLETE. black ngold29 01:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does meet the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE, but the athlete notability standard is an additional criteria. Meeting one or more of these criteria "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". They must also meet the basic criteria which is that the person "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This person's article lacks such citations. The only source seems to be a stats site. Recent AfD nomination debates for minor league players have numerous arguments from the Baseball wikiproject that using stat sites as a reference is not a sufficient to establish notability. If they are insufficient to establish notability for a minor league player the same rule should apply for major league players. If no significant third party sources can be found for this player, people who wish to keep should explain why a stat site is sufficient as the only source for major league players but not minor leaguers. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that while I was writing the above paragraph, someone added a secondary source that has a brief mention of Fletcher. It should be emphasised that "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." as evidence of the triviality of this source, please note that the writer made one brief mention of Fletcher where he calls him "one of the stars with Pat Moran's champion Phillies." I would suggest that a player went 0-1 in one at-bat is not a "star" by any stretch of the imagination and the Phillies weren't champions of anything during the season Fletcher made his contribution to the team. If this erroneous brief mention is the only secondary coverage available on this person beyond stats, I am still of the opinion that he is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had some second thoughts about the source. But the Phillies did win the NL pennant in 1915, and it seems that Fletcher was under contract until 1915. (see [19], bottom right corner). The "star" bit is probably just puffery. I'll have comments about notability later. Zagalejo^^^ 04:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response A reliable source for a major league baseball player would be inclusion in The Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia or Palmer & Thorn's Total Baseball, both of which are considered official statistical records. Although neither consist of narrative data, there is no requirement that WP:N tell a story in prose. WP:Athlete indicates that all who played at the fully professional level, i.e., major league, are considered notable. Therefore, this one should be considered a Keep. Eauhomme (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All players who played on Major League teams are notable.Spanneraol (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional baseball player. Borgarde (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are minor league players yet they are deleted every day. Kinston eagle (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I scraped up a little bit more info using NewspaperArchive.com. It's still not much, but it's better than nothing, and there's probably more out there that isn't available online. I'll say keep, mainly for the sake of completion. Why not aim for comprehensiveness? I'm also wary of the precedent a deletion decision would set. We'd open the door to debates on thousands of other athlete bios, leaving us with a mess even worse than the WP:FICTION battles. If we're going to start changing our standards for athlete bios, it's better to take things slow and have some large community discussions first. Zagalejo^^^ 07:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Why not aim for comprehensiveness?" Where are you on minor league AfDs? I've been asking the baseball wikiproject that same same question for the past three years. Kinston eagle (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A minor league player isn't barred from having an article, he just isn't entitled to one merely by being on the team. He must still demonstrate notability. In practice, outstanding minor league players are more likely to reach the major leagues than less notable players. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it's possible to be fully comprehensive in our coverage of the minor leagues, since there are all kinds of obscure independent leagues whose records are probably lost to time. Having an article on every major league player is a more realistic goal. (Every player from the 1900- Modern Era, at least. I can't make any guarantees about guys from the 19th century) Zagalejo^^^ 19:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE. The issue of one-game sportspeople has been raised on numerous occasions in the past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte is the first one I remember, but there are lots more), and it's always decided in favor of inclusion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prime example of the overuse of oneevent. It's a lot simpler to keep the rule that any major league appearance is enough. DGG (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ATHLETE states that an athlete is notable if he/she "has competed at the fully professional level of a sport" (emphasis mine), not "competed for a full season" or "competed in [insert arbitrary number of contests here]." KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seemed to me that competing for only one game was a borderline case. How about an unlucky athlete who only plays for 5 minutes before having to leave the competition for injury? Would he/she still deserve an article per WP:ATHLETE? I think it would make sense to expect the athlete to play in a "reasonable" number of games, or at the very least more than one. Laurent (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response He was not a professional in only one game. The article makes mention of him playing at least a few years in the minors, where he achieved some success.. Thus his "professional" career was a few years (at least) even though he only appeared in the one MLB game.Spanneraol (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Larry Yount has an article, and you can't stay in a game for less time than he did (Pitcher, injured during his warmups, never faced a batter). Drawing a line at any place other than where it is currently (any appearance at the top level equals notability) becomes too difficult. Is John Paciorek notable for his miraculous 1-game career (3-3, 2 BB, 4 R, 3 RBI)? How about Ron Wright (0-3, strikeout, double play, triple play)? One was great, one was historically bad, and neither had a second game. Eauhomme (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a similar case, see Adam Greenberg (baseball) - Came into his first game as a pinch hitter, hit in the head and knocked unconscious by the first pitch thrown to him, spent the rest of the season on the DL, never appeared in another ML game (as of today, anyway). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you guys know already, I'm not a fan of these one gamer articles, but I guess this provide more content than most others, shame The Sporting News archives are no longer avaliable on the Internet, could have been expanded more. Secret ^account 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Google is eventually going to index those as part of GBooks. But yeah, they'd be nice to have on hand right now. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the notability requirement from WP:ATHLETE. Hardnfast (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The one appearance guideline has had long standing consensus. People who were professional athletes in 1914 won't have most of their sources available online; I'm impressed at what's been found already.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing consensus and many previous AfDs. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. Wizardman 02:57, 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. Not very strong arguments on either side - I would suggest placing a redirect to the main article on te Summer Youth Games to preserve the history until more sources can be found. However, I cannot substitute this compromise as an AfD result, so please consider discussing this. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Summer Youth Olympics

Disputed prod. Nothing notable to say about this event yet. Per WP:CRYSTAL, this article should only be created when we have reliable sources that discuss cities' intentions to bid. This is the same criteria we have for articles such as 2028 Summer Olympics (which exists) and 2032 Summer Olympics (which doesn't). Although on the surface it may seem inconsistent that we have an article about the main Games for 2028, but should not have an article about this event (10 years earlier), the difference is that we have reliable sources about several cities for 2028, while no such source exists for any city for the 2018 Youth Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also, there was a deletion discussion on the 2016 United States presidential election a few months ago that had more reliable speculation on it than this, and it was deleted. Tim meh ! 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the youth Olympics is for athletes between 14 and 18, the future competitors are in kindergarten and elementary school at present, playing on swing sets and monkey bars. Mandsford (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst it does seem inconstistent that we have an article about an Olympics to be held in 19 years whilst not a Youth Olympics held in 9 years, the main difference - as Andrwsc states - is that the 2028 page has sourced information, whilst the latter has nothing other than will they will be held. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(PS - I had to have a chuckle at Mandsford's comment.)

Keep - there is no crystal ball, everybody knows this event will take place, and my own city, Toulouse, is gearing up to bid after its failed 2014 attempt. Hektor (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as we have one WP:reliable source that says as much, the article can be re-created. But none exist today. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there are some reliable sources on which cities will be bidding. Tavix | Talk 22:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a little puzzled at figuring out what harm it does to have these article stubs ready for events which will very likely take place. It may not be necessary until he bidding starts, but i don;'t see the reason to eliminate them. DGG (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's just as puzzling to figure out what need there is to create such stubs nine years in advance, other than to say "I did it first"? For my part, I do see harm in encouraging people to make stubs just for the sake of making stubs. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article in La Dépêche du Midi I provided a source. Hektor (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to ~~dispute~~ verify a newspaper source when hard-copy is not readily available to me, but an online search of their website (for "Olympique 2018") only reveals results for the Annecy bid for the 2018 Winter Olympics. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiques 2018, you always say Jeux Olympiques with an s, never singular. 193.56.37.1 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same result — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unannounced by IOC and waiting it by few years time. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have two sources about bids now. Originally it should be deleted because of the lack of ongoing bids. Now it must be deleted because it is too far in the future ? But then the example of the article about the 2020 Olympics is valid... Hektor (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe pattern in the past has been if there are verifiable sources, we keep the page noting "potential bids". Hektor, can you post the specific quote from the newspaper since it is not online? -Cbradshaw (talk) 19:54, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LCM4MP

Is this article notable or not? I cannot make head or tail out of it. I suspect that it may be complete WP:OR. ~~A Google search for ""Limited Capacity Model for Messages Processing"" turned up only this Wikipedia article.~~ (see below for two refs) I had held off AfDing it to give it a chance to grow, then I saw that the article creator had personally attacked the deleting admin of his SOAP article here, so I can no longer assume good faith. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR The article has just been extensively referenced, to the point where I no longer believe an AfD is the way to proceed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ref'd article above is tagged for deletion so copying the text here. It is at Talk:Meadows_for_GSA_President: "this article is important to the decision making of thousands of graduate students at one of the 20 most important research facilities in the free world. So go get a life and maybe a job and girl, because policing free thought and democratic processes on Wikipedia has no future socially beneficial products to offer human kind." I42 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, such comments have nothing to do with this article's notability. Perhaps I shouldn't have even linked to it.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a school essay. The majority of citations are to Lang and she is aparrently behind the theory - which she calls LC4MP, not LCM4MP. This article needs context, indication of notability, references and the like. I42 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I see we do have coverage of Lang's theory, here and here. I'd happily withdraw and rename article accordingly if this turns out to be notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw a few articles on Google Scholar that cited Lang's that looked independent from it. Looks like this Wikipedia article is work in progress btw, with a citation missing at the end, it'll probably look better in the future. Narayanese (talk) 20:54, 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. Rewritten during the AfD. Issues of redirect, merging, etc. are beyond scope in this particular AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British slang
edit

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

Article appears similar to an already existing, and more comprehensive other article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —bwmcmaste (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect: This article has numerous issues, and already contains a number of subjects already discussed in the article: List of British words not widely used in the United States. If anything of use can be salvaged from this article: It should be placed on the aforementioned article and a redirect should be provided to the more conversant of the two. This article appears to be contrary to policy:
"Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. See "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" below for more information. For a wiki that is a collection of guidebooks, visit our sister project Wikibooks. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of a language should be transwikied there."
This guide might be useful:
"Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well."
bwmcmaste (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid topic for an encyclopedia. There are lots of other slang article on WP. This article is not a usage guide, it's a list of slang words similar to the many articles in Category:Slang. Nominator does not specify any reason for deletion. This article needs cleanup, not deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would appear the article fits "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney or Leet) are desirable." I dont agree with the redirect proposed; the article suggested is probably not the best example nor is it near enough one and the same. However yes the article does need quite some work doing to it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may be potential for an encyclopedic article here, but not the one currently written, because this is too close to being a dictionary. (Is there any way of working this into Wikitionary?) If the article stays, I'd convert it to a stub until someone wants to write an article based on secondary sources written about British slang. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary deals with this in a very simple manner. Since every word is its own article, a list of words is simply a category. See wikt:Category:Slang and the other related categories. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although inclined to Keep. The article requires considerable work but the topic itself is valid for inclusion. The slang of one English-speaking country should not simply be viewed as a subset of words from that country, slang or otherwise, which happen not to be spoken in one the many other English-speaking countries of the world. Thus the suggested redirect is not appropriate. The current article is just a list of definitions of words, and entirely bereft of citations at that. There is no definition or description of the topic, let alone other types of information but there is scope for such material to be written. A descriptive stub, with word definitions removed until context and citations can be provided would seem preferable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete in that it has never attempted to cite to a reliable source. It appears that this is mostly a list of terms that would be considered offensive in the U.K., and there is a merit to an article that let's the reader know what not to say. Hence, if there is a source that will confirm that a Yank should not talk about "going on a bender" or say "you've got a lot of spunk!" or "Hi, my name's Burke... why is everybody laughing?" I'd support keeping a list of words to avoid. Mandsford (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and redirect Although the article in it's current state is too weak to stand, I would be perfectly fine if another editor took the effort to expand it into a reasonable, encyclopedic article. Again, per WP:NOT, specifically:
Usage guides or slang and idiom guides....Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not [desirable]. See "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" below for more information. For a wiki that is a collection of guidebooks, visit our sister project Wikibooks. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of a language should be transwikied there. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for deletion in order to redirect. Indeed, one could simply revert back to the redirect that this article was in 2005. Why delete edit history that is not only useful, but is the very redirect that you want? Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Changing to Redirect Cheers. I'^mperator 12:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. As it stands, it is too unfocused, and likely with perpetual problems. "Slang" is far too broad for the list in its present form, seems more appropriate as a "List of British vulgarisms", but even if narrowed to vulgarisms, are they "British", or are they really London vulgarisms only (perhaps Cockney only?), or from some other areas/cities also. Can it ever meet WP:V, how many of these words are WP:MADEUP?, or in very limited circulation?, or because this language segment is constantly evolving rapidly, fading (in and) out of general use? Power.corrupts (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Several issues. First - can it be encyclopedic? Likely yes (thus the Keep). Is it unfocussed? Yes, but that is not in itself a sufficient casue for deletion. It needs specific standards for the words it includes, and likely a standard of source for any words in it. It is currently heavy on the "vulgarisms" side, but I suspect that is true of most slang usages through history. Is it the same as "uncommon words"? Not really, though I am sure there is overlap. Could it use a brief description about what "slang" is? Likely so, but that also is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and either stubify (but this may be too difficult without adding content) or redirect to British English until someone is ready to write a good article. (FYI English slang, which this mostly is, redirects to slang.) The current content needs to be booted to Wiktionary, but this is absolutely an encyclopedic topic - far more than List of British words not widely used in the United States is (but then anything with List in the title basically gets a free pass in that department). And frankly given the parochialism involved, redirecting this article to that list would be borderline offensive. Rd232 ^talk 11:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The content is nothing more than a glossary, which Wikipedia is not. The topic is notable, but the content here is not appropriate to the title and there's no need to maintain a connection. Better to turn it into a redlink and let someone start an encyclopedia article on the topic. Powers ^T 12:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a stub without the glossary. Powers ^T 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 16:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article on British slang would be useful; a random grab-bag of words, less so. If kept, it needs to be moved to List of British slang terms or the like; otherwise, it should be redirect to British English with no prejudice to someone creating an article about slang in the future... Shimgray | talk | 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is nothing more than a list of words and meanings - ie a (rather poor) dictionary. I agree with other comments that an article about British slang could make a good encyclopaedic entry, but this is not it. I42 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. With flagrant disregard for WP:OCE, I'm going to point out that American slang, Canadian slang, Australian slang, and New Zealand slang are redirects. Wikipedia shouldn't cover British English slang as a separate subject for the same reason that it shouldn't cover any of those: it's a moving target, and any scholarly source is out of date by the time it hits print.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary agrees with you. This one does not. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British English - The topic of "British slang" deserves a section in British English. Of course, it shouldn't be a list of words, it should be a description of slang, including Cockney rhyming slang etc, as used in the UK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So revert back to the very first revision of the article, in essence? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think you need to be adding that long list over to the British English page. It seems valid enough for reasons mentioned by others already, to keep it. Perhaps rename it to List of British Slang. Is it just a List of British words not widely used in the United States or does it include what is considered slang in that country? Slang is different than regular words. I think it best to keep it as its own separate article. Dream Focus 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want a dictionary of slang, though. Wiktionary provides that function (and a lot more besides) for us. It already has categories of slang words in various languages, and appendices. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Few, if anyone, above has actually argued in favour of keeping the list of words. The point to consider is whether an encyclopaedia article about this slang can be written, and whether any of the edit history here (which includes several of the different redirects being proposed) is worth retaining. For an encyclopaedia article about a slang, look at Digger slang. See how it cross-links both to individual Wiktionary articles and to a Wiktionary appendix for the dictionary of slang function, and focuses instead upon the history, evolution, development, and influence of the slang. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would appear to be an argument that it's possible to write an encyclopaedic article about a specific category of slang (e.g. Cockney rhyming slang or 18th century cant). If so, I wouldn't disagree with it; but I think British slang is probably at too high a level of abstraction to make an article of value.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rhyming slang already has an article, as do Polari, and Thieves' cant. There may be others.
"British slang" won't work; there is an enormous variety of it, varying between regions, and if it is a list (as this is) there will be confusion about what is British (I notice 5-Oh as supposed British slang for the police!!) and what is slang rather than dialect or other regional varieties of English.
Perhaps this page should be a disambiguation page listing and linking varieties of British slang? pablo_hablo. 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's more a discussion of the difference between an article about a slang and a list of slang words, and why renaming this to a list and starting another article, as suggested, is not the best of ideas. Consider the case of London slang (AfD discussion). At the time that it was nominated for deletion, it was exceedingly similar to how this article looks now (revision), and was nominated for deletion for exactly the same reasons. It was rescued during the AFD discussion. It might be of interest to see what the primary rescuer of that article wrote here, at this article, in this edit summary.
Attempts have been made to start an article here. Witness this for example. But they never garnered much more encyclopaedic content than that one sentence, before being restructured from a U.S.-centric point-of-view, upon which a dictionary almost imediately began to grow. Eventually the only encyclopaedic content that was even attempted was lost by a poor vandalism reversion and to cleanup efforts. An expert was called for, but none came before this AFD nomination. This edit summary said it all. This is an example of how not to write an encyclopaedia article.
As the edit summaries said, a complete rewrite is needed, and until an article is actually written, with some encyclopaedic content, we are best off reverting back to the redirects that were in place right at the start, either to British English or London slang. In other words: The first attempt to write an article here was clobbered in its infancy, and wasn't even good then. What we have now is not an article, and not even stub material. Revert to the original redirects and start again. Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or rewrite as disambig, see comments above ↑ ) after transferring this list to Wiktionary. I agree that an article about British slang would be an interesting and valuable addition to the encyclopedia (as would articles about other regional slangs and varieties of English), but this is just an unsourced list and does not belong here. pablo_hablo. 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that this belongs in wiktionary if anywhere. A British slang article needs to be at the meta level not a list of words. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP now that I've given this subject what it deserves: an encyclopedic treatment (or at least a start at it), complete with a bunch of references and sources which can be used to further expand the article. If consensus determines that the list of words is inappropriate it should be transwikied to Wiktionary, but the article should now be kept here. DHowell (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the above, Keep the new encyclopedic content and Transwiki the dictionary definitions, preferably with a category link from this page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, with knobs on; definitely Keep now the article has some worthy content. Good work. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:28, 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 per WP:SNOW - clearly notable artist. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joop Sanders
edit

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

Potentially non-notable artist. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article mentions (but does not cite) several reviews, at least two being in notable publications, such as ArtNews and Art in America. Thus, "The person has created (...) work (...), that has been the subject (...) of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is fulfilled. The article also mentions exclusive exhibitions in notable galleries/museums, which I would think fulfills "The person's work (...) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". decltype (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for me, as well. While good refs are a little hard to track down, Google reveals he was a notable figure in the American Abstract Expressionist movement and his exhibitions appear to easily satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, but refs needed. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is was an important member of the first generation American abstract expressionists. Added references references and information to the article. (Salmon1 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep well known, notable artist...Modernist (talk) 15:09, 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 no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pål André Helland
edit

Pål André Helland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO in that he, a footballer, has never played a professional game in his sport. No prejudice for recreation if he plays. Punkmorten (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does appear to meet WP:BIO since this and this are nontrivial sources, and the subject is signed onto the RBK A-team, and played one friendly match against Molde. He has also played on the G18 national team.[20] Although I know that the Nathan Delfouneso precedent was to delete first, and recreate a few weeks later, I feel that is a rather bureaucratic exercise. Although I would like to see Rosenborg relegated, I think this article is OK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds and hundreds of players leave top-league teams without ever playing, I can think of several off the top of my head. Punkmorten (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:ATHLETE, ask for restoration or recreate it if he actually manages to play in a fully professional league game. --Angelo (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BIO criteria as established by Sjakkalle. There is no reason to make an exception to that rule just because he happens to miss another guideline. The guidelines are supposed to complement each other. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it would be meaningless to have a red name in the Rosenborg line-up, that is something i think should apply for all players who is in the first team squad at top level in a national professional league. Hope he plays sunday so we can forget about this:) My Humble Opinion -- Rosenborgman (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a player in the squad doesn't have an article, then don't link his name. "Because otherwise there'd be a redlink" is a pretty feeble reason to keep an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not willing to accept that one can be notable in a sport by membership on a team without actually playing. Its like being notable as an understudy. What level of play is required is a more complicated issue, but one has to appear on the field in a regular season game at whatever level it is. DGG (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has played many matches for the RBK2 team in the norwegian second division(third flight) that is also recognized as a professional league.-- Rosenborgman (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence of what you say? This is a really bold statement, especially considering that, as far as I know, only the Norwegian top flight is fully professional, and these two old AfD cases (1, 2) seem to confirm what I say. --Angelo (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely wrong. Not even the second tier is fully professional. Punkmorten (talk) 08:13, 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, I'^mperator 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:BIO with significant news coverage as noted above. As such any arguments the he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE are not relevant, as WP:BIO trumps WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 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. The significant arguments to keep were based on the notion that candidates for national office are or should be notable, though consensus from previous discussions as per the WP:POLITICIAN guideline, is that failed candiates are not notable. SilkTork *^YES! 02:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Muldoon (politician)
edit

Patrick Muldoon (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only claim to notability is that this person is a candidate for a nomination in an election, which under WP:POLITICIAN does not count as notability. Prod tag removed without explanation as part of an edit supposedly correcting the person's education. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject was a major party nominee for US House of Representatives in 1996. There is AfD precedent for claiming notability in such cases, I believe. At the very least, he is not a WP:ONEEVENT candidate. Rklear (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which precedent is this? My reading of WP:POLITICIAN is that being a candidate, major party nomination or not, does not count unless it is for a national or first level sub-national office. If there's substantial media coverage as a result of being a major party candidate, that might be a different matter, but I don't see how a nomination on its own counts, even for the US House of Representatives. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not define "first level sub-national office." Does a state-wide Lt. Governor race in one of only two states that are having an election in the year after the Democrats' sweep (with the accompanying national attention) count? Racepacket (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merely a candidate. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can his information not be merged and redirected, until he has (or if) actually won his seat?Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'd forgotten about that. You could redirect to Virginia's 9th congressional district. The only snag is that, at the moment, this article doesn't contain any information about past elections, only the list of Congressmen actually elected, so the redirect wouldn't make that much sense at the moment. But if someone wants to include the list of previous candidates in elections, no objections to a redirect. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and being an unsuccessful candidate for US Congress is not reason to keep. Valenciano (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While we have not always done so, we ought to keep the articles for major party candidates for national office once they win the primary. There will always be enough local news coverage, though it may still be hard to find. DGG (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed candidates simply do not meet WP:POLITICIAN per ample precedent, and I really see no reason to change that. Getting a nomination, even from a major party, isn't really enough, because if we're being honest about it at least two-thirds of these guys had no real shot at actually getting elected (do we really think this guy is notable for getting 10.6% of the vote?), and I'm probably being conservative with that stat. Besides, in general failed candidate bios are a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT, even if arguably the potential Lt. Governor nomination negates that in this case. BryanG (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I believe that this is an unusual case because having an incumbent challenged from the right during the candidate selection process may affect the nominee's position in the general election. The nominating process is described in Republican Party of Virginia, but it seemed appropriate to have the biographical and background details of both Muldoon and Bolling in separate articles. I believe we should retain the article at least through the end of May. If he loses the election, then WP:ONEEVENT would probably be grounds for deletion. The race has drawn the attention of numerous political blogs, but I did not include cites in the article out of WP:RS concerns. At first, I thought about merging this content into the Bill Bolling article, but opted for a separate article to avoid the appearance that Wikipedia was establishing a juxaposition out of political bias.Racepacket (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - He has been in politics for a long period of time and is an important politician ofVirginia. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:56, 11 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. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theerawat Pinpradab
edit

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE in that he's never actually appeared for that club Ironholds (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 15:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. No sources to say he has played in a fully-pro league. Giant Snowman 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - unsourced . Kevin (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletenom.GauchoDude (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes up in a google or yahoo search aside from the wiki page; nothing on google news either. Mandermagic (talk) 20:22, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Carpenter, Providence Rhode Island
edit

William Carpenter, Providence Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was on the fence about this one, but this doesn't really seem to assert notability. It's been maintenance tagged to the point that the tags nearly outweigh the article. I've tried discussing with the page's creator, who is either unwilling to add secondary sources (all sources are from a personal website) or simply doesn't know how. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Editor has stopped using personal site for information.--Loodog (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maintenance tags would suggest the article needs a vigorous rewriting and editing. While a minor figure in Rhode Island colonial history, his notability is verified and the article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also moved the article to William Carpenter (Rhode Island). Pastor Theo (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unreadable and of no interest outside a tiny circle of wouldbe genealogist types. Delete!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanafish (talk • contribs) 04:07, 6 April 2009

Keep Notability is not temporary, you could probably find a lot of historical coverage of this person, as he seems to be an important historical figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of cites (too many), appears notable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but please trim it down. Editor no longer cites personal website for sources and has documented person. All this stuff about public offices, family, etc... needs to go. Wikipedia is not a repository of information. Please keep only what is interesting and accessible to the mainstream.--Loodog (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a work in process, why AfD? unwilling to add secondary sources? WP:BITE, anyone? pohick (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per its assertions of notability in nearley every sentence. Certainly the article requires cleanup, but historical figures rarely need deletion... now do they? Its a terrific work-in-progress. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:58, 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 WP:SNOW delete. WP:V issues, apparent hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters, Inc. 2
edit

Monsters, Inc. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A hoax. Pete Docter has denied making a sequel, because they have no good ideas for it. Alientraveller (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, it doesn't get an article until production begins. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems kind of crystal ball-ish to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it's articles like this that means things like Wp:CRYSTAL exists, because this fails it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonsense. Bazj (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant hoax. -Senseless!... says you, says me 03:08, 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 withdrawn by nominator. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chryston High School
edit

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

Declined CSD, as schools are specifically excluded from A7. Nonetheless, appears to be a non-notable private school. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have a few notable news stories. Just scrapes through WP:SCHOOL in my opinion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - firstly this is not a private school; it is a local authority school. As with all public high schools sources are available so the page should be expanded, not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As it looks, it is fit here - Compared to the many schools I read on wiki, this is much better. This page and the school will grow together.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The information is sourced on the page, although some of it is not encyclopedic it is off to a good start i think in growing, especially for a high school page on wikipedia Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been greatly improved by TerriersFan since its nomination for AfD. Cunard (talk) 04:15, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lalli
edit

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

Non-notable footballer, prod was removed without explanation even though the player fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN having never played professional football at any level King of the North East 14:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason King of the North East 14:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Monty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alexandre Tremblay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gaby Racz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the North East 14:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Prod tags were removed after expiry! Stu.W UK (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - they all fail WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - unsourced. Kevin (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletenom.GauchoDude (talk) 19:12, 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 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aparimit
edit

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

Non-notable festival. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable annual student festival. Salih (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no relevant Google hits, no indication that this is notable. It may well be worth a mention on the page of the organising institution, but there's no indication its worth an article. Anaxial (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Event appears to have happened once, 3 days ago. No evidence of notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.--GDibyendu (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has been said well enough above.JimmySmitts (talk) 09:29, 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. (G3) as blatant misinformation. Mgm|^(talk) 12:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany the Superstar
edit

Tiffany the Superstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax, Google shows nothing related. Users only (non deleted) contribution. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletamundo Google gives up after 7 hits for "Tiffany the Superstar". Possible hoax, delete as per WP:SNOW Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:NB, WP:SNOW, and WP:N; just about fails all guidelines. Cheers. I'^mperator 14:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Pure baloney. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No refs, no links, orphan, cruft, and a zillion other reasons. Bazj (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero Ghits on Google Books. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as CSD#G3. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 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 redirect to No Age. MBisanz ^talk 10:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Creeps 7"
edit

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Teen Creeps 7"

Articles for deletion/Teen Creeps 7" (2nd nomination)

Teen Creeps 7" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails wp:MUSIC. Prod was removed without indicating notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-05t13:55z 13:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with No Age, its a single by a notable band but doesnt seem to have charted, so merge what little info is there, with redirect from this article Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONGS. Any sourced information can be added to the No Age article but the 7" on the end of this title makes it an unlikely search term. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence this song charted, no significant sources. JamesBurns (talk) 03:53, 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 merge to Cinemax. MBisanz ^talk 10:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max After Dark
edit

Max After Dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is the marketing name for an informal time block on one network sufficient for a stand-alone article? Recommend Merge with Cinemax. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 12:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd part coverage, WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cinemax. I agree, its just an unsourced list of mostly red links. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks? Ah... time for some new articles then. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's short enough to be included in the regular Cinemax article. Quistisffviii (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can grow in time. A notable program, since so many notable shows came from it. I see enough blue links in the list to tell me programs featured on it, were notable. Dream Focus 12:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
right, and they are also listed on the Cinemax page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwisted (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 April 2009

It's not a program, and the shows didn't come from it.. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its like Adult_swim then? A time slot dedicated to certain types of shows it promotes? Did it take things someone else already did only, or were there some shows produced specifically for it? Sometimes they create a series of shows specifically for one thing, which would never make it on their own. Dream Focus 01:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adult Swim has been the subject of numerous reliable sources. Has this block? None are in the article.

The quality that the articles do not share is the only quality that matters (coverage in reliable sources), but I am unconvinced if this is merely a quality of the article (which is fixable) or the subject (which is not). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google gets 706 for it, but I don't see any reviews that aren't from that company. Still, many notable things came from it, which makes it notable, they produced for it. Dream Focus 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A television block is not a production company, so it didn't produce anything. You're conflating Adult Swim with Williams Street, the company responsible for Adult Swim and the production of many of its shows. Do you have any sources that indicate that a similar unifying production company is at work here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure indiscriminate list-cruft.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal, please respond: I officially proposed that this article should be merged into Cinemax#Max After Dark instead of deleted. Please respond at Talk:Cinemax#Merger proposal. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterate delete. Nothing of substance to merge.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborating on merge request: I propose that the Max After Dark article be merged into the Max After Dark section of the Cinemax article. Yes, it is just a stub article consisting of a list of shows (half of which are red links) and it isn't long enough for its own article. However, since Cinemax is most known for this programming block (it even has a separate section in their official site), I think the list of shows and movies both past and present produced for or shown on it should be kept in that section for historical and notability purposes. I also think the original Max After Dark series should have their own articles, since there is continuity and drama like regular serial shows, not just sex scenes. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cinemax and merge anything relevant. AniMate^talk 15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the prose, leave out the list. The time block, with its various names, is an appropriate thing to mention in the main Cinemax article, as with other channels with blocks. It isn't notable enough for its own article, though, and a list of a ton of unknown softcore flicks that are nearly impossible to verify isn't needed (many channel articles are also moving away from such lists anyway, per WP:NOT). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 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 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of university and college band directors and conductors in the United States
edit

List of university and college band directors and conductors in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unwieldy list that is mostly unsourced and almost unavoidably prone to out-of-date and inaccurate information. Very few of the conductors listed are notable enough for a Wikipedia article; so combined with the unsourced and unreliable information this article serves neither as an informative list nor as a navigation aid. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the valid reasons for deletion given by the nominator, I note that the list is very incomplete in that many universities and colleges are omitted. --Orlady (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. There's an excellent way to deal with Orkady's objection.... I think the band and orchestra directors at major universities would in fact be notable, and the articles should be written. They change, but so do coaches. I'd remove the associate and assistant directors, as for coaches. DGG (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom. As is, its an unsourced laundry-list of figures that aren't properly verified. In its ideal state, it would be overly long and clumsy and would violate WP:SALAT. Neither of these is a good article. Them From Space 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are verified, perhaps we can consider merging the verified content into a List of university and college bands if someone makes the effort to create that. It would lead to 3 pieces of info in a single list. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 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, MBisanz ^talk 10:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very incomplete list, most of these people wouldn't be notable anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ignoring the fact that maintaining this list would involve a massive undertaking, as the nominator said, I'm not sure how many of these people are notable enough for their own article, which starts to reek of WP:IINFO. fuzzy510 (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and above editors. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:34, 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 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P2Pspot
edit

P2Pspot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining db-spam. The first 50 of 1200 Google hits didn't establish notability; nothing on news.google.com; a few hits on Google's blog search FWIW. I would have {{db-web}}'d it if I had had the patience to skim all 1200 Google hits, but I didn't. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Google stops claiming dissimilar results after the first 94. It probably could've stopped much, much sooner; about 90% of numbers 51-94 are from various subdomains of facebook; I didn't find anything worthwhile in the remainder. (No hits on Google News, either.) In any case, I don't see an assertion of notability in the article; the point of A7 is to triage which articles are worth looking for further sources for. If the original author didn't provide even a hint of a reason why this website should be documented on Wikipedia, we shouldn't be wasting time verifying it. —Korath (Talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per A7 now seems warranted thanks to Korath; the ghits suddenly end at 92, and I see no indication of notability in them. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I requested P2Pspot to be documented to better define 'P2P it' expressions used within my community. There seemed to be some confusion, so I felt an online encyclopedia would be a perfect spot for this information. - webbpage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbpage (talk • contribs) 22:13, April 1, 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per other comments. Colds7ream (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to request that this article be deleted, please base reasoning off more than hit counts in a Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbpage (talk • contribs) 12:44, April 8, 2009
It doesn't work like that. Subjects need to be both verifiable and notable to merit an article at Wikipedia; P2Pspot appears to be neither, due to the complete lack of reliable third-party coverage. We've made a good-faith effort to find the sources that you, as the article's creator, should have provided but did not - not by counting google hits, but by visiting every one of them and confirming their unsuitability. This isn't something we had to do - as this article is about a website (a subject area that sees a constant influx of articles about unverifiable, non-notable subjects), and it doesn't so much as claim significance, any administrator may delete this article at any time - there was no need to have this discussion in the first place. If the article is to stay, it needs reliable, third-party sources, and there's nobody in a better position to find them than you. We certainly couldn't. —Korath (Talk) 02:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. http://assets.mediaspanonline.com/prod/1771184/01052009_gvl_A08.pdf was added to Wik as a third party source (see 'buy used books'). I'm new at this, please let me know if I need to add anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbpage (talk • contribs) 10:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see http://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/p2pspot-com-connecting-with-your-peers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbpage (talk • contribs) 23:15, 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 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anekdoten
edit

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

After searching the internet for more resources, I could not find any that would indicate this entity passing WP:MUSIC. The references and external links are equally unhelpful. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep allmusic has a bio with three reviews [21]. album articles point to other reviews (reliable sources? progarchives.com is not). bands page lists reviews and interviews, but unfortunately does not give issue numbers and dates. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see three reviews?? I only see one, e.g. the biography. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short album reviews, [22] [23] [24] Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the article is bad now since all the deletions. No one even dare to make any additions to this page since it constantly been a subject for deleting. Come on guys this is a well known band. In my opinion it is VERY hard to understand what is needed and what references are needed. Is this a link that could be used as a reference.[25] or [26]
I mean there is tons of reviews and articles about Anekdoten on the web but nothing seems to be proper. Please let me know what is needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramyth1 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those both appear to be from a music label, so no, those don't really establish notability. I'm having a hard time finding anything, but I don't know Swedish, which makes it difficult. Have they ever charted on the Swedish equivalent of the Billboard charts? Are they signed to KScope now (those links suggest it, but Anekdoten doesn't appear on their list of signed artists)? — Gwalla | Talk 23:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - band has a full 3rd party biography written for Allmusic.com. That is enough to meet the minimum criteria for notability. If Allmusic has a full bio, then you can be certain that the band has received independent 3rd party coverge elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untick (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Anekdoten has signed to Kscope recently. I don't think Kscope home of Porcupine Tree, No-Man & Richard Barbieri would release an Anthology with the band if they weren't a notable band. They have toured worldwide on many occasions as well. If you search Anekdoten on google they get 20 000 hits.
I made an interview with Niklas Barker back in 2004 and you can read it at the following url: http://www.rockprog.com/Rock/specials.htm, select Anekdoten. There is also several concert reviews spanning from 2003 up to 2007 at http://www.rockprog.com/Rock/news.htm. We have also made album reviews regardnig the albums Vemod(release 1993), Nucleus( 1995), Gravity(2003) and A Time Of Day(2007). select Progressive Rock at http://www.rockprog.com/Rock/rock.htm. You can also se pictures from several concerts with Anekdoten at http://www.rockprogpics.com, for example: http://www.rockprogpics.com/Media.aspx?AlbumID=141 Regards Claes Hassel at www.rockprog.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.24.235 (talk) 18:05, 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 10:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the Allmusic bio and the CD reviews by Allmusic (here) indicate sufficient notability. Hekerui (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All music bio should be enough. There is more reviews here http://www.organart.demon.co.uk/ wich is one of the bigger underground mags in London. And here on Julian Copes Head Heritage http://www.headheritage.co.uk/unsung/review/1968. I see they also performs with Faust in Oslo in April. http://www.rockefeller.no/rf180409.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunra123 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 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 (Withdrawn by nominator. I'^mperator 12:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EURONIA
edit

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

Fails WP:ORG. I did a news search, and could not find anything. Formerly deleted as uncontested PROD, but recreated again. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although not often appearing in discussions in the popular media, EURONIA is a benchmark interest rate. It is one of several interest rates listed everyday in the Financial Times outline of world interest rates (see last link below). It represents a London-based alternative to the continent's EONIA rate. The only difference between EONIA and EURONIA is that EURONIA is calculated from the unsecured overnight euro deposit trades originated by money brokers in London (Vaitilingam, 2001, Financial Times Guide to Using the Financial Pages, Prentice Hall, page 188).

If it does not merit its own entry, I think that information on the EONIA/EURONIA distinction should be included in the EONIA definition on Wikipedia or in the discussion on SONIA (also London-based). In fact, EURONIA is referenced in the discussion of SONIA on the British Bankers' Association. It is also referenced in Bank of England materials regarding a possible transition to the euro, where EURONIA would replace SONIA as the benchmark rate in the UK. It is also referenced by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in their discussion of the appropriate UK bank base rates to apply.

http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=125&a=671&view=print (31 March 2009)

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/other/europe/cityguide/UK%20Euro%20changeover-glossary.pdf (31 March 2009)

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/other/europe/cityguide/UK%20Euro%20changeover-A4.pdf (31 March 2009)

http://www.icaew.com/index.cfm/route/156225/icaew_ga/en/Technical_and_Business_Topics/Guides_and_publications/Knowledge_guides/Knowledge_Guide_to_Base_Rates (31 March 2009)

http://markets.ft.com/ft/markets/reports/FTReport.asp?dockey=MNY-300309 (31 March 2009)

Johnbluedorn (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed that it is listed in the FT, but is that all we are ever going to be able to say about it? Maybe some of our financial experts could comment, but at the moment this does not look like it will ever be more than a couple of sentences so should be merged into an appropriate article. SpinningSpark 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the sort of material an encyclopedia should have information on, along with all the pop culture. But it might be even better if merged with EONIA DGG (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Combined article would be best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (nominator's change of vote) If it is listed in the Financial Times every day, then it is most obviously notable, since it seems to me to be independent of EONIA (i.e. it is not a sub-index), per WP:ORG. If I have misunderstood, and it is part of EONIA, I would vote for a merge. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:21, 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, MBisanz ^talk 10:48, 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. Thanks to those who cleaned the article up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WKNZ
edit

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

The article is titled WKNZ, but repeatedly mentions WLVZ as the callsign. However, the link between the station and either of the callsigns isn't actually backed up with reliable references. Nor is the notability of the station established. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Calls are WLVZ. WLVZ currently redirects to K-LOVE, which is appropriate since the station only carries the national feed without any deviation (since it's owned by the Educational Media Foundation, which pretty much buys stations just to have them turn into mega-translators of KLRS), so all this article is telling us is that it's a station playing K-LOVE. If it's that, you're not going to find sources because it's a repeater of a national network. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article has been corrected with correct information and now meets full notability. Nate • (chatter) 09:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:24, 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, MBisanz ^talk 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - All radio stations with a license are notable. Period, plain and simple. The mistakes in the call sign are obviously someone mistaking the K key for the L key....easily fixable. Not a deletable offense. Again, all radio stations with a license are notable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 5, 2009 @ 13:09
Page updated with correct information for WKNZ (which is a radio station in Delaware). - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 5, 2009 @ 13:19

Speedy Keep as all government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally notable, per the guidelines on notability and years of precedent. If there are errors to be fixed in the article, that's a call for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In any case, it took only a few moments of searching to find a number of third-party sources which I have now used to expand this article somewhat. - Dravecky (talk) 14:12, 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) 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Perici Calascione
edit

Alex Perici Calascione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The "Times of Malta" article doesn't seem to mention the subject; the "Independent" news article does not exist. I cannot establish notability. Chzz  ► 09:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The times article does mention him, second to last paragraph. It confirms that he is a candidate to be a member of the European Parliament. Seems like candidacy in an election for a multi-national governing body would be sufficient to establish notability, but I'm not familiar with specific policy in this area. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added more sources from Maltese media. These include the launch of his European Parliament campaign and some famous legal cases he worked on recently. Pierremizzi (talk) 12:55, 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, MBisanz ^talk 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep per sources added. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:19, 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 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaksy Group
edit

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

I am unable to find reliable secondary sources to support notability Chzz  ► 08:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this. This is an issue for many companies of the region. However, I have recently come across this http://www.summitreports.com/pdfs/oman.pdf . It is an exert in the NY Times and on the final page there is an article on The Shaksy Group with reference to their construction of the new extension to the Salalah Port. It also refers to an upcoming 30 million dollar contract with PDO (Petroleum Development Oman).
"One of Shaksy Group’s recent projects is the extension of the Salalah Port. “We built the port and did the marine works for liquefied natural gas,” explains Mr. Ali. “We recently got a $30 million contract to supply pipes to PDO oil rigs.” Mr. Ali says that each of the Shaksy companies plays a role in Oman’s infrastructure development." ^[1]
Wiki.gcc (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I question the validity of this "Special advertizing supplement" - it's an ad. Chzz  ► 10:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the NY Time publication:
"The Oman supplement was created by Summit Communications (“Summit”) who is dedicated to raising the profile of the world's most dynamic emerging markets. As an independent communications agency specializing in the production of special country, regional, and sectoral promotional reports, Summit has acquired extensive experience in analyzing the issues important to the business and financial communities of the United States. Through an exclusive arrangement with The New York Times Advertising Department, Summit has published over 112 reports since 1999, reaching the most influential decision-makers in the American political, financial, and economic communities."^[2]
Also, here is another third party source on The Shaksy Group's involvement on the Port of Salalah: http://www.zawya.com/projects/project.cfm?pid=080607092115&cc . Hani Archiroden is listed as one of two contractors for the project.Wiki.gcc (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Another third-party source"? It's not clear that the first source is third party, yet. There's no byline in the article, but it does say "advertising" on every page, and the source comprises almost in toto either direct quotes from or indirectly reported statments made by Said bin Salim Al Shaksy xyrself. That's not an independent source.
The other source doesn't actually provide any information apart from, as you say, mentioning a company name in the field of a form. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Salalah, $262m port contract] [Oman's Salalah Port to build two new berths, awards contract ] [Salalah port project in progress] all on the $262 million project worked on by Hani Archirodon.
"Two experienced firms were chosen (Hani Archirodon and Consolidated Contractors Co. Oman) to execute the project of expanding the port by constructing two new docks."^[3]
Oh and do note we are only talking about one subsidiary of The Shaksy Group. There are another two construction companies, an operational Oil Drilling company, as well as Oil & Gas trading companies in Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and India. Wiki.gcc (talk) 06:31, 6 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 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From what I see it seems very notable. Also a very reputable board, namingly Salaam Al Shaksy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.wikian (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently sourced, considering the circumstances. DGG (talk) 13:11, 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) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal
edit

Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NB. No substantial coverage, and the author's notability is as a radio host much more so than as an author. MSJapan (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of significant coverage exists. The book was reveiewed by reliable sources such as The Kansas City Star (link), Library Journal (link), the Washington City Paper (link), the Phoenix New Times (link), and more; and it's cited and referenced in a couple dozen books and a couple dozen scholarly publications. Also Google News Archive hits seem to suggest that Ian Christe is far more notable as an author than as a radio host. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 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 10:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DHowell's pretty extensive argument. Seegoon (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article could certainly do with some edits to include that pertinent information. I'll see if I can squeeze some of it in. Seegoon (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spruced it up considerably. Maybe this'll be sufficient to salvage it. Seegoon (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate independent coverage to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does give notability and independent coverage. Captain Gamma (talk) 23:09, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majesty (Aeoliah's album)
edit

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Majesty (Aeoliah's album)

Majesty (Aeoliah's album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No context or content, just a tracklisting. Also nominating related articles below. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love in the Wind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Echoes of Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Inner Sanctum (Aeoliah album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: article fails to establish notability. There appears to be no evidence they charted either. JamesBurns (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually meets WP:MUSIC#Albums, not fails as suggested above. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How???? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per nominator. Canniba loki 16:03, 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 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Love (album)
edit

Angel Love (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No context, just a tracklisting. Also nominating related articles below. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Love for Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Angel Love 2: Sublime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: article fails to establish notability, no charts. JamesBurns (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Meets criteria for WP:MUSIC because they are the albums of the notable musician Aeoliah. The criteria reads "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."; that plus the reviews on Allmusic.com establishes these articles as keepers. Untick (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an intro for each of the 3 articles to provide context for the article, thereby addressing the nom's stated concern. Also added link to allmusic.com for 3rd party independent reviews to establish notability for individual albums. Untick (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read that section "officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles". This does not mean that any album by a notable artist is suitable for inclusion. This still does not satisfy WP:GNG with multiple third party sources. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:37, 6 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 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:MUSIC#Albums, not fails as suggested above. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? Which criteria at WP:MUSIC does it pass? Nouse4aname (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all per WP:NALBUMS; semi-fictional articles, with no relevant information to establish notability. Canniba loki 15:54, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Shake
edit

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

The article was merged once, but restored by other contributors who claimed notability without providing any sources. I could find no sources that meet WP: RS or don't violate WP:PSTS. Jeremy (blah blah) 03:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If it was merged once, it needs to be redirected for attribution purposes per WP:MERGE (a merge is always followed up with a redirect). Claims that something or someone is notable without any evidence to back it up can be ignored (when sources are questionable, they should be discussed). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence includes plenty of google news hits and book notes. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - First hit is a blog, next few are the Canadian press release from McDonald's Canada. In the book hits, not a source is about the product, only a passing mention that does not establish notability. Please note that WP Policy explicitly states that the number of hits on Google do not infer notability, it is the quality of the hits that matter and none of the Google hits meet the standards of inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to the original merge target on policy grounds (mainly WP:RS and WP:MERGE) with absolutely no prejudice to recreation with (and only with) sources that pass muster. This is one of those "I know it is notable, but I can't prove it" situations. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:42, 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 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be more than adequate media coverage from a Google News search: [27] and [28]. The article needs better referencing, but it doesn't require deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google news returns 127 articles. Not all pass the WP:N test, but articles entirely devoted to the Shamrock Shake include those from The Toronto Star, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg News. There's also "San Francisco Chronicle - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎", "National Post - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎", "Chicago Sun-Times - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎", and it just goes on. Obvious keep. T L Miles (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Again, did anyone read the hits generated by the searches? There is only one link in the searches you pointed out that actually concerns the shamrock shake. Same point as above: most hits are the press releases from McDonald's that happened to be published on major web sites, blogs with one hit being a blog about the blogs that mention the shamrock shake, and the rest are hits with the words "shamrock" and "shake" in them but aren't about the "shamrock shake". I went at least 5 pages into the searches and not a single hit met WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:V. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yeah, I did read these. Look, if an independent reputable publisher prints a story that is effectively a press release, that doesn't make it any less a valid reference. We're talking about the Shamrock Shake here, not Watergate. You want investigative journalism? What is there to say beyond the press release that you would expect a newspaper to tackle? It's up to consensus on the related articles if this is better merged or not, but it's clearly notable, and not a candidate for deletion. In the US and Canada, I'm willing to guess more people have heard of a Shamrock Shake than can name many of their national or local political leaders. Arguing that this topic, while of zero humanitarian or intellectual value, is not notable just doesn't pass the smell test. If this topic wasn't notable according to WP:N, we would have to change WP:N. T L Miles (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep [29] is an article on the topic. [30] appears to also be one. I looked at a few others, and they seemed weaker, but not unreasonable given the two above. Hobit (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...but only because wiki has many many articles on other trivial consumer food products and so precedent has been set. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added two ProQuest sources, including one that's clearly not Corporate PR. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...make that 5 sources, 3 of which are clearly not corporate PR, and I've appropriately de-tagged the article for sourcing but tagged the statements that still are unsupported--which can clearly be excised as desired while still leaving a useful article. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a major newspaper publishes a press release, that is an indicator of notability, and if several newspapers publish several press releases about the same topic, that should be clear evidence of notability. But even if you don't accept this argument, thanks to Jclemens' work, independent sources have been found which clearly establish notability. DHowell (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. This is an enduring (and repulsive) product that is popularized in many mainstream culture spoofs. McDonald's is - I believe - the world's best known and most notorious resteraunt so many of their products will eise to a notable level on their own. -- Banjeboi 09:22, 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 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kaczynski
edit

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

delete - article does not assert or support notablity; sources used are not adequate by Wikipedia standards. Will in China (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the books (two of them, neither of which appears to be self-published) and articles, he seems to be a legitimately notable expert at least on the subject of Aleister Crowley.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Between the books, extensive articles both metaphysical and medical, career as lecturer, career as musician, how often his written works are quoted and/or referred to, etc, the cumulative effect is IMO one of a notable-enough person to merit an article. Rosencomet (talk) 23:39, 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 10:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'd like to note that neither of the books actually meets the notability requirement for books. I'd also like to note that almost all the sources are blurbs quite probably written by the subject of the article and published on the website of an organization of which he is a member and which has an interest in promoting the classes which he teaches within the organization. We really have no third-party sources to support either notability (i.e. no mainstream publication has taken note of this individual) or any of the biographical data. Will in China (talk) 14:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Cuba
edit

Corruption in Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an obvious WP:POVFORK of Politics of Cuba. It is also something of a WP:COATRACK, created by a user who has repeatedly attempted to insert WP:BLP-violating content into Fidel Castro. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Politics in Cuba is not suitable article for corruption related studies, because corruption is not limited to politics. Corruption happens at all levels of the government like the book Corruption in Cuba by Sergio Diaz-Briquets and Jorge F. Pérez-López says. See also Corruption in Paraguay, Corruption in China, Corruption in Kenya, Corruption in Angola, Corruption in Ghana, Corruption in Armenia... Luis Napoles (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Preceding comment is from the article's creator and principal editor. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument, by the way. These other corruption articles are not even very good (for the life of me, I cannot figure out why an article called "Corruption in Chile" focuses on the year 2005 and makes no mention whatsoever of Augusto Pinochet), and perhaps they should be deleted, as well. But even if they were outstanding, they would provide no justification for the article in question here, for which WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:COAT would remain issues. Cosmic Latte (talk)

Note: This AfD has been off to a slow start, so I've done some friendly noticing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cuba, Talk:Fidel Castro, Talk:Cuba, and Talk:Politics of Cuba. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:POVFORK, WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP. Also feel it unfairly singles out Cuba. "Corruption in country X" articles are questionable in general. --Athenean (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well-put. "Criticism of X" articles are controversial enough, but "Corruption in"? No, thanks. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cosmic Latte, you claimed that the article is a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK, but there is almost nothing about corruption in Politics in Cuba. Were you thinking of merging? Luis Napoles (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, not merging, but perhaps distilling some of the ideas into a summary-style form that can be presented in Politics of Cuba without giving undue weight to little-known authors or to unsubstantiated speculation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:49, 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 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Athenean. There is no way in hell this could be considered to ever be neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cosmic Latte, who do you think we should cite if not the authors of "Corruption in Cuba"? (your "little-known authors") Luis Napoles (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is nothing wrong with citing the authors who are already cited, so long as they are not given WP:UNDUE article space, which would amount to any space in a coatrack povfork BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cosmic Latte, this is not for merging discussions. You can be bold and merge the content into Politics in Cuba if you want. Luis Napoles (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uh, I know what AfD is for. You are the one who brought up merging, and I responded that I do not support a merge, so quite honestly I have no idea what you are talking about. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editor Cosmic Latte originally claimed that Politics in Cuba has same content as Corruption in Cuba ("WP:POVFORK, PV:COATRACK"). Anyone can look at the article he claimed to be forked and find out that he filed this AfD based on a false claim. It appears that Cosmic Latte wants to delete the content based on argument that the research about corruption in Cuba is by "little-known authors" and "speculation". We are still waiting for his opinion who would be a well-known author, if not corruption researchers such as Díaz-Briquets, Pérez-López, and others. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not whether we think it's "speculation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis Napoles (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I never said that anything has the same content as anything else; what I said is that this article violates WP:POVFORK (hence WP:NPOV as well), WP:COATRACK, and WP:BLP--the last of which denotes a higher threshold for inclusion than mere verifiability. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Content forking "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject."

Does Politics of Cuba treat the same subject as Corruption in Cuba?

If yes, we should merge the article into Politics in Cuba.

If not, we might wonder why Cosmic Latte claimed so. Luis Napoles (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This fork does treat the same subject, namely Cuban politics. Your earlier observation that "there is almost nothing about corruption in Politics in Cuba", however, is irrelevant. If you feel that Politics of Cuba needs more on allegations of corruption (the operative word here being "allegations", which is missing from the title of your fork), then feel free to add it. But don't do it in "a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines...to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". And bear in mind that negative information must be added with great care to a BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it does treat the same subject. I merged the article into Politics of Cuba.

Corruption in Cuba should be redirected to Politics in Cuba.Luis Napoles (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see no consensus anywhere to merge anything. "Merge" is a possible outcome of an AfD, but that has not even been suggested by any of this AfD's participants (apart from you) thus far. Merging any article in the middle of its AfD is premature and, well, unusual. But merging an article in the middle of an AfD that has not given even the slightest indication that it should be merged? Hmm... Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least just a moment ago you advocated adding corruption research to Politics in Cuba ("feel free to add it"), while you supposedly seek to delete Corruption in Cuba (i.e. not redirect).Luis Napoles (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That was not meant as a retraction of my previous opposition to any merge, but rather as a reiteration of that opposition, which allowed for the possibility that a summary-style distillation of the research can be added to Politics of Cuba without causing glaring BLP or NPOV issues. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. While the current article may be a mess, the topic of "Corruption in Cuba" is probably a notable one. For example, [31]. In fact an article on "Corruption in X", where X is any number of countries would probably be warranted. These would not be attack pages, they would simply describe the corruption in that area. See [32], [33], [34]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While current article is something of an attack page and omits any sort of context (corruption in Cuba didn't start with the Castro family, and won't end with them either) the threshold for inclusion is notabily rather than neutrality. If it is not neutral it needs to be tagged (and should be), but not deleted. Corruption in Cuba is notable, but it should not nessecarily be singled out, I'd imagine you could make a fairly baulky article on Corruption in the United States or Corruption in Spain. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i'm confused is this a book article? (Briquits and Lopez), or if several sources, needs a major rewrite, esp. nomenklatura section, for more integration of sources pohick (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The opening causes problems, since is the article about the book or the subject? The subject is perfectly valid for an encyclopedia, and I see references backing up some of the claims. Dream Focus 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Politics of Cuba because it is a WP:POVFORK.--Caspian blue 05:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and don't merge, it's an article about a book, not about the topic of the book. Rename it to Corruption in Cuba (book) if possible. If it's a non-notable book, nominate it for deletion on those grounds. Nerfari (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up the article to correct the serious bias and essay issues. The confusion about whether this article covers the book by that name or the larger topic can be resolved by writing a proper lead. The topic is notable, whether or not the book by that title is: Other sources are not hard to come by. If the existence of this article "unfairly singles out Cuba," as another editor suggests, than the solution is to better cover the issue of corruption in other countries, so as to counter systemic bias; not to censor Wikipedia in the name of "fairness." --Shunpiker (talk) 21:12, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Block
edit

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

Delete fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep lots of credits at IMDb even if mostly minor. Lots of in-links and a WP search on "Larry Block" shows many more articles that could link here. JJL (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep minor actor, but participated in a fair number of television series over the years and there appear to be an adequate number of sources (per some simple searches) that a good BIO article could be created. JRP (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:42, 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 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per JJL. T-95 (talk) 15:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Maddox
edit

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

Delete- not notable, no quality in depth references--Justhangin (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - meets several of the notability guidelines: many releases, several international tours, one of the most prominent U.S. exponents of beatboxing, coverage in major media including The New York Times, etc. Badagnani (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are the references other than his websites. The NYT article barely mentions him and doesn't say anything about him in particular. My dad was in the NYT once, and he even had a quote. He doesn't have a wikipedia page though.--Justhangin (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Given the poor state of the article, it's hard to find any references in it that support Badagnani's claims. Please simply list the specific sections of WP:MUSIC that have been met, by number at least, and the references for each. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to familiarize oneself with the music notability guidelines before actually preparing a deletion report. This article is not a candidate for such. The artist has many CD releases, several international tours, he is one of the most prominent and active U.S. exponents of beatboxing, coverage in major media including The New York Times, etc. Badagnani (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than telling other editors what to do, in violation of WP:BATTLE, please WP:PROVEIT. I'm happy to help. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For all intents and purposes, your opinion is not any more important than any other one, Badagnani. Rather than accusing editors of wrongdoings in their interpretations of policies and guidelines, you should focus on the content regardless of who created/edited it. Eugene2x►^talk 04:55, 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 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, no reviews or awards or coverage from reputable sources. NY Times article given as proof of notability mentions subject twice in an article about someone else. The amount of CD releases and tours does not matter, it's how notable those CDs and tours etc are that get the coverage that makes the subject notable. If anyone would like to provide some good quality references that attest to the subjects notability then the whole of Wikipedia will very gladly keep it in. If not, there can be no argument with a delete Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:25, 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 speedy delete (A7) by Tnxman307. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 16:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving My Best
edit

Giving My Best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claims to notability, can't find anything at all on the net apart from a couple of bloggy sites and forums. No awards, no reviews, no major coverage, fails WP:BAND Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7/G11 Spammy tone, doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:30, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 10:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Caledonia Night Sky Co. and Jerry LaBuy
edit

The Caledonia Night Sky Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD):Also the related article Jerry LaBuy

Not a notable film company Theresa Knott | token threats 08:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - no signs of notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is on IMDb as having produced independent films. Wikipedia is a strong encyclopedic information source for independent film and fests. Not stating anything that isn't notable, true or relevant to possible users. Just making it available.Cinesven
IMDB can be edited by anyone. We need a much better source for notability. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The page for filmmaker Jerry LaBuy links here too. He has produced independent films as well. Not trying to state anything that isn't notable, true or relevant to possible users for the information. Again just making it available. Cinesven —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

IMDB is used as a main reference for almost all indy filmmakers on Wikipedia. Cinesven —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment It's not just about making films, its about making notable films, that have reliable sources establishing their notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs to establish notability; no notable films. And as half the article describes the logo which is clear to see it appears there's very little of note to say about the company. I42 (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for keep I believe I understand your position but in the film festival community these up-and-comers are notable. I've worked/judged on film fests and Wiki and IMDb are both accepted sources of initial information. We use them to check facts and find out additional details. People tend to mock Wikipedia for having poor and one-sided information. I am not one of those people. But this info for Mr. LaBuy and his company are extremely neutral and not sales or promotion by any means. Just facts. Facts you would read about for any filmmaker which someone looking for more information on them could find here.
I was just trying to expand Wikipedia which I use and enjoy. If this information is unwanted here then please delete the pages ASAP. Because speaking from experience having the deletion notices at the top of the pages is harmful to his submissions to film fests, which in turn could harmfully affect his career. This was not my intention. When we see things like that as judges it influences our decisions negatively and I don't want this to affect any of his submissions. Thank you.Cinesven
But surely the reason people use Wikipedia to check facts is because Wikipedia editors have to check our facts......Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that you need to check the facts and in my previous comment I was trying to applaud you for doing so. Wikipedia would be a huge mess if you did not try to do this. I guess I'm saying this site is used by us industry people quite a bit and works best when background info and facts on young, actual filmmakers is readily available. It's sometimes hard for us to find facts on them elsewhere. But again, if this factual information is unwanted by the policies and decision makers please discard these 2 pages right away so my good intentions don't harm any of his future chances. --Cinesven (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hadn't spotted that this AfD was for two articles. Only difference it makes though, is that I'm saying to delete two articles, not just the one Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy both articles back to author as being too premature. Let them develop their careers and successes enough to have coverage in reliable sorces... and then bring it 'em on back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable fails WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 02:32, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 10:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firesign
edit

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

May not meet notability guidelines. One new member was a former member of a few mildly notable bands. I can't find any reliable coverage. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage - mostly myspace, blogs and download pages, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Calling Loudness "mildly notable" is misleading and quite possibly disingenuous, but I'll assume good faith. And the person in question was the lead singer for them and EZO (also more than "mildly notable"), which passes WP:BAND #6 (as this is neither a side project nor an early band). TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the musician in question is not a "new member" but has been a member since 2001 (Note to self: Remember, AGF.). TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved the page to its correct (per MOS:CAPS) capitalization. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:27, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; no one else recommended deletion WP:SK — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIX (Email)
edit

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

Sources do not meet WP:RS, causing this article to fail notability guidelines. The sources are press releases... and copies of emails... OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can reference official documentation for the format. I would encourage comparison to other pages in the same category, such as maildir and mbox. Jonabbey (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any additional sources should be included when possible. Pointing out other articles that do not have reliable sources is helpful, in that we can address those issues, however please use WP:RS when evaluating sources which would be appropriate to use to meet notability guidelines on this article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find that there are plenty of reliable independent sources available for both mbox and maildir, both on the WWW and in print. ☺ Their mention here is a complete red herring. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm pursuing WP:RS for this. Jonabbey (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found an extensive discussion of the performance of UW IMAP with the MIX format, but unfortunately it is in a German Linux magazine. I have linked to a Google translated version in the External Links section. Jonabbey (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Or, at least keep for now. This was AfD'ed before there was any discussion about how to improve it. As per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." and "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." A google search indicates to me that more reliable sources can probably be found. If nothing can be found after some time has passed, *THEN* an AfD is appropriate. Wrs1864 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input regarding the topic, and as a glance at the article talk page will reveal, I have been attempting "normal editing" to improve the article. Since the article author can only seem to find a German blog and copies of emails on a server, I don't believe I listed the article incorrectly. Subsequent improvements actually make me happy. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 13:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, this article had enough reliable sources before you put the AfD up, it has more now. Be aware that for computer stuff like email technology, there often is very little dead-tree sources. Mark Crispin is a recognized expert in the field of email and email formats, as such, as per WP:SPS, his mailing lists posts can qualify as reliable sources. (I certainly count them, although I can understand others not liking them.) The UW IMAP server is a notable implementation, its documentation counts. While it would be better to have English references, they are not required, so the German language one counts. Your very terse comment on the talk page didn't seem to me to be trying to improve the article. Again, a quick google search should have told you that this article needs an {{Refimprove}} tag, not an AfD. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Reliable sources for software notability apparently include copies of emails now. Who knew? --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 14:59, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andolini's Pizzeria
edit

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Andolini's Pizzeria

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

I doubt a single pizza parlor established in 2004 qualifies as a notable company. JaGa^talk 07:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless notability issues, this article is so far from being neutral in tone it should be deleted as spam. I42 (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G11 Spam. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would certainly need a lot of work, but appears to be less than notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:07, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOMS Shoes
edit

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/TOMS Shoes

Articles for deletion/TOMS Shoes (2nd nomination)

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

WP:SPAM: Previously deleted via Afd, and at least once again since, it still reads like an ad/press release.
TIMELINE

2006-07-19: Article deleted via AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/TOMS SHOES)

2007 - 2008: Deleted at least once again ({{prod}} or {{db}}?)

2008-12-16: Recreated by Cac04d

2009-03-04: Edits by OlYeller21 added references, including a press release issued by the subject of the article

2009-04-02: {{db-g4}} added by Danorton

2009-04-03: {{db-g4}} removed by OlYeller21 noting that "The article now aserts notability per the litmus test of notability."

WP:NOTE was only one of the complaints mentioned when this article was discussed and deleted in 2006. The content of the article remains substantially unchanged, still reads like an ad, and otherwise provides virtually no encyclopedic information. —Danorton (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Danorton (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nomination —Danorton (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has changed substantially since I submitted it for deletion. Notability was never at issue. The current version is unrecognizable from the original, it lacks the former promotional wording and content, it is thoroughly referenced, it follows all policies, and it is written in a clear and fluent style. I am glad to have been proven wrong. —Danorton (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous discussion concluded with a unanimous DELETE, with one non-voting and complaining comment by the creator of the article (who failed to sign the comment and who assumed the same name as the subject of the article) —Danorton (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks well referenced from the article, and I'm pretty sure i've read about these in some newspaper or magazine. Google news agrees riffic (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The forbes.com reference in the article is a dead link. The link that says Vogue goes to some other website, and a blog at that. Its very very adverty in tone. Every google hit I get is someone selling the damned things. It's a delete for me Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the original forbes.com ref was a dead prnewswire feed which has been removed. riffic (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Woops! I deleted that dead link but apparently re-inserted it on my following edit. That link is actually the press release I referred to above (also here: http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/tomsshoes/36223/) —Danorton (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is clear that the references provided on the article (including CNN, added since this nomination was made) establish notability. I42 (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No doubt that this article has too much self-promotional fluff. It should be excised of the timeline, advertising copy and other puffery. I've also gone ahead and clarified that that award is not an actual National Design Award, but rather an online popularity contest sponsored by the museum. That being said, the substantial mentions in the Seattle Pos-Intelligencer, Forbes, CNN, Fortune, and Vogue definitely provide enough significant coverage to pass notability criteria for a company and warrant a keep. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like Cactus pointed out, the article has recieved significant coverage in the Seattle PI, CNN, Forbes, Vogue, and Fortune. That's more than enough to show notability. I'd also like to point out that the speedy tag you added was a db-corp and not for spam (like the AfD nom). Why the change? OlYeller^Talktome 13:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were addressing me, I actually added a {{db-g4}} tag, which has three components:
The article was previously deleted via AfD (This is not disputed),

The new article is substantially identical (This seems to be unverifiable but, as I recall, this current incarnation even retains the typos from the prior version), and

The changes don't address all of the problems that led to the original deletion. (I allow that the notability references are improved, but that wasn't the only complaint: the underlying text remains indistinguishable from an advertisement.) —Danorton (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, this article is vastly improved over the one deleted previously via AfD, so G4 does not apply here. Second, this article has enough reliable sources that general notability is satisfied. Cleanup of the tone is in order, yes, but that's not reason to delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vastly improved over last deletion version. Meets notability with several reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thus far, there is a lot of argument in support of satisfying notability, and no opposition, not even in the nomination. I would be interested in reading more discussion regarding the reason given for this nomination: WP:SPAM. —Danorton (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although the references might have improved, I don't believe that the article content has materially changed or improved since the last AfD. Is there any way to view the deleted version? Would that be relevant? —Danorton (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is tagging the article for rescue immediately after an AfD nomination equivalent to votestacking? —Danorton (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty in describing any company, once it has passed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria, is keeping out the WP:SPAM. Especially for a company like this one which is being reported in the media particularly for its charitable service -- and that charitable service is itself used as a vehicle for advertising the company. (That is part of interest shown by Fortune and Forbes.) The line between description and promotion is delicate but the article can be edited to meet NPOV requirements. I've taken a preliminary wack at it to remove the more blatant ad copy -- it could use more. But, at this point, I think WP:ADVERT problems can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your concerns about votestacking. There was no problem with the editor adding a tag. Deletion policy here encourages improvement of an article during the Afd process, including the addition of the Rescue Template. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the final outcome in this instance is that the article is edited to remove ad and promotional statements, such as "The founder claims...blah blah blah" (when "blah blah blah" isn't neutrally referenced), and edited to add unbiased substance, then I'm all for such improvement. That's not likely to happen in this instance and, if I thought it were likely, I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Making AfD a part of the process of improvement is not constructive or efficient. Bad articles should be removed or timely improved. Anyone can recreate an acceptable form of it when it has been substantially improved. I'm one of many who feel this way, but I'm not about to go and announce this to the "Deletion Squadron," because I don't feel that would be constructive or produce a neutral discussion. Instead of a biased discussion, it would become a polarized discussion. Rather than decide this in an argument over what policy should be, the article should be deleted because of what the policy is: articles should not serve as promotional vehicles, as this one intends. —Danorton (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it was the Rescue tag that got my own attention. If you compare the article as first nominated to what it is now, you'll see the results of it now recieving some long needed attention. Should have happened much earler. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then salt. Fails CORP and multimple spamming of non-notable companies should be stopped.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:CORP per provided sources and then send to WP:CLEANUP to remove sense of advert. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the extraneous fluff, added a few additional sources and reworked the article to set a NPOV. Its smaller, sweeter, and definitely worthy of wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its looking like a proper article now. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously, this met GNG quickly and the rest is regular clean-up. If it feels spammy then make suggestions for improvement or ... fix it. -- Banjeboi 09:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The subject has far more notability today than when the original AfD case was decided in 2006. In both cases, WP:NOTADVERTISING has appeared to be a problem, and in the 1st nomination it's possible that the article was blatant spam by someone affiliated with TOMS. However, article has been cleaned up since this AfD case was opened. There are PLENTY of reliable sources that can be used to write this article today, which was likely not the case when the first AfD case went through. It would be silly to end up deleting this article...just make sure we keep NPOV on it. _scootey ^talk 01:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is established through coverage in reliable sources. Spamminess is an editting concern and aside from blatant advertising, is not grounds for deletion. This article does not fall into the blatant category. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 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. Ryulong is right that specific guidelines for television series/show notability have not yet been fully discerned. That means that the fallback is WP:N, and the consensus is that the sources are absent. WIll happily userfy for an eventual return to mainspace when the sources are found Fritzpoll (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green with Evil
edit

Green with Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Information does not have external coverage present in verifiable reliable sources, and thus does not have the possibility of justifying independent notability. The sources that have been found include fansites, video websites, forum postings, etc. —Mythdon (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable as arguably what started the whole Power Rangers craze. Remember: just because you can't find/don't look for verifiable reliable sources doesn't mean they don't exist. JPG-GR (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How am I supposed to know that this is "what started...craze"? Without reliable sources, I can't have a good reason to believe it; and saying "Don't delete because there might be sources" is akin to using a crystal ball. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable episode(s) of a notable television series. Right now the content is solely about the plot, but that can be fixed given time and sources exist out there somewhere. The nominator just has his own ideals as to what can and cannot be used as a reliable source which he does not give others the chance to investigate (if he actually does look for them). I don't see how WP:BALL has anything to do with this deletion, because this is about something that has already happened.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this content is found in a magazine and focuses nearly entirely on this one episode arc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is that source going to cut it? —Mythdon (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's something that appears in a neutral third party publication. That's a reliable source if I ever saw one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that arguing to keep simply based on the idea that sources might exist (as suggested by JPG-GR) is crystalballery, because it presumes that sources will appear even though we have no proof that they exist — it has nothing to do with the merits of proven sources. That being said, I have yet to see a single strong source; the blog entry that you provided isn't a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "crystalballery" to say that there might be sources (they won't appear, they're out there somewhere that we are looking). Mythdon didn't bother to look, and no one bothered to look until Mythdon decided to put this article up for AFD. I found that source. It's not very substantiative, but it shows that someone had the idea to discuss the particular episode critically. And no one has come up with any standard as to what episodes are notable and what episodes are not notable. Two arbitration cases couldn't decide that and neither could the community as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I found that source. It's not very substantiative, but it shows that someone had the idea to discuss the particular episode critically. " - I am sorry, but that source is not direct. Indirect sources are irrelevant to the direct content of an article. —Mythdon (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source is very clearly direct. It discusses the subject of this article, although after a minor story about how he found the T-shirt.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that "sources may appear" - I'm arguing that Mythdon has yet to show any proof that he has attempted to find sources for any of the Power Rangers articles he is targeting for deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misunderstanding you, JPG-GR. As far as the "found in a magazine" source — this is from Wordpress, a blog. How is it possibly reliable? Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wordpress blog states that it was also published in said magazine, as the blog belongs to the magazine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:16, 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, X clamation point 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claims of importance need references and they just aren't there - if the claims were true, they would be. This looks like an essay and original research. The excessive plot summary which follows is in contradiction of "a plot summary may be appropriate ... but should never become the dominant aspect of an article". I42 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I did searches through multiple archival databases but unfortunately was unable to find discussion in reliable sources to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to point out, following the relisting, that this is a children's television episode arc/miniseries and would not necessarily appear in some sort of critical text. Notability of television episodes has not been fully discerned on the English Wikipedia, and while it is definitely just an episode guide now, the content can be fixed easily.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheye Calvo
edit

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

Although the incident received world-wide media attention, this particular article fails WP:BIO1E. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN as he is a non-notable mayor of a town that is 0.6 sq. miles in size. It seems to be a redundant rewrite of Berwyn Heights drug raid. It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He probably received local press when he was running for mayor. I'd choose a redirect over outright deletion either way riffic (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, google news brings up quite a bit of hits on his name pre-2008. I'm not sure if they're the same person, seems likely though. riffic (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep BLP1E doesn't quite apply here because he is a) a successful politician and b) has coverage in news sources prior to the incident for which he is most well known. There is however so little in the other news sources that redirection wouldn't be unreasonable for now. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Changing to full keep. Earlier logic still applies and basic precedent about mayors and such then comes into play. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POLITICIAN, mayors are not kept or deleted on the basis of the size of the community that they lead, but on the presence or absence of reliable sources about the person. In fact, mayors are almost always kept — regardless of the community's size — if the article is well-referenced and more substantial than just "So-and-so is the mayor of Place." Accordingly, keep unless there are WP:BLP issues that haven't been addressed here yet. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The size of the town is irrelevant to the AfD argument. The first two pages on google say nothing about Calvo prior to the news event. It's not until the third page does other information come up and then it's only LinkedIn, FaceBook, and other n/n blogs. That's why I felt it failed WP:N pursuant WP:BIO1E. However, after looking at the matter further, because of the amount of reports to the single incident it may barely qualify for inclusion. (Conversely, in 10 years, I doubt many people will remember or care about the "botched" raid when the police came in John Wayne-style with guns-a-blazin'). Regardless, I think that it is at the least a valid AfD candidate who's outcome could provide WP "case law" for future similar situations! Cheers to all!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 22:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he is a non-notable mayor of a town that is 0.6 sq. miles in size is the only reason you gave for how he might fail WP:POLITICIAN kinda makes size look not irrelevant to the crux of the argument, but I suppose YMMV. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 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 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Girlfriend is A Rock
edit

My Girlfriend is A Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song; fails criteria at WP:NSONGS. fuzzy510 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage, no awards, no charts, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:Music.Nrswanson (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now, do a little more research and review later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkey45 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 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 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of US President Obama's Bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
edit

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Media coverage of US President Obama's Bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

Media coverage of US President Obama's Bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The entire article seems to be a logical argument for why the article itself is not notable. ;o/ OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Now that is just sad. The entire article basically seems to argue that the action itself was pointless and not worthy of comment. --Pstanton (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If anything this should be a one line item in the Barack Obama entry. It reads like it should be titled "Should the US media cover every greeting between President Obama and a foreign leader?". Wperdue (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Delete As Pstanton said, the article gives a full commentary basically stating that it's not worth having this article. fuzzy510 (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS... especially when most of the news networks aren't even bothering to mention it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Nrswanson (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Not news" seems to have a double meaning in this context. First, Wikipedia is not for news reports. Second, a normal greeting is not even newsworthy (hence none of the mainstream media bothered covered it), let alone encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Hekerui (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wp:NOTNEWS. The President greets a foreign leader with the traditional greeting of his host? How the hell is that notable? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save - Wp:NEWS. This entry is an interesting study of journalism and how to properly make points and counterpoints. It seems the only reason the entry is being considered for deletion is because some consider it not to be news. Yet, the entry makes a case for why this is news. More journalistic information would be useful and educational. Other points in favor of the entry, Wiki is for accurately relating facts and facts are news. Also, this greeting was not a normal greeting for presidents. And, the Wiki News page has an entry about President Bush holding hands with the Saudi king and the NY Post had this as a front page picture. I think this is a neutral entry and should remain in Wikipedia. Hypeson (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It should be noted that the above comment was added by (I'm assuming) a new user - the contributions are three edits here and the creation of the talk page for the article in question. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure original research into a non-notable event. As the article itself puts it, "A president bowing to a foreign monarch is a sign of respect and common courtesy which does not merit news coverage." Quite. I'll note that the counterpoints to that argument are simply wrong (e.g. Michelle Obama touching the Queen was considered a breach of etiquette, therefore does merit coverage). JulesH (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment copied from article talk page): SAVE - This is a significant event that in the past has engendered much media attention. An American President has never in the past bowed from the waist to a foreign head of state. It is extraordinary and needs to be examined and reported. To delete it is an attempt to suppress genuinely newsworthy content. President Bush's greeting of King Abdullah was examined closely in the press and this is a much more dramatic gesture by America's President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sscrvtea (talk • contribs) 22:29, 5 April 2009

Delete, this sort of novel synthesis and analysis of new events is precisely what Wikinews is for; not suitable for WP. +sj + 23:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The objectivity and quality of the article is shown by the heading: "Claim, administration officials have asked the media to suppress the story" for which is supported only by the statement that previous administrations have sometimes asked the media to suppress stories--referenced to a news account that doesnt say that. DGG (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save This is a significant event a precedent of the US President bowing to a foreign monarch. Perhaps the title of the article should be modified or the article may be merged with the main Obama article.Cherylyoung (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't merit its own article and seems very OR. untwirl(talk) 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [35]. But article's focus and name should change. Before there is an article about the media coverage of him bowing down, there should be an article about him bowing down. --Anewpester (talk) 01:33, 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 Recurring characters in the Sonic the Hedgehog series. MBisanz ^talk 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters
edit

List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Purely original research which is redundant to Recurring characters in the Sonic the Hedgehog series. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with redirect to Recurring characters in the Sonic the Hedgehog series; current list is a duplicate as well as extraneous, edging on WP:GAMEGUIDE material. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. List of recurring characters is sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Just want to point out that this article was created with no concern about whether it would be kept or deleted. The other list at List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) used to contain these minor one off characters (in addition to the recurring characters), but they were split off into their own list after a long dispute. The dispute was between between the Sonic Wikiproject and other VG Wikiproject editors who wanted to see them cleaned up (including myself).
I proposed a compromise, where the minor characters would be listed at the bottom of the main list, as an index to the respective games where they appear in. This would have reduced the WP:OR and given them appropriate WP:WEIGHT, while still respecting the value of WP:LISTS as a *navigational* aid, to direct people to relevant information at games.

User:TTN and User:A Man In Black disagreed and wanted them scrubbed completely. The Sonic people didn't like the middle ground either, insisting upon full coverage. There would be no compromise.

User:A Man In Black pushed forward and moved the one-off characters to its own list, which I reverted for being non-notable.

AMiB pointed out "If this is non-notable on it's own, it's non-notable in the other article as well"

I pointed out that notability doesn't apply to content, and that merging it into the other list would be fine

The index went on anyway. The exclusionists didn't care if it would be nominated for AFD, and the inclusionists didn't understand how or why it would eventually be nominated for AFD. I'm actually surprised it took this long.

Now, I don't personally care. I was simply trying to mediate a dispute that had spilled out onto WT:VG multiple times. Since then, the whole group of inclusionists have left for Wikia. I'd normally support the deletion of cruft like this, but having some insight into how it was created, I feel like I would be endorsing the strategy of exclusionists that wanted these characters deleted in the first place. This kind of mess undermines the value and legitimacy of AFD. Not blaming anyone here in this discussion right now. "It's just Chinatown". Forget it. Randomran (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. The one-shot characters can be put in the articles of their respective games, I guess. I'd like to see the Recurring Characters list be rearranged to something other than alphabetical order though, since Sonic being near the end of his own character roster is kind of... dumb. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Detailed, but it still seems to be fancruft. -Koryu Obihiro (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given why it is incorrect to have a single comprehensive list. Clarifies finding them, useful for browsing. If the characters appear in the story, as can be found by inspection it is not OR. We should have as many lists of this sort as people are willing to maintain. DGG (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "single, comprehensive list" already exists at List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games). This one is just an arbitrary offshoot of it with no reliable sources whatsoever. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 06:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per reasons above. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect useless content fork.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the uncited list filled with original research to the cited, more discriminate list which is well-sourced. Only makes sense. Them From Space 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A minor character list for non-reoccurring characters makes sense for such a large franchise. Needs better sourcing. No objection to a merge, but it sounds like that was tried and found wanting. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense if they're unsourced. This article is just a repository of in-universe trivia that belongs in either the respective, existing sections in the other article, the respective game articles or nowhere at all. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it can be sourced by primary sources and I'm a big fan of spinning out information when editorial needs dictate. Also lists often aren't sourced in any detail. See Palin for example. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items, lists are subject to the same sourcing standards as articles; the example you cited is a disambiguation page. Anyway, I still don't see what the "editorial need" is for this list; List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) already fulfils the purpose of a list for Sonic characters, and to a far better standard than this list of unsourced trivia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists are useful as navigation aids. WP:CLS Being unsourced is an editorial issue. If the topic was unsourcable, it would be a deletion issue. -Atmoz (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So where are the sources to justify these characters' notability? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of characters here not listed in the other list. Having two list, one for major characters, and one for minor, might make sense, but you can't combine them as one, that not working. And many of those listed have blue links to those character's own individual pages. The list is clearly valid. Dream Focus 18:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How wouldn't it make sense? This list currently provides no clear distinction from the other one, and a "major/minor" division would be completely arbitrary and therefore original research anyway. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the recurring character list if we must (though I'm struggling to see why). This is an unfortunate mish-mash of the genuinely needed characters and assorted nobodies/bosses from the multitude of Sonic games, spin-offs and other media. In the first section for instance, we start off with all the major characters then suddenly slide into 'Wendy Witchcart' who, I believe, is the antagonist in one of Tails' spin-offs for the game gear, along with all the one-shot bosses that appear during that game. It's really scraping the barrel to list these as 'characters' in any sense, they're just obstacles, it's unlikely they'd all need to be mentioned in the game's own article. I've zero problem with multiple character lists if they were handled properly, but this bucket for random names to be chucked into indiscriminately is serving no purpose at all. Someone another 23:47, 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 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anger Management (FiRESiGN)
edit

Anger Management (FiRESiGN) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without additional info, this fails WP:ALBUM. Also, Firesign is currently on target for a CSD for A7. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Nrswanson (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:15, 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 redirect to Yellowcard. MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big if
edit

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

Unsigned group founded by the lead singer of Yellowcard whose current catalog consists of four songs on Myspace. Might be worth a full article in the future, but not at this point. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just another MySpace band. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, no awards, no charts, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yellowcard; the yellowcard article has as much info as this article (well, almost)) - if Big if take off, they get their own article. (It's a big if though :-D)Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:37, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Zimmerman
edit

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

Article is about a soccer player who fails to meet the notability standards at WP:N, WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN; article should be re-created if and when he makes a professional appearance JonBroxton (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Um, he does play major league soccer, the article says that in the introduction. It certainly isn't a long article, but he's just as notable as all the other players on the team, all but one of whom have their own article as well. --Pstanton (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guidelines state that a player must have PLAYED a game in a professional league to be considered notable by WP:ATHLETE, or to have done something especially notable in his college career or in some other capacity to be considered notable by WP:N. Zimmerman does not meet either of these criteria; just being on the team is not enough - he has to have PLAYED. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no professional appearances thus far, failing WP:Athlete. I'm happy to restore/recreate when/if he makes a professional appearance if someone asks me on my talk page. Camw (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Recreate if and when he makes his debut. --Jimbo^[online] 07:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE.Nrswanson (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:ATHLETE. T-95 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he broke his leg in three places tomorrow and never made it on the pitch in his entire career, would he be notable? No. Not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He was signed by a professional soccer team and has particpated in a match with his club since signing a pro deal, whether exhibition or league it shouldnt matter. College basketball players and college football (american) players are considered notable per wikipedia despite having never signed or player professionally. His accomplishments in amateur(college soccer) are notable as well, which led to a pro team signing him. We need to adjust the rules.(User:Elomen76) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

~~*Keep~~ If the highest level of college football, baseball and basketball players are deemed notable by most decisions on WP, I see no reason why college soccer players shouldn't be as well. Players drafted should be considered notable as they are considered the highest professional prospects in their professional league —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elomen76 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom.GauchoDude (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has yet to play at the highest level, which is in a fully professional league, thus fails WP:Athlete. Happy to restore if he does ever play (just drop me a line). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:20, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paula kawal
edit

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

Energy healer without reliable 3rd party coverage. Her "intuitions" do not seem to be well documented. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not notable, no 3rd party coverage. --Pstanton (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--not notable, vanity page. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent third party sources can be found that establish notability.Nrswanson (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Hekerui (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete NN. Can't this be speedied? Computerjoe 's talk 12:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable individual, vanity page, strong candidate for a SD.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:39, 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 RuneScape . MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varrock
edit

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

No notability, and if references to it can be considered notability, it goes into too much detail in the game, considering that there are no other articles on individual places within RuneScape.--Pig house (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Water down and Merge~~ Delete and Redirect to Runescape. We don't need an article with that much detail on a city in a game. A quick check pointed out that there's no article on any city in Warcraft, so I don't see why we should have one for a city in a ~~less-known~~ game. —LedgendGamer 22:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment on the article, but since when is Runescape lesser known than Warcraft? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I should have said something along the lines of comparable to Warcraft, if anything at all. —LedgendGamer 00:00, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The city is an important ___location within the game, but in the grand scheme of things is one of many locations within the game, and as a subject is quite minor. The only sources provided are an encyclopedia-like gameguide by Jagex, the company responsible for Runescape, and a JPG map of the Runescape game-world. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of (if not all) other references to Varrock will be in Runescape game-guides. I am opposed to a merge to the Runescape article, as this will be a call to deteriorate that article by flooding it (the only way to fairly represent all major in-game locations) with gameguide-like content. As a declared interest, I am a Runescape player. -- saberwyn 07:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind to delete and redirect; you raise a good point, if we allow the article for Runescape to be filled with information on every remotely important ___location in the game, it will quickly become diluted. —LedgendGamer 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't merge per Saberwyn Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and absolutely do not merge. Wikipedia is not a game-guide, and that's all this article is (along with a certain other article). As LedgendGamer points out, merging this article is just an invitation to shove every bit of game-guide material into the RuneScape article. As an active editor there, I can safely reject that idea.

I'm sure there have been other articles like this that got deleted. I wonder if anyone can find any discussions on those (so far, Talk:RuneScape isn't turning anything up in its archives, only the odd mention of a deleted page.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge,~~ Delete, and Redirect to RuneScape - I'm not even sure why this discussion got this far. This is content that very clearly belongs in ~~either the RuneScape article or in~~ the RuneScape Wiki.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^Review 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I just checked the article, no useful information.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^Review 12:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This article has been speedily deleted and recreated three times. Since it looks like this is going to be deleted again, it most certainly needs to be salted, otherwise, we have to go through this again...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^Review 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It was all under different criterion each time (once under G11 (advert), once under A1 (insufficient context), and once under G3 (vandalism per discussion here))--Unionhawk ^Talk ^Review 22:15, 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 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Blog
edit

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

There are currently no references for this article, and I cannot find any either. The only sources available are self-published. Google search of "Open Blog" only produced false positives, so I also tried Tomaž Muraus, the developers name. Any decent review of the product should mention the main developer, but I cannot find any. The article has not been the subject of multiple, independent works in reliable sources. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Atmoz (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sole contributor to the article is a WP:SPA, User:KamiSLO. A user of the same name created the Open Blog page on Digg, leaving a clear sense that the Wiki article is an element of some marketing strategy; as such, this fails WP:PROMOTION. No independent sources are cited and, based on a Google search, none are available online, so this fails WP:V. Same search doesn't support notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James R. Ward (talk • contribs) 07:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 15:42, 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 03:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without additional coverage in independent 3rd party sources, this does not meet notability guidelines. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 03:24, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Baghdaddios
edit

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/The Baghdaddios

Articles for deletion/The Baghdaddios (2nd nomination)

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

The first article was A7'd but the recreation's speedy was declined. This article is about a nonnotable band that fails WP:BAND. There are three citations to newspapers in this article and there's a reason for those three, as they are the only mentions the band has recieved. Not only that, but the mentions are trivial and do not provide the in-depth coverage required by WP:N. They haven't made it to any major charts nor have they released any albums by any major labels. They don't even have an official page outside of Myspace. Them From Space 17:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete = The references given actually show weak notability for Blank-Fest, but not for this band. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:38, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BAND. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--coverage of the band is trivial, if even that. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 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) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph wagstaff
edit

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

Iffy notability, compounded by large amounts of WP:OR, such as "e had a smile an a twinkle in his eyes. Thanks to Joe's visits to our house I was the only kid in my elementary school who knew many Cohan and other Broadway tunes by heart. After my step dad died in the 1970's my mom lost touch with Joe. I could find no records of a wife or children. But I do not believe Joe ever married. He was called a bachelor by my mom. I was going thru old pictures the other day and came across a few of Joe. I did an internet search and found no picture or biography of him. i did find that he lived until 2001. I wish I would have kept in touch with him, I thought he had passed away years before. I desided to do an brief internet biography of him. If you have any infomation or pictures of Joe, please made them available on the internet if you can. I was unable to find much information on Joe, so I called the Screen Acotr Guild(SAG) in California. SAG was very helpful and I could not have done this biography without them. Thank you SAG for keeping Joe's memory alive. Deedee from Detroit." Ironholds (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think this article can be rescued with some careful editing out of the OR and personal reminiscences. Could easily be reduced to a stub for expansion. ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have done some initial clean up and wikification. More to follow. – ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep May meet WP:MUSIC. Needs wikification, research and some generous slicing out of personal details. A stub is fine. At worst, this should be userfied. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 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 03:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability has been established by the recently added references. The article does need a champion to do some housekeeping. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:38, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mckenfield
edit

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

This appears to be a fictional town in a video game. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a work-in-progress, and its just fun, i'll surprise my friends with it one day. i just started. please don't delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirdbrain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure it would be very funny for your friends, please read WP:NOT. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--in fact, can't this be speedied? Drmies (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to establish notability. Hekerui (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 07:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly doesn't belong here - this should probably be snowballed. Can someone second that? Marasmusine (talk) 15:40, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source Credibility
edit

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

Essay / original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like an essay someone did for school. --Pstanton (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: As original research. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Vote: My attempt at participation degenerated into the verbal equivalent of a bar fight, and I apologize to everyone for causing this distraction. I have no objections to the article as it currently exists. Thanks for your indulgence. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 01:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Drmies (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep. Uncle G, you are entirely incorrect in your guess of my reasons. I thought of this as original research since it read like a summary of the kind I read dozens of each semester. Besides, it lacked inline citations. That it was unwikified, I don't care less. You're right, this did turn out to be an encyclopedic topic after all, and if I didn't think so, it's because of the rhetorical characteristics of the article in its initial appearance, not because it lacked wikilinks or something like that. You are right in that I was guided by presentation, but wrong in which elements of presentation. 1 for 2, and you saved a notable article, even if with a rod. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My "guess" (which was in fact based upon long experience), as given below is that it was because it used Harvard referencing instead of the <ref> style of citations. Your explanation of your reasoning, as given above, is that, in part, "it lacked inline citations". Since that's pretty much the same thing (if one ignores the argument that the parenthetical parts of Harvard citations are technically "inline" too), my "guess" doesn't appear to be entirely incorrect. ☺ It's something to think about: why Harvard referencing makes people think "essay". FA reviewers and Manual of Style wonks probably gnash their teeth at this, but in my long experience of rescuing articles there's a definite and noticable bias, in practice, against that style of referencing in Wikipedia, that sometimes begins with people not even recognizing such things as source citations in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey UncleG, experience or not, it's still a guess--of course, you could call it inductive reasoning! ;) I do not agree that parenthetic references are only "technically" in-line, incidentally, but I will tell you that I promise that next time I'll look more carefully--while continuing to be an MLA-nazi, begging your indulgence. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that none of you read the article, because it makes the very point that I'm about to make.
The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing (a perfectly valid referencing style for a Wikipedia article), repeated its title in the article body, and didn't use the correct markup. The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions, and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever.
You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues. Had you done so, you'd have found a source cited for every single point in the article, and that these sources were things like Dr. Chanthika Pornpitakpan, a professor at the University of Macau, writing in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. This isn't a Wikipedia editor writing up previously unpublished ideas directly in Wikpiedia, which is what actually would be covered by the original research policy here. This is a Wikipedia editor writing content entirely based upon reliable sources and citing those sources in full. We could hardly ask for better (except that it be properly wikified).
The irony here is so thick as to be almost tangible. This is a perfectly valid subject, as documented in many places such as pages 286 et seq. of ISBN 9780765613158 (q.v.), and an article whose only faults are being in need of cleanup and expansion, which actually explains that people favour presentation over substance. There is no reason supported by deletion policy for deleting this. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion board. No one has committed a cardinal sin by having a debate on the notability of an article as it was initially presented. Please refrain from explaining our reasons to us, as in "The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing..." Also, I did actually read the article. My interpretation of what was presented was clearly different from yours. It isn't really fair to target people in such an aggressive manner for trying to apply standards to the thousands of new articles that flood wikipedia. A vote with an explanation might suffice next time. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about notability. That's a complete red herring. Your rationale as given is 3 words. It's clear what policy it references. That application of policy was wrong, as reading the article properly, and checking out the sources that it already cited, would have revealed. Clearly, you didn't look at the sources to see whether the article was presenting unpublished ideas not discussed in sources, even though checking articles against what sources say is one of the primary purposes of citing sources in Wikipedia. Moreover, it was wrong in a way that the article actually discusses as its subject. Clearly, you didn't pick up on that.
Furthermore, your discussion of "sin" is a straw man of your own construction. No-one except you yourself has said that you have sinned. There's nothing "aggressive" about pointing out where policy has been grossly, and ironically, mis-applied in a way that it does not actually apply at all. (Hint: There are, sadly, plenty of examples of aggression on Wikipedia. It generally looks like this or this. Spot the quite marked difference? No-one has called you ignorant, useless, or impertinent, or told you to "grow up and shut the fuck up". And the only person who has called you a sinner is you yourself.)
Finally, you ask for votes. This is not a vote, and the above is an opinion with an explanation. It's a quite clear explanation of how policy does not apply in the way that you assert it to apply, and what the error is that you've all made. (It's not the first time that people have looked at an unwikified article and not seen past the markup.) In yet further irony, you talk of explanations when your 3-word rationale is devoid of any explanation at all. This only serves to highlight your further error in stating that I'm explaining your reason to you. Quite the contrary, I'm taking your reason exactly as it was written: that the Wikipedia:No original research policy purportedly applied. You either don't understand that policy in the slightest, or you didn't look at the sources cited and didn't look beyond the style of the article to its substance. I took it that you understood the policy, but didn't read the article and see its actual substance, including the reliable sources that it cited in support of every single part of its content, for the unwikification and the Harvard referencing — as so many have done before you (Despite Wikipedia style guidelines, I've observed a significant bias against Harvard referencing at AFD over the years.), and that is spectacularly ironic in this particular case, given what this article's subject in fact is. You could have been simply sheep voting, of course, but I didn't work on that assumption.
When someone makes an error, it's quite legitimate to point out that it is an error. You weren't "targetted for trying to apply standards". You were told that you were doing things wrongly, and not actually applying our policies. You were not applying our standards, in any way. The route to not getting a complete misapplication of policy being pointed out by other people is to not mis-apply it in the first place, not to try to distract the discussion onto the subject of the people who point out such errors when they happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so the 500 words you devoted to my "training" came on an AfD discussion, rather than on my talk page. Thanks for that. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 15:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A full and civil explanation is far better than some curt "grow up and shut the fuck up", in my book. Only you keep making this about you, by the way. As far as I'm concerned, this is about the article, how policy applies and does not apply to it, and errors in its application in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others, essay unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Uncle G, you're not arguing your case very well - the level of vitriol is unnecessary. Verbal chat 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's "essay unsuitable for an encyclopaedia" that isn't a good argument. Because, as already pointed out, this isn't an essay. It's the start of an article, complete with source citations, on a perfectly valid subject. Articles have started far worse than this. This cites sources right from the start, cites reliable sources, and gets the name of the subject right. You have presented no explanation why this is an essay, and the only vitriol anywhere is someone else calling xyrself names. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article, according to the sources provided, seems to be about credibility in public speaking. But that is not what the title suggests nor most of the prose. There does not seem to be sufficient material, beyond jargon and isolated examples, for a renamed article on Credibility in public speaking and it seems unsuitable for an encyclopedia. It is an unnecessary fork of Public speaking. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about a concept in social psychology that is, quite definitely, called "source credibility". You can see that for yourself by reading (a) the cited source by Pornpitakpan that the article creator provided that calls it source credibility, (b) the cited source by Yoon, Choong, and Min-Sun, also provided by the article creator that calls it source credibility, (c) the source that I cited above that calls it source credibility, or (d) page 344 of The handbook of social psychology (ISBN 9780195213768) that also calls it source credibility. This is a valid subject, that has been discussed in many sources, and this is its name. This is not made up by a Wikipedia editor, not an "essay", not a sub-topic (as the lengthy summary of the literature in the handbook should indicate), and not a fork. It's a recognized subject in a valid discipline, and this article is, simply put, a stub. It's not finished, and not comprehensive. Why on Earth are you judging the content here to be the full extent of the subject?
Go and read the handbook to see what more there is to write. Indeed, read page 345, where it summarizes what social psychologists have found out about attractiveness and how it affects processing and cognitive response, and compare it to how Wikipedia editors have demonstrably responded when an unwikified and unattractive stub with (excessive) Harvard referencing is added to Wikipedia. Some social psychologist somewhere is probably thinking of making this a case study. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything at present in the article or the sources that is not connected with Public speaking. I have no absolutely no problem with the lack of wikification or the harvnb/harvtxt referencing which I mostly use. I agree that some version of the material, suitably rewritten, properly explained and reorganized, would be fine in Public speaking, since the sources exist. From the sounds of it, you yourself could do an excellent job of rescuing this article in some form. Mathsci (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of sources in the current article isn't ideal. I just looked at the "Handbook of social psychology" of Gilbert, Fiske and Lindzey which seems to be encyclopedic. It treats this topic in a far more general context than the current article, exactly as you wrote. It could be that the term has been hijacked by advertising agencies, which might have created some confusion. Mathsci (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisers most definitely use psychological research. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you must be joking, Uncle G. But seriously, instead of informing people one by one of what you estimate they don't know, it would have been more helpful to have modified the article (as others, including me have done). That would be a less combative way to make your point and would help the encyclopedia a little more. Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... oh yes, and in its present form (and future improved state) keep. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G led by example with a substantial edit after the AFD nomination. My impression is that the problem here is a structural one - a discontinuity as the article moved from the rapid-fire environment of speedy deletion to the more deliberative AFD process. As the article was moved from author to reviewer to admin to AFD discussion, editors may have assumed that others in the chain had or would make appropriate background checks of the sort described in WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think KPBotany is to be commended for providing the correct context. She added what hopefully will become the lede (I later added the link to one of the original articles). As it stands the contracted article is getting better and better, but it's still a stub. The biography of Carl Hovland on his WP page contains a lot of useful information, particularly about the genesis of the term (work with the US, the project at Yale). The subject is not to my taste, but it's clear how to create a lede, a history section, and so on. Uncle G's forceful guidance has been extremely helpful and persuasive (particularly for me). I suppose that is the purpose of constructive and intelligent debate on AfD pages, just as you state :) Mathsci (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Colonel. The article as it stands looks nothing like the article as I viewed it the first time. I saw this article in the queue, clicked on it... and between the time I checked the history tab, and clicked back to the article, it was already tagged with a PROD (11 minutes after publishing). I then read the article, had no immediate concern with the content, and moved on. I thought the references might yield something upon clean up. I saw it again on the AfD list 2 hours later, with an explanation that it was original research. I viewed the article a second time (after a server lag) and the only visible reference was to the American Heritage dictionary. I did not take the time at that point to go back to the history tab to check for earlier versions, and then pursue each reference more fully, since I was not the nominator. I am grateful the article has been rescued. If it was original research, it is not any longer. Best regards to all. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - Seems like a valid topic, and some useful material, but it seems to me better covered as a section elsewhere, to give more context and prevent it becoming overly scientific (WP:NOT an academic journal). So merge to communication or possibly persuasion. Rd232 ^talk 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with technical content in Wikipedia. The statement that Wikipedia is not a journal means that it doesn't fulfil the publisher of first instance function of a journal, not that it cannot cover academic topics. We don't aim to just cover "unscientific" topics. We aim high. We aim to cover science as well. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is very well-studied theory in a number of different fields including, but not limited to, social psychology, advertising, and the law, in addition to public speaking. Unless communication is about the law and social psychology also, a merger is inappropriate. In addition, source credibility is not persuasion, as persuasion is a function of the persuader, while source credibility is a function of the persuadee. A simple academic search will show that this is an encyclopedic topic of its own right and expansion, not merger, is what is needed. --KP Botany (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to marketing or social psychology ~~Delete~~ Odd combination of a dicdef and summary of a study that purported to demonstrate that people are more inclined to trust a speaker that they feel is trustworthy over one they feel is not. L0b0t (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Vote changed due to article improvement. My deletion had nothing to do with Harvard cites but, rather, because the article did not mention the origin of the phrase or any of the prior work. L0b0t (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We call this sort of start to an article, where it contains a definition and some assorted facts, a Wikipedia:stub. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we don't delete stubs with scope for expansion. And there is plenty of scope for expansion here. This is a real, and amply documented, social psychology topic. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True, to a point, that's why the xfD process runs 5 days. If the article gets expanded and shows significant improvement within the prescribed time-frame then I would certainly reconsider my position. L0b0t (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The timeframe for expansion is not 5 days, and you should reconsider your position based upon the sources cited and the clear scope for expansion shown. That expansion doesn't have to happen by the end of the AFD discussion. That's neither our deletion policy nor our editing policy. Indeed, we've had articles sit around as 1-sentence or 2-sentence stubs for months or years. Her Majesty's Civil Service was 1 sentence for three months. North Asia was two sentences for almost five years. There is no deadline, and this is a valid a topic as they. What you see here are the beginnings from which articles grow. It's easy to forget that, with the number of grown articles that we now have, but this is how the process starts, and is what our deletion and editing policies envision and accept. The creating editor even did it properly. It's a shame when we become so fixated on a decision to delete that we forget, and collectively abrogate, our fundamental policies and the way that we set up the project to work and how it has demonstrably worked for the past 8 years, and try to throw away the work of people who come along and actually do things properly, in the way that we repeatedly tell them to, and actually make the encyclopaedia better with coverage of subjects that it hasn't covered until now. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on our individual interpretations of the breadth of this subject. There was the primary study by Hovland in 1953 that coined the phrase (unmentioned in article btw) and a couple-three research papers in the 1960's/1970s. Beyond what is cited in the article I've seen nothing but short mentions of the Hovland study in some communication theory and marketing textbooks. L0b0t (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Psychology and law (ISBN 9781593851224) McGinnies and Ward published further research in 1980, and Lui and Standing published research in 1989. It then goes on to mention Wilson and Sherrell in 1993; Petty, Cacioppi, & Goldman in 1981; and Bohner, Ruder, and Erb (on contrast bias) in 2002. Attitudes and opinions (ISBN 9780805847697) summarizes yet more research, including Ziegler, Diehl, and Ruther in 2002. The science of false memory (ISBN 9780195154054) summarizes even more recent research: two more studies, from 2003. Research on this doesn't appear to have stopped in the 1970s, and even what I've just listed is not a "couple-three" papers.
And as to breadth: We not only have the latter book that I mention here, relating source credibility to police procedures, but even sources like ISBN 9780805074031 who connect it to Rush Limbaugh. In between, as already observed, we have this concept's applications in communication theory, advertising, marketing, and so forth. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research essay, no encyclopedic notability established for the term.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are arguments already shown to be false with sources not only above, but even in the very first revision of the article. The article's creator anticipated you, and did exactly the right thing, citing sources in the very first edit. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N. I did some preliminary research on this topic and have found it to be notable. For instance, a general Google search pulls back 71,400 results and a Scholar search pulls back 7,080 results. That said, the current article needs some tender love and care. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such a topic is well deserved on Wikipedia, and I think that with a cleanup, it will more clearly demonstrate the notability of the topic. Google Scholar, and the Journal of Applied Psychology both demonstrate satisfactorily to me that there's enough here to build on. ThuranX (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I checked Google Scholar too and it seems clear that the topic is highly notable. The only question is whether is we already cover it better under another heading but that is not a matter for AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Credibility seems to be much the same topic and so merger is indicated. The phrase source credibility seems to be the technical phrase used to describe the matter in the context of academic study so the best direction for the merger is unclear. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source Credibility covers more than just Public Speaking even if the article in its current state does not fully reflect that. This is shown by the results of a google search, where we find references to advertising, management, finance, human resources and jurisprudence. There could be potential for merging into communication or persuasion, but this is not the venue to discuss it. It is certainly a notable topic and I don't see the case for calling it WP:OR Unomi (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N. Postoak (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No point to this AfD, please close. --KP Botany (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it should stay. cashew (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not an essay, not OR, not unreferenced: a reasonable article. DGG (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly referenced, as it was at the time of the AFD nom. Not original research, not an essay and not a neologism (which even if it were probably has enough sources just in the article to justify inclusion) so a clear keep candidate. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a classic example of an article with multiple academic independent reliable sources that treat this subject in a major way, including one peer reviewed article entirely about the subject. Although the article could use fleshing out (even in it's current version), it easily exceeded the notability, verifability, reliable source requirements. It's not original research nor an essay, as noted by many of the above. It also was improved during the AfD with added RS, structure, and content, all adding up to Keep. Also I oppose a merge as this seems to be more about the academic field than the merge targets that were suggested. — Becksguy (talk) 20:51, 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 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LuxembourgForBusiness
edit

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

Declining deletion as db-spam and taking to AfD; some "cultural sensitivity" won't hurt here (i.e. U.S. is ~~incredibly~~ perceived as self-promotional, and a quick deletion might come across as denying Luxembourg even a little self-promotion) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) – Spam transcends cultural barriers. MuZemike 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moot after cleanup. MuZemike 05:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've tried to clean it up, removing the puffery while including an attributed quotation from the agency's own mission statement. JamesMLane t c 07:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11). clearly promotional in nature and since Luxembourg is part of Western Europe, there are plenty of people knowledgeable enough to write about it. Not particularly suspectible to cultural bias as stuff from Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, but this is a different cultural bias problem. It's widely believed in Europe that we Americans have a blindness about our role in the world, that we believe it's always okay to promote the interests of the U.S. and don't extend that understanding to anyone else. Since this agency is in part an initiative of the government of Luxembourg, I want to make sure that no one thinks this article was deleted without a lot of thought by some American ROUGE admin, and that we're clear that we welcome articles about all governments, and that this article was deleted it because the article admits this is a joint project with private interests, and we felt the tone suggested that the private interests were being self-promotional. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the G11 as LfB is not doing advertising for itself, but for a country and it's economy. It represents the foreign trade department of the Luxembourg government. Pst wp en (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a Keep. Can you find any reliable sources, such as newspapers, books, magazines, or respected web sources ... or at the least, additional government publications ... that talk about what this agency does? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 11:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep One can write a promotional article for almost anything -- it doesnt have to be a company. Unless there's some content for a real article there, it should get deleted. But this article is descriptive about the agency, not promotional, in spite of the unfortunate title. Only a stub, but as a government agency , there ought to be sources. DGG (talk) 01:13, 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, Malinaccier (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a little ridiculous. I'd say its notable as a creation of a national government. The article is very short, but there is no blatant advertising, it merely states that the company was founded by private corporations and the government to promote trade. The article itself contains no promotion of the subject, and the company looks notable as being founded by a government. I also question the good faith of the original nominator. The page history shows the article being speedied the same day it was created. --Pstanton (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spam does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the article was here for three days or three seconds; the same applies with the other criteria. Also note that the article has changed since the nomination and that even the nom is now leaning towards a keep. So watch it with the bad faith accusations. MuZemike 05:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All government agencies are inherently notable. In addition to this inherent notability, the agency passes the general notability guidelines. Here's a source from the Board of Economic Development of Luxembourg and a source from paperJam. Cunard (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All? Including the Indiana Department Of Workforce Development, the Saskatchewan Department of Health, the Duluth Board of Zoning Appeals? I could buy that national-level cabinet agencies are inherently notable, but not all government agencies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all government agencies are notable. The three articles you listed above are red links because no one has created them yet. The argument other stuff does not exist is not a valid reason for this article's deletion. However, a causal search for sources for the first one, Indiana Department Of Workforce Development returns thousands of news articles that mention the Indiana Department of Workforce Development in depth. An article could be written for that department if someone had the time and interest. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I never used the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, so that's a straw man. 2) For the Indiana department: no, a full-fledged article based on third-party reliable sources very likely could not be written about that agency (or many others), which at best deserves passing mention in an expanded Government of Indiana article. 3) Per WP:N, notability is satisfied if the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Declaring, by fiat, that "all government agencies are notable", is absurd. We are an encyclopedia, not a directory of bureaucracies. Yes, national-level cabinet agencies are probably all notable, but anything beyond that really needs to show that it satisfies WP:N before we extend it the benefit of the doubt. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. As a second choice, redirect to (and mention at) either Jeannot Krecké (responsible for creating the agency) or Economy of Luxembourg. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely an agency of a first-level (national) government is notable. Surely will this not have been discussed in their parliament, which should turn up some results. Computerjoe 's talk 13:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parliamentary debates would be largely invalid for use in an article, given WP:PSTS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 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 speedy delete. obvious hoax DGG (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Papania
edit

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

This is a joke... but just in case you doubt that, consider these points:

Louis Armstrong could not have been described as "young" in 1968, as he was born in 1901.

St. Odo of Cluny parish is a fictional parish from A Confederacy of Dunces.

"T-Ben Boudreaux" is a New Orleans radio personality.

The book The Afro-American History of Algiers appears to be fictional as well; it's certainly not mentioned on Malik Rahim's article, or anywhere online.

"An Associate's degree in High School diploma"?

Okay, let's delete it already. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a joke, and its not particularly funny either. Just delete it. --Pstanton (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a hoax.--RadioFan (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another not funny hoax by someone with too much time on their hands. It's a shame these people can't redirect their creativity in a more constructive way. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Snow. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 - I initially nominated this under CSD A7 but withdrew it assuming good faith, never saw the hoax coming. Duh. MLauba (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Hekerui (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living people, really?? --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article claims the person (yes, I know he doesn't exist and all) is living, so that's how you tag the article. There isn't a "List of hoaxes" for WP:DELSORT :/ Cheers. I'^mperator 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, A7, WP:HOAX, et cetera. You get the gist of it Cheers. I'^mperator 15:27, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gut and Psychology Syndrome
edit

Gut and Psychology Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of reliable sources on the topic. The book is self-published and the journal articles do not deal with this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, undocumented, and unverified fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Clearly a fringe theory, and the article needs to be edited to make this much clearer. But, on the other hand, there are articles on the subject at Google scholar, which don't appear to be self-published. Granted, they're all written by the same person, and I'd really like to see some proper articles from other authors (hence the "weak" keep), but, as there are also over 6,000 ghits there is some evidence that the subject is at least notable. The article seriously needs re-writing from an NPOV, making the fringe nature of the subject clear - but that's not a reason for deletion. Anaxial (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Google scholar hits are 1) an extract from a publication called "Wise Traditions" published by the Radiant Life Company by Natasha Campbell-McBride 2) an apparently unpublished essay uploaded onto the MINDD Foundation website written by Natasha Campbell-McBride and 3) an unidentifed pamphlet written by an unknown author on the website "getLEANstayLEAN.com". I don't think any of these sources pass WP:V or WP:MEDRS, so cannot be used to establish notability. Particularly since only one (the one where no author is listed) might be independent of the author of the self-published books. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm the author of the article. I've added my thoughts to the article's talk page. Thanks. Deress (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up to you, of course, but if the comments aren't on this page, they may not be taken into account. Anaxial (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, Anaxial - Thanks. Here they are:
Well, this is frustrating...I created the article, asked for assistance, responded to concerns, made changes to address the concerns, asked for help again, and find that instead it's proposed for speedy deletion.
Addressing the assertions made above: At least three different authors are cited in this article, not just one. One of the publications is peer-reviewed in a medical journal. The program is discussed by major agencies and newspapers. These are noted in the external links section, where I was told to put them. (More details in the article's talk page.) I hope people will opt to assist, as has been requested multiple times to no avail, rather than simply vote for deletion. Deress (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more... Re: fringe. (Conventional) medical doctors refer patients to this program. Also, I had put a 'hang on' note atop the article. It is now gone. Is that simply normal procedure or a rejection of that request? Noticed that the pages describing various forms of problems suggest folks assist with an article rather than simply pop it up for deletion. That was good to see. Deress (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could be redirected to Specific Carbohydrate Diet, since there are actually some reliable sources that deal with that topic (see link). Tim Vickers (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim - Do you mean simply include a reference to G-A-P-S in the SCD article? If so, I actually tried that originally, but eds kept deleting it out. (I asked for help there, too, but none came.) Deress (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable unestablished therapy. Not presently enough reliable sources for an article. DGG (talk) 07:43, 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, Malinaccier (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unscientific quackery, and it isn't notable enough yet for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Pstanton (talk) 01:48, 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 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Settler violence
edit

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

WP:POV, WP:ESSAY. Based on heavily partisan and unreliable WP:RS. I wonder if an article titled Palestinian violence would be legitimate balance to this one. Shuki (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --Shuki (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is an article similar to what you describe, it is called Palestinian political violence. Nableezy (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced article about a notable aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Factsontheground (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the sources are from partisan left-wing and far-left-wing anti-settler organizations. There is no news here or encyclopedia article material for that matter, only an attempt to collectively delegitimize Jewish settlers and Israel. In contrast, the 'Palestinian political violence' article is about organizations who have openly declared their right to use violence as a legitimate tool, while the settler article is about a fictitious 'phenomenon' that has no apparent academic basis except the attempt to create one with this article. There are no settler organizations promoting violence and no phenomenon that can be attributed to 300 000 settlers. --

Shuki (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki both points simply aren't true. Most of the sources are mainstream Israeli media, such as [[Haaretz] and there are organzations promoting settler violence (such as Kach and Gush Emunim Underground). Given your obvious knowledge of the subject, I have to question your misrepresentation of basic facts of the situation. Factsontheground (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't true? FWIW, everyone knows that HaAretz is left of mainstream and certainly not a pure RS on settler issues (as stated explicitly in past by the editors). Most of the sources are certainly not mainstream media, check for yourself. The article is a POV essay to defame 'settlers'. This is a perfect piece for someone's personal blog, not an encyclopedia. Most of the claims are out of context (settlers attack diplomats), some sections are irrelevant to the attempted subject (IDF mutinies?), others based on heresay ( "It is widely suspected" ), and others are dramatized to evoke sympathy for alleged victims ("Amnesty International has alleged"). As for those organizations, they already have articles. If you read them, then you'd understand that they were not representing anyone but themselves and certainly not settlers. Claiming otherwise is POV analysis. --Shuki (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is indeed poorly written and resembles an essay. An article could certainly exist on 'Settler violence', there are an abundance of sources on the topic and while I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a phenomena or an innate quality of Israeli settlers there are a number of notable acts of violence committed by settlers against Palestinians. But the article, as it stands now, is not an encyclopedic entry. I'll work on it for a bit as the topic is one that gets a lot of coverage in numerous RSs. And Haaretz is certainly a RS on these issues. Nableezy (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs work, but a usable sourced start for a notable topic. If there are good right-wing sources for the material described , they too should of course be added. DGG (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename/refocus. The article is currently a daughter article of the Israeli settlement article, specifically subsection Israeli settlement#Violence. It should be (as some of the content in it suggests) a daughter of the broader section Israeli settlement#Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights. That will be more useful. Rd232 ^talk 20:00, 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, Malinaccier (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this article is kept it needs to be almost entirely reworked, it is heavily biased and POV throughout. I'd say it would be easier to simply delete and start fresh. --Pstanton (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? There's far too much sourced stuff which would be part of a useful article (if refocussed as I suggested above) to simply delete. I don't see the content particularly biased per se either - the bias flows from the frame of the article focus, which needs correcting to look at the wider picture. Rd232 ^talk 03:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The New York Times or Haaretz are not extremist left wing publications, so it is not accurate to deprecate the numerous references as was done above. Unchecked violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians has been widely reported by reliable sources. This could be covered as a section in a more general article, but the number of sources appear to justify a break-out article. It should be retitled to show its middle east focus, since there were "settlers" in many other countries, such as the U.S., and they were often violent, or were victims of violence. Edison (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Whenever I see a specific population being singled out and accused, I exchange the words in order to hear how it would sound with other minorities in the title or as subject of the article. I also look for other similar examples for other populations. So when it comes to racism, I do not AGF. Look at other conflict areas around the world and show me how violence carried out by the public warrants such a blanket generalized title. Some I found (Kosovo, Serbia), are somewhat decent overviews, a format that might actually be suitable for the settler and Arab issue. But then it would be expected that that article actually be NPOV and provide context, perhaps even legitimizing the settler protests, and the extremely rare instances of violence committed by settlers. The current article is just an excuse to pull an issue out of the context of the larger conflict and also attempt to then list every occurence of rock throwing and shooting, by accusing all 'settlers' of the actions of unconnected, and unorganized individuals. The Palestinian Poltical Violence article is not a good comparision at all. If this article stays, then we will also need to open a parallel article about Palestinian individual violence, an article that could also be sourced a plenty with Israeli and foreign sources. --Shuki (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what I said? It needs a wider focus. Rd232 ^talk 14:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a WP:POVFORK of the wider focus that already exists at Israeli–Palestinian conflict. --Shuki (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly, Israeli–Palestinian conflict covers the entire conflict, how it can possibly be a POV fork of that?! Even Israeli settlement is quite big. This is why I argued that it should be a daughter article of Israeli settlement#Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights rather than of Israeli settlement#Violence as it is now. Rd232 ^talk 14:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Doesn't cover anything that can't reasonably be included in Israeli settlement. At the very least it needs to be renamed - the current title does not make clear which settlers we are talking about and could be expected to include historical settlers in Ireland, America or South Africa - a more specific title is needed. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said in the first part, I see this as an appropriate expansion of an aspect of a topic, not a POV fork. One of the manner elements connected with the israeli settlement is settler violence. DGG (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - IF it was amended to the focus on the subject at the meta level rather than the incident level. Alternatively merge into Israeli_settlement to frame it better. I have to declare a bias in that I'm not a fan of any of the I-P violence related articles. They seem to turn into POV-fests. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)....and this UN OCHAOPT report "Unprotected: Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians and their property" is a good source for a higher level approach....so amended from weak keep to keep. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:13, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Twilight Fanfiction Awards
edit

The Twilight Fanfiction Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Website fails WP:WEB, it has not been covered in any third-party reliable sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The PROD hasn't been removed, why has this been taken here? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems the other editor put the PROD up at nearly the same time I took it here, so they both existed. Since it was already here, I figured we might as well stick to AfD, since more consensus is never a bad thing. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every fandom with fanfiction has these awards. I've won them before with my writing and although it's an honor to be nominated or win one, it's something only the fandom can really share and appreciate, not most people in general or as part of an all-encompassing project like this. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWell-intentioned, and probably appreciated by many outside the fanfic community, but it totally lacks any indendent sources so has obvious issues. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 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, Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete *sigh* no notability, there are probably copyright issues etc etc. reads like a story, in a personally invested tone... --Pstanton (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, or any mention whatsoever outside of the fanfiction community, which hardly count as independent sources fuzzy510 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 15:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally not notable or important. The article is nothing but self-promotion. BecauseWhy? (talk) 09:35, 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 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbani Choudhury
edit

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

unreferenced autobiography, only peacock claims of notability. RadioFan (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - the same anon IP / account has been spamming Bengali wikipedia as well. The subject is non notable in Bangladesh. --Ragib (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Completely un-notable. Its unfortunate that it doesn't quite fall into any speedy category. Looks like shameless self promotion by Rabbani Choudhury. --Pstanton (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. "prominent rhymer???????" Edison (talk) 04:12, 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 deletion (closed early per WP:SNOW). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxistan
edit

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

Contested PROD. Micronation consisting of a single person's farm with zero notability or reliable sources. It seems to have a COI issue as well. Wperdue (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, appears to be a hoax.--RadioFan (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, it looks like "Max" made this page as a joke. --Pstanton (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, no coverage, no place here. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxistan is not a hoax, we are not looking to "take advantage" of people for financial gain or any other reason. We are a micronation just like all others, we occupy real territory, have our own constitution, currency and government. This page is legitimate and truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxtmartin (talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, possible conflict of interest. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A nation of Max, for Max and by Max brought to you by Max. COI and no reliable 3rd party coverage. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since if this isn't a hoax it's everything else that an article should not be--like verified or verifiable, for instance. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out that the article was already speedied once. --Pstanton (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax. Why in hell would the prod be contested? You do realize this "Emperor" is 15 years old, right? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The PROD was removed by the original editor with no explanation. I brought it to AFD per my understanding of the procedures. Wperdue (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
He wouldn't be the first 15 year old "emperor" who threw a temper tantrum...--OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 12:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, you sound like you speak from experience! Drmies (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yep, the original editor also tried to remove the AFD tag once. There is quite a bit of WP:OWN on the creators part. --Pstanton (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete with extreme prejudice Hoax. Flying Toaster 09:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the page has vandalized my userpage twice, and removed the AfD tag on Maxistan three times. --Pstanton (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 11:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shows no evidence of notability. Hekerui (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable micronation that exists in one person's mind. If I declare myself the God-Emperor of Zumiberg, that doesn't get me a Wikipedia article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all hail R'n'B, God-Emperor of Zumiberg--RadioFan (talk) 14:12, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naan Avanillai II
edit

Naan Avanillai II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability requirements for a future film, per WP:NFF Chzz  ► 08:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:04, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is right, no notability. --Pstanton (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy back to author as being a bit premature. No doubt it will get made in 4 weeks and released in 5... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:54, 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 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Flute
edit

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

No Reliable sources to assert notability Chzz  ► 07:52, 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) 00:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. --Pstanton (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore
edit

Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Totally fails WP:NB (notability for books). The only hits are for the book's website, its publisher's website, a blog, and sites that sell the book. It has won no awards, and has received no other attention that would even make it borderline notable. MSJapan (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article fails to assert notability. Is not a major work on the genre, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst a relatively fringe subject area (it is one of a handful of books written specifically on the subject of extreme metal), the reviews section of Mudrian's website demonstrates that it was certainly reviewed by such notable sources as Terrorizer, Kerrang! and Maximum Rock 'n' Roll. A Google Books search also suggests that it has been cited by a number of books as a source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails all of my basic searches for notability. This book is located in only two libraries (the minimum is 12 for notability), and a google serach for independent 3rd party reviews turned up nothing of value [36]. Redirect to author's page. Untick (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's in at least 110 libraries, double check your Worldcat search [37]. Also, you prodded the authors page so what's the point suggesting the redirect? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:47, 5 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) 00:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - book has won no awards, has trivial coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for books. --Pstanton (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this Google News Archive search. The book passes the general notability guidelines. Here is a review written by Mike Tribby for the American Library Association. This article (from Publishers Weekly) is another review of the book. The book has also been cited by 4 authors. Cunard (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since Baz and Cunard establish the notability of this book. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Bride (visual novel)
edit

Princess Bride (visual novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this eroge is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for those wishing to have a look for WP:N/WP:V sources, the kana appears to be プリンセスブライド. Marasmusine (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, [38] gives better search results. Marasmusine (talk) 14:25, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability.... Just a production from a minor japanese porn producer. --Pstanton (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:17, 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 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Requirements FLVS
edit

Voting Requirements FLVS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic content; not suitable for Wikipedia. CJ Miller. (^{That's my name.}_{Don't wear it out.}) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please be more specific, see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 02:48, 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) 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete as unencyclopedic. --Pstanton (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no reason given for deletion. Insufficient to simply assert that an article (or the subject of an article) is not appropriate for Wikipedia (WP:UNENCYC). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Topic is probably encyclopedic and notable, but the article as it stands needs a lot of work. Might even be better to stubify. OTOH, needing a lot of work is not a reason to delete. LK (talk) 18:29, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Chew, Jr.
edit

Sam Chew, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete sourced only to imdb, not a reliable source, this biography does not show the significant coverage in 3rd party sources to meet our inclusion guidelines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The relevant standard here is whether he Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions., per WP:BIO. I find that his work in the Bionic Woman (eight episodes as a recurring character) and his work in the Kennedy TV-movie satisfies this criteria. JRP (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable, has no 3rd party references. --Pstanton (talk) 02:14, 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 03:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Cesario
edit

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

Delete voice actress who has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 17:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage and most of the roles appear to be minor, however I am not an expert in anime. If an anime expert responds here and demonstrates that her voice acting work is well-known or part of multiple notable productions (where the English-language version must have independent notability), I can be convinced to change my vote. JRP (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the roles are listed in the links not the article, she has had multiple notable roles. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage, not notable, no good 3rd party references. --Pstanton (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Unnotable voice actress who has done primarily minor roles and has received no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. One interview doesn't equal significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's done a couple of major roles, so it's worth keeping her page, but working to improve it. Article passes notability criteria for entertainers.kuwabaratheman (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. For each of the three series mentioned in the article (You're Under Arrest, Oh! My Goddess, and Clamp School Detectives), she is one of the two or three main protagonists. The Anime News Network link also lists her as the title character in Princess Rouge and Elf Princess Rane, as well as a couple other significant roles. Calathan (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the dubbing of You're Under Arrest is discussed here [39] (with followup here [40]). Calathan (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mrs. Cesario has voiced in the lead roles in several OVA series and television series. So the subject passes the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER. The article does need to be cleaned up to fall in line with WP:BLP. I have added her filmography to the article so that other editors can more properly judge. --Farix (Talk) 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has parts in that many notable animes, so is notable. Dream Focus 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completely passes WP:ENTERTAINER by having voiced multiple lead roles. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough evidences that she made it into the short list of potential voice actress for major role. --KrebMarkt 20:14, 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 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Rosenbaum
edit

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

Two authors whose claim of notability is being the co-authors of a yet-to-be-released book. The book is nominated as well. Looks altogether promotional in nature. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Pearl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Investment Banking: Valuation, Leveraged Buyouts, and Mergers & Acquisitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are also nominated. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. --Pstanton (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims made for notability. LK (talk) 18:24, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of GED recipients
edit

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

Unsourced list that has the potential of being a WP:BLP nightmare, not even worth a category Delete Secret ^account 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An extremely minor and non-defining characteristic that no doubt applies to many thousands of notable people. Chronically unmaintainable list with the potential for BLP issues. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how major or minor this is, but is there perhaps a source for the recipients we can cite on the GED page? That would be the best of both worlds. Include the info, no long unmaintainable lists. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:07, 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) 00:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of these people didn't even get GED's; they recieved equivalents in their home countries. The BLP nightmare and extreme lack of sources is troubling. Nate • (chatter) 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How can you source a list like this? Agree that it's a BLP trainwreck --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur regarding sourcing problems and trivial nature of this intersection. How about a list of all celebrities with regular high school diplomas? College degrees? Driver's licenses? JJL (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and will end up containing a ridiculous number of people. --Pstanton (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose next someone will create List of people who graduated from elementary school... 76.66.193.69 (talk) 11:32, 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 speedy deleted by SchuminWeb, (CSD A7, was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Dog
edit

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

Notability Gloryarea12345 (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 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) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, should have gone through the speedy deletion route, fails WP:BAND. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:43, 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 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidshare downloader
edit

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

Software with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also spammed cross-wiki. --Erwin(85) 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rapidshare is certainly a notable site and it is possible that this is a notable tool for use on that site. However, this article is just an advert. Warning - the google search term rapidshare downloader gets 24 million hits, but few of them are for this product, this is more a reflection of the popularity of the site than popularity of this software product. SpinningSpark 15:28, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPAM concerns and a product likely not endorsed by Rapidshare itself as a violation of their TOS. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated on the talk page of this entry by an anonymous user who is most likely the creator of the entry judging by their edit history: "This is one of countles RapidShare Downloader, but this one works well." I don't think that establishes notability in any way. Wperdue (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[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 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Delphic Council
edit

International Delphic Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most of the facts cannot be checked. Problems with verifability - most of the links lead to the official site (delphic.org). Иван Москалев (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the sources are reliable. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation is based in Berlin and, according to their site, was founded in the 1994, still there are only two German articles about it ([41]), one of them cites Wikipedia ([42]). If my opinion is concerned, this so-called "IDC" seems to be a fake. Иван Москалев (talk) 14:46, 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 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pbit
edit

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

It's essential nomination - the problem is there is no realiable source for notability and correctness of this algorithm. The main idea of the Pbit is to use radix sort on lists - nothing new. There is no academic paper about this algorithm. All found by google were written by the author of the algorithm. Due to no academic review it should be considered as OR. Arxiv allow nearly everybody to publish his paper - so the link in article is not realiable. Author of algorithm is unknown to scientists databases. Mathel (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the claims made in the linked paper are interesting, the total lack of publication or investigation of this algorithm does make me think it is original research. To include it Wikipedia editors would be in the uncomfortable position of trying to evaluate the claims in the paper, which is certainly not what we do. I searched web of science, google, and the author's home page to try and find further research on this, but found nothing. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:57, 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) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of the merits of the algorithm, this has only a self-published source (arxiv papers are reviewed for being on topic but not for content) that Google scholar reports no citations for. Until it achieves some independent scientific impact, we should not report it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless new information comes up I must agree with the previous comments. I looked at the preprint, and it doesn't inspire much confidence. (Section 3 begins: "The whole idea of Pbit is very interesting." The idea being to combine bucket sort, radix sort and merge sort into one algorithm.) This may be due to the author's incomplete command of English, though. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verification/notability. The single source provided is problematic as described by previous comments. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:52, 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 Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz ^talk 10:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weir Word
edit

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

Term in question is notable only to a very small group of people, fails WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and that is exactly what this term is all about. Even the refs provided don't establish notability... they took me a long time to find (making Wikipedia:Verifiability a tough argument), but once I did, it simply proved my point, that even within the United States Marine Corps, the term has little notability, importance, or usage. There is no real third-party source for the etymology of the term either, and Wiktionary would be a better place for this. Only Google hit is WP itslef. Argyll (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am having a devil of a time trying to locate the references. The online archive of Leatherneck does not seem to have an article listed of the title in the references. Where did you locate these sources? --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find them myself a while ago, when I first PRODded the page. The local base library did not have copies dating so far back, and like you say, there are no online sources. I'll also note that in my years in the military, I've never heard this term aside from this article. _spǝǝp ^spɹoʍ3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq 06:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary: despite the difficulty in verification, I think that this term is not notable enough for Wikipedia, but I think it would make a fine candidate for Wiktionary under WP:NOTDICDEF. _spǝǝp ^spɹoʍ3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq 06:12, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and do not move to Wiktionary. Did you read this article? It's an attack page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary if they want it, per nom. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:00, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Day Weekend Tour
edit

Seven Day Weekend Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability (beyond this being a concert tour, which to my knowledge does not constitute inherent notability). Also violates WP:NOTDIR. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several articles on Def Leppard tours, all linked together by the template {{Def Leppard}}. I think they should be kept or deleted together. The creator of this article has produced many articles on band tours, and many of them have been speedy deleted, but this one does not suffer from the lack of context of the deleted articles. Other tour articles have been deleted through AFD because they were about unconfirmed planned tours. This article does not suffer from this problem. However, WP:OUTCOMES#Music indicates that tour articles without decent third-party refs don't survive AFD.-gadfium 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 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" 06:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This kind of detail (a tour itinery) is not encyclopedia territory. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:45, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kensei Media
edit

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

Non-notable company. Google news archive search turns up a grand total of one hit, which seems to be a press release. The provided citation in the article does not directly deal with the subject of the article. No notability is established, nor is any evidence of notability able to be found. No real assertion of notability is made in the article. In addition, due to lack of reliable sources, the verifiability of the article's claims is in doubt The Seeker 4 Talk 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kensei has several large profile clients including Live Nation and Northcliffe Media. The Kensei Media website was officially launched around 1 week ago, and as such has not been fully indexed by search engines. Because they have not had a web site until recently, none of their partners or clients sites link to kenseimedia.com. However, their platform has been powering an increasing number of web sites since 2007 - now estimated to be around 500 web and mobile sites. Grimfandango (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the organisations who use the platform, and added more citations and links. As a start-up though, there isn't much information on the web. Grimfandango (talk) 19:37, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There do not appear to be multiple third-party reliable sources discussing this outfit. Wikipedia is not for advertising your start-up company. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Wikipedia is not for advertising, and when I wrote the article it was not my intention to advertise the company. The article doesn't make any grandiose statements, just states the truth, and when KM now power a reasonable number of sites I thought adding KM to Wikipedia would be ok. As for no reliable third-party sources, these will only come in time (see previous comment). Large organisations rarely (if ever) put out press-releases about a start-up who powered their latest project. However, I concede it may be impossible at this time to establish notability beyond my own statements, so if the entry has to go, it has to go. A few months down the line, when there's more information on the web, would it be ok to resubmit then? Grimfandango (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmit any time there are multiple third-party reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Tomorrow, next week, ten years, never—who knows? Mr Stephen (talk) 19:47, 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 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Johnston
edit

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Justin Johnston

Articles for deletion/Justin Johnston (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Justin Johnston (3rd nomination)

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

Cannot find substantial reliable sources to confirm notability. There are some passing references in news sources, no more. tedder (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note it was deleted as vanity spam 3 weeks ago. tedder (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just realized that I am technically a major contributor to this article, as I wrote the one line stub as it stands. Fairly agnostic here; the subject is a major cast member of both Broadway and touring versions (from what I gathered from sources at the time) of a major Broadway show (Rent, which I had heard of :)) and didn't meet CSD, but I couldn't really find enough to build an article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete If it was deleted as vanity spam 3 weeks ago, just speedy it as recreation of deleted material. --Pstanton (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G4 declined in favor of letting the process complete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a non-notable minor player on a notable play. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a quite a few news articles that mention him, (e.g. [43][44][45][46]) but I do not think that there has been enough non-trivial coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:BIO. -Atmoz (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article in The Times of Northwest Indiana is a start, but really not enough for the general notability guideline at this time. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:14, 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.

^ http://www.summitreports.com/pdfs/oman.pdf

^ http://agoracom.com/ir/omagine/forums/discussion/topics/310783-oman-in-the-new-york-times/messages/1063244

^ http://www.taimur.com.my/news.html

[1] ttp://www.summitreports.com/pdfs/oman.pdf

[2] ttp://agoracom.com/ir/omagine/forums/discussion/topics/310783-oman-in-the-new-york-times/messages/1063244

[3] ttp://www.taimur.com.my/news.html

[1]

[2]

[3]