Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 2

< 1 December	3 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 speedy delete. Acroterion _(talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Fyfe's Italy Article

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

OR, POV and some kid's homewaork task Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:18, 2 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 deleted WP:BALLS. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arham Aftab

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

Entirely non-notable, and much of the article appears ficticious (e.g. he's only 14? He's won 13 awards?? Madman (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:V, assertion of notability appears to be hoax as it is copied from another article with the numbers and names changed. snigbrook (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be correct: Mike Portnoy is the article you're referring to, right? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non notable at best. Hoax at worst. It seems to be this kid making a fake little Wikipedia entry for himself. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – My B.S. detector is flashing after seeing this article. The name of his supposed band alone gives it away. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per Hunter Kahn.
Delete. The article certainly is unreferenced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marked for speedy - this may even be an attack ("The Retards").--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:42, 3 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 deleted under CDS G3. — Edokter • Talk • 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land Before Time XIV

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

This is a hoax. No google hits, not on imdb. All the actors that are supposivelly in this movie movie have no news that there will appear in this film.Coasttocoast (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Obvious hoax. Absolutely no secondary sources out there for this supposed film. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 01:43, 3 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. Per WP:SNOW. There's no way that consensus is going to change from keep. It has charted as of three days ago, a day after the nomination. Fences&Windows 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speechless (Lady Gaga song)

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

Delete due to a failure of WP:NSONGS, which says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable". This song does not pass any of this criteria. The vast majority of the sources here do not refer to the song in its own right, but are retracted from reviews of The Fame Monster album, leaving the song as notable as any other song on the album and not deserving of its own article. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The song has been performed a number of times. The critical notability of this song and the fact that it has received widespread media coverage is what makes it notable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The song hasn't charted and most of the references are in relation to the parent article, showing no individual notability. As an observer of the Lady Gaga articles for some time, it does seem that articles appear to crop up regularly that often get deleted. Dale 22:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The song has charted now. Not to be going on about WP:WAX, but if this one is deleted, so would Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song). --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no proof of independent notability outside of the album and accompanying Bad Romance performances. Bravedog (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Accompanying "Bad Romance" performances? "Speechless" was the primary performances in AMAs and Ellen. Weird point. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the main contributor of said article. Your continual arguments are becoming distruptive and pedantic - please make your points in one !vote and refrain from continual distruption. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please refrain from WP:NPA. I can argue and make points as long as I want. You cannot possibly stop me from making logical points. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The key to the portion of WP:NSONGS the nominator cites is "are probably notable". In other words, just because it doesn't fit any of those criteria doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't warrant an article. The very next sentence in WP:NSONGS after that one is, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Obviously, in this case, there is plenty of verifiable material to warrant an entry, and the article is already reasonably detailed. WP:NSONGS also points out that the song must meet basic notability guidelines and coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article also meets those standards: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting WP:OTHERCRAP for a moment; surely almost every song on Thriller (album) has recieved the same coverage (it being probably the most critically acclaimed album ever) but still The Lady in My Life (1,180,000,000 hits) and Baby Be Mine (898,000 hits) are left article-less. The same can be said for MANY unreleased songs by The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and other acts who have whole books written on single albums. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. But personally, I'd rather see those articles get made (with the appropriate reliable secondary sources) than this one get deleted. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All of the sources provided absolutely establish the notability of Lady Gaga and The Fame Monster, however notability of this individual song has not been established. SnottyWong talk 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to go too crazy defending this article, but out of curiousity, what elements of the general notability guideline do you feel are not satisfied? The five main criteria are 1) significant coverage, 2) reliable, 3) sources, 4) independent of the subject and 5) presumed. To me, it seems they are all satisfied... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another recent Lady Gaga AfD nom, Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song), survived despite the most significant "coverage" being an About.com posting that pretty much consists solely of an image. I realize that the song charted, but charted songs are only "probably notable", not "definitely notable" enough to warrant an article, especially if there's virtually zero coverage. My point is not to violate WP:OTHERCRAP, but just to point out that by comparison, "Speechless" has a wealth of information about it, particularly citation 4, which is entirely about the song. Granted, the majority of the other references provide just passing mentions (not even 1 sentence in some instances; as many as 3 sentences in a few instances). My bottom line is, as WP:NSONGS states, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Indeed, I would consider this article to be reasonably detailed, and so I'm in favor of keeping this. As for those songs on Thriller that don't have articles...if enough information exists, I'm all for their creation, as well. Gongshow ^Talk 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Way passes WP:NSONG. And as for WP:N, the song has already charted at sixty on Billboard's Hot Digital Songs chart and entered at ninety-four on the Hot 100. Wait for Billboard to update their website. do you need any other notability? :D --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ^Izzedine 03:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom's deletion has been contested. So please explain your disapproval more detailed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These article defenately passes, it have more information than most articles of number-one hits. And don't worry about the song not charting in any country, the digital sales last week guarantee that it will debut tomorrow on the Billboard Hot 100. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not guess what will happen in the future. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case its a fail again as the song has already charted on the Billboard Hot 100. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If every Pink Floyd song can get an article, then "Speechless" deserves one too. It surely meets the general notability guideline.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hunter Kahn. Not only is there a stunning amount of sources to prove the article is verifiable and meets the WP:GNG, by charting it also meets WP:NSONGS as probably notable. Taken together, there should be no doubt about keeping. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NSONG--SveroH (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hunter Kahn's rationale, passes WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 19:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This obviously passes the general notability guideline, and the charts that have just been released even further make this article pass NSONGS. Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NSONG as it has received widespread media coverage throughout the world. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has charted in even multiple countries. Two is more than one. But one could probably be sufficient.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, eminently satisfies significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the nomination of this article, the song in question has charted the BillBoard Hot 100. Would have voted a weaker keep initially even before the release of the 12 December 09 charts as a frequency mentioned single of a mainstream artist, but it's apperance that list unquestionably causes this article to fall in the Keep category. Satisfies all requirements for coverage and notability, and then some. DJBullfish 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charted song, perfomed on tv and good article.--Aaa16 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Gong.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song has been performed on a major awards show, charted on several charts and is to be a future single. Gaga has also heavily promoted it in many interviews. Regardless of this, the article has more information than many singles articles do, which is a hard thing to do, and so it should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkuy (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel as though the wealth of knowledge surrounding this song more than makes it worthy of having its own article. Also, there are many articles for singles on this website that have absolutely no content in them, aside from "X released Y as their 2nd single from the album Z." --Benchilla (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article and the songs are not notable, they are notable just for Gaga's fans (above), who, in fact, created this article only cause they "love Lady Gaga". All this guys are saying that is notable enough, but, not even in Google is notable, is just notable for Gaga's people, sorry, but it has to be deleted. BTW, a lot of the guys here, that try to keep the article are forgetting about WP:OTHERCRAP, so, it doesn't matter if "If every Pink Floyd song can get an article" like someone said before, not every song has to have an article about it, no matter if some of those articles say "X released Y as their 2nd single from the album Z", we don't need any more crap. Sorry, got to be deleted. Fortunato luigi (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAP states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument". Such is the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notability clearly established. By nominator's strict application of criteria, we would have to delete "Stairway to Heaven" as well, because it never charted since it wasn't released as a single. Surliness of votes like the one above not doing nomination much help, either. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes WP:NSONGS: has charted, and has significant coverage. talking birds 18:10, 6 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 A7 on both articles. -- Atama頭 23:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bola Webinformation GmbH

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

This article is about a nonnotable company which fails WP:ORG. The article is also likely a result of paid editing from this posting on elance. This type of deceptive editing goes against our conflict of interest guidelines as well as Wikipedia:PROMOTION. I'm also batch-nominating the related website, as the same problems exist with it.

Soccerbetting.info (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Them From Space 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (and tagged as such) - neither article makes any assertions of notability and I can't find any coverage of them in reliable sources. Smartse (talk) 23:10, 2 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. hoax -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PaperBack (software)

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

I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is obviously a hoax. The "official website" of this software starts off with the following: "Olly, the author of OllyDbg, presents his new open source joke"... SnottyWong talk 01:57, 3 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 speedily deleted (G4) by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H.J. Kim

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

Notability. No indication of notability - he's a successful businessman and involved in his local church but that does not make him notable. JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I just discovered while adding notes to User talk:Alanhsia that a bio for this person (or someone very similar with the same name) was created before, proposed for deletion and deleted - the previous discussion is here. Perhaps this could be moved to a speedy delete, with criteria G4? JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I've added the appropriate speedy delete to the page, as it seems as clear cut as it could be, so can this AfD be closed? JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I remember this article, deleted less than a month ago as non-notable. This looks identical. BTW an article about his business partner Ken Eldred was deleted at the same time, so be on the alert for a reposting of it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 3 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. Secret ^account 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Felice Coniglio

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

Sounds like a biography, doesnt provide much information outside of personal interests.

many of the edits were made by the user himself |anon| -20091202212702

Delete - Retired guy who doesn't seem to have accomplished anything WP:Notable. A lot of the article is about his hobbies. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Speedy delete - not even a claim of notability, possible conflicts. Bearian (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that both the 1993 Educator of the Year award and the claims of widespread press coverage for his football web site are claims of notability. Not very good ones for an AfD, possibly, but enough to stave off A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a few (minor) claims to notability, so it doesn't quite come under A7. But it's not enough to meet the WP:GNG either. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:52, 6 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. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan C. Gordon

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. I did add a notability template to the article, but it was removed. Rockfang (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find this nomination frankly ridiculous. This article is linked to numerous times on other articles and the subject has a profound internet presence, see the external links on the article or put the name "Ryan C. Gordon", "Ryan Gordon", or "icculus" into Google. Also the fact that this article has existed for over three years adds a certain amount of established notability in its own right. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed, ridiculous. Icculus has been interviewed by various technical, Linux, gaming, and even hardware websites and is mentioned in several books on Linux (if not by name, but by titles he has ported). He is a known figure head in Linux and Mac gaming, which can be found by a simple search at any website such as LinuxGames or Phoronix. He has worked for Loki Software (the founder of commercial Linux gaming, mentioned in hundreds of articles such as those in Linux Journal, and he was important in Loki too!), Google (Linux port of Google Earth), Epic Games (Unreal Tournament series), the U.S. Army (for America's Army), and even did work for NASA according to one interview which is linked to in the article. Gordon doesn't find work like most programming contractors, work finds him. My family has been in the consulting trade, who know that when companies go knocking on your door, rather than you trying to find work yourself means something. His sheer number of notable clients, which is documented here and elsewhere on Wikipedia establish notability in its own right. Comrade Graham (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Based on that article he does not meet WP:GNG. The only links are to his on site and interviews on web sites that few people have heard of. There are people in the games industry with far higher profile, who have been interviewed by mainstream media, quoted regularly and often, and played a part in shaping the industry, but still aren't notable enough for their own article — Matt Booty former CEO of Midway is one. A Google search turns up nothing else of note, only those things already in the article. JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, statements such as "web sites that few people have heard of" are hear-say and irrelevant. Just because not everyone has heard of a certain news-source does not mean it is not relevant. Phoronix, for example, is very important in the Linux world but pretty much unknown everywhere else. Just because Windows users have never heard of it does not mean a sizable amount of Linux users do not eagerly read its posts. Secondly, this article is needed as part of Wikipedia's infrastructure. If you put the likes of "Matt Booty" into an article search you get two relevant articles that mention him. Do a search for Ryan "icculus" Gordon however and it is quite a different story. There are many articles that mention him and link to this article. And thirdly, he is not just a member of the gaming industry but the Linux and Mac industry as well. In fact, on Linux he could easily be called a leader in his field. Because of this niche market fulfillment it elevates his importance over just one name in the crowd Windows game programmers. Also Matt Booty might not be notable but Midway is and in many ways Gordon acts more like a company than a person in terms of output. Hence the amount of articles that would link to Midway and not Booty would always in the equivalent case link to this article. Please keep this in mind. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he is a "leader in his field" then that should be in the article, if it can be referenced. But references in other Wikipedia articles is largely irrelevant as it's not a reliable source. See WP:CIRCULAR. The point about the quality of sources is from WP:GNG. And A web search on its own shows nothing, it's the quality of the references it finds, which should then be used in the article. See e.g. WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. My apologies if the links seem Wikilawyerly but they make the points far better than I could. JohnBlackburne (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I do not see your point with linking to the General notability guideline with regards to the sources on this article. All of them seem to adhere to it. They are independent of the subject (except for the resume), none contain any libellous or contentious statements, they are from news sources which can be assumed to be reliable (they are used as sources on other articles, which seems to add community belief in their credibility), and offer enough coverage to allow a presumption of notability. Unless you post reasons why you think they do not follow the guidelines, you are threatening to be acting in a similar fashion as example six of Gaming the system. As I am sure that is not your intention, perhaps you can post your reasons for doubting the sources so we can have a reasonable discussion about it. Also, I never insinuated that other articles can be used as sources. My point was if we remove Ryan C. Gordon it would immediately become noticeable on the Wanted Pages listing. This article is part of the wiki infrastructure, as any valid article that has been around for a number of years should be, and removing it would damage that. This might be applicable to the Ignore all rules guidelines, as it would damage Wikipedia's coverage in a similar fashion to firing a cannon ball at a load-bearing wall currently supporting a free-standing building. Granted this should never be used as a main argument, and I do not intend to use it as such, but it should still be mentioned. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires good secondary sources. The sources here are all interviews, i.e. primary sources, and they are also from relatively obscure sources - not ones that many people would recognise, even in gaming. And as you seem to agree Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. JohnBlackburne (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for being clear about the problem now. When you posted this message there were about two secondary sources on the article, and I did a web crawl last night and found and added some more. Check the citations on the article. I still say statements such as that the sources are "not ones that many people would recognize" are hear-say and irrelevant. However, in the sources defense, I will say this. Other Wikipedia articles can not be used to determine notability, but that can be indicative that people are interested in the subject enough to make them. Almost all of the sources have Wikipedia articles about them. See Phoronix, LinuxGames, Inside Mac Games, and ars technica. I have also seen Blue's News in print media, though I am shocked it does not have an article. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better now though it still looks unencyclopaedic - too little text. I found a couple of links myself when searching yesterday, though I don't know if they are of use: [1] and [2]. Anyway, I'll redact my delete vote as my main concern, the lack of references, has been addressed. JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have written a proper biography section now, hope this helps solve some of your complaints about the article. It needs more information about his work between 2004 - 2007, and it barely mentions his Mac ports at all (mostly because I do not know much about them or where to find sources for them), but is is more than a start.Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded it now to cover the year gap, and found a few new sources.Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HIGHLY NOTABLE Kc4 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-known in the Linux/gaming community, and the article seems to have plenty of third-party sources to establish notability. Linux (and Linux gaming) may not be as dominant as Windows, but it's still plenty notable. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:39, 9 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) 11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William F. Vallicella

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

This bio of a former academic turned blogger does not show notability under WP:PROF, WP:WEB or any other notability standard. Prod was objected to based on hits from Google Books and Google Scholar, but having published articles and books is standard for an academic and not a sign of notability. The sources for the article give good indication of the lack of reliable sources coverage: a two-sentence contributor description from a journal, his own blog, a summary of his (apparently only) book from a defunct online book club, and a Google Scholar search page. RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is a useful search link. When you find articles with "The X argument: a reply to Y" it means his ideas are sufficiently notable to merit a full-length refutation, but this is only slightly above average for a decent philosopher. I would like this to be kept, but I can't make a case for it based on sources I've found. 77.4.59.225 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there are 79k GHits for "William F. Vallicella" and 63K for "William Vallicella". This is even more than I have - and I have co-authored a notable book :-). NBeale (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep. I was the deprodding editor, and as nom points out I pointed nom to the google results. That not having satisfied nom, I've added many (though not all--I tired) of the relevant citations to the article. IMHO this meets wp:prof in that his research has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. It also meets wp:author in that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers, is known for originating significant new concepts, and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (by Epeefleche, approximately the same time as the above comment). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is not well written at this point (sorry, Epeefleche, I see your comment about adding refs, but I know this article will be improved considerably eventually as time passes as is the normal course in wiki articles). I think that skews perceptions somewhat. Remember when you handed in typewritten work instead of handwritten work to get a 10% grade boost? Well I think the same thing applies here. I could come back and reconsider after the page is cleaned up. Until then, it's a keeper. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. This is definitely a stub, as the text is severely limited. Once could build it up rather easily by going through the sources, and using them to develop the text. But as the issue at the moment is only notability, I limited myself to trying to reflect that. But your criticism is appropriately placed.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is not easy to judge, as there is no reliable citation index for his subject. The large number of journal articles , about half in major journals, would argue for keeping, as does his having been selected to write an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an publication with stringent requirements. true, I'd be a lot more satisfied if he held an academic position or had published some actual books. But according to Cambridge University Press [3] he did in fact hold a tenured position, apparently at Case Western Reserve University or possibly Dayton University. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information/cite, which I've now incorporated into the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems not to pass WP:Prof #1 on GS cites but eccentric activities make him notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC). The list of articles could be removed from the WP page; it's not usual. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Philosophy is a field where citation numbers will nearly always be low for contemporary practitioners, and are pretty useless as an indicator of notability. Academics who do philosophy (as opposed to studying its history) like to present their work as being based on first priciples rather than on the work of others, so rarely cite their peers. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this interesting info. How do we judge then? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep - passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in my opinion, though not with flying colors. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:51, 9 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. Secret ^account 01:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Parlour

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

I can't really find any reliable sourcing on this band at all. The only thing I've been able to find on them was a trivial name drop in a BBC article [4], and searches don't turn up a thing remotely reliable other than that: [5], [6] (always telling when the Wikipedia article is the top result), [7]. The article also has a significantly promotional tone ("musical gems", "extremely talented", saying other bands were "less talented" with no sourcing to back that, etc.) With sources to work from, that might be fixable, but the sources aren't there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete for lack of potential sources Polarpanda (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no in-depth coverage for this band; appears to fail WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My search of other news sources also revealed nothing significant. Cbl62 (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BAND - no national tours, no radio hits, etc. Also, they are difficult to verify for lack of sources. Bearian (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When an undeletion was requested, one of the reasons used was that the band had a cult following in Japan, but I was unable to turn up anything in Japanese mentioning them at all. Nick Wilson (talk) 20:17, 7 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. Secret ^account 01:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aber Valley YMCA Football Club

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

I think this club plays at too low a level to qualify for an article Polarpanda (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The general rule of thumb for football teams (per Wp:FOOTYN) is that they play in at least their country's national cup. I can't find any evidence of them ever playing in the Welsh Cup. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a lower level club. No references at all. Bearian (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Sabiona (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PDCook (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (again). fetchcomms☛ 21:27, 5 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. Secret ^account 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agilence

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Agilence. References given are selflinking press releases (some requiring login) that do not confer notability. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find one reliable secondary source for this company, [8], among a sea of press releases. This article is completely based on primary sources from the company. This is definitely company PR for a non-notable company. Angryapathy (talk) 21:30, 2 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. Secret ^account 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boraq Tower

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

Proposed building in Dubai which will never get built. No reliable sources, even for its cancellation. Deprodded by a person in denial. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If the building ever starts construction, the article can be re-created. SnottyWong talk 02:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above. This will not be completed in the current crisis. Bearian (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Sabiona (talk) 15:23, 3 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 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mashin' Duck Records

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

Non-notable record label. The article also hardly even deals with the label itself, in fact it most of it seems devoted to elaborate on early Eminem demo tapes, such as "Fuckin' Backstabber" and "Biterphopia", while adding plenty of ridiculous and unattributed claims in the mix as well. Please note that similar discussions have already been conducted on this matter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Intent and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuckin’ Backstabber/Soul Intent. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is definitely WP:COATRACK for anything related to Eminem and Proof. This label by itself has no notability to warrant its own article. As with Soul Intent, it should be redirected to Eminem#Early life and first releases. Angryapathy (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability as a separate article. No sense in an obscure redirect, this is not 'Soul Intent' which is already obscure enough. Polargeo (talk) 15:22, 9 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. Secret ^account 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy O'Kay

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

Non notable artist. PROD with commnet "Unsourced BLP of a DJ with no album, only internet media" removed by IP user with no history but might be linked to the author Malcolma (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the one who added the PROD template. The article's claim of notability is that the subject has received a large number of downloads from the subject's myspace page. I don't consider that alone notable and I couldn't find any non-self-published sources that otherwise verify notability. The article claims an album will be coming out summer 2010. Until then, this subject is certainly not notable, and I think the article is intended to funnel people to the subject's myspace, youtube and itunes pages. PDCook (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist fails to meet any criteria of WP:BAND. Angryapathy (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N due to lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Beware any article about an "aspiring" musician. lol. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing to suggest that this person meets WP:N Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no in-depth coverage for this singer; appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 01:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no independent coverage at all; on youtube, the demo version of his "big hit" has less than 3,000 views and the new better version has less than 500. Studerby (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. As not yet notable, per wiki standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 5 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 Beltway sniper attacks. Tone 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bull's Eye Shooter Supply

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bull's Eye Shooter Supply

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

Delete. EGAD. Talk about your textbook WP:COATRACK article. Synopsis: This is where the weapons used in the Beltway sniper attacks were shoplifted from. This doesn't even warrant a redirect in my opinion. JBsupreme (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to retain attribution. The fact the shop was sued for negligence needs to be covered in the article about the attacks, but this is clearly a business known for one (defaming) thing. Since the shop wasn't actively involved, I totally agree it is not suitable for a separate topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info and Redirect - doesn't appear to merit its own article, as it is pretty WP:COATRACKish, but some of the information here definitely seems salvageable (and important). Relevant information should be included in the article about the attacks, and this should redirect. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Merge info specifically about Bull's eye. Not notable as separate article Polargeo (talk) 15:37, 9 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. Secret ^account 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lost generation (t.l.g)

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

Unsure if this meets the general notability guideline. Questionable references. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provided in this article are reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:BAND. Angryapathy (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no in-depth coverage for this band, and they do not satisfy any of the other criteria for WP:BAND. Their best bet probably would have been criterion 5, but Rustyjukebox appears to be neither a "major label or one of the more important indie labels." Gongshow ^Talk 01:10, 4 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. Secret ^account 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 arm and 1 leg squat

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

Doesn't really fit any CSD criteria. Would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not entirely sure what this means but the article fails WP:N as it stands Polarpanda (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are so many things wrong with this article, but I am just going to stand by "Fails WP:N". Angryapathy (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I can't see this expand beyond that. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Sabiona (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a guide. Redundant. -Reconsider ! 04:18, 7 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. Secret ^account 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimee Grubbs

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

The woman is known for only one thing: her affair with Tiger woods. All details about the affair belong in the Tiger Woods article. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Being known for only one thing is not reason enough to warrant deletion (c.f. Monica Lewinsky, Donna Rice); 2) Tiger Woods' page is protected from edits, so this is currently the only way to get the news into Wikipedia, especially considering it is breaking news so we can't wait for an admin to insert it; 3) Specifically because it is breaking news, this should be left in place to see what develops; 4) She is best known for the affair but was also on a VH1 reality TV show. I think we should let this article stand a while and see how it develops before considering deletion. Noraft (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have a week to improve this article to prove that it can stand on its own.
Rice and Lewinsky have made many media appearances to warrent their own articles. So far, Grubbs has not made a single media appearances.
Appearance on a reality TV show is not notable enough to have a biographical article
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Breaking News is not a reason for a biographical article.

Victor Victoria (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO, however, I quote from that article: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." All these criteria are met.

Editors have a week to improve this article to prove that it can stand on its own.

The presumption is not that it will be deleted now that it has been nominated. I think it stands on its own now, personally, and unless we can get consensus that this is not the case, it stays.

Rice and Lewinsky have made many media appearances to warrent their own articles. So far, Grubbs has not made a single media appearances.

Making "media appearances" does not increase one's notability. However, having press coverage does, whether one makes "media appearances" or not. Lewinski and Rice both became notable before either made their first media appearance. Further, what do you consider "a media appearance"? Grubbs obviously talked with reporters and furnished them with evidence. Is that not a media appearance? Does she need to be on TV or hold a press conference for one to consider that a "media appearance"?

Appearance on a reality TV show is not notable enough to have a biographical article

Right. But I submit that appearing on a reality TV show AND having an affair with Tiger Woods is.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Breaking News is not a reason for a biographical article.

While breaking news is not a reason for an article in and of itself, breaking news related to a notable person should be included in an article about said person, so really this all boils down to notability. Noraft (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your claims. Grubbs has not been the subject of any third party sources, the affair is the subject (it's like taking a review of a book and saying that it's about the author). It's your job to prove she is notable, which so far you haven't IMO (and so far the consensus is that she is not notable). Both Lewinsky and Rice (ESPECIALLY Lewinksy) got tons of media coverage on them and their past, so far almost all of the "coverage" she has gotten has been in storys of Woods having an affair (with her being a second thought in them). Having an affair with someone notable has no affect on notability, it doesn't help her case (and having a small appearance on a non-notable reality show doesn't help her that much). As for your last point, that doesn't mean she deserves an article; hell, we don't know if this affair will even mean anything a year from now (there have been many cases of famous people having affairs, the majority of them ended up being forgotten after a few months and that could be the case here based on the fact that no sponsors have dropped him and Woods has not been getting much negative coverage). TJ Spyke 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewinsky and Rice didn't get their tons of coverage the day after the story broke. If having an affair with someone had no effect on notability, then Lewinsky would never have been notable. In fact, not only does she have an article, the scandal itself has its own article. Did the photo of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart's lap mean anything a year from when it happened, or now? No, but she has a page all the same. Lastly, consensus is not a majority vote (Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#Not_a_majority_vote), so I'd say there is not consensus to delete, with a number of people feeling the article should stay. Noraft (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Woods has not yet lost any sponsors, his squeaky clean reputation has taken a serious hit because of Jaimee Grubbs. She's well into her sixteenth minute of fame, and there's no reason to believe that she'll be going away anytime soon. // Internet Esquire (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The story is about 6 hours old, what makes you think it won't go away? It's only been a minor story so far, I doubt it will be getting much attention after a few weeks. TJ Spyke 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your timeline. By my reckoning, this story is several days old, beginning with the Friday after Thanksgiving. Jaimee Grubbs may have just made her entrance onto the stage, but her allegations are the first credible allegations that have been acknowledged as credible by the mainstream media, so what makes you think the story is going away? People love to hear trash about celebrities, and Tiger's refusal to engage the media in any sort of meaningful way (although commendable) is clearly backfiring. In the weeks and months to come, we will see all sorts of trashy media coverage with timelines, dates, and blow-by-blow descriptions of alleged sexual encounters, and Jaimee Grubbs is going to be in the center ring of this media circus. // Internet Esquire (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This woman has nothing to do with the crash. The story involving this woman is less than a day old. Tiger refused to talk about the car crash, but he confessed to this affair only a few hours after she made the allegations (so how you get "refusal to talk to the media" out of a story that is not only about 12 hours old is confusing). You are assuming this will be talked about in the future. Think about all the hundreds and hundreds of athletes who have been confirmed to have affairs. Now think about how many of those people who they had affairs with are notable or got any real coverage other than for a few days max, the list is pretty small. This may or may not end up being on the small list of affairs that were notable, but as of right now she is not notable. TJ Spyke 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Victor Victoria and WP:BLP1E. Not notable enough yet. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noraft. This woman was a D list minor celebrity; now she is the next Monica Lewinsky. // Internet Esquire (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Me. This woman was a D list minor celebrity; now she is the next Monica Lewinsky—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.247.183.132 (talk)
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claiming to have had sex with some celebrity does not confer automatic notability. Fails WP:BIO. Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. We are not on deadline, so if it were ever judged that someone known only for their claimed association with Wood should be included in his article, that would be the place for some brief mention. Such an addition to a protected article could be made on the talk page. It is crystall ball gazing to claim she "will be the next Monica." When she has testified before courts and congress, there might be more basis for the claim. Edison (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirecting to Tiger Woods if editors there do decide to add material regarding this (and it's a notable event in his life, I imagine that will happen). Regarding the four points above: 1) In the biography of a living person, being notable for only one event absolutely is reason to delete. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. 2) We are not on a deadline. There is no rush to get this stuff into any article, it's more important that we get it right than do it immediately. 3) We don't wait to see what develops with an article in place, we wait for material for it to develop first, and then and only then write the article. Reiterated, no deadline. 4) Being on a reality show does not confer notability, I can't find any evidence that she received substantial coverage for that. The sources cited in the article only mention her reality show appearance very briefly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep- If it were just the VH1 thing, or just the Tiger Woods thing, then it'd be an obvious delete. But her past with VH1, in my mind at least, means WP:BLP1E isn't really applicable. I'm not sure I *like* this article, or the subject, but I just don't see the necessity for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E applies. Woods story is her only noteworthy press coverage. Nakomaru (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DELETE Absolutely not notable outside of Tiger. Coverage is not about this non-notable woman, it's about Woods's affair. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as the news makes headlines around the globe. --Hapsala (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this event is noteworthy. However, it is (currently being argued) that this event is the only noteworthy news related to her. Under WP:BLP1E, therefore, she should not have her own bio article. It is sufficient that the event is mentioned in Tiger Woods' article. Nakomaru (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E—Chris!_c/t 00:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Widespread but insignificant and derivative press coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Reporting an affair with a famous professional athlete and appearing on a low-level reality TV show is not enough to make someone notable. The information can be covered adequately in Tiger's article, making this article rather pointless. Without any evidence of continued press coverage of Grubbs (which can't be assumed), this looks like a textbook WP:BLP1E case. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the reality show thing in addition to the Tiger affair. That's one minor TV show plus one news event that made headlines around the world. Kraikk (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the definition of WP:BLP1E. I think the world can wait for an admin to add the relevant info to the Tiger Woods article. Celebrity gossip is really not so important that "breaking news" about the rumored sexual indiscretions of a popular golfer have to immediately be covered in an article. Let's get back to reality. WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. SnottyWong talk 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The MOST she warrants is a 1-sentence mention in Woods article. She claims to have had an affair with Tiger Woods, that isn't even close to making hr notable. TJ Spyke 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the length of this entire discussion prove that she is now a notable person? Yes, WP is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. And this person has become famous for some very unsavory reasons. But famous nonetheless. KINGBOB

No it doesn't. Anytime something like this happens you have people thinking they deserve an article. Whenever a scandal affects someone famous, you have people creating articles about non-notable people involved in the situation and some people who think it should be kept in an AFD. TJ Spyke 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the situation with Tiger Woods, she is not notable enough to warrant an article. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for a single event, so any relevant info can go in Tiger Woods. One note though: I did a brief Google search and found a tidbit about her being a "reality show star and model". However, I could not find anything in reliable sources about that aspect of her life (apart from brief mentions of her role in Tool Academy), so she is not notable enough to warrant an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent notability. -Reconsider ! 04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per already mentioned criteria. Gage (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those arguing delete as per WP:BLP1E, I quote: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." This event was covered by CNN on December 3, among many other reliable sources. I think the event, given her release of Tiger's voicemail, plus the text messages, plus Tiger's apology for "transgressions," all covered by major media, constitutes "well documented" as per WP:BLP1E. Noraft (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think having an alleged affair with a sports star is on the same level of importance as attempting to assassinate the President of the United States... well, all I can say is, 'no, it's not'. Robofish (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ONEEVENT. Gage (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This woman will be well forgotten in a month. This is nowhere near as notable as the Clinton affair, not at the current time anyway ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 08:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTEMP - "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event." The appearance on a reality show wouldn't meet WP:ENT so doesn't tip this over the notability threshold. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she's not notable for the reasons mentioned above. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noraft. I'm getting tired of every news-related Wikipedia article having a deletion notice at the top. Binarybits (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect While a brief reality show appearance and an affair are not sufficient reason for a separate article, this is clearly something that needs to be covered in the Tiger Woods article. Since it is protected, an admin should do the including. At the very least leaving a redirect, since she's a possible search term, is a good idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not notable, per above. Allowing her here would open up Wikipedia to tons of pages devoted to nobodies who know somebody. Sabiona (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is another non-notable bio.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. It can always be recreated if something else comes up later. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. Deleting articles when the story is developing doesn't seem very wise. Tiger Woods' career is jeopardized and now his most dedicated supporters try to clean Wikipedia from everything they don't like. The question of deletion should be put on hold until, at least, the next golf season. Fredrich H. 192.121.84.241 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to an omnibus article TW's affair coverage. There's lots of articles covering the coverage in terms of what it means for our society, beyond the actual tabloid coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E, as others have said. A brief appearance on a cable reality show doesn't contribute anything toward notability. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is precisely the kind of subject BLP1E was designed for. The argument that deleting while coverage is ongoing is premature is beside the point, since we don't cover the news and we don't recognize pending notability. Chick Bowen 00:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and incorporate into separate article about the Woods affair, if it ever even gets made, per User:Peregrine Fisher. Mononomic (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tiger Woods. She's not notable enough for her own article. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another WP:BLP1E. If someone's only in the news because someone famous reportedly had an affair with them, we shouldn't have an article on them. Robofish (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or alternatively merge into Tiger Woods. Insufficient notability for her own article. Aditya Ex Machina 15:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless she gets her own reality show which seems inevitable these days.--The lorax (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she is not currently notable, she may become notable in the future at which point an article can be created. Mah favourite (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh lawd, this is so textbook WP:BLP1E it isn't even funny. No. Really. It is not funny. JBsupreme (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mattnad (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has per delete votes. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Saying that she is anywhere near as notable for one event as Lewinsky or Rice is stretching matters. Dismas|^(talk) 11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seraphimblade. very clear BLP1E case. We could consider a protected redirect to crash/affair allegations section of Tiger Woods article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A bunch of people are citing WP:BLP1E. Here's the thing: BLP1E says that "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." But there's no event article for the scandal. This means we'd wind up merging information about Grubbs into the Tiger Woods article, which seems particularly inappropriate given that Tiger hasn't acknowledged the affair to have taken place. So my keep vote stands, but if we are going to delete the article based on BLP1E, it seems to me that implies we need to create an article about the scandal. Because there's certainly more than enough reliable sources to cover the Grubbs allegations somewhere, and I don't think the Tiger Woods article is the place to do it. Binarybits (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What do we call it? Alleged affairs of Tiger Woods? Are there any other articles similar that we can look at for guidance? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, Binarybits's post begs the question, why should deletion imply that there needs to be an article on the scandal? If this gets the type of coverage in reliable sources that WP:BLP demands, then add it the Woods article, where it can be placed in proper context by the rest of the coverage of Woods career. IMO, spinning out this type of article too early tends to lead to a grab-bag of gossipy quotes and undisciplined writing all thrown together. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binarybits is interpreting BLP1E more narrowly than the policy intends. This is a more complex case than the ones the short paragraph at BLP1E cites. In this case, the subject isn't notable except in relation to an event, but the event itself isn't notable except in relation to a person. The closest analogue mentioned in the various policies on the issue is probably George Holliday (witness), in which there is a redirect to another biography but no biographical information on Holliday in the main article. That might be appropriate in this case, but I still think a redlink would be more appropriate given that it's not the affairs themselves that are notable but the way in which they came to be known and the response to them (another way to look at it--Grubbs, despite more media coverage of her personal life, has actually had far less of an impact on the relevant event than Holliday did). Chick Bowen 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The story is still moving pretty quickly, so we'll have a better idea of what to do soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - outside of the Tiger story, insufficent secondary sources. Hence fails WP:BIO. Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, WP:BLP1E Tovojolo (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the notability requirements. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, Should be incorperated with Tiger woods article. Snickers696969 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for all the above reason. Reality TV star is too low a bar to be notable. And the affair seems to be far from notable (there are 7+ other ones). --MarsRover (talk) 01:17, 9 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. Note that there was serious concerns in the article, particualy WP:NOR in which the keep side didn't explain/fix. Secret ^account 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of landmarks in Las Vegas

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

A brand-new advertisement for Las Vegas tourism, added to Wikipedia yesterday. They have brochures for this already at your nearest travel agency. ~YellowFives 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm torn on this one. I see the point of the nominator, and also it appears to be a product of original research. On the other hand, it is a useful article that would be helpful if I ever decided to visit Las Vegas. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per WP:OR (what exactly is a "landmark"?) Lugnuts (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created this page after seeing it on Wikipedia's list of wanted articles. With over 1700 pages linking to it, I thought it'd be a worthy gap to fill. I was surprised to see this immediately get moved to "Landmarks," as the list is clearly of "Attractions." As per the value, yes, I see it being a valuable resource to someone visiting Las Vegas. Having never been myself, I feel like I have a much better understanding of the area and seeing it all on one page would save time hunting around individual articles, provided they exist! Pintong (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My classmate wrote most of the copy, which he admits comes across as sales-pitchy at points. Maybe if this was cleaned up it would seem less like an advert? Pintong (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is Vegas afterall. It is difficult to write anything non touristy or non-trashy sounding for Vegas baby. Actually I moved it from "list of attractions" for the very reason of trying to avoid it looks like a brochure advert. Weak keep - the article is not really essential given that we already have templates with the main attractions and categories but it is clearly in demand. If it could develop into a more comprehensive article and to try to address the brochure vibe we get from it its OK I think. We have lists of notable buildings and that for a number of cities. Don't like the open 24 column though (most say NO!!). At face value though it seems better suited to WikiTravel than wikipedia... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There are similar pages for Seattle, Louisville and other places. Polarpanda (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be 1700 pages linking here, but most are talk pages and appear because the page is part of WikiProject Las Vegas's template. However, if the objection to the article lay in the neutrality of the POV, I would say Weak keep and tag. Vulture19 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRAVEL. I agree with Blofeld that this belongs better at WikiTravel. Wikipedia is not a tour guide. I might be OK with keeping it if it only included items that have articles on WP already. Angryapathy (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and WP:CLEANUP - without a violation of WP:WAX, some similar articles (List of Chicago Landmarks is at FL level) appear to function very well. The article just needs some TLC. Dale 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Dale's comment above is comparing apples and oranges. The List of Chicago Landmarks is a list of structures which have been officially designated as "landmarks" by the City of Chicago's Commission on Chicago Landmarks. The Las Vegas list is a completely subjective list of structures that the creator has deemed to be "landmarks." Much of the content also reads like an advertisement for specific restaurants and other business establishments. In its current form, the article is purely subjective original research, and I have to vote "delete." However, if there were a reliable, verifiable source for what is being included as a landmark (rather than the editor's subjective opinion), I might be persuaded to "keep." Cbl62 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Aside from the blatant subjectivity and original research problems, most of the attractions listed here are not "landmarks" in any sense of the word. A landmark is "a structure (as a building) of unusual historical and usually aesthetic interest; especially one that is officially designated and set aside for preservation." This list includes things like shows (e.g., the "Show in the Sky" - a "free show with ladies dancing on floats") and miscellaneous things to do (e.g., the Wyrick Magic Academy). These are not "landmarks"; they are simply "things to do." Also, how can we justify including one restaurant (The Tuscany Kitchen) as a landmark but not the dozens of other fine restaurants in Vegas. Frankly, this is a real mess of promotion and subjective opinion. This is more like a guide to attractions that may be fine for WikiTravel, but it is NOT encyclopedic in its present form. Cbl62 (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is already a list of true Las Vegas historic landmarks (as opposed to "attractions") at National Register of Historic Places listings in Nevada#Clark County. Cbl62 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cbl62's comment above. There is no criteria for inclusion into the "landmark" club. This is simply an advertisement. SnottyWong talk 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't see what guideline or policy this violates. It seems to pass WP:LIST. Virtually all of the "landmarks" are notable by themselves, so a list of such would also be notable. Cut out the cruft (NN sites) and fix the citations. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how Wikipedia:NOTRAVEL#NOTTRAVEL may apply. In any case, I've removed the NN stuff. Bearian (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i dont think either "attractions" or "landmarks" is appropriate. a better choice may be "list of las vegas tourist oriented businesses" or "list of commercial attractions in las vegas". i think its actually an obvious list to have on WP, though of course it requires vigilance to not include marginal/nonnotable attractions. a lead which notes the obvious commercial nature of nearly every destination in the town would help. we cant exactly NOT list these attractions just because they are such blatantly self promoting entities. they are notable, after all. (and i HATE vegas). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go overboard, Mercurywoodrose. If we were to use your titles, not only would it be near impossible to find, it would also break a basic naming rule. Keep it short and simple. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good point. I would support any agreed upon simpler title if the lead specified the lists limits.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rework. Since most of these already have valid articles themselves, there's no particular reason not to organize them in a list. If the 24 hour, column is removed and the last one rewritten, the promotional tone will also be gone. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cbl62's comment above. If it could be edited to the standards of the CHicago article, I'd change it to a keep, but as is, it's just an ad.Sabiona (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I am leaning towards keep because the Vegas list could be developed like Chicago and actually contain encyclopedia landmarks rather than just touristy attractions. Either way, the way it is currently done will have to change if this is to be kept. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:59, 3 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. Secret ^account 01:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balacade

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

Declined A7 nominee. The article makes a claim to notability through chart rankings, but a Google search looking for substantial (vs. trivial) coverage to establish notability came up dry. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete yeah, it "charted" at the local college's student radio station, according to the article. Consider me unimpressed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply "unimpressed" or not, WP:BAND lists "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." as sufficient cause for notability. Your statement is incorrect and minimizes the articles references: the album not only charted on the local radio station, it placed within the top 200 nationally, please see: http://www.earshot-online.com/charts/2008/December/top200.cfm . If this ranking is not considered valuable, perhaps the above quoted item on WP:BAND needs to be altered. 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alibosworth (talk • contribs)

"earshot-online.com" is another student radio thing, and is not what the "national chart" criteria in our music guidelines is about. The relvant national charts for Canada are the Billboard Canadian Charts and the Neilsen SoundScan Canadian Singles Chart. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the clarification. Again, perhaps the criteria should be clarified. The fact that it specifically states "any national music chart" lead me to interpret it as being inclusive of college/campus radio stations. !earshot is quite established within canada, and while it might not be commercial, it is definitely official. As quote here "[...]the official monthly chart publication of the National Campus and Community Radio Association." Alibosworth (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability established. Not sure how C2 can be further clarified, "national music chart" is clear enough. Rehevkor ✉ 17:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "clear enough"? because wp itself describes the chart in question as "the official monthly chart publication of the National Campus and Community Radio Association." I fail to see how this chart would not qualify as "any national music chart" as per the WP:BAND notability requirement. If there is an unstated rule that the "national chart" has to be a commercial chart, what is the harm in clarifying the requirement? Alibosworth (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they could rename the chart so it's not confused as an actual national chart? Ho hum. Rehevkor ✉ 20:51, 26

Earshot is a non commercial NATIONAL chart. It collects playlists from every campus and community radio station in Canada. Billboard does the same thing with commercial stations. I believe the band has met this WP:BAND notability requirement.

Week Keep As WP:Band is currently written, Balacade passes. I have started a discussion on either clarifying "national chart" or deleting it. Click23 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero attention paid to them by reliable sources, and getting played on campus radio is not what is meant by a "national chart", that's just Wikilawyering. Spirit not the word, please. Fences&Windows 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below thttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balacade&action=edit&section=1his notice. Thanks, Tone 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I've already closed this as delete but since the debate has developed elsewhere, it is reasonable to leave this open for a couple of days more in order to get a clearer picture. --Tone 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "national chart" discussion is what brought me here, see WP:Village pump (policy)#Clarify "National Chart" on WP:BAND. IMO National Campus and Community Radio Association meets the letter and spirit of criterion 2. It is an 80 member association, and looking at the map of its member stations I have trouble not classifying as 'national'. The fact that the stations are non-commercial should have no bearing on the validity of the chart. That being said, my !vote is delete, meeting any one of the criteria in WP:BAND does not supersede WP:GNG, as pointed out at the other discussion, the opening sentence of WP:BAND contains the word 'may'. This is a case when that has to be considered as there are no independent, third-party, reliable sources documenting this band and most of their releases (including the most recent) are self-released. Sorry for my grandstanding. J04n(talk page) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Must also pass the general notability criteria with sufficient third-party sourcing. Not a fully national chart. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:58, 6 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. Secret ^account 01:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Censorship

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

I'm unable to find usable sources for this, as it appears the term is only loosely used within a niche group of economic thinking and not found in general usage amongst a wider audience. I deprodded it as it might be notable, but not widely used. Unless someone greater than myself can find reliable sources for this, I believe deletion is the next course of action. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, it's basically just a definition of the term; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Secondly, a Google search for the term finds it used on blogs and such, but not in the mainstream press. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete, the creator of the article acknowledges on the talk page that this is a neologism: "I find this phenomenon lacks a succinct name, and I'm doing my best to craft a term that, while novel as a whole, is made up of familiar parts...." Ground Zero | t 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, this is WP:Original research ?? --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Delete per Ground Zero, it seems that the creator is using this and other posts to try to push an agenda, but I am trying to AGF. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also per Ground Zero. I see the article creator is not aware of WP policies, which regardless, the term is not yet notable enough for WP. Angryapathy (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with a rewrite by a neutral editor, since POV seems to be in question here. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Ground Zero. If the creator's admitting he made the term up and is trying to popularize it, this is a slamdunk to anyone who's ever heard of WP:NEO, WP:OR or WP:SPAM. RGTraynor 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Financial coercion. Please also note that this is what the article looked like before being stripped down to a 'neologism'. Unomi (talk) 13:55, 8 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. Secret ^account 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Durani

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO. I get it, he's an excellent student and employee, and he self-published a book! Wow! An incredible set of achievements </sarcasm>. No third-party sources showing notability equals no notability. Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Article written in puffery style. Not much in the way of actual achievement listed. No sources, although the presence of numbers like [8] in the text indicate it was cut-and-pasted from some other document which did have sources. He says his book will be available on Amazon the first week of December, but this is the first week of December and it isn't there. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete With some actual, independent sources this might be a decent article. There aren't any right now, but may be at some point in the future. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a case of non-notable spam to drum up attention for a book. Reads more like a resume and poorly-written PR release. Angryapathy (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't link to the Lulu.com page, but if you were to look there, you'd notice it hasn't got a sales rank, meaning it barely has any sales if it sold at all. The numbers Melanie mentions makes me suspect some form of copyvio or an attempt at falsifying references. Neither exudes much trust in the content. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 3 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. Secret ^account 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by number of heliports

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

Nomination based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by number of airports as this list has the same issues: A single source list based on a source whose accuracy has been called into question (it was noted in that debate that the CIA's count of airports in a country is based on airports visible from the air, and may count closed/abandoned airports while missing airports that are not visible). Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't a airport or heliport that isn't visible from the air pose a risk to anything trying to land there? You need to see where you are to make a safe landing. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud cover on the images taken? Shadows making runways indistinguishable from roads? Small airports with dirt runways with cones unviewable from the air? A major international airport won't go unnoticed, but smaller airports may very well be 'hidden'. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete: This list does not yield any information (there is no sense behind it), it is constantly outdated and tends to contain a never-ending bunch of data. Wikipedia is not a database, as The World Factbook might be. The list cannot be verified, as the term "heliport" is not defined. For example, if one takes all places a helicopter could land... see: it will be a never-ending list. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, the topic of the list is unverifiable and hard to define. Angryapathy (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the creator of the article should be applauded for their ambition, this is an obvious speedy delete. SnottyWong talk 02:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of airports or heliports is not a defining characteristic for a country, thus making it a bad topic for a list. It's ill-defined as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on top of the valid concerns above, I challenge the validity of the source used in coming up with this information. How can Australia only have one heliport? The list also claims Canada has only 11 while our list says that it has over 300. I don't think we're going to get many sources to agree with each other for the material, and counting the heliports ourselves is original research. I can't see this list passing WP:V anytime soon. Them From Space 09:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this list is very different from the airport list in that the source has a clearly defined criteria it is unencyclopaedic and should be deleted for that reason. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:00, 5 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. Secret ^account 01:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Video Mixer

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

Contested WP:PROD. This piece of software does not appear to have received substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, and therefore does not meet notability guidelines. I have found a single news piece referencing it at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-75089310/infectious-release-first-album.html (from which the article draws a long quote), but alone this does not amount to significant coverage. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. My prod was declined, see talk for a brief post-prod discussion. Hairhorn (talk) 22:42, 2 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. Secret ^account 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zanimana: The Blue-eyed Cat

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

no assertion of notability - a self-published set of books with six google hits, one of which is us. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, self-published book series. Angryapathy (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (retyping after spamfilter ate my comment) Self-published books aren't necessarily non-notable, but this one shows all the earmarks. It hasn't got a web presence, no reviews and the lulu sales page lists no sales rank, proving a complete absense of sales since the book's release in October. P.S. Search Lulu if you want to see for yourself, I can't link it because of the spamfilter. I wish that filter could be limited to the main namespace. It makes discussing issues like this unnecessarilly complicated. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 3 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) 11:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Mahajan

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

Unreferenced BLP article that does not appear to pass WP:BIO concerns... Adolphus79 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's possible that he is notable, but you can't tell it from this article. Google finds some coverage (one mention of him in The Times of India in 2004) but is confusing because a number of people have the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Weak keep. Article is ridiculously tiny, of course, but I'm seeing a lot of coverage on this person. While some of it may be the wrong guy, I'm not so sure. Let's keep this for a while in case it can be expanded. If there is no expansion within, say, two months, then I will personally put it up for deletion. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't searched for sources yet, but there's another Ajay Mahajan who is a politician (and quite a regular on Indian news a while back). -SpacemanSpiff 18:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm only just saying this but there does seem to be some coverage of the man so he appears to barely pass notability. I've added contextual quotes for the articles so people can judge for themselves. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is reasonably covered in mainstream financial meda - Economic Times, Business Line, Business Standard, Reuters, CNBC TV18/Moneycontrol, Rediff money, Mint, Bloomberg, Outlook money. He was in a CxO position in a bank listed in National Stock Exchange of India. I think this makes him notable.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:43, 5 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. Secret ^account 01:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miran Pavic

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

Editors of student media are not necessarily notable. Nothing else is asserted by article. Mblumber (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources cited are from the (other) Harvard student newspaper. That doesn't make him notable anywhere except on campus. As for the "monthly magazine" he founded, it seems to be a glorified blog. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete Pure vanity. A7 - sorry, being a student at Harvard is not a claim of importance, nor is starting a student organization there. Ray^Talk 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I disagree that it's a vanity article, however, as half of it is an attack on the publication such that this article has serious BLP issues. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and also has BLP issues.--Staberinde (talk) 21:12, 5 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. concerns about policy wasn't met in this AFD Secret ^account 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial disappearance

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is hopelessly, irredeemably biased. The term 'racial disappearance' is only used by racists; it's impossible to write a neutral article on the subject. Currently, this article has virtually no reliable sources, and all the sources are either to racists themselves, or trivial mentions. If significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources cannot be found, it should be deleted. A previous AfD on this article ended in 'no consensus', and it's only got worse since then. Robofish (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous books use the term for example. The fact that it is a term used by racists makes it relevant in the context of racism and racist culture. The article is in an embarrasing biased state, but this can be solved by editing, not deletion, as policy requires. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, there are some reliable sources that use the term - but where are the reliable sources about the term? Those Google Books links aren't acceptable as references; an article on a phrase needs sources that discuss it, not just citations of its use. Robofish (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it is the most used name about the concept, or if indeed there is a general accepted name for the concept. But that the concept exists and is notable is quite sure to me. I'll look into it. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator that this article is highly problematic on various levels. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD is policy. Being problematic does not allow deletion. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Miscegenation, assuming there's anything left of the article after NPOV and OR issues have been resolved (otherwise delete). The sources provided in the article do not establish notability. SnottyWong talk 02:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the articles on Semiticization and Nordic race use the term "dilution", and this may be a better or more commonly used word, if article is kept. these are also good models for how to tackle the subject. i do agree that this article is pretty much unsalvageable as it exists. i think its possible to write a section about this idea in some manner, mostly about its use by racists and its having no significance among anthropologists. probably adding to miscegenation makes sense.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyclopia. Nom is heavily biased.--Ratbones (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not an accepted term except by the most extreme fringes of sociology and is unsupported by any reasonable sources in Google scholar. Unless and until it is accepted as mainstream terminology, it's a combination of WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and should be consigned to the dustbin since the term seems to be being used as a WP:COATRACK to advance a position. Rodhull andemu 00:52, 8 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. Secret ^account 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Joseph (Geoshrad)

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

the reference for "award winning" is the guy's own website Polarpanda (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can see nothing notable. Even if "award winning" is true it surely should matter what type of award that is, and who else has noticed it. Also COI. Please, Polarpanda, use a tool to populate AfD. This way the AfD day log stays intact ;) --Pgallert (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or doesn't the link actually show he's award-winning. I wasn't able to find the evidence, even on his own site. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Data is being Added up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.134.242 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Very well but these are not reliable sources (except NatGeo), and coverage is from Geoshrad, not about him. If National Geographic brings an article on Geoshrad, that would change things for me. --Pgallert (talk) 09:05, 7 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. Secret ^account 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John Lassen

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

Non-notable amateur rugby league player, created by an editor of the same name who's only contributions have been on this article. PROD was removed by the article creator without explanation. No references or evidence of notability, all clubs mentioned are lower level, non-professional teams. The-Pope (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some for of notability can be shown. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not sufficiently established by reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 21:13, 5 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 Enigma^msg 06:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Louise

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Unsourced image appears to have been blagged from her website. MuffledThud (talk)
Delete No evidence of notability, at least by Wiki standards. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can pass the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 3 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. Secret ^account 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The land of sapphire

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

WP:CRYSTAL: book doesn't exist yet. WP:N: no evidence of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has absolutely no evidence of notability. And even sillier, the author is not even mentioned. Probably a hoax (article created by an SPA named iGoofy). Angryapathy (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is most likely eligible for a speedy deletion. There is no assertion of notability in the article. The author is stated as "a young girl in California. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, WP:CSD A7, the provision regarding assertions of importance or significance (not WP:Notability, which isn't addressed by any of the speedy deletion provisions), doesn't apply to books or stories. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops! My mistake. Thanks for the correction. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to show notability. ~YellowFives 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, according to the talk page of the article's original author "The Land of Sapphire" was speedy deleted under G11. This was presumably the same article as we are now discussing but with different capitalisation.Malcolma (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see that version, so I can only comment on this one. I don't see anything openly promotional about it. All it does is describe the story. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - it looks like description of a school student's homework, so is either as notable as what I had for dinner or a curious hoax. JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless a book is a highly expected one by an established author, it's not a good idea to write an article. Since this book doesn't yet exist and is written by an author who isn't even named, it meets all the criteria to be deleted. I would personally TenPoundHammer's Law for music albums to books here. A book article needs basic info before it can be created, the author's name is one of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article can't name author, story isn't even finished, so there's no way to confirm anything. No basis for article.Bjones (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 03:06, 5 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) 10:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dread

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

Article has been proposed for deletion 3 times in the past. The last two proposed deletions were procedurally removed due to the initial objection.

Ignoring the overall style and tone of the article, which reads something like a trophy shelf, I'm not convinced that the subject of the article is notable. Google results are slim and (apart from the usual facebook and linkedin results) are almost entirely focused on the Nashville/Tennessee area.

Additionally, I haven't spent time checking out all of the claimed facts, but as a start, this "published book author" has a volume with this level of popularity on Amazon: [9], and almost non-existent ghits besides. Maedin\^talk 13:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be fairly notable, more so than many city councilmen who have unchallenged Wikipedia pages. Article contains way too much puffery but should be edited, not deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources being local is insufficient reason for deletion. This could be improved by editing out any hyperboles. Sources clearly exist. I wouldn't call him a published author though. With this sort of Amazon rank, he's barely selling a single copy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There appears to be significant coverage of this person. The article has some serious POV issues but that just means someone needs to go through and clean it up. There are plenty of in-depth articles about the man and his various achievements. I've added a couple of citations, quotes from the citations can be found here. They're not enough to claim notability on their own, but they give a sense of the type of coverage this man has. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:52, 3 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.

e

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Rosen

AfDs for this article:

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

The second AfD was closed early and the article was speedily deleted under criterion G4. This decision was subsequently overturned at DRV. decltype (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this was deleted just a couple of weeks ago, and there's no more evidence of notability now than there was then -- the vast majority of references are to her own articles, and the few that aren't by her get us nowhere near to extensive coverage in multiple independent sources. Cute, but not notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are a number of sources referencing her as winning journalism and comedy awards, appearing on multiple nationally televised programs, and holding prestigious positions at a variety of publications. Other references that some claim are simply "references to her own articles" prove she has written for very notable publications and has covered very notable personalities - making a strong case for notability. I fear your lack of familiarity with someone nationally known for television and journalism is biasing your opinoin and would note that comments like "Cute, but not notable" add nothing to the discussion. Karpaydm (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I invite you to specify which of the references currently on the article constitute "extensive coverage" as required by WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note how Karpaydm mentioned awards. Those can make person notable. In that case you only need to verify the information. The amount of coverage you're asking for is only needed when the coverage itself is supposed to establish notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Miserably fails WP:CREATIVE. Almost all sources are WP:SELFPUB, and the rest do not pass WP:RS or WP:V to the extent that notability is established. Article has been recreated several times after having been deleted through AfD's and CSD's, and should be protected against re-creation to save us all the trouble of a fourth AfD. SnottyWong talk 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is only the second time this article has been listed. The first time (not my contribution) it had woefully inadequate references (blogs, you tube). This second version was written by myself and was speedy deleted for being "too similar to the original" which the deletion review determined was unfair since it had been considerably altered from the original version. Surely you don't SALT a topic because someone went through hours and hours of research in order to replace the original, unacceptable article with a legitimate and unbiased article. - Karpaydm|^(talk)

I don't think salting is necessary. If it's deleted, I'm very confident Karpaydm won't recreate it. She might well become notable at some point. I don't think an award from the Orange County Press Club gets her there, but if she gets more awards and/or becomes the subject of significant coverage then fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Orange County awards were to establish her success early in her career. Also note that the reference is an LA Times piece where the LA Times apparently thought it was important enough that they wrote an article about their own authors that won those same awards. She also won an award for New York's Funniest Reporter in 2008. See references 21 and 22 http://www.nyfunniestreporter.com/2008_Recap.html and http://www.stagetimemag.com/standup/?p=3677. I am guessing this doesn't mean anything on the notability scale to you, but she also has an IMDB page, is a "Verified Twitter Celebrity", and has her own iPhone application. She also has done about 10 commentaries for biographies on the A&E channel. Seriously, how can all of these others sources that determine notoriety not be enough for a supposedly open/free information service like Wikipedia. As the other "keep" vote below pointed out, why is this so hard? Because the delete voters don't know her? Karpaydm —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Weak delete A lot of articles only mention this person in passing and the articles by Rosen herself give no indication if she was a regular staff writer or a freelancer for said publications (which makes a huge difference). One article in People is not enough to draw on its notability to establish yourself as a noteworthy writer. There is no indication how important the award mentioned is. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added that she was a staffer (not a freelancer) at People and highlighted numerous articles with numerous top celebrities. Also, how does one indicate the importance of an award? - Karpaydm|^(talk)

Delete no evidence the situation has changed substantially since the AFD less than 3 weeks ago. Recommend SALTing until a rock-solid (and preferably COI-free) userspace draft is presented, so we don't have to go through this every 3 weeks from here on out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was one original article (not by me) that was terrible. It was deleted. I rewrote it after extensive research and it was speedy deleted unfairly as determined by the deletion review. So this is only the second article about Rosen and the first legitimate and unbiased version. I also think that the controversy that was sparked by her interview with Ed Koch was not highlighted enough until I revised the article today. Finally, I assume COI means "Conflict of Interest". Please explain the conflict of interest. - Karpaydm|^(talk)

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources presented in the article are mostly passing mentions. Trivial coverage does not allow an individual to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are unreliable? As far as your claim of "trivial coverage" goes, typically journalists (even when really famous) are not "talked about" in other sources. They are notable because of the publications they write for, the television programs they are on, and the subjects they cover in both genres. I am guessing you are familiar with ESPN television journalist Dan Patrick and have no problem with his page existing, yet his page has no references "about him". However, in this case Rosen became quite well known for her coverage of Ed Koch and I added numerous third party sources citing as much Karpaydm|^(talk) 8:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep I don't understand why people go out of their way to try and delete peoples pages for no apparent reason. This page isn't hurting anyone. She's written for multiple mainstream publications and has appeared on multiple television programs. It's not taking food out of anyones childrens mouths by having this page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.111.39 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Do Not Salt Article recreated once doesn't approach salting threshold for me, particularly where subject has a reasonable shot at achieving notability at some point (as opposed to a deceased subject, for example). Vartanza (talk) 03:33, 7 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. Secret ^account 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heroes production crew

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

Delete There is no point to this page. It is a small list, and all the information is already present either on the main page or List of Heroes episodes. Ω phois 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't seem that small to me. Polarpanda (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate in the extreme. Wikipedia is no IMDB. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to retain attribution. While most of the direct and writer information is already present elsewhere. The main page makes no distinction between the different types of producers (executive, co-, etc). It's an important distinction that should be covered. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually that distinction does exist under the Production heading on the main page, so again, the little amount of info that wasn't already included otherwise is properly redistributed to other pages, therefore this page has no more, is a waste of space and should be deleted ASAP. Snake Chess 5 15:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Mgm is referring to the infobox, which lists both executive producers and producers as "executive producers". There is a difference between the two. The infobox does not support "producer", so it would be easiest to just list them in the production section. Ω phois 19:25, 7 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. Secret ^account 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands University Snooker Championship

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

Article doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, because it is a regional championship, which isn't covered by reliable sources, as student papers aren't reliable sources. Armbrust (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inherently non-notable as a local students' get-together, nothing more. A UK-wide inter-collegiate championship might be another matter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources (only ones provided are written by the clubs themselves or are student newspapers, less than reliable sources) not finding much else. Limited to a handful of universities which is probably why significant coverage is not available. RadioFan (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wouldn't call student newspapers unreliable by definition, but this article should be deleted on other grounds. Sports competitions should only be listed if they're supported by the official organization of that sport or if they're international. This clearly doesn't qualify as the sort of event Wikipedia should cover. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 3 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 moved to The Enright House. MuZemike 01:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Enright House discography

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

See WP:MUSIC-Criteria for musicians and ensembles. No notability for this discography or any of the releases therein can be established until someone takes the time to write a supported article about the band itself. A cursory web search for The Enright House reveals a few sources that might be a start for a band article. After that is the time to create articles for albums and singles, and after that comes the discography. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Enright House - and rewrite as an article about the band. (No band needs a separate discography article unless the band's article is 40K + and they have ten or so albums to list). They are signed to a "notable indie" label, so should pass WP:Music. dramatic (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move certainly not right as it stands. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move/rename The idea that discographies should be a spin off of a long band article has been a longstanding one in our rules. Someone clearly jumped the gun here, but deletion is not needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move/rename (as nominator) I agree... perhaps an AfD was not the best procedure for generating this particular discussion. User:Pasta of Muppets appears to be moving along with this band's new articles accordingly, doing pretty much what you all are recommending here. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:20, 3 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. Secret ^account 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Dogs

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

Essentially spam for some non-notable children's books. Claims to have been reviewed but none of the links are to a review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply due to contributor inexperience. A simple google search enabled me to find the bookdads review quite easily. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability. ~YellowFives 16:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book series. Joe Chill (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What worries me about this entry is how the publisher appears to be created especially for this particular series and how they don't appear to have published anything else. Combined with the statement "The publishers, Barking Planet Productions, hold a copyright for all the books in the Planet of the Dogs series and hold a trademark for the name/title Planet of the Dogs." and the use of catalogs as references, I suspect this is an attempt at self-promotion from someone who has no clue about the publishing industry. 1) Copyright belongs to the author rather than the publisher unless they did a work for hire. The publisher gets certain rights, but with trustworthy ones copyright isn't one of them. 2) Catalogs list all published books. While they prove the book exists, they do nothing to establish notability. Reviews can, in my opinion be reasonable sources, assuming the reviewer is well-known as an authority in their field. Unfortunately, I have no clue about who these reviewers are. I'll withdraw my vote if the publisher can be established to be independent from the author or when I can get some indication of sales numbers. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much to add to the above reasons, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 11:48, 5 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. Secret ^account 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona McLaughlin

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

This biographical article fails to meet WP:PROF as McLaughlin is described as a senior researcher and her significance is not otherwise clear. Examining Google Scholar and checking her staff page on http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/SCI/osap/people/mclaughlin_e.htm, it is not clear that the requirements of WP:PROF will be definitively addressed by later addition of available sources. Ash (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Google News shows she was chief scientist of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in 2004 Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 12:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, her staff page says "in 1996 as chief scientist of a southern Beaufort Sea expedition; and, in 1997, as chief scientist of a multidisciplinary expedition in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as part of the SHEBA/JOIS project". These were expeditions (i.e. projects) rather than fixed departments so I do not believe the role of chief scientist in this sense fulfils the intent of the PROF requirement "has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post" (or other equivalent section in PROF). I suspect that the Google News source you found is likely to be using "chief scientist" in this sense rather than as "the" chief scientist of the IOS.—Ash (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were multiple authors on the Science (journal) article -- but McLaughlin was the one reporters chose to interview for their coverage of the article. That could mean the reporters regarded her as the most important author, or the most articulate, or the most photogenic (Canwest owns a TV network). Geo Swan (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ms McLaughlin is a scientist who just published an important article in Science (journal), on an important topic -- global warming. She and her colleagues found something surprising and disturbing -- recent changes to the chemical composition of the waters of the Beaufort Sea were interfering with plankton ability to form their carbonate shells. The Ocean was close to the brink of being so acidified that it would begin to dissolve the shells of existing plankton. Neither Science (journal) or the wikipedia is supposed to engage in sensationalism. Neither of us is supposed to do the literary equivalent of waving our arms around and shouting, "Warning Will Robinson! Warning Will Robinson!". But, this is a "Warning Will Robinson!" moment. The Science paper is only a recent instance of a long record of significant publications. Under "recent publications" her official biography listed 21 publications. Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The importance of her research area or the IOS is not at issue, I'm certain quite a few other articles exist on global warming and acidification. If you wish to consider her notability based on her body of publications then WP:PROF#Criteria#1 appears to apply. However from the list of publications, they appear to be team efforts rather than establishing her name in particular. Clearly to demonstrate her impact on the field, third party sources would need to support the article establishing her name as significant. Adding a few such third party sources that do this would address notability.—Ash (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using Scopus, I find 31 articles. The highest cites are 119, 117, 115, 102. The journals are almost entirely journals of the highest rank in the subject. This is enough to establish her as an authority in the subject. We normally do say that for anyone with multiple citations over 1200 -- not that I would propose such as a formal criterion, because it depends on the subject. I think nominating an article because " it is not clear that the requirements of WP:PROF will be definitively addressed" is ignoring WP:BEFORE. If there is significant indication that they might be met, the appropriate thing is to look for additional references. If it is fairly clear that they will not be, then AfD is appropriate. I point out that our requirements for keeping an article do not include "definitive" proof of anything. "Reasonable", or "on balance" are closer to the usual way we do things. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your criticism of the nomination is interesting as I did actually point out that I had checked Google Scholar and I had checked her staff page which gives a fairly comprehensive bibliography. Perhaps the nomination should have been positively phrased, for example "There is no evidence in Google Scholar of any significant published articles attributed solely or led by this author that have been recognized by third party publications as having substantial impact or that this author holds a highest level post or has received a prestigious international award...", however I kind of expected that to be implied by referring to WP:PROF. Thinking through the checks I did make and considering the clear criteria of PROF, I still consider that in raising this AFD I did go through the process recommended in BEFORE.—Ash (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my apology, for you did indicate that. The point of where the balance is remains, if it is not clear whether of not something should be deleted, it is not deleted. But I realize that this may just be a matter of wording & you genuinely doubt the notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:Prof #1 as found by DGG, also GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete I think this is borderline. The press refs are marginal but National Geographic is a big journal. She has a paper in Science but she is one of n authors and not 1st or last. She doesn't seem to have written a notable book or originated a notable idea. I've added the Science ref and it will be interesting to see what the result it. NBeale (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the National Geographic article, the mention is only a tangential 4 word quote "Plan for logistical nightmares". Unfortunately this does not do much for notability in her field under the PROF criteria. I agree with your summary for the Science article; it actually has 10 contributors representing 7 different organizations, consequently the article may be important but it again does not clearly establish McLaughlin as notable.—Ash (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. Click23 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's argment; article subject's contributions to field appear to be substantial enough to satisfy notability criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't see any case on general WP:GNG grounds — the National Geographic mention is trivial — and I'm not happy relying purely on citation counts, but the citation numbers given by DGG look like a pass of WP:PROF #1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 8 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. Secret ^account 01:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse franchise

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

I don't believe this concept is a notable one; the current page looks a lot like an advertisement Polarpanda (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unambiguous advertising: The cost and time saving benefits of the reverse franchise open the door to new competition on what seems monopolized markets by larger nationwide franchises already established. Proper marketing is key to the success of the reverse franchise but is often easily accomplished as the private companies are often willing to buy in to a franchise if the benefits outweighs the negatives which they often do due to cost saving methods naturally taken by the reverse franchise. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified, non-notable information. Article mentions Larry Morrison as the person who coined the term, and what was the SPA who created the article? You guessed it, LarryMorrison. It's WP:SPAM and should be deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 16:01, 2 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. Deletion is not an issue here, if a merge is needed, it can be discussed at the talkpage. Tone 16:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Finn Harps Stadium

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

I find the article is non-noticable. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 11:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Finn Park. The references are there, and it's useful information. It just doesn't belong in a separate article yet, because the building has not yet been constructed and put to use. Putting the information in the last section of the existing stadium where related information is already present is in my opinion the best solution. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stadium is under construction and it is a separate venue to existing stadium. In addition, nominator's rationale has more than a hint of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Patken4 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Patken4 (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per Mgm; as and when the proposed new stadium is actually confirmed, then it should have its own article. Giant Snowman 00:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stadium has been confirmed and construction started in May 2008. A stadium under construction is a valid subject for an article (see Category:Planned or proposed stadiums). Bettia (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But construction has been delayed for economic reasons and there is only a speculative date for it to restart. Giant Snowman 12:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is a used term about a proposed new stadium (ie it isn't something someone made up). Even if the proposal doesn't come to fruition, it is a notable subject matter. There are articles about new stadiums which haven't even reached the stage of beginning construction (eg New Aberdeen Stadium). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are numerous articles on proposed football stadiums already. Eldumpo (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - would be nice to wait until the progress on the field begins again and/or we have the actual title of the park. Seems similar to (although clearly different from) the common "X's Nth album" types of articles, which are regularly deleted per WP:HAMMER. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:24, 9 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Dreams- The Original

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

WP:NALBUMS. Very rare item with only one source found to confirm its existence. Search reveals many other albums of same name but almost no third-party discussion of the album in question. It appears to have been mentioned in the book "Acid Dreams" by Martin A. Lee and probably really existed as a special promotional item featuring a few notable artists, but notability for the album itself is lacking. Also this article is functioning more as a a talk page with these same arguments. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really an encyclopedia article, and the topic appears non-notable. Polarpanda (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The album appears to have been re-released in 2009, which earned it coverage here and here, which I believe, in addition to the PopMatters review already provided in the article, is enough to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. I also suggest removing "The Original" from the title and renaming it simply Acid Dreams. Gongshow ^Talk 18:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The three reviews noted above are plenty to demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but article needs to be tidied up, spelling corrected etc.--Tris2000 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have incorporated the above sources into the article. I still recommend changing the article's name to simply Acid Dreams, as none of the sources refer to the album as Acid Dreams - The Original. Gongshow ^Talk 00:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. Everyone has good arguments and the article is now much better. I will attempt the suggested title change (move). The article is now worth keeping, in my book. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 07:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I, for one, really appreciate it when a nom takes a second look and -- where the fact support it, often w/new sources/articles, reversed himself. It save other editors time. Kudos to Doomsdayer. If someone could close this as a keep that would help forestall further AfDs on the article, I imagine.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 7 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 Mao Xinyu. Kevin (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Dongdong

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

per WP:CRYSTAL and 'Notability is not inherited'. Six-year-old great-grandson of "the great helmsman". I redirected it to Mao Xinyu but it was undone. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect With the family being in the spotlight, the name makes for a valid search term for any number of family members. Deleting it altogether because a single editor can't accept the decision is not a good idea. Just protect the redirect if it continues to happen. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect, agreed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 2 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. Secret ^account 01:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paper Mario series characters (2nd nomination)

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

After several months of surviving from no consensus one way or the other, none of the problems have been addressed. The only out-of-universe information in the article is a single sentence describing the visual design of the characters. At some point we have to acknowledge that the problems won't be fixed after not having been fixed for several years; if someone wants to do major fixes in the span of the AfD, be my guest, but I don't think there should be anymore extra chances to fix the problems that are brought up every time an AfD is made. Besides lacking notability, it's got four cleanup tags, and is in general a mess - the article is completely unbalanced, giving undue weight to minor characters. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Paper Mario (series). I may switch or reaffirm my opinion later on in what I predict will be a lengthy debate. The first AfD, as the closing admin stated, was laden with weak arguments. I do note that no discussion has taken place on the article's talk page since the first AfD which states that there is both a lack of interest in the article, and a lack of a cleanup effort. This is an only observation and doesn't go against the article at all. I'll quote what I wrote at the first AfD, as the rationale still applies here, hopefully without the influx of bad arguments.

Looking over this list, I don't see a need for a good 90% of the material on here, as it is just way too detailed, or "crufty" as some say, for a general encyclopedia article. Also I'm not sure that most of this can be cited from reliable sources without having to use original research. The content and scope of this list are out of whack: read over entries like "Jolene" and you'll see what I mean when I say this article has major OR and plot issues. I imagine a possible solution would be to merge this to the main article and there we can create an encyclopedic understanding of the characters. This solution applies just as well to the article now as it did to it back in July. Them From Space 08:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or Merge~~. However, do not simply redirect, as I highlighted last time the cause for this article being restored previously was due to it being redirected, yet the information was not merged to the target, thus making it a misleading redirect. Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SMerge and redirect If the verifiable information within this article is as limited as the nom suggested, merging should've been easy. Nominating for deletion if you don't want to do the neccesary work yourself is bad form. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - standout characters already have their own articles; remaining fictional aspects belong in the plot synopsis of the games. The provided citations are ideal for the critical reception and development sections of the series overview. Marasmusine (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Maramusine says, the standout characters already have their own articles, and this is not being challenged. So what do we do about the other ones, the ones that are a little less than notable? Some people want to fight for individual articles on them, but I do not think that is necessary, except for major characters--I have no longer been defending such articles. Some think they can be removed entirely, or reduced to bare names on a list, but that's not encyclopedic. The compromise is to have them in combination articles. It's much easier to make decisions when there is a way to compromise, and keeping this article is the compromise solution. As the Fiction guideline rules discussions faded, essentially everyone there on all sides had accepted some sort of compromise of this sort, though there was considerable disagreement about its nature and limits, in every possible direction, which has prevented formal consensus on any one solution, as is often the case with guidelines. Rejecting such compromise is going to leave only one solution for the people who do want content about these characters, which is to go back to the old practice of individual articles. I want to avoid that. I also want to avoid the feeling that people on one side of an issue refuse to compromise. The inclusionist side is apparently willing, and has done so, in accepting these combination articles--I do not speak for them, but I can observe that they have de facto accepted them. As for the content, I think most of it is OK. The sections for some of the characters are probably slightly excessive, but this does not have the really outrageous overexpansion we sometimes see: a paragraph about each is perfectly reasonable. For a complex series, an approach through the characters is often a good way to go. I certainly find understanding a list like this much easier than to read the equivalent material arranged as a single plot (this isn't inherent, but it is much easier to write short sections on a character than to cope with a complicated plot, and many of our editors would be wise to start in on something relatively small, because they certainly make a mess of anything longer.) DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such compromises are unnecessary. What does this provide besides an excessive plot summary? Why does Kolorado need two paragraphs to cover his minor supporting role in a single game? There needs to be an established need for this list, not just "oh hey we want to show more plot". An acceptable compromise would be to expand discussion of the partner characters in their respective articles and that's it. Don't you think there's something wrong when Kolorado's plot summary is of comparable length to the plot summary of the game he appears in? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate list and discuss reasonable default ways to handle these articles. It seems obvious that minor characters are clearer when presented here than in a plot summary... and yes, its sad that there was no discussion on the talk page since the last AFD. So why not start one with the various editors who have contributed to this list in the past? Developing working compromises on articles such as this is a realsitic way to improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor characters are inherently unimportant unless otherwise stated. Why do we need a summary of Kolorado that's comparable to his only appearance's plot summary? And while it would be nice to have time to build bridges with other editors, I don't have such time. I dispute that there's a clear basis that THIS is a list that must exist, without ever telling readers why this three game series needs its own list of characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this character list. Three very notable games, with millions of copies sold(for the second two anyway, the first game not having its sales figures listed in its article), are as deserving as a character list as series of bestselling novels, anime/cartoons, and manga/comics. Isn't there a policy about character list somewhere? Are now that they've gotten rid of 99% of the articles for individual characters, are they now going to destroy all the character list articles as well? Dream Focus 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if it's specifically mentioned in policy or guideline, but secondhand notability is not notability. If the popularity of the game means it warrants a list of characters, then every aspect of the game is notable enough and requiring a list of enemies, or a list of locations. And another no-no is "these similar article exists, so this list has to exist". And Wikipedia tries to cover every aspect of a game it can without going into excess. Some characters will get lost in merging/deleting characters and character lists, but them's the breaks. The major characters of the three Paper Marios are all mentioned in their respective articles - they could perhaps use a little more mention, like the partners' effects on gameplay, but beyond that, there are many characters in all three Paper Mario not mentioned in the list, so that argument would necessitate indiscriminate inclusion of all characters from the series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia has a policy against listing minor characters without citations. All major characters are already at Paper Mario (series) and the series doesn't need an in-depth character list. Listing all minor characters and enemies like this is practically WP:GAMEGUIDE material. Finally, the people who keep arguing to keep the article are completely unwilling to clean it up, probably because doing so is practically impossible without any external references besides game guides and the game itself. Unless there is cultural significance, articles about characters belong in FAQs, specialized Wikis and the like.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia's policies in favor of listing major characters like these who verifiable through reliable sources, i.e. as as subjects are clearly notable as demonstrated by the improvements made to the article since nomination, that they come from a recognizable franchise, and the fact that the items on this list can be verified by reliable sources as linked within this discussion to Google News and Books. I did a Google book search and did find some information on development and reception that I added to the article. There appears to be oodles more on Google News. So, perhaps expanding the development and reception information would be a good start to build off of my additions. The series needs an in-depth character list as such articles belong on Wikipedia per our First pillar of being a specialized encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how they need a separate article. Mario and the rest all have separate articles already where the information can be noted. That leaves the minor characters from the Paper Mario games, and the information you just cited could easily go in the development section of Paper Mario or in the main Mario role-playing games article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer to merge as a compromise per WP:PRESERVE, that is acceptable as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to preserve them, it does not necessitate preservation. Preservation is good if the content is established as important, but it's a question of how much content need be preserved. Any character that has its own article obviously needs not be mentioned in the article besides having a {{mainarticle}} link, while I'll repeat that any compromise would not involve criteria for inclusion. A compromise would be for this article to exist, trimmed down to only necessary/notable content and well-referenced. The compromise ended up being at the opposite end of what those who want it deleted asked for, and it just ended up as a low quality list with no established reason to exist besides "we need to preserve it!" If the content is deemed unnecessary, then preservation is unnecessary. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the information IS preserved outside of the encyclopedia, because this is game guide information. Thus, WP:PRESERVE doesn't have any bearing here.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per DGG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, the problem is that the strongest argument is "we need to cover them". Not every subject needs to be covered. I really want the closing admin to consider the weight of the arguments - it's a combination of lack of work on the article [that always comes back for the duration of the article], the only out-of-universe content being really more about the overall game product or how the game renders its characters than about the actual characters themselves. If the characters were recurring throughout the series, or if they had unique notability, maybe. But the out-of-universe coverage simply does not exist, and there is no criteria for inclusion and, as such, being a character in the series makes you important enough. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Marasmusine mentions, any characters of note already have articles. There's lots of cruft here, listing lots of minor characters. --Teancum (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Besides the fact that you cite an essay, he doesn't say "It's cruft", he says that there's a lot of game cruft, that it lists many minor characters, and that the only characters of note have articles and as such, the only point of the article is to list non-noteworthy characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Once again, that's essay, and not policy. It was also created by you and as such is merely opinion. I understand the point, really I do, but does Wikipedia truly benefit from having an entirely separate article about characters like Lakilester, Wise Wisterwood, etc? That's why I stated it's cruft -- however I'll use a different term from Wikiproject VG policy and call it WP:GAMETRIVIA. Any notable characters can be listed in List of Mario series characters to keep them all in one ___location. At any rate, me calling it cruft was merely a secondary point, as the main point is that notable characters already have articles, and any remaining list content could be merged to the main Mario character article. --Teancum (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I thought at least lists of fictional characters was acceptable to the community. Per DGG also. Ikip (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were true, shouldn't it be true that every character from every work of every medium should be included on Wikipedia? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it notable media, then yes. No harm in it, and some would benefit from this complete encyclopedic coverage. Dream Focus 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not a resounding argument to say "it can't hurt". If that's your best argument that no harm is done, then I'd suggest dropping this article. Some would be helped by including a boss list for Mario Galaxy - true or false? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You don't like this type of article, you don't believe any of them should exist, and you will keep nominating one after the other, and renominating them if you don't get your way, determined they are destroyed. The article was kept last time, and will probably end in keep or no consensus this time, and you'll probably just nominate it again, or someone else with the same views will, and we'll be back here to do it all once again. The article is well written, well organized, plenty of valid information, and I see no legitimate reason for anyone to try to delete it. Dream Focus 13:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So wait, a good article is listed for rescuing? Wow, shocking. If I didn't like this kind of article I wouldn't have made a characters list for a single game. I like the kind of articles that aren't surviving because "we must mention every single minor character in a game as if Wikipedia is all about listing every little trivial thing in the world!" The article was kept on no consensus, and it effectively said "too many people saying keep, but with weaker arguments." If it weren't for the sheer mass of people wanting it kept, the lack of quality arguments would have made it a clear "delete" verdict. Oh, and at what point is an article with an "additional refs" cleanup tag, "notability" cleanup tag, "in-universe" cleanup tag, and a general "cleanup" tag well-written, well-organized, or clearly containing "plenty of valid information"? It just boggles the mind to suggest that this article is better than bad. The valid reason is that "hey, can't hurt" is NOT a valid reason for an article to exist. It's that if that's all that can be said in the article's defence, an article which is clearly of low quality by the content and the cleanup tags, then why should it exist? Like I've said, "it helps some people" applies to so many things that don't belong here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mario role-playing games, no merge. There isn't any real-world context to justify giving this much text to this many minor characters, and given the current status of the Paper Mario articles, it doesn't seem there's a need to. This isn't a complex series, either: The repetitive nature of the characters is proof enough of that ("<character>, a <species>, helps Mario after he helps <it> to <minor plot point>"). Thus, the article is essentially a list of minor plot points, in bullet form. Nifboy (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge and redirect to Paper Mario (series) or Mario role-playing games. No notability for this particular group of characters. Nice to see the ARS block vote in force. Verbal chat 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block vote? How slanderous. Do you ever see more than a handful of the ARS members in any AFD at a time? You see far more people from various other Wikiprojects all showing up at the same areas and voting delete, more often than anything else. Those most active on AFD will see familiar names, often voting the same way everywhere they choose to participate. Dream Focus 16:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I find hilarious is that despite the fact there's a big fat rescue tag up there not a single thing's been done to improve the article. It's AfD: many people here have genuine concerns and there's no "right" for an article to absolutely have to exist. As its stands many characters in this series are exclusive to it though some could be salvaged and put in the series article. Are you interested in an encyclopedic study of material or simply trying to keep it all at any cost? AfD isn't "to nuke or not to nuke", it's a call that some (and yes some, not all) people genuinely believe "this may be crap, improve it or it has to go".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. If you have a problem with an article, discuss it on the talk page. Millions of people play these games, and the characters are an important part of it, so they listed in a side article, instead of overwhelming the main list. Dream Focus 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not overwhelming to list only the major characters in the main list. We've had a problem with this article for the longest time; we kind of figured that the, what, five AfDs would eventually get someone to work on it? It's up for deletion because no one wants to clean it up, and hasn't for years. You always talk about compromise, but it's not a compromise with what you propose. You basically propose "Oh, let's leave the article in its current state. Compromise?" No, see, that's you getting everything and us getting nothing out of said compromise. A compromise would either be "cleanup and it won't be deleted" [aka, the compromise given with every AfD before this] or "include the major characters in the main list". The latter is great because nobody wins! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never talk of compromising, finding that a ridiculous concept. Others have stated that a compromise was to let them mass delete a vast number of character articles, and just combining them to character list articles. Then once that was done they "trimmed" the character list articles, and have been trying to delete them entirely as well. Dream Focus 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you make an assumption of bad faith and use it as an argument to keep this article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? You don't like the article, so you want to destroy it. I do not see any legitimate reason to do so. Simple as that. Anything else is just a lame excuse for people to justify their actions. Dream Focus 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I like it? How can I like little to no references, no criteria for inclusion, no notability asserted, etc.? Here's an idea - instead of defending it every five months and forgetting about it immediately after, give me any reason to like it by improving it in any way. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The many people who have contributed to it, and many who have read it, think its fine the way it is. We are not here to make you like it. The Wikipedia is to be used by millions, it unlikely that any article, no matter how it is written, will appeal to even a tenth of them. A few million people bought the games, which means billions of others did not, and probably don't care about them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't care when someone tries to pointlessly destroy something that others have worked hard on, and many do in fact care about. Dream Focus 19:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(fixing indent) Well, it's great that you think it's good without having any good qualities to it, more power to you. But no human being here has ever suggested that "oh hey billions of people never heard of it. Delete!" You keep generalizing people calling for its deletion as holding torches and pitchforks. We are not calling for its deletion because of its subject or source material. If it had the appropriate content or tone we've been asking for for the past five AfDs, it wouldn't be up on AfD. The ONLY thing that ANYONE cares about is the quality of the subject, not the subject itself. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD is about the subject, and whether it is notable enough to have an article. You do not delete something because you don't like the quality level. Dream Focus 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying it's a problem that an article can be deleted because no one has attempted to assert notability in years? And when four AfDs came and went without improvements to the article [aside from minuscule improvements made every AfD to give the impression of improvement]. Also, why do you care so much about an article you've never edited before? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw someone suffering, even if I didn't know the person, it would bother me. If you have a conscious, you do what is you feel is right, and you care about the suffering and injustice directed at others. You don't like their work, so you wish to destroy it. I see no valid reasons to do so. And if it survived that many previous AFD, why do you keep trying? Most people want it left alone, so leave it alone already. Why are you so determined to destroy it? Dream Focus 20:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that I want gone any article that lacks notability and references. If you're suffering over a Wikipedia article, that's a problem. I've had my fair share of articles I've worked on that were merged, redirected, or outright deleted, but I got over it because they had their points. I'm not going to say I want the article to be here so I don't hurt peoples' feelings; clearly, Wikipedia is not for you. If you want low standards of quality for your content, go to the Mario Wikia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ZXCVBNM. Additionally, if any one feels that this might be a candidate for trans-wiki to the [www.mariowiki.com|Super Mario Wiki], please hit up my talk page. Thanks. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is not compelling when that stance has been refuted. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article has improved dramatically since nomination and has addressed any reasonable concerns for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dramatically? Two references and a reception paragraph does not classify as dramatically improved, nor has my stance been "refuted". Now you're just stifling other people's commentary. Now, if ALL the characters had at least one citation, THAT would be enough to make me change my stance. However, right now they don't have anything close to that. The characters are still unsourced and have no external references. Claiming that it was refuted is just hogwash and seems like a last ditch attempt to save your position. As I said before, those references you added could easily be used in the main article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Super Paper Mario: Characters and History Interview," GameTrailers.com (Apr 16, 2007) is undeniably an external reference. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - References and overall prose has been updated, but that's never been the issue. The issue is that there's an indiscriminate list of very minor characters here. Heck, I'd even change over to a keep vote if it weren't for the fact that it lists practically every character in the series, notable or not. --Teancum (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That video is a developer interview, hence, it does not prove notability since it's completely self contained. It might reference the information but it doesn't prove that it is notable. Characters such as Mario have a whole bunch of cultural impact and that makes them noteworthy for an encyclopedia. Are there any PAPER MARIO EXCLUSIVE characters in that list which have any cultural impact that you can reference? If I made a game and made a list of its characters on Wikipedia, would it be any different than this one??--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That a reliable website sees fit to list it proves notability by any reasonable definition of the subjective and anti-encyclopedic term of "notable." Comparing a list of characters from a multi-series game franchise covered in published reliable sources with something you would hypothetically just make up one day is indeed quite different and beyond apples and oranges. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, it does not count as a secondary source because it was from the developer. It does not matter if IGN hosted Nintendo's statements, it's still Nintendo's statement. It's not cultural impact - that Nintendo commented on their own content is not unexpected and does not quality for use in the article. What we want is an explanation for why these minor characters warrant inclusion, not why these major characters that have their own articles already are important. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge: The citation by A Nobody is quality but would be better placed in the article on the specific game, if it isn't already. The majority of the characters listed here are either [exceptionally] minor characters or otherwise have articles of their own, such as Mario. Those inbetween the two types would be the ideal merge targets up to their parent game articles. If a merge is not possible which would preserve the integrity of the target articles per WP:PLOT, than a straight up delete would be fine. In the end, this articles serves as a regurgitation of unnecessary plot. --Izno (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only character that I could think could work is Kammy Koopa, who is already present in the list. But if any reasoning can be made to salvage examples such as Count Bleck, Shadow Queen, or Sir Grodus, feel free to try to establish this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep excellent improvements by editor A Nobody and others means the article easilly meets our noteability criterea. Even if any doubt remains, we should keep this very informative article per m:Vision. Vision and Mission statements trump other guidelines. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your latter statements are weaker than your former, which is weak in and of itself. As for why: The latter are weak due to the specifics of "The Vision". We're looking to produce knowledge. What we have here in this article is data; information. Knowledge is organized data and information curated in order to provide a broad but systematic view of the topic. This article does not aid in that whatsoever. As for the former, that's easily disputed and already has been. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, encyclopaedias dont aim to produce knowledge – that would require original research. Our purpose is to relay existing knowledge, and with respect to this subject the article does a great job. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, so you ignored basically the entirety of what I said in lieu of answering that one sentence?... --Izno (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I dont agree my statements were weak, and think the per Vision point was the stronger of the two. But i dont see any harm in others haveing a different opinion so didnt see the need to challenge your assessment. I hope i didnt seem overly terse, its just some folk round here seem to prefer concise remarks! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I do not see what is excellent - by the fact that it fails to address one of the major complaints of the opposing side; his improvements only assert notability for the characters whose notability is established already. The information validates the content that needn't be validated, so what did his improvements do to make the Paper Mario-exclusive characters notable? And it's not OR to produce information. Production is not necessarily creating our own information, but recreating information on this Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Improvements have started. It's still got quite a bit of work to do, but it it should be salvageable. I'll try to trim down the sections on The Thousand Year Door since that's the only one I've played. Feel free to bring back parts that shouldn't have been removed. It's been awhile since I've played so I may be underestimating the importance of some characters. Reach Out to the Truth 19:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate the effort, the level of depth these characters get is only half the problem. It's also the questionable notability, with nothing to suggest that any of them are worth listing. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:45, 7 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. because the creator/subject asked for it and no one else added any substantial information. Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Julian

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

Unresolved tagged issues. POV/Original research by subject of wiki page only. No reliable sources. Philip Julian (talk) 07:57, 2 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. Secret ^account 01:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve_Yegge

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steve Yegge

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

None-notable programmer WoodenBuddha (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even seem to claim notability, much less prove it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Why do we care if he claims notability? ErikHaugen (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because if he doesn't claim notablity, the page can be speedy deleted under WP:A7 TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe it's not so much if HE claims notability, so much as if the article claims he's notable. WoodenBuddha (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that - you're talking now about deficiencies in the article, not whether it should be deleted. The failure of Steve or the article to establish notoriety is not an issue here. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His blog has/had quite a following. Do a google search, he is quoted by others, interviewed, speaks at conferences, etc. The writeup for one of his talks here: [10] says "If you're a software developer, you already know who Steve Yegge is." ErikHaugen (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found to verify notability TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though I'm quite aware of who he is as a programmer, he doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:38, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weekly Prekshit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the article has its text directly lifted from the cisco website, meaning it qualifies as both a copyright violation and spam. Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco 1800 Series

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

no proof of notability. Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:22, 1 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) 03:16, 2 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 Resident Evil#Portable games (non-admin closure). Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil Mobile Games

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

Content is entirely redundant to Resident Evil. The distinction does not appear to be notable. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Covered in the Portable games section of the main series article. Reach Out to the Truth 21:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 21:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Resident Evil (series)--Pookeo9 ^{Say What you Want} 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to NAC this as such per WP:BOLD/WP:IAR? Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so: only one person has suggested it. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:09, 26 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) 03:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support a redirect too. This is a reasonable enough search term and someone typing it in should end up at the correct section in the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is the good solution. Armbrust (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the main series article can cover this easily. --Teancum (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Resident Evil (series)#Portable games, each game has it's own article which is linked to on the main article for further details. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:00, 7 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. Secret ^account 01:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharafat Khan

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

No assertion of notability. His "newspaper" is an independent blog that covers "suppressed News, Religious Revisionism, Conspiracy, Paranormal and the unexplained", and his google hits are almost nil. His "popular" nickname pulls up two hits (this article and a forum) and his common name is too common to be able to get anything from. Ironholds (talk) 21:06, 25 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) 03:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any independent/reliable sources for the subject or the newspaper Bombay Press Hindi Weekly. Can't verify, let alone judge notability. Abecedare (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a few proofs of existence for him and his paper DNA article, Mumbai press club members list. From both it looks like a small time journalist. But may be he is big in the Hindi/Urdu press. Can some one do a Hindi language google search? (i am not confident that i would spell his name correctly in hindi)--Sodabottle (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No evidence or assertion of notability. --Ragib (talk) 23:29, 7 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 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Shatnawi

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

Not very notable family, not much on Google and no news results. fetchcomms☛ 21:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, at least not in English language publications.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:36, 26 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) 03:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established properly.--Staberinde (talk) 21:38, 4 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) 05:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Engine

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's this and its the content engine for a few mildly popular websites. I looked for more but was surprised I couldn't find anything in books or much else really. Maybe a redirect to Everything2. Shadowjams (talk) 00:27, 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) 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN No sources in the article. Miami33139 (talk) 20:11, 3 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 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Ali Khan Mayo

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

Autobiographical entry for a journalist with no sign of notability. No third party sources, and Google searches for Akbar Ali Khan Mayo turn up only entries on various wikis. Prod and notability tags removed without improvements. Hairhorn (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete, as per nom. His article is longer than that for the newspaper, which is shorter, doesn't mention him, and has only a red link to the owner. If it hasn't been improved already I can't see it getting better. JohnBlackburne (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For notability purpose ISPR Press Review should be consulted. And furhter more, article of MAnzoor Mirza should be view as Akbar Mayo contributed essays to the book of author which have been published under his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.69.25 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability (or not) of Manzoor Mirza isn't relevant here, and ISPR Press Review is simply a press clippings service. Have a look at the notability guidelines and wp:otherstuffexists. Hairhorn (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note I rv'd the last edit by 111.68.103.3 as vandalism, but overlooked the unsigned comment added at the end, so have copied it immediately below. JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this author if you think it proper however, some one might need to know about the person.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all sources are articles by the subject, not about the subject. Completely fails WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What more should be added to retain the article. The authors is a writer and someone might need to know about him. So if this article is deleted then there will be nothing to know about him.--111.68.103.3 (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs evidence of notability, as described in WP:N and WP:BIO. That someone might need to know about him is not enough. JohnBlackburne (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This author should be deleted as one of his articles caused controversy in newspaper. He represented a derogatory and one sided picture of the relations between two communities in Pakistan therefore deserve deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.103.3 (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being controversial would make him more notable, not less... Hairhorn (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know him very well. He wrote many issues and his contentions were usually wrong and baised. Therefore delete him. He is not notable anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.103.3 (talk) 16:39, 5 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 00:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Live! with Mike Koncan

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

This television programme/Internet broadcast has no reliable sources demonstrating any notability; although it is impossible to access the organization's website without a password, it seems as though this is a university student-level production using a public access television channel and likely has an infinitesimal audience. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. I am new to wikipedia but our show is seen each week by hundreds online and thousands more as part of Ryerson University's campus television station, RUtv. Many people use this article to see who will be on the show in the coming weeks...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly sourced to primary sources; no evidence of meeting the Notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:16, 25 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) 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be notable only on the Ryerson campus. Wikipedia requires wider significance to establish notability. Maybe something about the program could be added to the Ryerson University article? --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Notability is only required for separate articles, if this can be merged into the university article, all it needs is verifiability, not even from a third party source if the source is made totally clear. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 3 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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TWAC

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

duplicate of The Whole Donut, with page name completely unrelated to subject WuhWuzDat 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not per nom. The article creator apparently used another article as a template, but within a few minutes he replaced it with content about the organization he was writing about. That is not a problem. However, the article appears to be about a small local youth group, with the only sources provided being primary sources. There is no indication that the group is notable under WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 1 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) 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Metropolitan90, this is not a notable youth group. JBsupreme (talk) 15:12, 2 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 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfolk

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

Sub-sub-sub-genre of music, I can not find any real info about this and it seems to be just a local group of people trying to distinguish themselves from anti-folk. No real reliable sources on the web and google books only returned a few hits. Ridernyc (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a pretty extensive search and found exactly the same as the nominator. All I could find were self published web pages by the one band. One band is not a genre.--SabreBD (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:17, 25 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) 02:54, 2 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 05:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Old Boat

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

Obvious advertising of an magazine with no reliable, secondary sources listed on the article despite the lovely logo of a boat to the west side of the article. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 17:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [11]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:49, 25 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) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'd usually delete as "notability not asserted". DS (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is way I think that you shouldn't be an admin. Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 5 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. NW (Talk) 19:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T.U.F.F. Puppy

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

Unnotable future television series that has received no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources nor even confirmed to be in production or being released. Only word about it has been the single press release. Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Prod removed without reason by SPA. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Profound lack of sources [12]. Abductive (reasoning) 07:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and address current lack of sources with such as Big Cartoon Database, Toonzone, and Animation Magazine. Its a safe bet that the series will receive more press. Keeping and expanding through the course of regular editing serves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three sites reprinting the same press release is not "more" press, its none at all. You can not make your own notability by releasing press releases. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While containing much the same information as would be expected, the three articles have differences in length, content, and author. Calling something a press release does not make it one... so perhaps you can provide an official press release from Nickelodeon so comparisons can be made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Schmidt - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:28, 26 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) 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The press release is quoted in full in the toonzone.net references and was paraphrased in the other two. There is no indication when the 13 episodes will start airing, but I suspect it will be in fall 2010. Given that time lag, we are better off deleting now and restoring the material if and when the series airs. Racepacket (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collectonian, if the network sends out a press release it makes little sense to question if the show is in production or being released. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how so? It was announced, that is not a blood contract to actually put it in production or release it. Those press releases are old and it still has not been released. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. It will air on Nick in 2010, and they have confirmed it. Dalekusa (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Can you provide actual confirmation beyond a single press release? Wikipedia articles are not created based on future] possible notability, but the notability it has now, which is none. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No they haven't. Besides, we need third party sources that say more than, "um, there's this show, which might come out a year from now, maybe". Abductive (reasoning) 19:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect to Butch Hartman until the show actually exists rather than the current state of just having been ordered by a network. Sarilox (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - press releases don't strike me as neutral or reliable. Unreleased, so seems like a WP:CRYSTAL case (provided that ample evidence can be shown to the contrary, which I have not seen); maybe after it airs. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL if this becomes a TV series it will become an article. Polargeo (talk) 15:15, 9 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 all as far as the deletion discussion is concerned; all articles moved to the WP:INCUBATOR per rough consensus given. Note that I did not move them as subpages of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Engine (boogie-rock band) because I don't think the Article Incubator deals with such subpages, i.e. they won't show up on the main WP:INCUBATOR page. Please let me know if I'm incorrect on that assumption. MuZemike 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Oiled (album)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

These articles are album and video releases by the band Engine. The WP article on Engine was moved to the article incubator following an AFD discussion. These related articles are unreferenced and have no independent assertions of notability. Suggest either deleting them or moving them to sub-pages of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Engine (boogie-rock band), as incubation improvements to the Engine article may also establish notability for these releases. --Muchness (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Muchness (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:18, 25 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) 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per this discussion on my talk page, Engine's notability is established by this link and this link (screenshots of newspaper articles posted on Flickr). These albums, though, are not independently notable. I recommend moving them to the article incubator as well. When Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Engine (boogie-rock band) is moved back to the mainspace, these album articles can merged/redirected to the band article. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Since there appears to be an active attempt to fix the parent article, I think it's a good idea to move subarticles there too and give them a chance to be worked upon until the main article is back and ready to be used as a place to merge to, should this be necessary. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 3 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) 05:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GT-8

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

This is one of the hundreds of multi effects units in existence. It is unremarkable, has not been used on any important albums or by famous musicians. There is no assertion of notability. Conical Johnson (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just promo material (WP:SPAM). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:07, 1 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) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There must be thousands of different effects processors and pedals in existence. We should not be documenting them unless they have first been documented by reliable third party publications. That's not to say that those publications do not exist, but I'm not finding them online. JBsupreme (talk) 15:27, 2 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 00:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boss SE70

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

Non-notable product. Has not been the subject of significant non-advertisement coverage. This is obscure fancruft; the only notability for this product is that it was used (along with hundreds of other processors) by one group on one album. Conical Johnson (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just promo material (WP:SPAM). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:06, 1 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) 02:43, 2 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. Secret ^account 01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life Community Church

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

I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Racepacket (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even claim notability, much less prove it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete. If you strip the Google results of the results that are not this particular church you're left with nothing substantional. No architectural notability for the building no notability for the organization itself. All of it appears to be based on the subject itself, failing rules about the independence of sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 14:05, 6 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. Secret ^account 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DigiTech EX-7 Expression Factory

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

Non-notable product. Has not been used on famous albums or by famous musicians, has not received non-commercial coverage, makes no assertion of notability. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just promo material (WP:SPAM). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:03, 1 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) 02:38, 2 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 Tomball High School. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomball Cougar Pride Band

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

A high school marching band is not notable. No third-party references. Can be merged/redirected to Tomball High School. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge per nom, after cutting the article down to a reasonable size. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:12, 25 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) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and merge as appropriate) Nominator, you already give a suitable course of action in your nomination when you suggest merging. Try Wikipedia:Requested mergers first. Deletion is not the answer if there still are alternatives like this. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm soryy, but I've had enough very bad experiences with requesting a merge, reverts, and edit wars. No one responds to a proposal and nothing gets done, so I use the definative AFD. None of this information is worth keeping and it can be deleted anyway. Reywas92 ^Talk 14:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per nom. No third party sources to establish notability for standalone article. Yilloslime ^T_C 07:21, 4 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) 05:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making Waves Canada

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

A national non-profit organization that does not meet WP:CLUB's basic criterion for significant coverage in secondary sources at this time. (Not to be confused with "Making Waves: Canada's Community Economic Development Magazine," which accounts for many of the Ghits when searching). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I wasn't able to find reliable sourcing either. Ray^Talk 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing: http://reporter.mcgill.ca/2009/11/small-waves-create-ripples-that-last-a-lifetime/ www.makingwavesmcmaster.org www.makingwavesmontreal.com http://www.forcesavenir.qc.ca/en/universitaire/finaliste_view/2671 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.188.74 (talk) 01:27, 26 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) 02:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a student organization active on only two campuses, and the sources are local media, e.g., the campus alumni magazine, not independent sources. Lacks notability. Racepacket (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 3 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 deleted by Tnxman307 . –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Agro info delivery system

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

I've read this article three times and I still have no idea what it is. It has nothing to do with the title of the article, but (possibly) agriculture in India. I don't think there's a speedy deletion criteria that fits, so I decided to bring it up here. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a Test Page and as Copyvio. The Groundnut section duplicates [13], while the rest of the article seems to be a copy of Agriculture in India. The formatting artifacts at the bottom indicate a test page, as well. I'd like some more eyes on this one, but I think it qualifies for a Speedy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Wha?! I think this is supposed to be about Agriculture in India, for which an article already exist. It is also completely unreferenced and almost incoherent. And the copyvio thing. So delete. (P.S. - Hi Thejadefalcon!) Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion: notice posted. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:26, 5 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strathdon Caledonia Pipe Band

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

fails WP:MUSIC and WP:ORG. could only find 1 gnews hit [14]. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only resources given on the article are the group's own pages. Nothing else as far as that goes. Slight promotional flavor, I think they're trying to get their name out there - that's not what we're for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Polarpanda (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I helped edit the article early on, and don't find any notability in the topic or many of the related articles referring the the same type of topics. • Freechild'sup? 10:06, 4 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish pre-Celtic substrate language

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

Article is totally SYNTH, OR, and FRINGE. It cites a Yahoo group and a post on listserv. There is also no such term in existence. Google only turns up what this page has produced. DinDraithou (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I'm not going to call WP:HOAX here, as I don't think this is a hoax - I think it's an earnest attempt in linguistic studies. WP:FRINGE is a maybe. However, I do see WP:SYNTH, as well as a lack of notability, and it's definitely original research. Therein lies the trifecta. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing !vote to keep on account of discussion below. My statements still stand - I'm still rather cnocerned about the synthesis factor, and I'm not sure on the notability - but given that we have similar articles, I'm going to rely on an existing precedent here and assume that it will continue to improve. That, and I lurve the Celtic languages. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don;t think it's really fringe. As for N, there seem to a be a few jstor articles right in this article to give it substance. Whether there wasa pre-Celtic population is I believe debatable, as are all questions involving population and language change in the period. I don;t know the current scholarly consensus, if there is one, but I do know this concept was accepted m in the past, and would therefore remain notable The article does have some OR--the section an analogs will have to go unless it can be sourced. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + Note: I have now looked at all three actual articles cited and find nothing to support the existence of this article at Wikipedia. The main text has been completely fabricated, with the discussion not derived from any source, and the author fails to mention that in Ériu 53 (2003) Schrijver is dismissed by Isaac (pp. 151-5). While there is general agreement among scholars that a pre-IE language at one point existed in Ireland, just as pre-Present languages have existed all over the world, no substratum survival has ever been demonstrated. The author also fails to mention that Schrijver's FRINGE contention is that there was a survival of pre-IE into the 6th century AD, which is rejected by every available resource. DinDraithou (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. +An gr 06:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps under a different name, and clean up. Definitely not a hoax; there is serious discussion among reputable linguists (Schrijver's hypotheses may prove to be incorrect, but he is no crackpot) whether traces of a pre-Indo-European substrate language can be found in Irish. The pro (e.g. Schrijver) and contra (e.g. Isaac) sides need to be presented in better balance, for NPOV, and the whole bit comparing the situation to Australia, Chinese Turkestan, and Turkey is OR and needs to be deleted, but the article as a whole is on a genuine topic of academic discourse. Perhaps Non-Indo-European substrate effects in Irish would be a better title as it would not imply that the article is about a particular language, but rather about an aspect of the history of Irish. +An gr 06:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. I may try to work on this a bit, but that's going to require some prep time. IIRC, the most frequently cited evidence of substrate influence -- the VSO default word order -- is hardly touched on here. I'd suggest renaming this to Insular Celtic substrate hypothesis, to match Germanic substrate hypothesis. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to a move to a more appropriate name. Given this, I'm changing my !vote, methinks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That I can support. A move to that title and a rack of tags would be acceptable, or a total delete followed by the creation of Insular Celtic substrate hypothesis, there not being much to move from the current article. Either way we can then happily go into how most of the allegedly unique to IE features of Insular Celtic, VSO included, can be divided up by a few modern Romance dialects and the occasional reconstruction of Proto-Slavic. DinDraithou (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, as well as that this is well-documented theory. It is not a hoax, nor necesarily a fringe theory - lingistics is not as settled a field as it was c. 1986 (when I was in college). An example not yet explored is Ptarmigan; see these WP:good sources:[15], [16]. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt linguistics was as settled a field in 1986 as you thought it was. One thing I learned as a graduate student in linguistics is that professors tend to paint a simplified picture for the benefit of undergraduates, and often in their own research argue vehemently against the very theories they present to their undergrads as uncontroversial facts of linguistics. +An gr 07:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'm afraid I do the same thing! Bearian (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Angr and others. ^Izzedine 04:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs renaming because there are quite a few potential sources of borrowings, but the subject matter is generally valid. It is a bit, um, minor? but that's never stopped nobody from writing an article on it. The Celtic Languages in Contact: Papers from the Workshop within the Framework of the XIII International Congress of Celtic Studies, Bonn, 26-27 July 2007. is a reliable source and there is material in it discussing potential Wanderwörten, substrate borrowings, etc. Ogress _smash! 23:41, 3 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.