Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 12

< 11 December	13 December >

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 keep. JForget 15:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polkadot Cadaver

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:MUSIC. 7 hits in gnews and most of them are concert listings. [1] LibStar (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, since when is gnews a measure of notability for a band? There are plenty of useful hits on regular google. Polkadot Cadaver's main claim to notability is their strong connection to Dog Fashion Disco. They just dropped a couple of members and changed the name, so really any notability that applies to DFD should apply to PC. There are a few reviews and articles out there. I even saw them mentioned in ZOO Weekly. Pwrong (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC which requires evidence of third party coverage also as per WP:GNG. you need to show evidence of these claims to notability. Zoo magazine is not a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG recommends looking for sources and adding them to the article. If that doesn't work you can add a notability tag, contact the creator, experts on the subject and possibly the subject of the article. Then if none of that works you should consider merging the article or putting it up for deletion. Pwrong (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is irrelevant now it's up for AfD, you or anyone has 7 days to rescue the article if you wish. LibStar (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be irrelevant to this, but keep it in mind next time you see an article you don't like. As for this article, I'll work this source in when I get home [2]. Maybe you could give me a hand finding some more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwrong (talk • contribs) 05:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a notability tag on probably at least 200 articles in my time on WP. guess what? on only 1 occasion has someone actually bothered to improve the article after the tag. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the article has been improved since it was listed. PC and DFD can be considered almost the same band so the former inherits the notability of the latter. Furthermore, they satisfy criterion 1 and kind of satisfies 6 of WP:MUSIC, since Todd Smith has been in two independently notable ensembles.Pwrong (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:BAND #6. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:58, 19 December 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. far in future, events cancelled or changed all the time, sources issues (and issues raised in the debate). Overall delete. NJA (t/c) 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72nd World Science Fiction Convention

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. A future event that is too far off. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you just beat me in tagging it for that reason. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that the event's site selection process has already started -- it will be resolved in 2012, and the campaigns to host the event have effectively already begun, with candidates announced -- it seems appropriate to keep the entry. Kevin Standlee (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article for the reasons stated by Kastandlee above. The event will be the 72nd in a continuing series, (and will also be the 75th anniversary Worldcon) and active campaigning has already begun. I also note there are already articles for future events further off, eg. the 2020 summer Olympics. VJDocherty (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm as big a fan of World Cons as anyone here - I was a member of Millennium Con in Philly and TorCon3, and have worked on several Albacons, including our our "bid", as well as working on several SF articles here. However, the host city will not even be decided for a long while. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per VJ - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little too early, given that site selection won't happen until the 2012 WorldCon and there is, at present, only one bid, according to the WSFS website. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Won't be held til 2014 actually, by the article. The article's questionable as is, the fact it's 5 years in the future is an indication that nobody's written about it yet. Shadowjams (talk) 05:13, 17 December 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. Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet, and apparently no one cares enough about this to comment. If anyone else wants to renominate, feel free. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbadian Superstardom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whilst looking on the talk page of this article, I noticed that, over a year ago, a user pointed out that the DVD cover contains the word "Unofficial". Therefore, this casts doubt over the DVD's notability and the article's claims that the singer produced the piece herself. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed said user about this discussion. Hopefully this won't violate WP:CANVAS. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator GaGaOohLaLa has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Fences&Windows 16:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:57, 12 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-gothic surrealism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a nonnotable neologism, and is clearly intended to promote said neologism. A Google search comes up with 18,300 hits, most of them not relevant (based on the separate terms "neo-gothic" and "surrealism"); and a search for the term in quotes gives 7,760 hits, but these do not meet our requirements for reliable sources (blogs, DeviantART, WP mirrors, gaming and artist websites, etc.). A search on DTRHStudios, the creator of the article, gives 7 results, but indicates an attempt to spread the use of the word on the web. Simply put, though, the term is not notable, and the article has been in its unreferenced state for two months, because no acceptable refs can be found. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of acceptable sources to establish notability. Andrea105 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inclination here too, seems to be made up. Too bad, as I'd probably enjoy that genre. DTRHStudios is likely Down the Rabbit Hole Studios. Шизомби (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The content was copied here under the GDFL. Anyone can move it to more appropriate wikis, like Animanga Wikia. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely original research with no reliable sources to verify the article's contents. A Google search excluding Wiki-mirrors comes up with just 32 hits, all of which aren't reliable sources and simply mention the term in passing. I'll also note that the examples are entirely based on the articles OC's point of view and not on any reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 15:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough of evidences of notability to assert the relevance of the subject for Wikipedia. There is no reference or citation to make the content credible and prove that it is not some original research. It may turn into something relevant for Wikipedia in the future but right now it isn't. --KrebMarkt 17:48, 14 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six Forks Road

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable road in Wake County, North Carolina, fails WP:LOCAL, WP:TOWN, and WP:STREETS. Triadian (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. --Triadian (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, typical streets and roads aren't notable, and this appears to be a typical road. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, roads are not notable per se, and no evidence of notability has been offered. Andrea105 (talk) 00:12, 13 December 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. Wizardman 22:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Yancy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely minor character in Law & Order: Criminal Intent. The character has only appeared in seven episodes since 2005 and the article is a basic plot synopsis of the episodes the character appeared in. Third party sources do not exist that confirm independent notability. Fails WP:N. Redfarmer (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate List of X characters; if no such list exists, then delete - Real-world significance not substantiated by citations to third-party sources. Claims of parallels to real-world talking heads aren't substantiated either. --EEMIV (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since no list like this currently exists for this show, I believe this is a vote for delete. Redfarmer (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable minor character. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Sarilox (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brief mention in Google news results. Character was in seven episodes of a major television show, so that makes her notable. Dream Focus 06:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appearing in seven episodes makes her a minor character. I can't find significant coverage of the character in reliable, third-party sources to assert notability. Them From Space 12:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of an article listing L&O:CI characters. There's nothing I can find to even hint at notability for this very minor character. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:34, 19 December 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. Wizardman 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Br'er

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references provided do not include any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, nor was I able to find any after a good faith search. This article has been tagged for notability concerns for nearly a year to no avail. Without prejudice to recreation if the subject ever meets WP:BAND or any other notability guideline, it should be deleted. ^Bongo_matic 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They have not toured nationally yet. So their only claim to notability are records. Are any of their releases from major independent recording companies? If not, then delete per WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 12 December 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. Wizardman 16:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beachfront Tower Hotel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded article on a proposed hotel in Dubai that will most likely never be built. Has only 33 Google hits, and is not notable. Glittering Pillars (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Dubai. There's no other real content on the page. Perhaps after it's built (or during its building) more information will be created that will prompt the creation of this article, but until then there's no real reason to keep this page. Its notability is limited to that which would be listed on the aforementioned list. --Mpdelbuono (talk)

Redirect a nonexistent entity to a list of existent entities? Seems inappropriate. Glittering Pillars (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the entity in question is already listed on that article, I feel that if the article thinks it is worthy of retaining that content, then the redirect is warranted. If the article didn't have that listed, then I could agree with you. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable building that hasn't been built. Angryapathy (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a building that will probably not be built any time soon. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect at least. Plans even to build a building can be notable, especially if there should be sources that discuss the cancellation of the project. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources for anything. 33 total Google hits. Glittering Pillars (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL, although I'll note that we have an article on 7 South Dearborn, a Chicago skyscraper proposal that was cancelled nine years ago. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 12 December 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanisha Thomas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no (or very few) reliable sources for this non-notable person. This person is a reality TV participant, first appearing in The Bad Girls Club and other small roles such as The Soup, The Tyra Banks Show (which most of the cast of The Bad Girls Club do) and recently Celebrity Fit Club. I do not feel this person is notable just because she has appeared in a few reality TV shows. I can not even find what year she was born, much less other vital encyclopedic information. Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in independent sources. ^Bongo_matic 22:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, excuse me YES SHE IS notable. She has appeard on sevearl shows which made her notable in television. SO this article shouldn't be deleted just because you want it to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.55.238 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page should NOT be deleted. Tanisha is avery popular reality TV personality, with a large following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.35.77 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC) — 208.120.35.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete no evidence of notability I'm afraid. NBeale (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be allowed to stay. Tanisha might not be known in all circles, but she is very popular with reality tv viewers, having appeared on 2 hit shows. Jgug (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you provided absolutely no sources. I can't find any reliable sources in the mainstream media about Tanisha. I understand she was part of The Bad Girls Club and Celebrity Fit Club. That does not merit her an article on Wikiedpia, especially when there's barely any information on her. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 02:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are now nine references on her page. Jgug (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're mostly from blogs, aka someone's opinion on Tanisha. Therefore not information ABOUT her that would be encyclopedic. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 22:51, 17 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Darby

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:ENT, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pageant creds alone aren't enough for WP:N. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 17 December 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Ex Machina (Death Metal)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:BAND, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Joe Chill (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify: are those WP:Reliable sources? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They look like it to me. Can you clarify how they aren't? Joe Chill (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live4Metal.com, for example, appears to be a dormant site, formerly run by one guy[7]. None of the four sites gives much info on editorial oversight or fact checking per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources. I'm just trying to apply WP:RS and WP:V even-handedly: if that's not realistic for this subject, then please correct me. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live4Metal.com has been an active site for many years, prior to its recent closure. Furthermore, it has been operated by a vast team of reviewers. I live in Sweden, and I've heard this band receiving radio airplay here, and I'm aware that they appear on national radio stations in Singapore as well. They were also scheduled for a US tour in 2008, with the TMT Metalfest at the Tioga Centre being one of the locations, though the tour was cancelled due to some line-up issues if I remember correctly. You must bear in mind that coverage for bands from Asia is usually rare in general, but I believe that they have done fairly-well in this regard. Please revert back to me if you require any more information. Thank you, Mithius Lord (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I count zero reliable sources. ~YellowFives 03:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:36, 12 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern California Lindy Society

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a real organization and sounds like fun, but no reliable sources have taken note of it - Google finds just its own web page and promotional/scheduling items. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines set forth in WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:45, 13 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Rodwell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF, important female scientist. Professor at Cambridge University, awarded OBE. Obituaries in The Daily Telegraph and The Times Higher Education Supplement, etc Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to Google scholar she has nine papers with over 200 citations each, and an h-index in the low 50s. This is well over the usual standards for meeting WP:PROF #1. The major newspaper obituaries also give her a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. In addition to the obits listed in the article, here is another one[8] from the journal Nutrition Bulletin. Nsk92 (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep but should the page be removed to "Sheila Bingham" as this seems to have been her most used professional name? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, as Sheila Bingham, wildly successful. Abductive (reasoning) 06:13, 14 December 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. Wizardman 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Austin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and restore redirect to Penthouse Pet list per previous AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 12 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret (Korean)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently unremarkable Korean band -- although it seems to have an active fan forum, my searches don't find any information about this band or its singers in reliable sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not enough reliable sources to call it notable. Although, with some good rewriting and added sources it could be notable enough. However, as of now, it is not. I'm leaning towards deletion. Deganveranx (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 12 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarmo Eskelinen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any sources that show subject meets WP:BIO NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing that indicates notability Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 17 December 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. Tone 22:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Phuc Buu Phuc

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already deleted from Vietnamese wiki, not notable, unreferenced Mattg82 (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as of A1. Armbrust (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 12 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Spinning

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not a expert on 50's music but this seems a non notable song. No chart positions given Mattg82 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:N. South Bay (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete. The group is certainly notable, but I can not find in-depth coverage for this particular non-charting song, only passing mentions like these: [9][10][11]. Does not appear to satisfy WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 05:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks good now. Many thanks to J04n for expanding this. Gongshow ^Talk 00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - This is a significant song - I am an expert on Doo-Wop music and this song was fundamental to the Del Vikings' group and success. They are one of the greatest Doo-Wop bands of all-time. The song is still on many Doo-Wop compilations, including the "20th Century Masters Collection" and "The Mercury Years" Del Vikings compilations. Actually, there was a recent story in a newspaper referencing this song. Take a look at these ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

Sportsauto (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC) — Sportsauto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I'm not really sure how this could be considered for deletion. This is a song by a major artist of the Doo-wop and early R&B genre that was released on 3 different labels (including Mercury and ABC), which is notable itself. It's difficult to judge these early rock n roll songs based on Billboard. Remember, the Billboard Top 100 didnt begin until almost 1959, which is after this song was released. Also I don't think that they ranked the top R&B or Doo-wop songs in separate categories as they do today. I think its popularity is evidenced by the fact that the song has been rereleased multiple times over the years on Doo-wop albums and Del Vikings GREATEST HITS albums (here's one that came out this year [12] and here's a list from allmusic of other compilations [13]. That was a nice article that Sportsauto included as well [14]. I would say that the song is an important part Doo Wop/R&B history as well as early rock n roll. Akilleslaststnd 05:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC) — Akilleslaststnd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just expanded the article, the song was the center of a legal battle between two versions of the group adding to its notability. J04n(talk page) 07:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. Per Jo4n.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom. Perhaps worthy of being kept. It could do with an infobox and track listings if known. Plus the article expanded further; how it was written for example, using the gazette link posted above as reference, etc. Mattg82 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note The infobox has been added, it's a single so I see no need for a track list. J04n(talk page) 22:13, 14 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Berrell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any content about this individual via searches. While the article does indicate a potential for notability, the fact that it doesn't list any references and that I can't find any means that I can't find any verifiable notability about this individual. Shirik (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient resources regarding subject to meet notability via WP:GNG or WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. A quick search of the London Gazette [15] confirms that he was a company commander, but I cannot locate anything that verifies the other content. However, this is still not sufficient in meeting the notability guidelines for inclusion, either. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - WP:BIO isn't met Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar/Books/News searches return no hits, and a Google Web search gives no hits about this individual. A British National Archive Medal Record search for surname "Berrell" (14 results) gives none for anyone in the London Regiment, or for a "Jack Berrell" (not even the double award of the British War Medal and the Victory Medal, which most British participants received). I also checked for surname "Berell" (1 result), for surname "Berrel" (1 result) and for surname "Berel" (0 result) - neither of these 2 results for variations of the surname gave results from a member of the London Regiment, or for a "Jack". -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:20, 13 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gu Chujun

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just wealth isn't itself sufficient for notability, I think. Note that I've found some suggestion that he had been arrested and charge with fraud,[16] but I don't think that in itself creates notability, either. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've made small edits to the page to include the information that makes him notable: once the 20th richest man in China, and more importantly, 12 years in the slammer for corporate fraud. There's sources there from Time Magazine, Reuters, etc. I'm sure there is more out there to expand the article, but in my view this is a very obvious keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. His wealth, arrest/conviction, or holding prominent positions with major companies has been covered in reliable sources. Location (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in WP:RS meeting WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Pilots (v1)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NALBUMS nothing but a track listing, where's the notability? what constitutes it's own article? Alan - talk 21:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Even though the band itself is notable, the album is not notable, as there is no coverage of it. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 3rd version of We Are Pilots. We could include the track listings and covers in that page.76.226.195.135 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:23, 5 December 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 21:01, 12 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timil Patel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unverified info about a medical student ; but even if all the data given in the article checked out, it would not amount to notability. Nsk92 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wildly non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:26, 15 December 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. JForget 15:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Li Ang (Go)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this Go player sufficiently notable? It seems at best shaky. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. There are four other versions of the article on other European wikis but I can't find any references there, and as far as I can tell he doesn't exist on the Chinese wiki: it's smaller than this one but not that small, and I would have thought good for notable Chinese nationals. Google his name and the Chinese for Go and I do find a lot of links to books, but that in itself is not notable. JohnBlackburne (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 5 December 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 20:59, 12 December 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. Technically "nomination withdrawn", since nominator now desires a merge, which can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Koch (musician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge to Weezer. Notability issues had been previously raised on the talk page w/o an AfD and I'm in agreement with those editors that Koch doesn't quite seem to meet notability criteria, as his main source of notability (per the article) stems from being Weezer's webmaster and thus he's more of a peripheral subject to the band rather than being solo article worthy. The article also does not offer any significant coverage and everything I found in a G-search seemed minor and more on the topic of Weezer.

Koch records music as well, so perhaps there is a tad more notability there, but the label his music is released on has no article and the albums don't seem to have charted or gained much coverage in the search I did. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @137 · 02:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fans could be notable, but if it can't be verified that he holds some special status, then his article must be deleted. Any experts out there? Bearian (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Koch is more akin to a manager and the public spokesperson for the band, see this reliable source - [17]. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not disputing that he is the band's spokesperson. That can obviously be verified. But is being a band's spokesperson worthy of an article? No coverage on Koch himself has been offered and the link provided above is just an article on Weezer that mentions Koch. And Weezer being notable does not mean Koch is. At this point, I think a merge is most appropriate. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:12, 9 December 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 20:53, 12 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.Renee (artist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A young, non-notable artist. The article makes big but unsourced claims (thus not eligible for speedy deletion). This does not satisfy WP:BIO pr WP:CREATIVE. freshacconci talktalk 20:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 20:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skates over a7, but doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. @Kate (parlez) 20:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. The only citations are a primary source and an article apparently published when the subject was 13 years old and hadn't started painting yet. With only a first initial, it is impossible to verify anything in this article. Pburka (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Claims are so nebulous, and few or no Google hits, that a case can still be made for speedy deletion. 99.155.206.57 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ready for an encyclopedia, nn...Modernist (talk) 02:03, 13 December 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. JForget 15:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James and Q

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Original synthesis. Whatever is left after removal of the original research is already covered in the articles Epistle of James and Q document. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Original research. Pburka (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly OR, reads like an essay. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:58, 14 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Baseball

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A recently made-up sport with no references other than a few local sources. Google yields no results except for self-published and other unreliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why this should be deleted it is a part of WikiProject Baseball and seems to be a growing sport. Regardless of reliable sources, this sport has great potential of becoming a superpower. Even if it is deleted now, another article is sure to come up soon.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The subject is verifiable (just), and appears to have been active for the last three years. For what's essentially a niche, novelty sport (unlikely to become a "superpower"), this seems to be relatively notable. Pburka (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with two functioning RS's this passes the GNG. Polarpanda (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that local sources aren't sufficient for notability: all local politicians receive coverage, but most aren't notable. Same goes for other things, including sports. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think politicians are different precisely because they all receive coverage. The GNG talks about depth, and these two are just about deep enough. Polarpanda (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reliable sources turn up under both "Xtreme baseball" [18] to make it clear that this is not the usual "new game" article. "Extreme baseball" turns up some sources not in the article [19], although most hits are about something else. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 12 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston transmitter lincolnshire

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Does not meet the General Notability Guideline and does not appear to be inherently notable. Rodhull andemu 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 20:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to be a notable tower, can find no sources that would indicate so. And what is that thing, 30 feet tall? --Glenfarclas (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, but you have to remember that Lincolnshire is particularly flat, in more ways than one. I'm amused by the idea that notability could be related to height; makes Tom Cruise somewhat debatable, then. Fnarrr, fnarrr! Rodhull andemu 00:48, 16 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khurai District

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The district doesn't exist, the movement for a district is not significant enough to be reported by any newspaper or on governmental websites. PRODDed and contested by author, who is also spamming other articles with this "upcoming district" bit. -SpacemanSpiff 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -SpacemanSpiff 18:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage; the URL for the now-rotten external link doesn't look like the URL of a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is about a non exiting district. Shyamsunder (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non existent.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:24, 14 December 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. speedy as recreated article. No notable differences between versions Ged UK 13:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QutIM

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This non-notable chat client has no third party sources and looking for them in the obvious places does not uncover any. Article was written by an SPA who has only edited this article and may have a COI. Miami33139 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G4. I can find no WP:RS to establish WP:N 16x9 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A7. NN as per OP. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:32, 13 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Frank | talk 16:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep.~~ They meet criterion 2 of WP:BAND as shown here, would like to see more. I'll try to find more WP:RS's and revisit. J04n(talk page) 18:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Changing !vote despite the fact that they were on the Billboard 200 because I can find no coverage of this band, not even a review of the album that charted. If anyone can find anything in a WP:RS I'll gladly incorporate it into the article & change my !vote (again). J04n(talk page) 16:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Happily changing my !vote again, thanks to the good work by Victor Silveira who rewrote and sourced the article. J04n(talk page) 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I heard something about this band recently. I think one of its members died. But I didn't find any coverage. I'll try to search for its musicians. If I find something, I'll come back. Victor Silveira (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well... I searched sources for almost one hour and I found some informations about the group. In fact, there are some news about the death of the first vocalist, Dean Fasano, according Whiplash.net(Portuguese) and MelodicRock.com. However, there is no news about it in any important news site. There are profiles of Prophet in some sites about Music, such as Librarius Metallicus and Music Might. I found reviews of their albums too in some sites which seems to be forums with editorial oversight (which are acceptable): Sleaze Metal (German with English translation), El portal del metal (Spanish), GloryDazeMusic and TrueMetal.it (Italian). There are also some interviews with some members of the group: with Russell Arcara (vocalist) in Rock Eyez and Liberty'n'justice, and with Ted Poley (former vocalist and drumer) in Rock Eyez and Metal-rules.com. It worths to remember the band has a profile in Allmusic, as J04n pointed before. Well... Justifying my vote... I know there are a few sources and they don't have many information about the band. However, the band passes WP:BAND#6, because it is not difficult to find sources about Poley or Arcara, which are also involved with many other notable bands. So, I think one could keep the article and improve it according these sources here and other sources about the members of the group. Thank you! Victor Silveira (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep it seems to fulfill 2 and 6 as others have stated Aisha9152 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I edited the article and added the sources above to it. I didn't add two of them, because I didn't find any relevant information to the article. Victor Silveira (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Victor.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:11, 18 December 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 per the agreement of the only significant contributor(WP:CSD#G7 [20]). Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of school bullying examples

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially a guide to bullying. It doesn't fit the inclusion criteria for an encyclopedia and should simply be deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even remotely encyclopedic. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article on bullying, fine, but not a list. The names and terms will always be too local culturally specific to be encyclopaedic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs to be ~~beaten, kicked, shoved, and have its head held in a toilet~~deleted. DS (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, the referenced content belongs somewhere, the rest can be removed by normal editing. Polarpanda (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a how-to guide for school bullies. Wikipedia does not need this. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this perennial source of nonsense and original research (and occasionally original fiction). Guy (Help!) 22:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The examples in the article aren't even specific to schools, as they occur in other places as well. Non-encyclopedic list. Per nomination and the other deletion arguments made above. Risker (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the creator of the article, I agree it is worthy of deletion. It was created to remove bullying examples from List of school pranks, whatever that article is. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:24, 13 December 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. article was heavily improved during the AFD discussion and meets WP:N JForget 15:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rosenzweig (composer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. This composer and conductor hasn't made any impact in the classical music world. Also, there's no independent media coverage about him. Conducting engagements don't seem professional engagements, but concerts as part of training courses (also unreferenced). His compositions haven't been performed in public by any major orchestra/ensemble. The websites provided as refs for the prizes do not cite any prize. No external independent sources. Not every professional musician should have an article on Wikipedia. Karljoos (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my view, he fails GNG and WP:MUSIC as a conductor and composer. There are a lot of ghits out there but nothing indicating this guy is notable. For example, of the awards cited, none would appear to qualify as "major". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The "Artists-in-Berlin Programme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) fellowship" is a scholarship and not an award. It is also not so difficult to get as a Fulbright or a Rhodes.--Karljoos (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performances and recordings of his work by: London Sinfonietta, Arditti Quartet, Royal Liverpool Philharmonic. Current conducting engagement is entirely professional. Past conducting with, English Chamber Orchestra, formed and led London Strings. How exactly would you like to see these facts referenced? --Johnabdl (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to question in unsigned comment above: To the standard of WP:V. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Music New and Old: Two Festivals Considered", Wilfrid Mellers and Martin Dreyer The Musical Times, Vol. 127, No. 1722 (Sep., 1986), pp. 494-498 Published by: Musical Times Publications Ltd. Johnabdl (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Principal Guest Conductor of the Vidin Philharmonic" is a professional appointment.Johnabdl (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 3 broadcast of 2nd string quartet performed by the Arditti Quartet on Jan. 3, 2009--more to come.Johnabdl (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"SPNM - RVW Trust: Rosenzweig and Martland", Paul Driver Tempo, New Series, No. 156 (Mar., 1986), pp. 37-38 (article consists of 2 pages) Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/945854

Delete. Vanity article that fails WP:MUSIC and GNG written by single purpose editor.THD3 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on the orchestra's website, it seems that this orchestra is the typical east-European orchestra used for masterclasses and low-budget recordings of media music (note that in the list of activities of the orchestra there's no concert season[21]) and there's no ref here to this conductor/composer being anything of the orchestra. Also in the article there's no ref to any concert of the English Chamber Orchestra and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic conducted by M Rosenzweig or pieces performed by the Arditti Quartet.--Karljoos (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define "GNG" - link leads to nothing relevant to this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNGJohnabdl (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete.

No claim was made that Rosenzweig conducted RLPO; the RLPO performed his symphony.

Why does Karljoos expect, entirely unreasonably, that the two journal articles cited thus far in the discussion (in The Musical Times and in Tempo) were intended to refer to every aspect of the individual's activities?

The Vidin Philharmonic has no official website, which is why none was cited in the disputed article.Johnabdl (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In an invitation concert from the BBC's Maida Vale studios, the Arditti Quartet give the world premiere performance of Michael Rosenzweig's Second String Quartet, a BBC commission." http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gd5pq Johnabdl (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.--Karljoos (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. He seems to have fallen out of fashion in recent years, but was regarded as a significant figure in the 1980s (i.e. pre-web, hence the lack of online references). If I remember rightly he was featured at the 1986 Almeida Festival. --Deskford (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is media coverage, in the UK and in Germany, from the 80s and 90s. Here's some,

reviews of Symphony in One Movement,

- Michael Kennedy, The Daily Telegraph 11/25/1985

- Bryan Northcott, The Sunday Telegraph 12/1/1985

reviews of Elegy for 13 Solo Strings,

- Meirion Bowen, The Guardian 2/22/1982

- Hampstead and Highgate Express 2/26/1982

review of Sinfonietta 1, Solo for Flute, Solo for Bass Clarinet, performed by the London Sinfonietta

- Paul Griffiths, "Concerts: Festival Hall", The Times 3/25/1986

--Johnabdl (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability criteria per Johnabdl. --Klein zach 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another journal citation, DAVID C.H. WRIGHT (2005). The London Sinfonietta 1968–2004: A Perspective. twentieth-century music, 2 , pp 109-136 doi:10.1017/S1478572205000216 - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=359829. I don't have the article, but if you search on this string, "Robert Saxton, Chris Dench, Michael Rosenzweig . . .11. Looking at the Sinfonietta commissions from the 1980s, we see that (except for Knussen)", you should get a link to the COJ site abstract in the search results. Rosenzweig had two at least two commissions from the London Sinfonietta. There was also London Sinfonietta concert of his work that was reviewed by The Times, but their online archive doesn't go that far back. --Johnabdl (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Expand article citing all the stuff Johnabdl pointed to. He clearly is notable. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, they meant WP:GNG... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – What Jubileeclipman said. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the article with the references listed above. There's sufficient evidence here for notability. Also, there is no evidence to suggest this is a "vanity article" (i.e. authored by the subject). And even if it were, that is not a valid argument for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was one article devoted entirely to him "Chords of Chaos". It appeared in the South African Mail & Guardian, 13 May 1999. Rather a sad tale... Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting and curious tale. I seem to remember reading somewhere much more recently — probably when his Second String Quartet was broadcast in January 2009 — that he is engaged in a war of words with the BBC over his belief that his work has been systematically overlooked. The truth is there are hundreds, no, thousands of deserving composers who would benefit from greater exposure, but precious few opportunities for such exposure. --Deskford (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve (by cutting down to size) - Michael Rosenzweig seems to merit an entry, but nowhere near the engrossing article we currently have, which is longer than those on many other more notable persons. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense; what's "engrossing" about it? On the contrary, it's quite sketchy: nothing about style and influences, for instance. MUSIKVEREIN might give examples of "those on other[,] more notable persons" whose entries are significantly shorter, and why their lengths should not be added to, as MUSIKVEREIN, for one, (or others in his 'society') might deem appropriate, rather than cutting down anything else less notable? (That would be a positive, not a vague, contribution.) However, Wikipedia:Notability is not by degrees; something is either notable or not. And [Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content]. Five users (Deskford, Klein zach, Jubilee♫clipman, Michael Bednarek, Voceditenore) with considerable experience in creating and editing music-related articles seem to recommend expansion. Johnabdl (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't advocate cutting anything from the current article, just adding references and perhaps a bit of tidying to make it read better. Indeed, expansion would be welcome — I'm sure there is much more of note that could be said about this composer. Those "other more notable persons" maybe need their articles expanding. --Deskford (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definately an engrossing topic! But the article is actually only 9 or 10 short paragraphs long: hardly "inflated" (which I guess is what was meant). --Jubilee♫clipman 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Interview from Berlin Tagesspiegel

Martin Wilkentung, "Künstler im Gespräch: Michael Rosenzweig, Komponist aus Südafrika" Der Tagesspiegel, Mittwoch, 12 Dezember 1990. ["Artist in Conversation: Michael Rosenzweig, Composer from South Africa" Daily Mirror, Wednesday, 12 Dec. 1990] --Johnabdl (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe not the most notable but certainly seems notable enough. Besides not enough people have a Z in their name. Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Z! I think that's the clincher: we have to keep now! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not seen the List of composers with a Z in their name? Many of my favourite composers are on it. --Deskford (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good one! I was looking for one of my favourites Zelenka, then I realised... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/speedy keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:12, 18 December 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, while there are still 10 hours left, a clear consensus has been determined to merge to National Three Peaks Challenge. no consensus, the articles show minimal notability, though it does seem to pass. I'd suggest discussion on the talk page, whether the content should be merged or not. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five Peaks Challenge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do feel that if the five peaks challenge did not exist it would be necessary to invent it. However 5 peaks is not mentioned by the article's only Secondary Reference. I cannot see significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. At best this deserves a mention in the National Three Peaks Challenge. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC) *Delete Not notable, only source appears to the website of the "inventor" --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I doubt greatly that this article would have been nominated for deletion had use of the term "British Isles" in it not been the subject of debate on Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples. Not enormously notable, but reference-able (e.g. [22], [23], [24]). Suggest, it be merged with National Three Peaks Challenge, which it appears to be an extension of. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If I were to climb the two highest mountains of each country, created my own website, and called it the ten peak challenge it wouldn't merit an article. Neither should this. Jack forbes (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the search "five peaks challenge" -wiki -wikipedia gives 7,570 hits on google and looking thorugh the results most if not all pages are from the UK. See the seach here Dentren | ^Talk 14:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Why does anyone want to delete this article? Is it because it's not a notable event? Nope. The ONLY reason this article is up for deletion is because it contains the words "BRITISH ISLES". What do you non-involved editors make of that then? Non-involved here means not involved in the stupid attempts by a couple of editors to rid Wikipedia of British Isles. Good eh! Mister Flash (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have been involved in any stupid attempt to rid wikipedia of British Isles. Jack forbes (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was suggesting HighKing and Doofer. Mister Flash (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets a good hit rate on search engines. Mister Flash (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. I managed to find newspaper mentions here here and here without much effort. They're mostly about individual attempts to meet it and not the challenge itself though, so a merge might be appropriate. As an aside: after reading this AfD but before doing a search I expected to !vote delete, since none of the sources given above seem to be from reliable publications. I've also argued quite strongly in the past against overzealous removal of the phrase 'British Isles'. I think, regardless of our suspicions about other editors' motives, discussion is likely to be more productive if we concentrate on the article's merits which should stand (or fall) regardless. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The BBC has covered results of the race albeit uncommonly. On balance, I think this is notable although there is a real paucity of news coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Olaf Davis. Pburka (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per my comments as nominator and per Olaf Davis Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per nom. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete Changed after considering rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid and Olaf. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete Also changed after the above discussions. Jack forbes (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many references are available. This topic passes the notability test. LevenBoy (talk) 12:09, 16 December 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. spam/advert Cirt (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverall Health Based Cleaning System

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Corporation that does not establish clear notability, reads like an advertisement, and its only (maybe, weak) claim of notability is the fact that they worked with Habitat for Humanity (well, so did I. Can I have an article, too?) —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 10:14, 12 December 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. JForget 15:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poomkavu Church

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local church in India. I can't find any references to indicate the church is notable, and the article provides no additional clues. Shadowjams (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedily under A7 — there's no real claim of significance, let alone a demonstration of notability. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. From google searchs it its several times mentioned as a pilgrim place, not every church is pilgrimage centre but I could not find any reliable suorce. Dentren | ^Talk 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems a bit strange that nobody commenting above addressed this source, which can be found by simply clicking on the spoon-fed search results above. I don't know enough about the ways of the Roman Catholic Church to say whether being declared an official pilgrimage centre by the Vatican is a notable achievement, but that issue should at least be discussed before we decide whether to delete this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is kept it should be moved to the church's full name, Our Lady of Assumption Church, Poomkavu. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pathirappally, the nearest place, in whose article Poomkavu is mentioned: this is usually a good solution for local churches. In merging the full name should be used. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 13 December 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. MuZemike 17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Akron, Ohio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is just a complete list of mostly unsourced trivia. Not necessary and not informative. §hep ^Talk 09:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Stepshep's comments. Most of the info falls under WP:FANCRUFT, even the sourced info. Vast majority of article lists every appearance or mention of the city of Akron in books, video games, TV shows, and movies and actually explains very little of the culture (which is not notable anyway) of Akron, Ohio. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akron, Ohio — we have plenty of valid "Culture of ___" articles, so this is a likely search target. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs some work. It has references, but no inline citations, and the lead is too long. However, I think it's appropriate to keep this one, as per WP:SPLIT. The Akron, Ohio article is very long right now, so splitting the culture section into its own page is appropriate, according to WP:SPLIT. There are plenty of articles that do this, like Ann Arbor, Michigan (an FA) and Culture in Ann Arbor, Michigan, or San Francisco (another FA) and Culture of San Francisco. The problems Culture of Akron, Ohio has can be improved (the page could be fitted with a Template:No footnotes tag and a Template:Expand tag to draw attention to this need) but they aren't insurmountable problems, and certainly don't warrant deletion. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This doesn't need expanded it needs completely rewritten. One of the biggest reasons the Akron, Ohio article is so long is because it too contains an enormous amount of fancruft and other "interesting" but largely irrelevant triva. And this article has had several tags on it for months with little or no action. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it needs to be rewritten, then it needs to be rewritten. Not deleted. There is no deadline for the improvements. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If your argument is that it's not a well written article, that's one of the very arguments to avoid during deletion debates. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it can be rewritten in the style of the San Francisco article I'd be real happy. The trick is now figuring out how to get there. --Beirne (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: My argument is that it's almost completely unsourced, meaning the info shouldn't even be here, not that it's simply a poorly written article (which it is). And as I said, it's largely trivial as opposed to encyclopedic. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: The unique part of the article is the list of appearances of Akron in movies and TV and maybe the Literature section. This belongs in an article like "Akron in popular culture". The rest of the article is just information that is already in the main Akron article or in List of people from Akron, Ohio, so along with the renaming the article everything not in the Literature or "Movie and television series appearances" sections should be deleted. At that point some editing is due on the remaining lists, but that will be a different topic. --Beirne (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My only problem with a popular culture article is just that they are touchy because they quickly become, like this, a list of trivia and lack encyclopedic content. Think about all the appearances cities like New York, Paris, London, Los Angeles, etc. appear in different forms of media (books, TV, movies, etc.). Why should we have an article that describes a largley unknown city's every appearance when we certainly wouldn't do it for a larger and more widely known city? --JonRidinger (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that popular culture articles tend to become junk collections, but they are tolerated in Wikipedia and there are some guidelines for them. Moving the "in popular culture" to its own article, like was done for San Francisco, would let that article be treated on its own terms and clear the general culture article for rebuilding. --Beirne (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Hunter and disagree with Jon, many inventions like materials, objects, foods, techniques, and etc. that are used in American and also International culture today.--Threeblur0 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would hope the article's creator would want to keep it. That argument might hold water if the article in question actually covered some of that. Instead it focuses on trivia and virtually every appearance of mention of Akron in media, so falls under WP:TRIV. When I think of culture, I think of things like institutions and traditions unique to a certain area or unique ways of doing something, not a list of media appearances in obscure books, TV shows, movies, and even video games. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a city of 200k... stands to reason that there can be subarticles. If the current one is mostly trivia, needs references, etc. that's a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. This isn't Brittanica... we don't delete everything that isn't ready to be published. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: but at the same time we also need to have sources. This article has been tagged since August for sources as it currently has 5 and even those are sourcing what is mostly trivia over encyclopedic material. It should never have been created with just 5 sources to begin with, not to mention numerous spelling and grammatical errors. This isn't Britannica, but it's still an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia. I'm not opposed to sub-articles for Akron, even a Culture article, but here I think we need to start over. If that can be done without completely deleting the article, then go for it. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it should be deleted because it was created with spelling errors and didn't have 6+ sources? That's just not the way Wikipedia works... Wikipedia is a work in progress. Go through any article that's decent now and chances are it sucked for long periods of its history... and it might still suck if people had spent their time trying to delete it rather than fix it. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is more than spelling errors and sources. The first part of the article is almost all information that is either in the main article on Akron or in List of people from Akron, Ohio. The second is really an "in popular culture" list, for which I have added a template. So really almost none of the article belongs here. One solution would be to delete everything except for the appearances in movies and TV and rename the article something like "Akron in popular culture". That article would then need some editing but at least it would be focused. We wouldn't be losing anything as the rest of the material is in other articles or can be easily added to them. If someone then wants to write an article about the culture in Akron they can, but I don't see anyone stepping up. A proper article would discuss museums, the orchestra, the Akron sound, theaters, and the like. --Beirne (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Beirne pretty much sums up what I'm saying. An article (especially one with this much info in it) should never be created with so few sources and with such a large amount of trivial information. On top of that it covers very little of Akron's actual culture. In other words, a rewrite would essentially be blanking the page and starting over again. Yes, Wikipedia is a work in progress, but that doesn't excuse additions of unsourced and trivial information. If it's unsourced it shouldn't be here. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "A proper article would discuss museums, the orchestra, the Akron sound, theaters, and the like." So... write a proper article. Deleting a work in progress is a step backwards... Wikipedia articles grow over time... unless they get deleted by people who are under the mistaken impression that there's a deadline for getting articles right. Wikipedia is about letting articles improve over time, not deleting them because no one has had time to make them good articles or beyond this very moment. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Read what I said, Sancho, I don't recommend deleting the article. --Beirne (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I was mostly replying to the person who really does seem to want to delete this article due to typos and it only having 5 inline citations. I just don't think long deletion debates are what this article needs... yet that's what people are forcing to happen here. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but you quoted me from my comment where I suggested an alternative to deletion. --Beirne (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your alternative involves creating an article that would probably be deleted rather quickly... "in popular culture" articles rarely survive, unless I'm completely wrong here. But my point is people are using this AFD to point out the article needs improvement... which is really a waste of everyone's time. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If it gets deleted as an "in popular culture" article, then that's the way it goes, as long as Wikipedia process is followed. We shouldn't keep the "in popular culture" in this article just to preserve it. Once it is moved on its own then the rest of the article is nothing more than trivia, and it can be rebuilt from scratch. Of course, we could just rebuild it from scratch now. I wouldn't complain about that either. --Beirne (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--- I think it needs far more than basic improvements, it needs to be completely redone. No one has been able to justify any of the info in this article as encyclopedic. It's one thing to have a poorly written article, it's another to have an article that A) doesn't even cover what the title says, and B) is full of trivia. Should there be an article titled "Culture of Akron, Ohio"? Yes, but that again should be an excuse to allow loads of unsourced trivia to remain on Wikipedia. I would support a redirect or a complete rewrite...it's not delete or no; I just think deleting and starting over is better than having what is currently here since it really doesn't add much to understanding Akron. It's not about deadlines; it's about what is here right now despite numerous tags and Wikipedia policies. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect The relationship between the "Culture and contemporary life" section at Akron, Ohio and this article is backwards though. The "Culture and contemporary life" section is quite long, there are 11 kb of readable prose while this article has less than one kb. Everything should either be in one section of the main article with Culture of Akron, Ohio a redirect or everything moved there with a WP:Summary at the main article. I prefer the redirect option, the coverage of this topic isn't mature.Synchronism (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would support this. The coverage is definitely not mature yet. Doesn't mean it can't be, but also doesn't mean it needs its own article right now. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Just to let it be known, ive been reconstructing the culture article and close to compeleting it, is there a time limit?--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The comparison of what is already in the Akron article makes a lot of sense. I would support a redirect too. --Beirne (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I used of the culture articles as a base on where to start, ive certainly got it up to keepable.--Threeblur0 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Unfortunately part of the article is trivia that is already in the main article on Akron and the rest of the article is from the controversial "in popular culture" category. Take a look at the Culture of San Francisco to see what a culture article should look like. Akron culture is already pretty well covered in the main article, which is why this one has so much duplicate information. It is hard to justify a separate article on the culture of Akron. --Beirne (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: In case there is a time limit I would like the people invloved to know that im trying to work on it until the last minute.--Threeblur0 (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<---Comment: there's no time limit, of course, but unless the new article has sufficient content (enough to warrant a separate article) and is properly sourced, then we're just back to square one. Doesn't mean it has to be a GA or FA off the bat, but it should at least have some basic parts present. Remember, the main issues here are sourced content and encyclopedic content vs. trivial content (just because something has a source doesn't mean it's encyclopedic). I personally think the culture section in the Akron, Ohio article is sufficient coverage of the topic and a separate article isn't needed *at this point*. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:14, 16 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional violation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neogilism. The original creator removed a prod. I suppose people say "constitutional violation" as a noun occasionally, but it's not a legal concept, and it wouldn't be said in those terms.

The Cornell link is to the law school's page, and there is a single reference to apatheticvoter.com

This smells to me as a POV article, not a valid topic. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article clearly exists to promote a political viewpoint, and I can't see how an encyclopaedic article could be developed under this title. EALacey (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this is a political essay inappropriate for Wikipedia. Andrea105 (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for personal essays. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 20:07, 13 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

500 (outdoor game)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a recently made up game. No sources cited, and no indication of notability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may reconsider if reliable sources can be found, but I can't locate any with Google.Shockeroo (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somebody put a lot of thought into this entry, but there is nothing to establish that the game even exists. No references in the article. Google finds plenty of hits related to the card game called 500, but but none for this game. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 Flies Up

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a recently made up game. No sources cited, and no indication of notability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly made up; in any case can't verify that this game exists. No references cited in the article. There are some Google hits for this term, but they involve a game related to BASEBALL, not football. That's what you would expect from the terminology "fly" and "up", those are baseball terms, not football. As a child I used to play a baseball-based game with a similar structure, called One Fly Up, where the batter hits a fly ball to the other players and whoever catches it becomes "up", i.e., becomes the batter. But One Fly Up doesn't have a Wikipedia page and doesn't deserve one, due to lack of independent sourcing. By the way, take a look at the article First Bounce Fly; it may be a candidate for deletion as well, for the same reasons as this one. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

On second thought I would characterize this article as Original Research rather than Made Up. My experience with One Fly Up, and the existence of the book Three Flies Up: My Father, Baseball, and Me,[25] indicate that variants of this game do exist and are played. The author of this article is probably describing a variant that he himself has played, where a football rather than a baseball was used. That doesn't change my vote; original research gets deleted just as surely as made-up stuff does. But I wanted to give the author credit for acting in good faith. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per third-party sourcing provided by Warrah below. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Wild Turkey Federation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely lacking in third-party reliable sources; a check of the first ~30 pages of the oracle yielded nothing to indicate this organization meets the GNG. Though the group appears to have chapters in most states, there doesn't seem to be anything beyond self-sourcing and press releases. Additionally, the article seems to be written by the organization ("preservation of our hunting heritage", etc.).

Delete as nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn per sourcing provided by Warrah (thanks!). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:RS as per this Google News search: [26]. A clean-up of the article could help, of course. Warrah (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Publisher of quite a few papers regarding wild turkeys [27], it appears the conference they host is well attended by hunters and academics. Article should be POV tagged and an effort made to include some sources that aren't self-published. They definitely appear to meet WP:CLUB per national scope and third party sources detailing activities (sources presented by Warrah). Vulture19 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epona (IRC services)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a contested prod where the reason given for the prod was "Non-notable software and tagged for lack of sources since May 2008.". The articles does not appear to meet WP:WEB or WP:N so I am nominating it for deletion after restoring the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not meet our notability criteria, has no sources, and 18 months is enough to find them. Miami33139 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC) I also oppose a redirect unless at least one third party source is found. Miami33139 (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. I checked the usual places and found nothing. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable sources to confirm notability Triplestop x3 23:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability, and I can't find any evidence of notability. --Stormie (talk) 06:11, 18 December 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 as recreation of a deleted page. ... discospinster _talk 04:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theories of a future nanotech age

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even though this is reporting other people's opinions on what may or may not happen in the future, this is still all sheer speculation about the future, and much of it is written as such. For example, "In vitro meat may alleviate food shortages" is speculation, not information, even if this speculation is sourced. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete on the theory that it's a WP:Synthesis. This is a thrown together topic that's cited, but none of those cites speak to the over arching theory of the article. But I might be wrong. There are a lot of cites in there, but the tone of this article is off, for sure. Shadowjams (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Future knowledge should be embraced with open arms in the Wikipedia community. If we want to pass on this knowledge to our great-grandchildren someday, we need to put stuff in this encyclopedia that will be relevant to their generation. GVnayR (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Future knowledge"? What we pass on to future generations is what we know in our time. They will know what happens between our time and theirs. Our guesses about what may happen between now and their time aren't knowledge, they're guesses. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unbacked speculation, WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 21:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is a possible recreation of the deleted article Nanotech age, also by the same user. The AfD notification is in the most recent archive of the creator's user talk page, at the bottom. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous AfD

- You're absolutely right. In that discussion, two days ago, GVNayR wrote, "If that's what it takes to keep this article on Wikipedia, then I change my vote to rename this article to Theories of a future nanotech age." And so he's created this article with that name. I'm going to db-repost it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additional comment - If this article seems to be too avant garde for my generation, please accept my sincere apologies. I am trying to write for my great-great-granddaughter's generation in addition to my own generation. As a believer in the Singularity, Nanotechnology and Raymond Kurzweil, I believe these aspects in 21st century technology will be used in everyday life by the year 2025 at least. The article may not be coherent right now but the article deserves people to refine it to make a common theme (instead of several disconnected things). Please do not delete this article; it's too important for future generations. GVnayR (talk) 03:37, 13 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proto Technate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. A neologism that is not widely used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ??? Delete, would need serious expansion and proof of notability for this DRosin (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. and improve Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Used car

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sure I'm opening a can of worms with this one but this article is a total mess. Its biggest problem is it vastly violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Beyond that, if you follow its history, its been a dumping ground for spam links. Short of a total rewrite, I don't think this "article" works as a wikipedia entry as its not really encyclopedic at all. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, which it certainly needs. There are 100s of entire books about the subject from various viewpoints, see for example Worldcat so it should be possible to write a proper article. (And this might be one of the cases for an exception to our rule on not using plurals for article titles. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added 05:38, December 12, 2009 by DGG

Keep - There's enough there right now. Although this is articles for deletion, not titles for deletion, there's enough here, even as badly written as it is, to build on. Throw some of those tags on it, and do any cleanup you can. If that means slashing out stuff that's not salvageable that's ok too. Shadowjams (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This article used to be pretty useful in some earlier versions. I haven't quite identified where it went wrong, but someone started blanking out useful info and putting in their own version. I'll reincorporate the good parts of those old ones on the cleanup I'm doing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those edits were from Sept 2008 from one user. Shadowjams (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with the others. When there's a badly written article of a notable topic, the case should be made to improve the article - placing an improvement tag for instance. Deleting the entire article is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Also, some users interpret WP:GUIDE to mean articles can't have guide elements when in fact they can be used in an encyclopedic framework (climate stats in city articles, for example). If the article was simply a Kelley Blue Book listing of car prices, then WP:GUIDE would be an appropriate application. --Oakshade (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I agree with all of you. I felt the articles topic/title was certainly notable. Its overall existence wasn't really my gripe. I really wasn't sure how to go about it though. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't feel the article should be deleted, I just feel all of its content as its written is terrible and that it needs to be completely rewritten to be more of an encyclopedia article than a guide to purchasing used cars. Its just full of links to different websites and a bunch of instructions to purchasing cars, rather than an article describing what a used vehicle is. Not to forget that its a constant dumping ground for spam links, but I guess that comes with the territory. I'll do my best to contribute to a new article but I feel less than 10% of it is salvagable the way it is and I didn't want to just blank it and write a new article without a consensus. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLD you can do that. I've blanked and re-written articles many times. Sometimes I've re-written it just as a stub, but that's still better than a large terrible article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that was what I wanted to do, but I felt the need to get an opinion of other editors before I did so. Like I said, I really didn't want to delete the article, I just wanted to delete all the text in it. It seems though since I've brought this to the other editors attention that the article has been improved upon greatly. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Used cars" have been notable for at least a century. The yearly sales volume has to be in the billions of dollars, and many large companies like CarMax (6.97 billion U.S dollars 2009 revenue) are devoted to the used car trade, as are dealers and used car lots, besides private party used car sales. Newspapers have many pages of ads for used cars every day. If there are problems with the current state of the article, then use the available sources to improve it. See Google books (1650 results) [28] and Google News (356,000 results) [29], many of which pertain to this article. For instance, here is a 1907 result on how to improve the salability of a used car by detailing it (p 276). Here is a 1916 article on the value of a used car. Its likely service life was said to be (200,000 miles in 1916)!!!!). Here(p 573) is a 1917 article on buying used cars, and what tricks to watch out for. Some things never change Edison (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject is undoubtedly notable. Shadowjams, can you find a diff of the pre-spam version of the article? I'd suggest that we either 1) mass-revert back to September 2008, or whenever we can find a clean, spam-free version of the article, or 2) Wipe down to a stub and start over. There are sources here that would serve to build the article back up. It's a big task, but if some are willing I think it's the best option. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did effectively that. I've selectively restored those sections, and tried to tone down what that series of edits added. I've tagged it appropriately (since that info's at least a year old now). It needs more work but I think it's in a much better place now. Shadowjams (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewrite if you must, but this article meets WP:N. Cerebellum (talk) 16:24, 16 December 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. MuZemike 17:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persian-speakers of Iran

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a content fork of the article 'Persian people'created to surpass POV guidelines Danz23 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 05:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Persian language. Warrah (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content fork with oddball title. Abductive (reasoning) 15:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this version of Persian people seems too similar to the content of Persian-speakers of Iran, it's just because Danz23 (nominator of this AfD), and SorenShadow, have tried to make it that way. Alefbe (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alefbe why are you making false claims? I have never edited this article, I just pointed out to the most obvious fact, that this article has the same content at Persian people and is thus a fork which violates the standards of wikipedia. Danz23 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Persian-speakers of Iran are an important sub-group of Persian people (with their own sub-culture). Tajiks, Hazaras and Farsiwans are examples of other sub-groups of Persian people and all of them have their own page (and they should have). The main reason that Danz23 wants to delete this page is because he is not happy with the content of Persian people and he doesn't like defining Persian people as an ethnolinguistic group (he wants to turn that page to a copy of what is now in the page Persian-speakers of Iran and then talk about their distinctive ethnic features and exclude other sub-groups whose mother tongue is also Persian, claiming that they are not pure Persians). Read the related discussion in talk:Persian people and look at the history of that page to see the nationalistic motivation of this proposal. Alefbe (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason that the title of that page is somehow odd is because the term Persians is very ambiguous and is used in different meanings, including all citizen of Iran (independent of their ethnicy), and all people whose mother tongue is Persian (independent of their country). Alefbe (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Persian-speakers of Iran are a sub-group of Persian people, so this page is needed. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep linguistically analyzing Iran's population is an appropriate topic in itself, so it isn't an improper content fork. I don't see any POV writing so it isn't a POV fork either. Them From Space 05:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Persian people or persians of iran are an ethnic group native to iran who speak farsi, persian speakers of iran may apply to all iranians since persian language is the only official/State language in iran. This article is created for political reasons.

I'm not surprised to see Alefbe and Kurdo777 here:) they are the ones who have hijacked persian people article. --Owen3050 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The distinction between Persian as a primary language and Persian ethnicity has not yet been made clear with supporting references either here or in Persian people. If it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the overwhelming consensus in peer-reviewed academic literature agrees with the unreferenced assertion in Persian people: "The Persian people are defined by the use of the Persian language as their mother tongue", then ~~this article~~ one or other of the articles is a POV fork. Until then, this separate article is worthwhile for covering one of several distinct linguistic groups in Iran, regardless of official recognition (or otherwise) by the present Iranian state. MuffledThud (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is that Persian-speakers comprise different sub-groups (with their own sub-culture) such as Tajiks, Hazaras, Farsiwans, Persian-speakers of Iran, ... . Whether Persian-speakers of Iran is the best title or not is a secondary issue and should be dealt in its own talk page. Alefbe (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment Danz23, SorenShadow and 4 other IDs (which are banned because of sock-puppetry) have been trying to change Persian people to a redundant copy of Persian-speakers of Iran, and now, Danz23 tries to delete Persian-speakers of Iran, claiming that it is a copy of Persian people. This shows the real motivation behind this AfD. Alefbe (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Danz is claiming these articles are incorrect because they are promoting "secesion from Iran". His editing violates Wikipedia's rules.Kalifo (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* It is obvious for all casual observers that this article is a is a content fork for the article Persian people, the content is identical but shorter. There is absolutly no content differenct as this articles content is not about Persian speakers in Iran (who by definition would include almost all peoples of Iran and would be best covered by the article farsi). This article just like the much longer article Persian people tries to define an ethnic group as a'n eclectic collection of groups with the Persian language being the main shared legacy”

The case is clear, it is an POV fork with an odd name, no reason not to delete this.

Also I see this article as a part of a larger political scheme in maintaining the myth that Persian ethnicity does not exist or is an indefinable groups of peoples. I have therefore opened this discussion to neutral thirld party observers with no political stake.

Danz23 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Persian People(persians) are refered to a group of people in modern day Iran according to online Dictionaries and all relaible Sites. This is what i got online from http://dictionary.babylon.com/persian adj. of or pertaining to Persia; from Persia (former name of modern-day Iran. According to Chambers online Dictionary : Persian adj relating to ancient Persia(southern Iran) or modern Iran, or to their people Culture or language(Farsi). Persians of Iran are never called Persian speakers!! I think this article should either be deleted or the title changed to Persian Speakers to accommodate other Dari-persian speakers in Afghanistan & central asia whom are never defined as Persian People.--Edinhu (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC) — Edinhu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.

RfC: Is this article an POV fork of the article Persian people?

{{rfctag|soc}}

Should this article 'Persian-speakers of Iran' be deleted or merged with the article Persian people? I think that it is a clear POV fork of the same article. I would be really helpful and constructive if neutral editors could compare the two and give us their opinion on the delete discussion page. Thanks

Danz23 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting out the RFC tag. RFCs last 30 days but AFD only 7. Use the appropriate talk page for this. Tim Song (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. basically for the lack of notability JForget 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galadriel Stineman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, "Looks like a copypaste of a previously deleted version which also consisted of a short, if not weak, reasoning for notability along with a copypaste of the subject's IMDb page." This'll be the third deletion for this article and nothing I've seen confers notability regarding this actress. treelo _radda 01:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 01:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Notability is a question, however the referencing is not sufficient for said article. IShadowed ✰ 06:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just gave it a rewrite, a minor cleanup, and added a couple sources. Perhaps someone else might wish to read through a few of the other such at HERE and HERE and join in adding some too? If an article can be improved through regular editing, I believe it should be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete: Google News only shows two pages of results and seems to backup the notability issue. Let the actress have a little more time before warranting a article. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. Does not meet WP:ENT. Algébrico (talk) 01:52, 9 December 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 03:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if what's said in the article was referenced beyond any doubt, there's no indication that any of that is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One might consider if the Ben 10 series has a cult following, thus bringing its actors notability through WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Comment AFD tags are not to be removed from articles before the AFD discussion is closed. No doubt with the best of intentions, User:WhatGuy set the article as a redirect on December 16 thus effectively removing the AFD tag and the article itself from easy review. Though a redirect might be a possible outcome of this AFD, I am reverting to the pre-redirect state until this discussion is closed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:37, 17 December 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 Fred Figglehorn. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas is Creepy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of references, I say Merge to Fred Figglehorn Jeremjay 24 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 05:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging looks like a good solution (and it doesn't require AfD)... LadyofShalott 05:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree. Seems to be the smart thing to do. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam 0083: Stardust Memory mobile weapons. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RGC-80 GM Cannon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about non-notable weapon. Black Kite 18:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should change non-notable to fictional in rationale, though. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 00:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either List of Mobile Suit Gundam 0083: Stardust Memory mobile weapons or RX-77 Guncannon. —Farix (t | c) 03:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 03:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Farix. Edward321 (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to the list. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam 0083: Stardust Memory mobile weapons - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 17 December 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) 14:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Variations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced piece of original research about non-notable topic that doesn't even appear to be defined properly. Black Kite 19:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So irrelevant there probably won't be many delete comments. Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Gundam which the publications are based off of. —Farix (t | c) 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable subject by itself but part of a notable subject so Merge --KrebMarkt 09:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the anime wiki http://www.anime-wiki.org or whatever other wiki there is for this stuff. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable even about the underlying issue Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 12 December 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) 14:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Land

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No multiple, independent sources establish the notability of this firm. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable business. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 12 December 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. Tone 22:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Klecker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined G3 speedy nominee. It appears to be truthful (a Barney Klecker apparently does exist) and makes a claim at notability, thus we end up here because I can't speedy it for even one bloody thing. I assert, however, that the notability claim is unsubstantiated, and will fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the claim to notability can be sourced: [30], [31], and [32] all back up claims in the article. Them From Space 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:ATHLETE ContinueWithCaution (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A holder of the US record in a 50 mile ultramarathon,[33] and 50 k mark as well,[34] is a top-level competitor. Kablammo (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references found by Them and Kablammo. National record holder (sourced) is notable. Vulture19 (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to second Vulture. Per references found by Them and Kablammo. National record holder (sourced) is notable. Teamtheo (talk) 03:47, 12 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petersburg Inn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this hotel. Joe Chill (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article formerly included File:Petersburg Inn.jpg, identified as "A news paper clipping of the Inn from the Youngstown Vindicator." If that image can be recovered and an acceptable fair use rationale added, then the inn's notability might be established. The bar on the site of the former inn has the same name, according to this YellowPages.com search. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. _{-- Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Weak delete - A quick browse of Google yeilded little hope for sourcing the claims in the article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A historic building that burned down 50 years ago. No Google presence. No indication that it has been declared historic by local authorities. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete can't find any good sources, could be an interesting article if there were some, and I would change my mind if someone came up with some, but as it stands the article should be deleted DRosin (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:59, 12 December 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) 14:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Price

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little evidence of independent, reliable sources to support any claims of notability as defined by WP:BIO. Heavily edited by two obviously related accounts with serious WP:COI issues. All sources in the article are either short, trivial mentions, or are published by the subject themselves OR by her employers, thus lack any indepence. Otherwise, this person does not appear to meet the minimum inclusion criteria as spelled out at WP:GNG. Jayron32 05:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references aren't that bad. The Word Magazine reference is brief, but not trivial. Airplay Monitors or Airplay Monitor may be defunct (I think it was merged into another magazine which in turn was merged into Billboard, which is notable), but appears to be a reliable source, since it was published by VNU. The position of program director of a major market radio station is like that of a newspaper or magazine editor - not inherently notable, but quite possibly notable. – Eastmain (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough reliable references to support claims. IShadowed ✰ 06:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable sourcing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources given do not seem notable and the apparent main point of notability of Price - her having "launched Toronto's first commercial, 24-hour R&B radio" - seems to have too little a scope. Having "launched" (what does it mean, by the way? is she the owner? the producer? did she do the advertisement for it?) a radio station of a particular genre in a particular city is an achievement for one's professional life, I suppose, but not from a global point of view. It is a bit like having published a book: for the author it is a great success, but it does not make him automatically notable. Goochelaar (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient sourcing. Dlabtot (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Depth of coverage not enough to support article. ttonyb (talk) 18:47, 13 December 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. NW (Talk) 04:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AVI Sound International

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

dePRODDED by article creator. This company does not meet WP:COMPANY at this time. While there are lots of web hits for product listings and the like, I can find no reliable, independent secondary sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Joe's delete !vote, I would like to withdraw this AfD as there is no clear consensus to delete, even after two relistings. Also, there are several product reviews that I was not aware of at the time I nominated it.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Did you try the website?. I have tidied the article up by removing the superfluous product listing, but have barely started on tracking down the various references. My plan, such as it is, is to add to the basic article as time permits, starting with links to press reviews. I am surprised and dismayed at some of the responses, and wondering if the many other small-scale speaker manufacturers on the list are subjected to the same barriers to entry. Howard Doctor (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics. I certainly have no desire to delete a useful article and would be happy to withdraw if some other neutral and more knowledgeable editors think there's a reason to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:54, 12 December 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) 05:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magis (Service Organization)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advert for non-notable college club; speedy nomination declined on grounds it was too old and should be taken to AfD. Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient references from reliable third party sources to pass WP:NN per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:44, 18 December 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) Tim Song (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. a couple of sentence of intro and then a long lists of the variants of the phrase. No references which discuss this concept in academic way. Xuz (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR, take any relevant quotes to their respective pages. This sounds like an essay. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstaining. BUT, if kept it should be reverted to a prev ver. Looks like a quote farm now, which was done by an IP-editor. Had more potential in its previous state, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's sourced. It's been used multiple times relating to the GFC bailouts. What does it mean that the article is "an essay". It's got words and sentences in it sure, but how could it not? Edit, do not delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.42.96 (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Doc Quintana, Hex. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ravensfire, how can you say delete per Hex when Hex does not recommend deletion? He is abstaining with a recommendation that the article, if kept, be reverted to an earlier, and better, version. I concur with that opinion. Frankly, the arguments for deletion are quite poor, as this is not an example of original research. The article, certainly in its better form, gave a number of examples of the term in use, or close variants of it. The article needs a great deal of work, but I do not think it qualifies for AfD. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agreed with his reasoning, but had my own preference for the action taken. The revamped version is much, much better. Ravensfire (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after revamp - useful and sourced. Ravensfire (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has now been re-worked it based on the version indicated by BigK HeX, plus further changes re-integrated and some re-wordings. (And it had been judged as keep when in very similar form, on October 29, 2008, see here.) Is not a case of original research. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a fairly well-known phrase with some significance in contemporary political and economic debates. Everyking (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous topic worth of its own article.--Sum (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to bailouts. This phrase is used quite often and the information on this article could go elsewhere.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the phrase by far does not refer only to bailouts, see examples in the article, so a merge with bailouts is not recommendable,. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:58, 18 December 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) 05:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AccelOps

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, author COI, possible sock/meat between only two proponents of the article. Every "reference" is to the company's own site, as are half of ELs. Other ELs link to PR rags. Speedy'd once, this is the same article re-pasted. Meatychode (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE; purely self-sourced references Fowartehlluz (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, self-promotional and non-notable. Lahnfeear (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong if this is just a re-paste of the original Speedy'd article...Lahnfeear (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, definitely re-posted the same content. Comment on re-creation of the article is: "Scottgwikip (talk | contribs) (4,822 bytes) (Re-posted as previous Speedy deletion nomination of AccelOps is unfounded...)" This probably should have just been Speedy'd again. Lahnfeear (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy; possible speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, at least one independent source or reference must be inserted --Rirunmot 22:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom.Sammael 42 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 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 Variation on a theme (disambiguation). MuZemike 17:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variation on a theme

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A loose, bruad, and vague essay around the subject. Original research. The references cited are in support of some detail, but they not discuss the term in question: variation on a theme. Xuz (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is such a major topic for art history, It doesn't make any sense to delete it.--Sum (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:This is the article's creator. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Having just had a similar experience with German art just before the Third Reich, a complete & unacknowledged copy of the relevant section of German art, I imagine all this has been copied from somewhere by the "creator" (who makes the previous comment). He says it is about art history, but all the content is about literature. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you may feel 'hurt' if your contributions (which I appreciate), are used in other articles. But this is part of wikipedia. And it's infantile to transfer your spite to deletion requests like this one.--Sum (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it is rubbish which should be removed. Where did it come from? I note your comment on my talk page "As far as I know, there is no explicit credit when material is copied within wikipedia itself" - see WP:SPLIT. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of copying: "Shakespeare uses the same kind of opening monologue so common in Plautus’s plays. He even uses a “villain” in The Comedy of Errors of the same type as the one in Menaechmi" comes from Drama, "He was not content to rest solely on a loyal adaptation that, while amusing, was not new or engaging for Rome. Plautus took what he found" is a copyvio from here -the book at 2, "Shakespeare uses the same kind of opening monologue so common in Plautus’s plays. He even uses a “villain” in The Comedy of Errors of the same type as the one in Menaechmi.." is copied from Plautus, and so on. The whole article is a magpie combination of snippets from somewhere else, which is why it makes no sense. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no doubt that it would be possible to write an encyclopedia article on the general concept of variation on a theme as it applies across all of the arts, but I don't see this as a useful basis on which to write such an article. This article has no sourced information about the concept, but only a list of examples in literature. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant addition to the article: I've just added a ref, from Stanford scholars, which testimonies how the expression variation on a them has been extensively used in legal disputes about art plagiarism.--Sum (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source describes an artist developing a theme that was present in one of his earlier works. The issue of copyright arose because the the artist had sold the reproduction rights to the earlier image. The courts eventually decided that there was no breach of copyright. The case has nothing whatsoever to do with plagiarism - an artist can't plagiarise his own work.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have to wonder if this editor's WP contributions are intended as an illustration of this concept. If so, WP:POINT might apply. As to whether this is a valid topic, I believe it is (though broad), but the problem is, as Johnbod points out, that whole sections are appropriated elsewhere. I also have had the same experiences with this editor on German art just before the Third Reich, and so will abstain from voting. Lithoderm 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it is a specific topic only in music, which of course this article ignores. The literary things the article actually covers are just similarities in plot or story structure. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'Variation on a theme' refers to music and an article on Variation (music) already exists. The application of the term to Shakespeare is original research. That the term is applied in sources to the visual arts makes no difference. It's just a phrase that has entered common usage. Musical metaphors and analogies are often used in art criticism. According to Art in America, Amadeo de Souza Cardoso's Stronghold (1912), "Is a stunning riff on Cubism with Art Nouveau undertones."[35] That doesn't make riff a term with a specific art historical meaning. It's just a word - and 'variation on a theme', outside of music, is just a phrase. I'm refraining from voting delete in case anyone wants to make this an interesting article about music.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OR...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Variation (music), which is what anyone typing this phrase into the search bar is likely to be looking for. — Gwalla | Talk 17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Variation on a theme (disambiguation). Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Variation on a theme (disambiguation). Lithoderm 23:19, 18 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Wikipedia

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Original research; no third-party refs. Nothing improved for 2 years since the first nomination. - Altenmann >t 00:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Nomination withdrawn after finally someone got some respect to do a descent page. - Altenmann >t 21:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is stunning. OutlawSpark (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indifference is stunninng. - Altenmann >t 21:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not in favor of merging every article about every different language wikipedia into one article. because i think wikipedia itself is notable and should have a page on wikipedia, and subpage organization makes sense.--Milowent (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Milowent. Joe Chill (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not every website is notable: claiming that a specific language's edition of Wikipedia is notable because Wikipedia is notable is effectively a claim that the edition is inheriting notability from Wikipedia in general. Nyttend (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 3 references and see there are more that could be added. This wikipedia is covered in almost 30 other language wikipedias. This AfD is absurd.--Milowent (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you been before? Do we have to put on afd every unreferenced article until someone skilled in czech language bothers to add refs? - Altenmann >t 21:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha. that's a good question. i realize your nomination was in good faith, but i am not actually skilled in czech language, just used google translate and some tricks i have picked up. one of which is that wikipedia is spelled slightly differently in czech. i think the english wikipedia is far more into the "improve" stage of seeking references as compared to other wikipedias.--Milowent (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do seem to have an article on all the major-language Wikipedias (and some minor-language ones). See Category:Wikipedias by language. No reason to exclude the Czech Wikipedia. Yes, I know, "other stuff exists", but the precedent seems to have been established. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 22:58, 12 December 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 USS Ranger. And delete. Sandstein 07:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USSRanger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional Star Trek starship that doesn't even have a Memory Alpha article, see, for example, here. Author removed prod. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is already a wikipedia page for real naval ships, USS Ranger. Even the article itself uses a space between USS and Ranger. Googling USS Ranger turns up naval ships. Racepacket (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to USS Ranger as a {{R from mispelling}} 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do what 76.66.192.35 tells you. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 22:52, 12 December 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. JForget 15:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Film Music Critics Association

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. All references in the article are from the group's own site (after I removed one which pointed to a dead link). Perhaps a notation in List of film awards would be enough? otherl left 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This organisation seems to be trying to make itself notable; but it fails. The film critics on its list of members appear to be totally unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, I cannot find significant coverage for this organization or its awards. Delete all articles about the awards and the organization itself. Angryapathy (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - main focus of their activity are the awards which have resulted in almost no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I am not sure how to take part in this discussion, but I suppose this is the place? Who decides whether or not an organization is "non-notable" or its members "totally unknown"? There are numerous independent sources online to verify the validity of the Wikipedia article: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. -- Moviescore (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck searching for information. What makes it tricky is that we can't use the press releases, blog posts, or publicity bios because they don't pass the standard for verifiability. We need sources that have some kind of editorial review (like articles released through major media outlets, as opposed to reprinted news releases) to prove it meets the standards of notability, as well.--otherl left 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete People, people. Are you seriously doubting the validity of the IFMCA and its members? I cannot understand the lack of any arguments whatsoever and put your comments in a logical and mature context no matter how hard i tried. If you are in any way actually involved with the film music area, you'd be already very well familar with the websites, magazines, webzines, blogs and organizations we represent such as: BSO Spirit (directly attached and responsible for the UBEDA film festivals, the highly successful and highly popular event amidst the circle of film music composers and professionals who also attend each year), Music From the Movies which is one of the oldest, boldest and still leading film music publications and sources, Soundtrack Net and ScoringSessions.com, possibly the most popular film music website after filmtracks, speaking of which - filmtracks itself, the most well-known film music destination for years, scoremagacine (head and organization committee of the highly popular and CD-released SONCINEMAD Madrid International Film Music festivals that took place in 2006 and 2007 with Trevor Jones and Alan Silvestri in concerts respectively, still continuing with future plans), TrackSounds one of the most active and varicolored major film music destinations to date and also one of the oldest and still strong and the same applies to scorereviews - maintitles.net, the bold Movie Music UK and of course the no.1 film music related website / releasing label and institution in the world, FSM (Film Score Monthly (USA), Ryan Keaveney's Cinemusic, easily one of the 'classics' in the film music modern history, more labels likeBSX, one of the leads in the film music releasing industry and of course the MovieScore Media that does a fantastic job promoting and releasing new and notable film music from upcoming bright talents in the genre, Southall's moviewave, filmmusicmag.com and other major film music websites, radios, and 'zines / publications of all kinds involving extremely well-knon professionals of the industry from the ENTIRE WORLD. I won't tire you with more copy-pastes, you can find it all here (http://filmmusiccritics.org/members/ - IFMCA's about page). THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ABOVE ARE UNFORTUNATELY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNPROFESSIONAL. MOST IMPORTANTLY THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR IN A WEBSITE LIKE WIKIPEDIA WHICH GATHERS AND LISTS INFORMATIVE DATA FROM THE ENTIRE WORLD. I really hope this matter will be taken into account and be taken care of the soonest possible as it's an insult to the organization and their members, who constitute a significant percentage of the film music population.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) 08:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC) — Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no third-party evidence of notability. Xuz (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean other than the twelve examples provided by Moviescore above? --JonBroxton (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor was correct - none of those examples are third-party. They are press releases, blog posts, and publicity materials which are all self-published.--otherl left 03:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If someone can find some good secondary sources, this could become a valuable article. But I haven't seen any independent substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Genuine question: what kind of secondary sources? I mean, if official composer biographies, articles on the webites of some of the world's largest performing rights organizatons (ASCAP, PRS), one of the world's major recording studios (Abbey Road), and a positive pieces from a major Australian film website singing about the fact that one of their composers was nominated isn't enough - what is? A cursory google search of "International Film Music Critics Association" reveals 756,000 results. The acronym IFMCA gets 20,700 results. There have to be enough secondary sources in those 776,700 pages to warrant saving the articles. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you have with the links provided is biographies which are written in order to make the people sound more impressive - that's what promotional writing is all about. Sources showing that the awards have been covered by major news organizations would be much better, because those media have an editorial staff which verifies the info, and they are known to be reliable. In general, if the person writing the info is the same one making the decision to publish it, it's not a reliable source. Have the shows been on Entertainment Tonight, in the New York Times, or even listed in an encyclopedia of pop culture? (That last one wouldn't necessarily be a good source, but if it exists it probably could point to some good ones.)--otherlleft 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, what about something like this [48] from The Australian, or here [49], published on the IMDB's daily news page. Also, your comment about 'biographies which are written in order to make the people sound more impressive' - surely the fact that many extremely high-profile composers have chosen to add the information to their biographies makes the organization and its awards MORE notable, not less... if the organization and its awards were not notable and the film critics on its list of members were totally unknown (as the original nominator contends), surely the composers would not include it on a publication intended to make them sound better? In each of the examples I just gave, the person writing the info was never the same one making the decision to publish it. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question Are the awards it gives considered here as evidence of notability? if so , the organization is also. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, here's the thing. In the interest of full disclosure, I confirm that I am a member of this organization. I am a film music critic, and have been for 10 years. This is my website: [50]. I am fully aware that, technically, this makes me in violation of WP:COI, but if you actually read the article(s) in question you will see that the information presented there is unbiased, and simply states that the organization exists, and outlines what it does, with no bias. I have been an editor here for long enough to know how to write an article that does not contravene Wiki's core policies. Furthermore, I completely understand Wiki's core policy of WP:V, and understand why the articles have been nominated. The problems I have is this: The organization clearly exists. We're sort of like Online Film Critics Society, but with a specific focus on music written for film; as such, we're a niche organization within the cinema world. The problem, really, is to do with the fact that the only third party coverage we get is when we do our annual awards, and then we get a LOT of publicity, but by the very nature of the publicity itself it is limited in its scope to the Awards. We announce our nominees, and then lots of other people connected to the industry re-disseminate the information. What I'm trying to understand is how that makes the organization non-notable. If media outlets directly related to the film music industry, performing rights organizations, composers, film and video game websites, record labels and so on all deem this information to be notable and worth re-disseminating, why is none of this valid in the eyes of Wikipedia? Beyond the initial press release produced by the IFMCA, none of the subsequent reports on the nominations are done by members of the IFMCA; they are all independent the group, published by others who deem our nominations notable enough to highlight.

Another problem I've seen is the "I've never heard of it so it must not be notable" argument(which used to have a WP: shortcut but I can't find it now); as Christodoulidesd said above, the members of the group, and the websites and publications associated with those members, are VERY notable in the context of film music criticism. Again, to draw parallels with the Online Film Critics Society, IFMCA members are of equal standing, but they write about film music specifically, rather than "films". What I'm basically, trying to say is "help" - I am willing to work on sourcing, referencing, and anything else that will bring the articles up to WP:N standards, as I think it would be a shame if these articles were deleted. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple issues. First, any wacko can hand out awards. If the sockpuppet Christodoulidesd is any indication, this is indeed just some wacko. And I really dislike the all caps yelling. Second off, the article is not formatted in a way comprobale to awards that people care about, in that WP is not a list, but this article is. If the organization was notable, people who cared to look could find the list elsewhere. Look towards the above link for what I am talking about. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Christodoulidesd isn't a sockpuppet. He's a film music journalist from Greece who was subject to a case of mistaken identity. Secondly; so, you're saying that it's a formatting issue? If that's the case, then if the article was re-formatted to look lke the Golden Globes would that be a step in the right direction? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete, as stated by other parties, the IFMCA is a solid and completely official entity with strong connections within the film industry. Film music encompasses all manner of technicalities pertaining to the art form, to say that this is not a reputable or legit association is detrimental to an ever thriving industry, which relies upon positive word of mouth and internet community awareness in addition to the other key forms of media. The IFMCA seeks to encourage film music awareness and issue awards and credits where and when due. The association has no secret agenda of profiteering initiatives, it is a recognised body that only seeks to work with the film music industry, encompassing all aspects, for positive reasons. Members of the IFMCA work in radio, press and in some cases work for long established film music related organisations, like Film Score Monthly, Music From the Movies, Moviescore Media, On the Score, Varese Sarabande to name but a few and have solid connections with many film studios and their affiliates. I hope the need to defend the IFMCA's presence on Wikipedia will cease with haste. Thank you for your attention. (Timjburden (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. None of t he opposers have succeeded in demonstrating that this is notable organisation per our criteria. The article is lightly promotional and is lightly sourced to boot, so time to call time. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm amazed that people still consider this group non-notable. Poorly sourced, yes. The articles certainly need to be brought up to standard with additional citations. But non-notable? Has anyone actually done a Google search? I'm serious... type "International Film Music Critics Association" and "IFMCA" into Google and tell me what you find. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:17, 18 December 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. MuZemike 17:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pisg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable Perl script. It has one third-party reference, which briefly explains and then uses this script in a how-to, so the reference is not really about the script and not really significant. Notability needs multiple and significant third party references. As a note to the closing admin, this was redirect to Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and a redirect should exist after close. An additional note about this reference book, which a lot of articles in this subject area seem to rely on - the book is titled IRC Hacks, maybe there should be an umbrella article on this concept instead of dozens of stub articles that will never grow. Miami33139 (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Weak keep - Article has potential, has references and seems to be more than a "perl script". ContinueWithCaution (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to pisg (IRC), redirect pisg to Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, put a {{for}} on Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. pisg (the program) is a standard package included in many Linux distributions, including Gentoo, Debian, and Fedora Core, to name a few, which I think gives it some measure of notability. By the by, that a program is written in Perl does not make it any less notable, simply by that criterion, than a program written in a "non-scripting language", though I'm sure that's not what the nominator intended by the words "non-notable Perl script". — flamingspinach | (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most Linux distros contain several thousand standard packages. That does not make them notable. What makes it notable is significant attention from multiple third-party sources. Miami33139 (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage of this software app does not amount to multiple non-trivial. We are not a directory of Linux packages, nor should we be. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Move to pisg_(Software) I found an additional third party reliable source that cites pisg [51][52]. It's also found it on many reliable sites including rpmfind[53], sourceforge[54], Gentoo[55], ubuntu[56], debian[57] and many more I am sure. I agree, the article does need improvement, but DOES NOT warrant delete. --Hm2k (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to discredit these "references" but they're not really references. Hm2k, do you realize that the first and second links are the same? The second is just a subset of the first, with exactly the same verbiage. Its the equivalent of a C|Net download.com link. As for the rest, in what way are those possibly considered "non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources"? They're just links for installation packages. None of this confers notability in the encyclopedic sense. JBsupreme (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apology accepted, I will also overlook your ignorance and your attempt to discredit me this time, just don't do it again. --Hm2k (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the non-answer. You have established verifiability, to be sure, but not notability. JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is already established by the book reference that already exists on the article.[58]. See pages 49 to 52, the section entitled "Study channel statistics with pisg". I am sure you'll agree that notability cannot be disputed here. --Hm2k (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is not established. The book is not about pisg, the book is about IRC hacks. The book contains dozens of how-to guides, this does not make dozens of notable concepts. A single how-to recipe using a piece of software in a single book that is not about the software does not confer notability. I have dozens of cookbooks advocating specific brand names for ingredients and the authors are very specific about the brand names and models of their kitchen equipment. These do not confer notability on those brand name ingredients and kitchen utensils. Software does not have special standards from other consumer products. Miami33139 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't really care for your opinion. According to WP:N it's notable. Let's stick to the guidelines. --Hm2k (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The guideline requires multiple sources that are non-trivial. By the guideline, this is not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are either confused or deliberately being ignorant. In good faith I will clarify:

Pisg has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article:

PircBot 1.2.5 Java IRC API: have fun with Java. (non-trivial mention, verifiability)
Users and Channels: Study Channel Statistics with pisg (non-trivial section in a published book, notability)
pisg in Gentoo (non-trivial inclusion, notability)
pisg in Ubuntu (non-trivial inclusion, notability)
pisg in debian (non-trivial inclusion, notability)
pisg in fedora (non-trivial inclusion, notability)
pisg in freebsd (non-trivial inclusion, notability)
pisg on freshmeat.net (non-trivial project page, notability)
pisg on sourceforge.net (non-trivial project page, notability)
pisg on ohloh.net (non-trivial project page, notability)
pisg mention on Advogato in PircBot article (trivial mention, verifiability)
pisg mention on linuxreviews.org in Irssi article (trivial mention, verifiability)
Top Ten Tricks and Tips for New IRC Users by Paul Mutton / mentions pisg (trivial mention, verifiability)
US-CERT.gov: United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team: PISG IRC Nick Cross-Site Scripting (non-trivial security report, notability)
pisg - Script injection (non-trivial security report, notability)
securitytracker: pisg IRC Statistics Generator Input Validation Flaw in 'nick' Lets Remote Users Conduct Cross-Site Scripting Attacks (non-trivial security report, notability)
securityfocus: PISG IRC Nick HTML Injection Vulnerability (non-trivial security report, notability)
xforce: pisg nick cross-site scripting (non-trivial security report, notability)
secunia: pisg Script Insertion Vulnerability (non-trivial security report, notability)
osvdb: pisg Nick XSS (non-trivial security report, notability)
#haskell @ freenode.org stats (usage, verifiability)
#uw @ rougueUW stats (usage, verifiability)
#perl @ freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
#joomla @ freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
#apache @ freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
#fedora-ambassadors @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
#PortableApps.com @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
#twiki @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
#gentoo @ freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
#wikipedia-en @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
#fedora (Weekly Stats) @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
#dosbox @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
#rhel @ freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
ChanStat service using pisg (usage, verifiability)
various channel stats by kakurady (usage, verifiability)

--Hm2k (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, blogs, undergrads making stats and download/source code distribution sites. We know it exists. We know Linux distros include it. We know people use it. What makes this an encyclopedic topic? Wikipedia is not a directory of everything. Miami33139 (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so you admit that it is ignorance then. For your convenience I have now clearly outlined exactly what makes these encyclopedic in brackets after the link. NONE of these are blogs; the usage examples are notable for the channels they are generated for, not by whom they are created; the multiple OS inclusion demonstrates that this is a notable piece of software. This addresses all of your concerns. Further more, please read WP:NOTDIR, as per your comment, which clearly does not apply here. An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge. --Hm2k (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the sources show verifiability, not notability. (except for the book source) Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide evidence to support your claim? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book I added to this article as a reference is a reliable source and meets the criteria required by the notability guideline.
Mutton, Paul (2004-07-27). "Users and Channels: Study Channel Statistics with pisg". IRC Hacks (1st ed.). Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. pp. 49 –&#32, 52. ISBN 0-596-00687-X.
Miami33139 makes claims such as "It has one third-party reference, which briefly explains and then uses this script in a how-to, so the reference is not really about the script and not really significant." and "Notability needs multiple and significant third party references." in the AfD nomination, both of which are false. The notability guideline also does not state what Miami33139 claims it does, and this is not the first time Miami33139 has made these claims. Miami33139 nominated this article for deletion strictly for retaliation and harassment purposes and on September 30, 2009, attempted a backdoor deletion by redirecting both the article [59] and its talk page [60] (the talk page being redirected in an attempt to defeat the bot that notifies WikiProjects). Examples of related prior AfD nominations where Miami33139 has attempted to discredit other reliable sources, including published works include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRCH, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitchX, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeeChat (2nd nomination) (among others).
The patterns of disruptive and tendentious editing by Miami33139 are disruptive to the efforts of editors who are attempting to improve Wikipedia and those behaviours need to stop. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources found are trivial, not reliable, or enough to establish WP:N for this software. 16x9 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Define 'trivial', most are "reliable sources" according the wikipedia's guidelines. --Hm2k (talk) 19:57, 18 December 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 nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. Discussion regarding merge/redirect should take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STS-135

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable violation of WP:CRYSTAL, paraphrasing and other sourcing issues. Colds7ream (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into STS-3xx, since it describes a contingency version of STS-335. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to STS-3xx. Right now mostly unsourced speculation and original research by Tennisuser123 . Hektor (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep - Admittedly this is tough. STS-135 does exist. It is not a flown mission, nor a planned mission; it is however a planning construct -- an alternative being given consideration. Because the Space Shuttle program operates so much in the public view, there are multiple sources which, taken cumulatively, adequately attest to the existence of STS-135 in that sense. The article needs to make all that clear in its lede, and above all avoid WP:CRYSTAL claims! (sdsds - talk) 05:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Opposing my own proposal! :-D) The article has been expanded greatly since I put up this AfD, and, so long as content selection is careful, this will probably be a keeper. Colds7ream (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable possible mission. Clearly there are sources to support this. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I keep my initial position. Redirect - despite rewriting, no source whatsoever is provided in the article (and for good reasons, there has been no information from NASA about such a mission) so no proof that this is not speculation from the authors or original research. Hektor (talk) 14:38, 18 December 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Pulse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Independent sources are not in the article showing its notable Cynof Gavuf 12:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Sourced only by band's own sites and not any reliable sources independent of the subject. Sebwite (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily. Deb (talk) 13:01, 15 December 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) 14:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Varone

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nom'd due to:

The lack of usable sources in this Google News search
The creating editor's lack of credibility (his original version claimed she was his wife)
Her not having an article on it.wikipedia.org—it's been deleted at least 13 times
Its orphan status
Its complete lack of content stating why she's notable
Its complete lack of references
The lack of any coverage of her (web pages, blog posts or otherwise) that say anything besides "She's a hot Italian woman"—fine, but WP doesn't need an article on every hot Italian (male or female).

"Lots of Ghits" is not a reason to keep an article, so let's not go there, okay? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. No reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why she doesn't have an article on the Italian Wikipedia, because there appear to be plenty of sources about her in Google News, albeit almost all of them in Italian: [61]. Surely some of our Italian-speaking editors (of which we have thousands here at the English Wikipedia) should be able to put together a legitimate article based on these references. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Metropolitan90. I'm sure some of the sources from google news could at the very least assert notability. Could maybe even expand the article with them. If, that is, there is an Italian-speaking editor willing to help (there probably is), Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. There are lots of news Ghits in Italian, and there is certainly a lot of junky, unreliable Ghits. For the tens of thousands of possible sources (Ghits), at least some must be reliable; with smoke there must be fire. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:BEFORE didn't I do?

✓ Read & understand DEL

✓ Read the article & review its history

✓ Tag the article if needed

✓ See if it can be merged or redirected

✓ Check Special:Whatlinkshere/Sara Varone

✓ Check interlanguage links

✓ Read the talk page

✓ Read NOTE, BIO, CREATIVE, ENTERTAINER etc.

✓ Confirm no sourcing exists

✓ Confirm it can't be fixed through normal editing

I also note that BEFORE is not a reason to keep an article, but rather, a comment about the nominator/nomination. If you have an issue with me or my editing, please take it elsewhere; this isn't the place for it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of the editors !voting keep, none have added reliable sources to the article, nor have they given any valid rationales, nor have they stated which notability criteria she meets. Simply adding a link to IMDB or stating she's notable doesn't help.
I don't have an issue with this article existing, but I do think it shouldn't exist unless it contains references verifying that she's notable and why. In this case, I think that we should take our cue from the Italians; if they don't have a it:Sara Varone article, I don't see why we should. Given the number of times they've deleted attempts to create one and the utter lack of English-language sources, I'm just not seeing that there's a basis for an article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets news coverage so meets requirements for having an article. Eventually someone may expand the stub article. Dream Focus 06:46, 14 December 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) Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tulipamwe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete. Not notable, had considered nominating it myself. The other article created by this account, Mikko_Ijäs, is probably also not notable.Litho derm 12:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed vote per impressive research by Tyrenius. Lithoderm 16:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Lithoderm 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. Fails WP:ORG. Joe Chill (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful addition to wikipedia's meagre coverage of arts in Africa. It has international recognition as part of the Triangle Network.[62] Partners and sponsors include Standard Bank Namibia, Goethe-Zentrum Windhoek/NaDS, Franco Namibian Cultural Centre, Swiss Arts Council (Prohelvetia), Ford Foundation, Willamette University, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland, University of Art and Design Helsinki.[63] There is a book about it published by the University of Namibia.[64] Its International Artists' Exhibitions 1994 and 1995 are listed in the History of the National Art Gallery of Namibia.[65] Here's an event with the Goethe Institute.[66] SOAS lists Tulipamwe as one of the Triangle workshops which are "a significant vehicle for informal art education, providing otherwise unavailable opportunities for artists."[67] Ty 17:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a Google Books search reveals several secondary sources that establish well enough the notability of the project. Ewulp (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Google Book search. Ty 05:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, seems worthwhile and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ty, but really this is much too long, & skirts extremely close to a copyvio of the website, when you poke around there. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 17 December 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. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpop

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created 2005 but still only a stub: failing to grow and possibly non-notable. Most edits have been to do with maintenance and categorization rather than substance. Jubilee♫clipman 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, and because the article does not establish widespread useage of the term.RadManCF (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 06:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure whether this isn't just a neologism. Looking for uses in the news, there's nothing this year, although just because a term isn't used doesn't mean it wasn't notable. I don't think use is widespread enough at any point for it to be included. Fol de rol troll (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a minor WP:NEOLOGISM that has never caught on. --Glenfarclas (talk) 01:23, 16 December 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 2012 (film). MuZemike 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Frost

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like there is not enough substantial coverage yet to meet requirements for WP:GNG or WP:FICT. Character seems to be at the center of the viral marketing campaign for the film 2012, but still not enough coverage to mandate his own page. WP:INHERITED. SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't necessary, and somebody looking for the 2012 movie won't be searching for Charlie Frost only. --68.225.205.147 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be a very big character either. fetchcomms☛ 05:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get it off, the sooner, the better, otherwise you'll be awash in "profiles" of D-list characters from crappy movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.126.246 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing out there to say that he's a bigger character than Curtis Jackson, and we don't have an article about him. (Note: the link is to John Cusack.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: There was no good reason to nominate this for deletion. The film is notable, a redirect from a character name to a film to the film itself is entirely reasonable and desirable. This is a waste of time. - BalthCat (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In fact it appears that's how I'm connected to this AfD. (I was poked.) I created it as a redirect to the film. - BalthCat (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why delete it? I am often irritated when I try to find additional information about characters in movies/tv shows/books, and I instead find that some uptight editor who is painfully unfamiliar with what Wikepedia is not has rolled all 95 characters into one bland, unfocused and non-detailed article. Why should every character be in one article? It's not as though we have to fit this encyclopedia all in one book. Make the article better so that the uptight editors are satisfied. Already there is more information contained in this profile than would be feasible to place in the 2012 article, so we should just go with it rather than deleting someone else's work. Dragonnas (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why not add an article for Curtis Jackson as well? Wikipedia should be bigger and better, not the opposite. Dragonnas (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I already stated above why I think there are grounds for deletion. In a nutshell you could say that it's almost entirely written from an in-universe persepctive, and there is not enough "real world" coverage of the character to make it meet the requirements in the guidelines I posted in the nomination. Calling a nominator/editor(s) "uptight", and claiming that every character should have a their own page free from the main article simply because the character exists or that Wikipedia should include more (or everything) are not enough reasons to rouse any notability for this character. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calling a person who displays uptight behaviour uptight is not an ad hominem attack. It is an identification of behaviour. I disagree of your citing of WP:ADHOM because I feel that it is used itself as an Ad hominem attack in this circumstance. Your ability to cite wiki project guidelines does not invalidate my statement. While I agree with your citing of WP:BHTT and I was unaware of that guideline, your citation of WP:ITEXISTS is in my opinion without merit. The character of Charlie Frost is neither more nor less notable than the movie he is in. If the movie is notable, then the characters in that movie derive their notability or lack thereof solely from said movie. I disagree with your citation of WP:EVERYTHING for the same reason, in fact it seems like those two guidelines are essentially the same rule when used for this purpose. I'm sorry if my respectful disagreement with your opinion comes across like an ad hominem attack, but that latin statement itself does not make my opinion invalid. Dragonnas (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the film at the least, at about the same length, in a proper characters section if not worth a main article. There would never be a reason not to have a redirect for a significant character in an important movie. Note that mentioning all the other fictional characters we don;t have articles on is as much an argument for writing those articles as deleting this one. But it does not matter as much whether we have it as a separate article or not, as that we have the information. The listing in the main article is totally insufficient. If the people working in that area have a guideline that prohibits adequate sections for the characters, then merge to a separate characters article, or decide that the guideline -- which is totally opposed to what we do for other forms of fiction--does not have the general consensus of the community. If we cannot obtain consensus on one of these as a general issue, then the alternatives are to remove the information or have many otherwise unnecessary separate articles. since we're a general encyclopedia, not a condensed and idiosyncratic guide to the movies, then the choice has to be to retain the information in whatever form necessary. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a second look...if not deleted, I think a redirect would be the next best option. Either way, there is no need for this article: The 2012 page already contains the same real world information that is explained in the nominated article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect - Charlie is a major character in the film but should not have his own article, due to the fact that we would have to write about 20 stubs just to cover everyone in the film that plays a major part. I propose we merge these characters, including Charlie, into a new article (perhaps Major characters in 2012?) and turn this article into a redirect to the characters' article. Of course, we could also do a characters section in the film's article. However, I would do anything but get rid of this information as Charlie, once again, plays a major part in the movie. 7OA chat 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Random characters in random films don't warrant an article of their own. Important characters in established franchises do, but simply being in a film doesn't mean you deserve one. It makes the encyclopedia sort of, well, uneven, to randomly include articles about stuff when other things that are equally notable don't. This article simply isn't notable enough in my opinion.220.239.227.28 (talk) 10:05, 13 December 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) 05:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The balde

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. I can't find any reliable coverage of the magazine to suggest it would pass WP:GNG. That said, I can't pretend to be able to conduct a proper search for material in Basque, so there may be Basque sources that establish the magazine's notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I couldn't find many internet sources in Basque or Spanish (both languages I speak). The best appears to be this one in Spanish, but it is at best a tentative reliable source. According to this article in Berria, the magazine received money from the Basque Government in 2003. This seems like a good candidate for merge, but I can't find an appropriate article to merge to. — æk ^Talk 19:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't really find any sources for it in English and the other language wiki that it is on also has used no sources. Fol de rol troll (talk) 01:00, 13 December 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) 05:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Caught Myself

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not released as a single, full of false information. Nowyouseeme (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 06:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't feel that the song fulfills any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Fol de rol troll (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not because it wasn't a single, but because there's no non-trivial coverage for this song. This is the best I could find, and that's not enough. Further, I can find nothing to confirm this song ever charted (and interestingly, "I Caught Myself" is not listed on the band's discography page). This does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 23:51, 13 December 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.

[1] [68]

[2] [69]

[3] [70]

[1]

[2]

[3]