Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 22

< 21 December	23 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen

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

Also nominating:

Ragnhild Lorentzen

For some reason there are two articles on the same person. Zero indication of notability. Notability is not inherited, and being a distant relative of Queen Elizabeth II does not mean you need an article. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The second half of this Guardian article is an argument for notability, and so is the coverage of her as part-owner of a two restaurants in California from this search. Sometimes people related to notable people are notable in their own right. - Eastmain (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That article means nothing. The first half is just satirizing how far down the line of succession they had to go to get to her. The co-ownership also means nothing. Owning one of the hundreds of thousands of restaurants in the world and getting a few press mentions is not notability. Non-notable + non-notable =/= Notable. Reywas92^Talk 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not remotely close. Marrying a monarch makes you notable. Being the spouse of a President makes you notable. Being the commoner child of an obscure princess doesn't. Lorentzen is not herself legally noble, and she fulfills no part of WP:BIO. This is extreme inclusionism run rampant. RGTraynor 06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing to Weak Keep per Edward's citation of the name under which more references exist. I'm still unsold on her notability, but there are certainly enough in-depth sources to pass the GNG. RGTraynor 08:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are entitled to your opinion, but calling Princess Ragnhild fru Lorentzen an "obscure" princess is bit of a stretch. Obscure in England maybe, but there is a world beyond the United Kingdom as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable as a restaurant owner, not notable as a noblewoman, and the intersection of those sets is also not specifically notable. --Slashme (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great-great granddaughter of Victoria and #66 in line to be Queen? Notability is not inherited. The one article is satire, listing the rejections of interview requests until the author gets down to #66 who says she was unaware that was her number. (I suppose I am way, way, way farther down the list). Edison (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Niece of the current king of Norway. People with similar family relationships, for example the nieces of the current crown prince, Maud Angelica Behn, Leah Isadora Behn, and Emma Tallulah Behn, are all considered notable enough to be in paper encyclopedias such as Store norske leksikon, and being the niece of the king is a claim to notability of about equal value, even though her home in the US makes her less covered in Norwegian press than the nieces of Haakon. In addition to the Guardian article, Ragnhild has been covered by Aftenposten [1]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interesting that you mention those three nieces. What distinguishes them is that they are all in close line of succession to the Norwegian throne. As a commoner, Lorentzen is not. PS: Interesting twice that you mention that those three nieces are in a Norwegian encyclopedia ... but if Lorentzen was in it herself, you'd have mentioned it, yes? Sounds like that particular source doesn't consider her notable either. RGTraynor 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, Ragnhild Lorentzen does not have an article (though she is mentioned in the bio of her mother). It is also true that Maud Angelica and the others are in relative close succession to the throne, but a lot of things would need to go wrong if that were to happen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and work on getting better sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Nobility may be inherited, but notability is not.Yilloslime ^T_C 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. There seems to be little significant coverage. --Pink Bull 04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's an SFGate story in 1996 about the brewery going online. I think you all are looking for sources wrong; (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) are both this person, if I'm reading it right. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, my biggest reason for Keep is that the Guardian article is so good, much better than this Wikipedia page, and that I'm glad that the deletionists are around to point me to the good articles to read. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the niece of the King is not notable (See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family). She is not notable as a restaurateur. Googling "Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen," "Raggi Lorentzen," and "Raggi Long" produce less than 200 hits, but most of those 200 hits are just family trees and lists of royal succession. I'm not notable, and there are more hits for me than for her. OCNative (talk) 10:49, 30 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 Withdrawn - little bit of Afd on an unsourced bio and we get a sourced bio. I'm convinced that what we have now is sufficient. Good result all around - Peripitus (Talk) 22:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Sullivan

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

Journalist's biography (written apparently by a relative) with no significant claim to notability. While the article mentions winning awards, I cannot see anything out there of great renown, and it does not specify which awards. Does not appear to meet the biographical notability standards Peripitus (Talk) 23:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think living with a giant half-wolf makes you notable. Mattg82 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject is clearly notable as a quick web search revealed. That it didn't assert subject's notability has been addressed. Vulture19 (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the protocol for removing COI and unreferenced tags while an article is up for AfD? TIA Vulture19 (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a senior correspondent for a major news organization and has won some seemingly notable awards. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:31, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zinsser (verb)

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

Unverifiable WP:neologism. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: that word is too new. Alexius08 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , or Zinsser per Zinsser,who surely would not allow such a word, when older words like "remove" would do the job just as well...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:43, 23 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.

Cocktailphobia

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G3. I did not delete it immediately as a WP:HOAX based only on the judgment of one or two editors, but the consensus is now clear below so I don't think it's out-of-process to go ahead and delete after just two days. (Throw in a little bit of WP:IAR if necessary.) Frank | talk 16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparent hoax article with no references. Google searches come up empty. Medical database searches are similarly devoid of hits, using both "cocktailphobia" and "cocktail phobia". No prejudice against inclusion if it turns out to be a real condition, but it has no references now and they so far have been elusive. At least two editors have tried to find them so far. Frank | talk 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have also tried to find sources for this and have come up empty. However will glady change my vote if someone can find more information on this. Ridernyc (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Ridernyc. I will also happily reconsider if new sources come out. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh gawd this looks totally WP:MADEUP, does it not? JBsupreme (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds nonsensical. Alexius08 (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, somewhat clever-- "one fears the consumption of brightly coloured drinks and foods". Lots of people dread cocktail parties, but not for that reason. Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. Шизомби (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per nom. --Karljoos (talk) 13:10, 24 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 Phoenix Games. Tone 12:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Adventure

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

Contested PROD. Article about a video game/cartoon? that fails to assert notability. The only reference given is a German-language site. Does not appear to have been reviewed by any major gaming websites. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phoenix Games, the "creator" (term purposefully used loosely) of this "game" (more like a DVD movie released for a game console). Most of the infamy for this game comes from the fact that it's used in YouTube videos for comedic parody purposes due to it's cheap production values, brazen copyright violations (the characters are modeled on those from The Land Before Time) and terrible voice acting, a hallmark of all Phoenix's titles. If it wasn't for that it would just be an awful budget title that most gamers and parents avoid at all costs. Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The game was released by Phoenix Games...what else should be added on the page to make it stay? 67.163.63.16 (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article must meet the inclusion criteria. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 09:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For video game articles, this is traditionally an overview of critical reception / reviews the game has received. Marasmusine (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phoenix Games, per WP:PRODUCT. Marasmusine (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The discussion for the similar article Articles for deletion/Snow White and the Seven Clever Boys has been closed as Delete. However, WP:OSE. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:13, 28 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Track: No Limits

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [2], [3], and [4]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps the only one in the group for which reliable sources can be found. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed by JoeChill - this one has actually gotten some notice. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill and his excellent use of diligent WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:50, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Border Town

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete ~~keep~~ I found ~~Film Intuition and~~ Richmond.com. ~~If there's more I'll remove the "weak".~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source is Blogspot. Joe Chill (talk) 16:52, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Road

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, no sources other than IMDB. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF not to mention WP:CBALL. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation. This one is getting a bit of early coverage and may merit inclusion when released. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors: THIS AFD article is about Champion Road 2. The first Champion Road by R.L. Scott was an underground flick released in 2008. The 2010 issue is its sequel. Use that correct title in your searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:39, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Songs (film)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, WP:CRYSTAL. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if film can meet WP:NF after its release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 18:12, 27 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below The Earth's Surface

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalism

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

Contested prod. Not a single hit on Google. Pretty sure this totally made up by the author of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author now admits in the article and on his talk page that this something he recently invented himself. Ridernyc (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explicitly made up one day. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article on a topic "just named" in an "unpublished document". EALacey (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - hoax, NEO, OR, take your pick. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, single source is an unpublished manifesto. Looks like a non-notability neologism, pure and simple. --EEMIV (talk) 22:43, 28 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3-Play

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the sources I found when I queried about this one do establish notability for Maverick Entertainment, but nothing for the movie itself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In searching for the actors, I found that the the film was first released in 2000 as "Love = (Me)^3". The current article title reflects the DVD release in 2004, not the original name. However, and even after my research, I cannot find enough to show its notabiloity under either name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:06, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Shepard of Pure Heart

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's creator made a mistake in the name. This search for A Shepherd of Pure Heart turns up some plausible references. Notability can sometimes be concealed by a creator's imperfect spelling. If the article is kept, it should be moved to the correct spelling. - Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the 8 hits returned by the above query, one was an ad to find actors for the movie, the other ones were merely announcements by the local press about the premiere being shown where the action takes place. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also tried the search with both spellings and could not find any notability; fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps Eastmain should have actually looked at the eight links his search turned up. All of them are trivial - either listings of screening times and venues which WP:NOTFILM specifically and explicitly debars or casual mentions. Honestly, I prefer that lectures about taking the trouble to do a little research be prefaced by a little research. Ravenswing 07:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation. One might hope it has reviews in Christian sources, but even under the proper spelling I have not found them yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:53, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death Knows Your Name (2007 Movie)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant ocverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources besides blogs. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Search finds nothing but articles about musical album of same name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living Water

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources amid the Christianity-related false positives. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to article on director (if he has one). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna's Eve

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources I could find were to sites selling the DVD. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem very notable right now. IMDb has some sites linked from External Reviews and Miscellaneous Links:[5],[6], and it's in VENGEANCE:The X-Treme Movie Magazine, Issue #4 - Vol 2 # 1 Fall 2004. Could be more print-only coverage, but for a recent horror movie not to have more references online seems to indicate little notice has been taken of it. Шизомби (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Genre reviews at Horror Talk 1, Horror Asylum, Horror Talk 2, and Web Horror Films, are nice... but not what Wikipedia cosiders the best of RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Schmidt (Yes, I know he said delete). Joe Chill (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The fourth link doesn't work. Joe Chill (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Just stopped for me too when I checked back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Joseph

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

Unsourced unverifiable WP:BLP. There is an OTRS ticket, 2009122210065592, in which it is claimed that the correct name of this football player is "Adeseun Joseph Adekunle". My Google searches find no reliable source that confirms even the existence of this man under either name, although that may be because according to the article he has been active mainly in countries that do not use the Latin alphabet (Iran and China). Still, if we don't have a reliable source for this article, it needs to go per WP:BLP and WP:V. Sandstein 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some sources:
Game report.

WorldFootball.net transaction report on his transfer to the Chinese team.

With the existence of the person suitably proven, and the fact that this person certainly qualifies as notable, from having played professionally, perhaps the nominator might consider a withdrawal of this nomination? U A 04:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I can't evaluate the reliability of these sources. Maybe other editors who know more about sports can? Sandstein 07:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're reliable on their face. Now that GiantSnowman has concurred, your question of whether he exists or not should be well-answered. I'd again ask you to consider withdrawing this nomination. U A 14:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the match report proves that this individual has played - and scored! - in a fully-professional league, andhe therefore meets WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Giant Snowman. matt91486 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he plays in a notable professional league, and I have added the above match report reference to the article. Eldumpo (talk) 09:37, 27 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 Silvio Berlusconi. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo tartaglia

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

The article content is already present in the Silvio Berlusconi article, to which Massimo Tartaglia (with an uppercase T) already redirects. The article is therefore redundant. KaySL (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant indeed. The incident fallout could merit a full article in itself, but for now all information is already in the Silvio Berlusconi article.--Cyclopia ^talk 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term, like the uppercase-"T" wikilink. -- saberwyn 23:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All the information are now in the article about Silvio Berlusconi User:Lucifero4

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling point processes in R

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

This article is basically nothing more than a vehicle for the mention of the package 'spatstat'. With that title, a reasonable article would risk becoming a how-to guide. Notability of both the software and the methodology is beyond question, but notability of the joint topic as the article is about is slim to none. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like a non-notable library add-on to a semi-notable programming language. Mattg82 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The authors of the package have had a journal article published about it ("spatstat: An R Package for Analyzing Spatial Point Patterns"), but I don't know enough about the field to judge whether this implies notability. EALacey (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever else this is, it has no context that identifies the subject of the article. It begins: There has been a major effort to develop libraries for R to carry out point process analysis. There are a number of libraries available for the analysis of multidimensional point processes. This may also violate WP:NOTHOWTO, but it's hard to say. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:13, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Druyen

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

"He is currently the most eminent scientist in Europe"? Hm, I think not. I think he's a typical academic sociologist and not notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep: Err ... there are 29 G-Scholar cites and a couple dozen hits on Google Books and Amazon. I'm unfamiliar with the field, but perhaps we should err on the side of tagging this to hell and gone, stripping out the hyperbole and choosing cleanup over deletion? RGTraynor 07:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first four, at least (they are the only ones I have read), of the Google News results linked above provide significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. And please note that the article does not claim that the subject is "the most eminent scientist in Europe", which must be one of the worst examples of selective quotation that I have ever seen. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep -- it's hard to see that his work is highly cited, but the articles in Die Welt are probably enough for WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h index = 3. Far too low for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The small number of cites in Google scholar for his work fails to convince me that he passes WP:PROF #1, and the small number of papers that even mention his supposed main research topic Vermögenskultur leads me to think that it is not a notable enough topic to make his expertise in it stand out as important. Of course, citation counts in Google scholar are a poor stand-in for academic impact, but we need evidence of impact to keep the article and we have none. So I don't think we can use WP:PROF #1 as a basis for keeping the article. But he may pass #5; the language in the article is unclear and I'm not sufficiently familiar with the Austrian university system to tell whether his appointment is comparable to a personal chair. And, as Phil Bridger observes, the articles about him in Die Zeit, Die Welt, SWR Nachrichten, Wiener Zeitung etc make a persuasive case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 29 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 close . Wrong forum. Will relist at FfD shortly. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Planet GJ 1214 b cropped.png

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

Possible WP:OR image, part of a general discussion about the appropriateness of such images, and therefore inappropriate for main page, where it is currently featured. — Aldaron • T/C 20:50, 22 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Gavelli

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

He's a musician, played in some concerts. Not notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above; no notability has been established, and a cursory search of the web reveals none. KaySL (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability. --Karljoos (talk) 10:42, 23 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. While this afd has more than 24 hours left on it, notability has been proven, and there are no outstanding delete votes; a near WP:SPEEDYKEEP. WP:NAC TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Reputation (film)

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

Related to this AfD. From Blanchardb's prod which was just removed by an IP (and marked as minor, too, which I think is wrong to do (along with re-adding copyrighted material)): "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases (like this one), readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Chill's sources. Alison22 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Banned user. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. No reliable sources can be found. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Chill. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough in the sources found by the Joe Chill to lift it above the notability bar.--Michig (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent WP:BEFORE done by Joe Chill. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been completely rewritten incorporating most of the sources found by Joe Chill plus several others documenting the film's success at numerous horror film festivals. All sources are independent of the film and its producers, meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 03:03, 27 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Heart Canyon

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

From Smartse's prod which was just removed by an IP (and marked as minor, too, which I think is wrong to do): I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable."" The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. I'm going to go and AfD a lot of the films now... (sighs) Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a list of all related AfDs.

That's it so far. The only other two articles (right now, anyway) are potentially notable. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If IMDB is the only source available, then that's plainly not enough. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if/when film meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And thank you to the nominator for listing all his other AFD's here. He's given me a few hours of homework... but I was able to determine that some on his list actually merit inclusion, requiring only cleanup and sourcing ...no, not all.... but definitely some. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Nights Dinner Attraction

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

Looks like advertising of a dinner auction. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional article about non notable subject. WuhWuzDat 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, nn promo. fetchcomms☛ 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article, I dont see how it could be made notable either RadioFan (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The promotional aspect aside, I don't see any significant coverage of this "attraction" that could be used to help it meet WP:GNG. The Orlando Sentinel reference is simply a reprint of daily business announcement items, the text of which is supplied by the business. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:53, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Survived Real Estate

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

non notable 1 time event WuhWuzDat 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, this looks like a summary of the event schedule and some promotional material, no notability at the time, and none likely in the future. I'm tempted to nominate for speedy under G11. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And where is this so-called "award"? E Wing (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable event per above. Tavix | Talk 23:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It Didn't Survive Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 00:38, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allieds

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

Non-notable, unsourced fictional plot element that is mere regurgitation of the work. Jack Merridew 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Catherine Asaro#Saga of the Skolian Empire series. Oh, god, look at all the other cruft bluelinks.... --EEMIV (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub with very little relevant information. Not to mention unreferenced. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While redirecting would be a good option if this were a fictional element from a notable franchise, I'm inclined to delete vs. redirect because 1) the term is generic and possibly confusing (Would anyone really search on it?), and 2) it would just redirect to a section in the author's bio, not to a page for the fictional works. I would have no qualms about this as a redirect if Saga of the Skolian Empire wasn't itself a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, redirect to Allies as plausible typo of "allies" or "allied". -- saberwyn 00:21, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Numbers

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

Delete. The article continues to violate the WP:CRYSTAL principle, and has for many years now. Since the previous nom for deletion (which resulted in no consensus) several other editors have unsuccessfully attempted to prod the article, unaware of the prior discussions.

The title of the film varies almost as frequently as the release date (which is, as of now, "2009" for USA distribution-- only 9 days left, think they'll make it?) Its nice that someone wants to make a documentary about Wikipedia, there are lots of books about it after all, but this one doesn't look like it is ever going to happen.

If and when this movie is ever released we can write up a valid article about it then. JBsupreme (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I meant to make the same nomination after the new year, but now is fine too. This film is just plain vaporware, and we don't do speculative articles on vaporware. If it were advertising a nonexistent film on any other subject, it would have been deleted some years ago. As JBSupreme says, if this film is ever released, then we can look at having an article on it. It hasn't been released, and quite frankly at this point one has to assume that it never will be. Continuing to host this speculation creates a serious problem with promotional content as well as violating NPOV (in that we are willing to host otherwise unacceptable content if its subject would cast us in a favorable light). — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has passed the previous AFDs because there is (just) sufficient coverage. This hasn't changed.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We still don't have any evidence that the film's going to be made. If it ever gets made, then we can have an article for it. Otherwise, no proof of film being made = no article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia does have articles and other pages about proposed entities, and that is good. Encyclopædia Britannica probably does also.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject has remained upcoming for a long time and is still acting like a crystal ball without a release date. Martarius (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: Plainly people are going to keep recreating this, and there's no need to have an article on something that doesn't exist, hasn't existed and - on form - isn't likely to exist. Clear WP:CRYSTAL violation, clear failure of WP:N, and it always has been. RGTraynor 07:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonexisting, dubious notability. - Altenmann >t 20:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This confirms that not only has principal photography commenced but that the film was "in the editing phase" in February 2009, thus showing that the supposed WP:NFF violation doesn't exist. This gives a lot of good technical detail on how the film was made. There is further coverage here and here. The current article has been here since 2007 and in the 2 years and 3 months since then this AFD was closed as no consensus, and this AFD resulted in the community deciding on a Keep, making the 'delete and salt' !vote somewhat mystifying. If you want to put forward arguments for deletion based on our policies, feel free, but please be aware of the facts.--Michig (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Well, yes, I believe I'm aware of the facts. One fact is that the 2007 AfD closed with a Keep result due to your own assertion that the film was in post-production, yet it is apparently no closer to seeing the light of day today than it was two years ago. Another fact is that WP:NFF has two paragraphs; the one you leave out of your mention of a "supposed" violation is "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Thirdly, your "further coverage" are all blogs, and the only one going into detail about this flick doesn't discuss the movie at all in favor of an indepth technical discussion of the cameras used. Finally, while you rely very heavily that one AfD closed as a Keep and another as a no consensus (with many Keep voters on that one likewise relying on the previous Keep), you leave out that two AfDs closed as Deletes - why are those results being ignored when claiming precedent? For nearly three years now the Keep proponents have pushed this as coming out Real Soon Now, and for three years there's been no sign of that happening. The nom said it right at the top: "If and when this movie is ever released we can write up a valid article about it then." RGTraynor 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hmm? your links don't say what you think they say, or else you misrepresent them. [16] - a blog entry claiming the film was near completion in 2007. Those sort of claims, and their obvious falseness, are why one can't have any confidence in claims that it will be coming along Real Soon Now. [17] - a technical publication claiming that the film was near completion in Jume 2008 (again, not true). The meat of that source is the first two paragraphs - but see next source. [18] - a French language source claiming the film was near completion in March 2009 (still not true). Anyone who reads French is invited to compare the opening paragraphs of that source to the previous one - it obviously comes from a direct translation of some common source, probably a press release. Note that this source is also dunning for donations; a publication that's willing to pass along such direct appeals is also likely to have taken at face value the principals' claim that the film would be released. [19] - an article by "The 404 Podcast" claiming the film was near completion in February 2009 (it wasn't). Note that the same dunning for contributions appears here, down to the same dollar figures (indeed, the same dollar figures that were in the Wikipedia article). I've commented on what that means already, so let me make the other obvious point - if one is begging for contributions to complete a documentary on Wikipedia, it is of direct benefit in those efforts to have a Wikipedia article claiming that the documentary will definitely exist, for real, just read for yourself. I think your sources merely highlight the serious issues that result from giving this subject an indulgence we wouldn't extend to other crystal-ball promotional content. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with accusations such as misrepresentation, such a failure to assume good faith is not helpful. If reliable sources assert that the film is in production we take it at face value unless given a reason not to. It's the sources that resulted in a keep previously, not any assertions by me. 'Notable per the notability guidelines' means that the film should have received significant coverage in reliable sources - the coverage is perhaps borderline but it does exist. Yes the New York Times blog is a blog, but a blog from a professional journalist at such a major newspaper is acceptable as a source of coverage, and my only claim regarding this was that it was "further coverage". The French source appears to me to be a news article rather than a blog, and '01' appears to be a professional technology magazine. I'm not sure why a source discussing in some detail the filming process and technology used should be discounted. I ignored the one AFD closed as delete (there appears to be some duplication in the previous AFDs listed above - there is one delete, plus some redirects), because it pre-dated the creation of this version of the article by 6 months, so has little bearing. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...we take it at face value unless given a reason not to" - the reason not to is plainly illustrated in your articles, which show the filmmakers announcing three years worth of near-completion. These assertions are no longer credible (the previously announced progress, which was plainly nonexistent, is a reason to stop giving them credibility), so we should not be giving the film an article based only on their repeated assurances that the film will exist. If the filmmakers announce more future dates, without evidence of any actual fim release, that only digs the hole deeper. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:53, 28 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalier Kuriakose Adukalil

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

Fails WP:BIO. Salih (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How important is the title of "Chevalier" and the medal from the head of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church? - Eastmain (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of his positions as a bureaucrat or private sector rise to one that is inherently notable. I don't think the honorific knights title from a church cuts it either. Probably a nice guy, just not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Never mind whether some medal scored from a potentate in an obscure church somehow conveys notability. How about that this article has no reliable sources? I would be very surprised if the article's creator and editor, User talk:Sarun Maani Adukalil, wasn't a relative, hauling WP:COI issues in. The surprise is that this article started to get tagged nearly a year ago and survived this long. Ravenswing 07:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:12, 23 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 SoCal VoCals. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Payson-Lewis

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

Non-notable individual fails WP:MUSIC with a single, insignificant album released. Grsz¹¹ 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a member of a notable group who also has a solo project. Would this information (including the track listing) be better included in the article about the group? I think keeping the stand-alone article makes more sense. I found the following Newsweek reference when I searched for the person's name: http://www.newsweek.com/id/151737 - Eastmain (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would appear the album is self-published, containing only four tracks. Seems nothing more than any indivudal trying to make a name for themselves (there's thousands of those out there). Therefore, he isn't notable as an individual per WP:MUSIC. Grsz¹¹ 18:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The SoCals, else delete. Notability consists of appearing on a TV game show as part of a larger group, and his group was neither a winner or finalist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per Andrew. A "member of a notable group?" This is a guy who sings with a school choir. We don't have articles for everyone who's performed with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Tanglewood Festival Chorus or the Robert Shaw Chorale, however much they're all internationally famous choruses with hundreds of recordings between them. This is way, way down there in the WP:MUSIC subbasement. Ravenswing 07:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect nn person, but plausible search term. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The Socal Vocals have atleast 13 members, weakening any claim to notability solely based on being a member of that group\. Perhaps the SoCal Vocal page can have a section listing all its members, and we can redirect all its members' names to that section.--Pink Bull 04:26, 30 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 Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Wildlife

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

I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge & redirect to List of wildlife magazines NtheP (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Change to Keep on basis of use as a academic source as per John Vandenberg. NtheP (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have just added it to the list, but the list is a list with minimal content. This article is a stub, not merely a list item. It is not an academic journal, but has been published for 20 years and is substantive enough to think itself worth indexing. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable periodical in its field. Often articles are highly cited.[20] See also news related to the publisher.[21][22] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:41, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cashh-Money Montana

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

non notable 16 year old rapper, references ripe with file sharing websites, myspace, twitter, and other unreliable sources WuhWuzDat 16:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To me it seems that a 16 year old kid dreaming of fame created this article to establish a career that is just not there. he is definitely not involved with Cash Money/Young Money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.251.207 (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No clear assertion of established notability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montana is an on-the-rise celebrity, expecting to be signed in early 2010. I will add more reliable sources. — CelebWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Montana was featured in films, and has a mixtape surfacing on the internet; has singles out with celebrities like: Teyana Taylor, Nicki Minaj, Trey Songz, and Lil' Wayne. I believe he has a clear nobility of eligibility to appear on Wikipedia. CelebWiki (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)— CelebWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. If the supposed future notability ever materialises, the article can always come back then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might be notable one day, but that day isn't today. WP:MUSICBIO Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Light years away from meeting WP:BAND. Has done nothing of note. CelebWiki's arguments for keeping are disingenuous: he has not been "featured in films" (he was an extra in one film, according to the article), and his mixtape "currently surfacing" won't come out until next year according to the article. Not that it will matter because the mixtape still won't be an album on a major or important independent label (and he'd need two of those to meet criterion #5). His theatrical roles appear to all be in school plays, not professional productions. He "expects to be signed in 2010"? Well, it's always nice to have hopes and dreams, but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Gwalla | Talk 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another wannabe who fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO for never actually having done anything. CelebWiki claims that this chap has recorded with celebrities, but if so, the celebs haven't seem to have noticed; the only Google hit for him is this article. (Eh, all is not lost. Perhaps he'll grow up and marry Brianna Rieffel.) Ravenswing 07:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete Montana was officially signed to Young Money/Interscopeyesterday, 12-22-2009; I doubt he is eligible to be considered a "wannabe" as mentioned above in Ravenswing's vandalism of the new artist's name. Oh well, Google searches will soon show more during searches, until then: I believe Montana's article has a rightful place on Wikipedia; I see no reason why he shouldn't be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.115.182 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article now shows an unreferenced first album (unreleased, and I would suspect unrecorded at this time), as well as an unreferenced record label. I remain unconvinced of this subjects notability, and my nomination stands as submitted. Edits such as this by the article author show his desperation in trying to keep this article afloat.Wuh WuzDat 16:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ahem; and what "vandalism" would that be? I've not edited the article, nor see myself doing so before it is properly deleted. Ravenswing 18:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Even if it's true that he was just signed, it's still irrelevant. WP:BAND criterion #5 requires two albums released by a major label, not just signing. Unless he manages to get two albums released before this AfD closes, it doesn't matter. — Gwalla | Talk 22:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no desperation, musical artists do not need Wikipedia articles as promotion, and I believe all users nominating the article for deletion believe that this is what the author's are trying to recieve. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and these are facts concerning the newly-signed artist. If Wikipedia administrators decide to delete the article, it will not be long before a new one is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.115.182 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your comment could be seen as a declaration of your intent to be a disruptive editor. Please see CSD:G4, to see what happens to recreated material previously deleted by an AfD such as this. WuhWuzDat 17:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no problem with revisiting the issue of whether an article is needed for Montana after he's achieved notability. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we need to wait until the notability is achieved, rather than set the article up in anticipation of it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no problem with recreating an article, once additional notability is established. However, recreation of the same or similar article with no further assertion of notability may be deleted under G4, if the consensus of this AfD results in deletion. And Wuhwazdat, please assume good faith. —Dark 05:41, 25 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy HTTPd

(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) 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any secondary sources. Pcap ping 02:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked Google News. [23] Nothing. I checked Google Books. [24] Nothing there either. I tried. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 23 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. Blatant hoax. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dandruff Conspiracy

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable independent film with no reliable sources provided and none found. Google search lists no results at all. TN X Man 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably someone's idea of a joke. Sorry... etc. Mandsford (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete. Ugh. Yes, not amusing at all. JBsupreme (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Where's the refs? DBaK (talk) 00:44, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronin press

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

Non-notable start-up publishing company that does not meet WP:CORP. A Google News search [25] turns up a few ghits for another company with the same name, thus adding WP:RS problems to the article. Warrah (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I speedied it at 7:42 this morning, it was deleted three minutes later, and then it was recreated an hour after that with, as far as I can tell, exactly the same content, establishing no notability whatsoever. Oh wait, I just checked again and can tell the content is at least slightly different, because the first incarnation revealed that this company was founded, not just in 2009, but in December 2009. Brand-new company, not notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom; added advert, no ref, and npov tags to the article. --MWOAP (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Owen Calvert: I completely understand your justification behind deleting this listing; however, it was not my intention to breach your rules, or cause any friction with the listing I have recently made. I did not fully read the terms, I admit - rather skimmed them, but I can see that this listing does not differ from others on the small press list. This is simply a newly established small press which I felt should be listed next to others of identical nature. In regards to the "December 2009" comment, this was a lapse of thought. The website has been in existence since May 2009, and I can easily prove this upon request. I purposefully edited the article to come across as impartial! The reasoning behind this listing is not to advertise or promote, but rather attain the recognition that this organisation is a "British Small Press" since organisations like this are very nearly extinct, in my opinion. I sincerely hope you take my comments into account when making your decision. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnage0 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thank you for trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Even I at times mess up the policy or didn't get a part of it. My concern still stands with NPOV, you have the words "small" & "Although" which indicate an opinion. Wiki likes to stay neutral. Also, this article has no sources at all. We here at wiki need reliable soueces. (see WP:RELY) Last, with your mission statement, it might be more of an npov but I think it has a bit of advert in it. One option which you might want to consider is userfiying the article. (see WP:USERFY). Then you can request that the article be deleted through articles for speedy deletion (author requested-CSD A7). You can then build on it there without the risk of deletion. I can do the userfy process for you if it seems confusing. Again thanks for your contribs. Let me know if you need anything. --MWOAP (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as company with no notability presented. A Google search confirms that there are other companies with very similar names, but nothing about this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Calvert: I am not sure where to reply to the above.. I am hoping this will be a good a place as any. MWOAP, firstly I would like to sincerely thank you for providing a detailed response with an empathetic tone. I have edited my listing a little, removing the mission statement and "small" and "Although" in the Noteable books section, although ironically enough I did not see any problem with "Although". If you refer to Burning Deck Press, you can see that I have copy/pasted their wording as I was unsure and wanted to adhere to what is suitable and already present in the listings. As for the ambiguity concerning google, I have requested a re cache of the site as it is outdated. This should resolve any uncertainty in this respect. There are indeed similar presses around, but when I list ronin I always try and preserve the lower case lettering to set it apart. Google lists "ronin press" currently fourth, and as follows:

I am extremely new at this, although I have used and respected wikipedia for years. I hope that with my amendments considered, I could keep the current (edited and neutral) revised listing I have presented to you. Thank you again for your consideration. Carnage0 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for replying/editing up this article. Although could indicate that a company or person did not do enough work to get something going, I don't know the exact way you used it so it could have been fine. If you have any other questions for me, feel free to let me know. (Note: User:Fetchcomms may reply for me, as I am out the next few days.) --MWOAP (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Owen, this company is not very notable. There are no sources to establish its notability. I'm afraid that until it receives significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources (such as news articles), it will be deleted. fetchcomms☛ 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any mention. thanks to the creator for his comments. if, in the future, this press does get any press, and if someone attempts an article again, PLEASE be sure to cite the references clearly. its really hard to do searches for this business, considering that Ronin Publishing is often called ronin press, and also covers counterculture works. oh, and regarding other small press listings: WP is currently overrun with highly promotional articles for essentially nonnotable small presses. the standards WP uses really make it hard to justify many of these articles here, so "WP:this also exists" is hard to use.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Calvert: Thank you for your responses, I think I am fighting a lost battle here. I will respect and adhere to your comments, and accept the deletion of the article until I gain notability. I would like the pursue the 'userfying' of this article, but as MWOAP noted, it is complicated and I have no idea. If this can be done, I would sincerely appreciate it! I am glad that you take such strict measures in this process, and fully respect your decisions, although I am disappointed not to have my own article on your site. Thank you again for considering my defence and for hearing me out, I am glad you have seen my side of all of this. Owen Carnage0 (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it does become notable someday I'm sure it'll have an article, but we'd greatly prefer if persons directly connected with ronin press aren't the ones to contribute this hypothetical future article. Please see WP:COI for more guidance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copied the page's content over to User:Carnage0. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Niteshift and Joechill. I could see this surviving if there was some external press coverage, but I don't see any there. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:16, 23 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. A consensus is to delete this article. However, some parts may be incorporated into other articles, if content is needed, let me know. Tone 12:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian terrorism

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

This page is bound to be a POV minefield, and the very notion of defining 'Armenian terrorism' in term of its targets is a pov projection. Wikipedia:Terrorist is a good reading in this context. Soman (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, per Soman, wrong on so many levels that it requires little input from my end.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This term is used by many sourses^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] This type of terrorism was in history. So we must keep this article about very important subject to study.--Interfase (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Michael M. Gunter, Dept. of Political Science Tennessee Technological University: ARMENIAN TERRORISM IN THE 20TH CENTURY
^ Pursuing The Just Cause of Their People: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism
^ Henze, Paul, Goal: Destablization Soviet Agitational Propaganda, Instability and Terrorism in NATO South, (Marina Del Ray, California, American Institute for Security Research, 1981).
^ Hoffman, Bruce, Terrorism in the United States During 1985, Rand Paper P-7194, (Santa Monica, California 1985).
^ Szaz, Michael, Armenian Terrorists and the East-West Conflict, Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies (Winter 1983), pp.387-394.
^ Wilkinson, Paul, Armenian Terrorism, World Today V.39 (September 1983), pp.344-350.
^ Corsun, Andrew, Armenian Terrorism: A Profile, U.S. Department of State Bulletin, No. 82, (Washington, D.C., August 1982), pp.31-35.
^ Erich Feigl. Ein Mythos des Terrors. Armenischer Terrorismus, seine Ursachen und Hintergründe. Edition Zeitgeschichte, Freilassing 1986. (german)

- Comment not all term that can be found in google (or google books) should have articles of their own. 'German terrorism' gets 646 google book hits, 'Italian terrorism' gets 670, etc.. I'm not saying that there have never been any Armenians who were terrorists, but Wikipedia:Terrorist remains a useful principle. By defining one side of a broader conflict as 'terrorist', a pov is stated. Wikipedia needs less articles like this, and more articles that explore the complexity of modern political conflicts (without obviously taking the side of either side). --Soman (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of the article exists. The title could be discussed. There are plenty of researches dedicated to the subject, whole books written about it, like for instance Francis P. Hyland. Armenian terrorism: the past, the present, the prospects. Westview Press, 1991. ISBN 0-8133-8124-X, 9780813381244. US Department of State also uses the term. Regardless of political correctness, the term is widely used, both in scholarly and political literature, the scholars and politicians. Nationalistic terrorism is something that happens in the modern world, and we cannot ignore this fact. Grandmaster 16:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not as if Armenian terror organisation such as ASALA and JCAG never excisted. The article is also sourced, so I dont see any legit reason for deletion. Neftchi (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --TIAYN (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASALA existed and there's an article about ASALA so don't try to make another article trying to demean Armenians as terrorists. --Hovhannesk (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the article was appropriate for Wikipedia, after a careful review it would be reduced to one line but since we don't classify terrorism based on ethnicity or race here that's clearly a non-issue. I think WP:Terrorist is pretty clear on this.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its title is POV, and all its legitimate content is already in the ASALA article. The rest of its content is completely unencyclopaedic and biased, perverting the general concept of what the word "terrorism" means, even if such a pov word were to be allowed. The revenge attacks of Operation Nemesis has nothing to do with terrorism, the revenge attack by Gourgen Yanikian has nothing to do with "terrorism". Meowy 20:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is Anti-Armenian and is refering as if Armenians are terrorists. These are assasinations by Armenians against Turkish masterminds of the Armenian Genocide, not terrorism where terrorists attack innocent random people. Hovhannesk 04:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Armenians as people are not terrorists, but there was a whole bunch of Armenian nationalistic terrorist organizations. They killed civilians too. See Orly airport attack, Esenboğa Airport attack, etc. Grandmaster 07:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Events which are already collectively covered in the ASALA article. Meowy 21:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete merge into appropriate articles; ASALA etc. No unified organisation/movement exists - this is synthesis. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Buckshot Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:Synthesis. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One person's, two person's. Terrorist is a terrorist. --Interfase (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that you'll be creating a Turkish Terrorism article? I await its creation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Athenean (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it sets a precedent of dubious encyclopedic value for the creation of a whole string of similar edit-war magnets. The notion of terrorism is controversial per se and a highly politicised issue even within academia. It is no coincidence that even Palestinian terrorism is simply a redirect for Palestinian political violence. If need be incidents or organisations can be discussed in separate articles. We already do that with the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof faction, the ETA, Aldo Moro, the Munich Massacre etc. There will always be academics describing organisations like the FLN, for instance, or the anti-colonial armed groups either as terrorist groups or as national emancipation movements, why on earth should we subscribe to this or that view by lumping together complex political/social/historical phenomena under generic and simplistic titles? --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow per Giorgos. I don't think deletion is the best solution in the presence of various third-party sources. Brand[t] 21:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Sardur (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename The topic is clearly important enough to have its own article, and the fact that there is poitical violence in armenia or committed by armenians can clearly be treated in wikipedia without reviling the general Armenian public. The fact that such an article may become a POV battleground is not an argument for deletion and should be disregarded by the closing admin. However per WP:TERRORIST it is clear that the label "Terrorism" should be avoided in the title of the article and only be used in the text when attributed to specific sources. I suggest renaming the article to "Armenian political violence" or similar. I do not see any deletion arguments actually based in policy given here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; in nominating this article for AfD, I did so assuming that it had been created for POV purposes (being aware that such action contradicts WP:AGF). The edit history of the creator points in that direction. Moreover, its not clear (as stated by other above) what encyclopediatic value this article would have, as relevant material is already included in the ASALA article. As per rename, I'd say that importing the solution used with Palestinian political violence would not be an improvement, since 'Armenian political violence' is so wide that it lacks all meaning (it would, theoretically, include Armenian participation in the Lebanese Civil War as well as violence/repression in contemporary independent Armenia). --Soman (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and also per WP:SYN, WP:COATRACK. -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 29 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. WP:CSD#A7 - no notability is indicated beyond "reports" that he "may" run for Governor of Mississippi in 2011. Per WP:POLITICIAN, that is not enough. Also, although the tone of the article is not overtly promotional, the WP:SPA author's username user:ProgressforMS makes it clear that it is posted for campaign purposes, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Luckett (attorney)

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

While this person will become notable if he runs for governor, he is not yet running. This article appears to have only been created for promotional purposes. Eeekster (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 22 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. Regardless of WP:ATHLETE, consensus is that this person passes WP:BIO and is eligible for inclusion on that basis. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Martin (American football)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete I cannot see how this meets WP:ATHLETE. Boleyn3 (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was last discussed in 2006 as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Martin, which closed as no consensus and as a result the article was kept - though since renamed. My view is that he still meets wp:BIO, if it wasn't for his disability his sporting achievements on their own wouldn't meet wp:athlete, but his achievements as a disabled athlete in my view are notable - especially winning ESPY. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a misunderstanding about what WP:ATHLETE is about. This person is notable in the usual way, whereas WP:ATHLETE is an exception for certain athletes who otherwise would not pass the general notability guidelines. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seriously? Non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. He easily meets WP:BIO. WP:ATHLETE is not an exclusionary guideline. --Smashville^talk 20:45, 23 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 userfy. This is a borderline case. WP:NMG, criterion #1 says: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." There seems to be one independent non-trivial mention: the Epoch Times article. WP:N is less specific about the number, saying only "Multiple sources are generally preferred."

COI has been an oft repeated argument on the deletion side, and the diffs cited about one of the authors' self-promotion do not inspire confidence. However, these lie over a year back, and the editor has done least 1000 edits since, so we can allow that to come under the statute of limitations. More pertinent is that the article itself contains peacock language, such as "made history", "skilled cartoonist" and "award-winning" (which has rightly been tagged as needing a reference), and lists unencyclopedic information, such as comprimario singers.

I therefore think the most appropriate resolution is to userfy. That will give the authors time to bring the article to encyclopedic standard, and allows for some time until there is more independent coverage. I applaud Brett Wynkoop for logging in under his real name, and for being very reasonable and honest in the discussion here, and I would like to keep him as an editor beyond this one article. To symbolically acknowledge this, I will move the article to user:Wynkoop/Brooklyn Repertory Opera. — Sebastian 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Repertory Opera

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

Very minor company, page written by members of company (!); also, authors keep putting bogus entries into the "Singers who...." section SingingZombie (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nom. Can you explain why this should be deleted? Is it 'non-notability' or something else? --Klein zach 09:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is clearly conflict of interest in both the creation and editing of this article, but neither that nor the addition of "bogus entries" per se are valid reasons for deletion. However, my impression is that the subject does not pass the notability criteria either generally (WP:NOTE) or for organizations (WP:ORG) or music ensembles (WP:BAND). This is a semi-professional opera company that's been performing for only two years, with zero mainstream press coverage and none in the specialised media apart from a review in the self-published Opera Today (written by a friend of one of the singers).[34] The personnel are not notable either (or at least not at this stage in their careers). I'm waiting to hear some other views and/or someone finding more references, but at the moment I'd be inclined to delete on grounds of non-notability. Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quoth the nominator: "[…] page written by members of company (!); also, authors keep putting bogus entries into the 'Singers who....' section" – those are not reasons for deleting an article which has stood since August 2008. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This opera company has three world premieres arranged for its upcoming seasons, and only two of them are by Susan Stoderl. Who are the "bogus entries" in the "singers who" section? My name was deleted from the article recently (I put it back), but my name is found on the BRO website for every production except A.F.R.A.I.D., Cosi, and Hansel and Gretel. The Epoch Times isn't notable media coverage? The nominator, SingingZombie, has a personal vendetta gainst the company because they have barred him from ever again participating with the company because his behavior was so offensive, particularly to the women of the company. He tried to add himself to the singers list, but he has never had a principal or comprimario role with the company, only a chorus role. He was in the chorus only twice, and the second time, he showed up at the performances without his part learned (usually either not singing or singing the melody) and his shirt reeking of vinegar. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Very honored that Mr. Scottandrewshutchins has determined that EPOCH TIMES is notable media coverage. We feel vindicated, considering the slanderous wikipedia entry about our LEGITIMATE news organization. Likewise, BROOKLYN REPERTORY opera COMPANY should also be considered notable. THANK YOU MR. Scottandrewshutchins! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falunopera (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Scottandrewhutchins and Falunopera both seem to have a conflict of interest here. We also need to remember Wikipedia's policies against 'outing' contributors. Frankly the more I read about this, the less I think this article belongs on WP. --Klein zach 13:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the Opera Today reference in the article plus other press coverage that can be located: [35]. COI is not a reason to delete an article. Warrah (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who added the notability tag over a year ago as well as {{primarysources}}, both of which were removed two days later by yet another COI editor with the edit summary "edit for accuracy"[36]. I really feel this fails the notability criteria generally and for organizations and music ensembles. The press coverage cited by Warrah is trivial - simple one-line announcements in the "What's on" sections. The remaining two pieces are as I said, a review by a friend of one of the performers in Opera Today, which is a self-published website + a puff-piece in Epoch Times. And that's it. I have subscriptions to the Highbeam Research Archives and Opera News, and searched both. This could have been off-set possibly by significant productions, i.e. world premieres or even New York City premieres. But this hasn't happened. They're a semiprofessional troupe of (as yet) non-notable singers performing shoe-string productions of public ___domain operas. Scottandrewhutchins has asserted that there are "three world premieres arranged for its upcoming seasons". That may or may not happen. There are certainly no reliable sources to substantiate this. But in any case, notability is not prospective. I have argued in the past to keep articles about ensembles that were brought to AfD. A look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family opera initiative shows the difference between a small, but sufficiently notable company and the one under discussion here. Incidentally, Family Opera Initiative was also a COI article complete with attempts at vote-stacking in the AfD. None of that makes any difference. But a lack of notability does. Voceditenore (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Yes, I am involved with the company. The company is at least as important in the New York Opera scene as Opera Company of Brooklyn which performs in peoples homes with piano and only semi-staged. Yes, they have been around since 2000 as opposed to our founding in 2006. I have never paid much attention to this entry other than to check it for accuracy from time to time. I was the one that removed the tag that Voceditenore mentioned. That was my first time ever editing a Wikipedia page and the removal of that tag was in my mind an afterthought. As I recall I fixed some dates and names. Since I did not understand how Wikipedia worked, I did not know the importance of the tag Voceditenore had placed on the article. BTW 2006-2009 is 4, not 2 years, and in this economy keeping a small company running at all is notable, but I know that is not what Voceditenore is speaking of. There are 93,400 references to "Brooklyn Repertory Opera" on the web according to Google. In searching for references to the company I discovered mentions that I did not even know existed. Are they things that should be included on the page? I am not an expert on Wikipedia, but the reasonable person would think that there must be something of substance about the company in 93,400 references. Of extreme note is the history making use of countertenor in the role of Ulrica in Un Ballo. While that was not picked up by the CBS evening news it was picked up by The Brooklyn Paper a weekly that has about the same circulation as my hometown newspaper in middle America. So, the company is making significant contributions to the art form in the form of world premiers; one in 2006, one currently in rehearsals to be performed in 2/2010, one in the future which is in rewrites by the composer, and a new one just submitted for consideration. Also, considering BRO's thinking outside the box on casting where it works (countertenor as Ulrica) I have to say it seems that the company is noteworthy. It is also of interest that the NOMINATOR for deletion of this article was the very person who added the "bogus entries", which were of himself! This necessitated a correction by a member of the company. The NOMINATOR has also been chastised for improper actions on other Wikipedia pages. This may be a pattern. Looks like a witch hunt to me. If the page is deleted it will have little to no effect on the company, but it will mean that a good resource of documentation of the history that the company has made, and is in the process of making will be lost forever. Wynkoop (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 93,000 hits on Google does not mean 93,000 references. That just means that Google found 93,000 pages that include the words "Brooklyn," "Repertory," and "Opera" on the same page, in any order, and with any amount of words between them. Google hits do not establish notability. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  SquidSK's claim is patently wrong. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, it is wrong. The exact phrase "Brooklyn Repertory Opera" has 89,000 hits. But the principle is correct. These are not "references", and Google hits do not establish notability.Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in reply to Wynkoop

Notability in the Wikipedia sense is not about the worthiness or otherwise of the subject. Nor is it about the number of google hits.
Opera Company of Brooklyn (another COI article, that could use some pruning to remove the PR hype) has significantly more coverage than Brooklyn Repertory Opera [37]
The "bogus entry" the nominator was originally referring to was the article's creator (Scottandrewhutchins) adding his own name to the article.[38]. However, the motivation of the nominator is immaterial to this discussion as is the conflict of interest of the creator and other members of the company who have extensively edited the article. The repeated focus on a private dispute, personal attacks and attempts to reveal the real-life identity of an editor are not helpful. There are several editors participating in this discussion with long experience of editing opera-related articles on Wikipedia and participating in deletion discussions. Characterizing this as participating in a "witch hunt" is neither helpful nor accurate.
The documentation of the company's history will not be "lost forever" if this article is deleted. For one thing, it can be moved to a user page of one of the editors until sufficient reliable sources are found to establish notability, i.e. when the world premieres take place. If they are significant works by significant composers, there will be coverage in independent sources.
Having said all that, the recently added article in The Brooklyn Paper "Unemployed? Have we got an opera for you!" might conceivably tip the balance to "keep" for some discussants.

– Voceditenore (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's becoming increasingly clear that this is a vanity article by a minor, largely amateur, company. Would anyone be trying to push this page on Wikipedia, if the company was anywhere other than New York? I wonder. --Klein zach 13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One world premier has happened. I have been searching for a source besides our own web site for that, but it seems that the article about it which was published in a local paper is no longer on line. I may have a hardcopy of the paper somewhere, but I am not sure how that plays into things if I locate it. I do not know if either Kleinzach or Voceditenore know the scene in NYC, but getting any mention in NYC publications, let alone getting a review in a major publication is almost impossible. It is not like NY is a slow news place as some smaller markets are. There was an article written in The Brooklyn Paper when Cosi was produced that no longer seems to be on their site. Thanks for pointing out that it can become a user page until "the powers that be" who ever they are think there are enough references in the world to our existing and being real. I did not know that option existed. No clue how to do it, but that is another story. The 93,400 hits were on "brooklyn Repertory Opera" please note the quote marks. That means that those words in that exact order with nothing else between them will show up. Many of those hits seem to be other companies web sites as we appear in the bios of people who have sung with us and have taken gigs other places. You will note that there is a link to the Brooklyn Borough Presidents Fall 2008 report to residents. This is a PDF of a newspaper that was mailed to every person in Brooklyn. Should it be listed differently than in the external links section? According to Wikipedia that was 2.5 million that got the paper and saw the short piece on the company. I have recently added some mentions of BRO on other web sites in the External Links section. I am not sure if that is the correct place for those to be or if something else should be done with them. Maybe one you long in the tooth Wikipedia folks can advise and or make the proper adjustments. Wynkoop (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for Voceditenore Why do you not consider a world premier of an opera about the most famous and highest paid American newspaperwoman of the 19th centuary to be notable? Wynkoop (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject of the opera was a notable person. That doesn't automatically make the opera (or any other work) about her notable. You need to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as well as the notability links in my initial comment above. What makes an opera notable, is the notability of its composer and/or the amount of impact/recognition it has received.Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Voceditenore I just checked out Opera Today and the site is not run by the author of the review listed. The site in fact has many writers it apears. I would have to say the publication is legit and not to be dismissed as it seems you are of the opinion to do. Yes the reviewer has known a member of the company for several years, but he was not asked to do the review and the member of the company he knew did not get a good mention from him. From this we can infer that either he is biased against that person, or if he was accurate and I think he was, as the lady sung the performance with a nasty upper respertory infection, and was not at her best, he was an impartial member of the media that happened to attend. I am sure if asked he will shed light on the matter. Wynkoop (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not saying it isn't "legit", but you need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, especially with respect to establishing notability. Opera Today is a self-published website that accepts submitted reviews. A review of performance there doesn't necessarily make a person or organization notable. Also the reviewer did not "happen to attend". He wrote that he attended because he was a friend of the lead singer (and founder of Brooklyn Repertory Opera) and "she assured me the rest of the cast was good." [39] The review may have been impartial, but we're talking about notability here. There needs to be more than this review.Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wynkoop is a new single purpose account created on 21 December. See MEAT, "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy." --Klein zach 01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The named account is new (presumably for the purposes of participating in this AfD), but this supported by Wyncoop's own admission above, indicates that he (and other members of the company) have been editing the article from the same IP for over a year. The conflict of interest is clear. I should also point out that I have removed two links recently added to the article by this user:

"BRO is cited as a source on answers.com"

"WapMedia,WapMedia mentions A.F.R.A.I.D,WapMedia"

Both "mentions/citations" come from mirrors of Wikipedia articles. In both cases they were added to to those articles by editors associated with the company [40], [41]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it is apparently true that Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop has created a meatpuppet account in order to spend a lot of time and energy concocting a faux notability for this entry, you will notice in its history page that he has made a number of earlier contributions, deletions and corrections while not signed in as a user. Nevertheless, I am starting to better understand Wikipedia's standards for article notability, and this one clearly does not make the grade, despite Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's valiant efforts. Indeed, this article reeks of narcissism and self-promotion, and I find Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's protestations of Wikipedia innocence quite disingenious, considering the fact that a quick google search shows that he is a self described webmaster, computer and IT consultant, as well as a member of a Gnubie circle, not to mention a fair use zealot. This article is being beaten well past its death, and should be deleted before anymore harm is done to Wikipedia's excellent model and reputation. I agree that this article could better be hosted on one of Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's simple websites and still receive the google hits he and his cast are looking for. --Falunopera (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same user Falunopera who wrote earlier: "BROOKLYN REPERTORY opera COMPANY should also be considered notable"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Voceditenore Thanks for your well thought out responses to my postings. You seem to be an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense in the wikipedia world. Your responses are helpful. Many of the other postings in this talk make it clear to me why I generally avoid this type of thing.Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynkoop (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Falunopera it amazes me that you know things about me that even I do not know. Instead of tossing about nonsense it would be more useful to stay on topic. If I were really trying to be disingenuous would I be posting under my real name? I think not, I would have made up a name along the lines of Falunopera. Delete or Keep it really has no effect on either me or BRO, and some of the discussion here shows that some people are more interested in shaking things up for the sole purpose of feeling important. Since the page is a fairly good brief history of the company I have archived it and you folks can do what you want and I wish you all fun and happiness in your games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynkoop (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not sure why companies that perform semi-staged productions with a piano in people's homes are more notable than a company that uses an orchestra, an established theatre venue, and performs fully-staged operas with orchestra and chorus. Wynkoop, could you link that radio interview as a citation of the upcoming world premieres? I don't know if it counts as reliable, but it would be media coverage. I also don't understand how being a Wikipedia editor disqualifies me form being mentioned on a page. There are at least three pages where reference to my name is relevant--this one, The Last Egyptian, and Uzo. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are not sure why, then you need to read Wikipedia:Notability. However, you have been editing for three years on Wikipedia, and ought to be familiar with these guidelines by now. Once again, how a company performs is immaterial. Notability in the Wikipedia sense is not about achievement or "worthiness". I assume you are talking about Opera Company of Brooklyn, observe the press coverage [42]. As for referencing your name, your creation of this article and your addition of your name as one of the performers is a clear conflict of interest and taken in conjunction with your edits to several other articles, is also spam. e.g. Uzo, Michael Nyman, Hutchins, The Last Egyptian, Christopher Slaughterford The Magic Cloak of Oz, Princess Ozma, Elbow witch. In all these articles, you added your name, and in many cases attempted to link it back to your user page where you publish your cv. In several cases you also linked to your website. You need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam if you don't understand why this is inappropriate. Your past record of attempting to insert your name in a variety of Wikipedia articles, most of which you created, makes your argument to "keep" in this discussion rather dubious. Voceditenore (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! A whopping 127 Google hits! I'm not sure how this is more lgeitimate than Wynkoop's citing. I'm sure this isn't considered legitimate journalism, either: http://www.nytheatrecast.com/episode.php?t=303 --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link was to Google News only, not the web in general, which you must have been aware of but chose to ignore. As can be seen from the Google news link alone, Opera Company of Brooklyn (unlike Brooklyn Repertory Opera) had multiple coverage in the New York Times plus Opera News, BBC News, Associated Press, etc. The link to the podcast you've mentioned is already in the article. It is up to the other discussants here to decide if it (and the other sources in the article) are enough to establish notability. In my view, they don't. Voceditenore (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Voceditenore Thanks for pointing me to this: Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast over radio, television, Web stream, or a similar medium. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensemblesWikipedia:band since this is about Wikipedia rules the only thing left to say is QED.
- It's debatable but not QED. First of all, that wording is from the "nutshell box" at the top of the page and was changed by an editor three days ago without discussion.[43]. (The original wording was "Notability is met if if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network".) In my view, neither of the versions is an accurate summary of the specific criteria under WP:BAND e.g. "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." If the above were an accurate summary and taken literally, then any band which gets themselves a podcast on any web site would automatically pass, and clearly they don't. In my view this refers (if anything) to a web stream with a notable media company. It is debatable whether this 23 minute podcast of 3 heads of small NY opera companies getting 8 minutes each to talk about their organizations for www.nytheatre.com qualifies as such. But that's just one view in this discussion, and others may well differ. As it is, (even disregarding the "keep" opinions from the two editors with a clear conflict of interest) this discussion may well be closed as "no consensus" which defaults to "keep". - Voceditenore (talk) 07:55, 26 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EFi-X

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a notable product. This product is just one of those "flash in the pan", "15 minutes of fame" type thing

Delete This product is notable only for being a commercialized Chameleon/boot-132. User:irkirkirk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not only is this product not notable, but AFAIK after Davide Rutigliano shut down the EFi-X USA division in December 2009 there was no mention of the product outside of a few obscure reviews. Also as documented by Exclusive Report: EFI-X Mac Booter, A Scam? on Tom's Hardware September 8, 2009 "EFI-X uses code taken straight from the OSX86 community, without attribution. [...] There is now hard coded evidence that even the firmware updating utility used by the EFI-X module steals code under the GNU Public License without proper attribution, and in fact, replaces all refrences to the original libary with its own name." Finally, given that the way Apple ties its OS to hardware was ruled as falling under the DMCA in the Apple vs Psystar case odds are this product is illegal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether the product is illegal or not does not prevent it from becoming notable; but I don't see any coverage of this in anything that looks like a truly reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:44, 22 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inderias Dominic Bhatti

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

fails WP:BIO; coverage is either minor, or from unreliable sources, or both. Ironholds (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a nice guy, but there are no good sources to show he is notable. Delete. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 27 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Co Galway man found in freezer in Fish Factory

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

A non-notable and sparsely covered news report is not suitable for a Wiki article per WP:NOT#NEWS Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very PoV. The 'Egle eye' (sic) spotted the body after it had been there for five years? I like it. But it's not encyclopaedic. "It wasn’t until the Department of Marine notified the owner of an inspection in June 2007 that the body was discovered during a clear out." (From http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/man-who-stored-body-in-freezer-for-five-years-to-be-sentenced-on-friday-409551.html#ixzz0aB9l0TXn )

Also, the person now in gaol pleaded guilty to manslaughter not murder and "Michael O’Higgins SC, prosecuting, told Mr Justice Paul Carney that the defendant was in the drugs business, mainly cannabis, with McCormack of Artane Cottages in the capital. They had a falling out over money and had a fight." (From op cit) Peridon (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not news and in this case I would have accepted a {{db-context}} tag for lack of ___location and dates. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEUTRAL. Author is giving his/her personal views, and some of it's almost incoherent because of the quality of the writing, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it your blog to post personal opinions. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another news item which does not belong here. JBsupreme (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Predicting snow. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atop the Fourth Wall Episodes

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

List of web clips from somebody who isn't notable. no sources, no claims of notability, no list item is notable. Jac16888 ^Talk 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with the related Nostalgia Chick AfD, I'll add what I can to the article in the near future (again, I'm on holiday and don't have a lot of time to do too much very quickly). Atop the Fourth Wall (AT4W) is a popular web show and the presenter, Lewis Lovhaug (Linkara), has become an internet celebrity; the series is therefore notable. Googling for at4w, Linkara or even at4w linkara should confirm that. It seems reasonable to me to have a list of episodes on Wikipedia. (Again, "episodes" rather than "clips" which can be read as a loaded term.) - AdamBMorgan (talk)

You say Linkara " has become an internet celebrity; the series is therefore notable", what exactly are you basing this on. For starters, where is the evidence they are a "celebrity" beyond a lot of ghits, which are all just blogs/forums and the videos themselves? Second, where is the consensus that this makes them notable? Finally notability is not inherited, even if the creators are notable as you say they are, this has little bearing on the notability of the series itself, which needs to establish its own notability through 3rd party reliable sources (which I see none of), as per policy--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. As to Mr. Morgan's methodology, I note that he failed to use Google Advanced Search, which turns up just a couple hundred hits for "AT4W+Linkara," and eliminates a great deal of chaff. What's left are blog posts, DeviantArt hits, Wiki mirrors and a complete lack of reliable sources, as evidenced by the fact that a Google News search turns up exactly zero. RGTraynor 07:43, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online news sources

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

Unsourced essay and NPOV issues. Eeekster (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 10:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOR. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffingcruise

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism. See [44] for a link to the newsgroup posting on which it was coined. — æk ^Talk 09:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article admits that the term has not yet achieved widespread usage, and the statement "expected to gain more widespread use in the near future" is a failure of WP:CRYSTAL. Steamroller Assault (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it was in widespread usage, it's still just a definition. Polarpanda (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO. Even the article admits the widespread use is "expected"....which means it's not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's possible that the term will enter widespread use and understanding, and an article would then be appropriate. But we're not there, yet. No sources exist to show notability, and it is unclear whether that notability even exists. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up non notable term. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Using a forum as the sole reference. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:53, 26 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dimension Fortress

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability as defined by WP:PRODUCT. I can find no independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability, in particular no relevant matches in Google News (many matches to the anime series of the same name for which this BBS was originally named after). All current references in the article are self published. Since the previous AfD discussion over five years ago, there have been no independent sources added to establish notability and there is little prospect of this situation changing. If the basic information is credible, it may be an option to merge, at least a mention, of the BBS into The Super Dimension Fortress Macross which at the moment appears to make no mention of it at all. Ash (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like there are no references out there to prove notability, it has been 5 years since last AfD as Ash pointed out as well. The only thing that strikes me is why no needs reliable references tags were ever placed on this. Im going with delete because I trust the nom's findings (Or lack of). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but then redirect to Macross, which is almost certainly what anyone tying this into the search box is actually looking for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted Dabify since it could mean either Macross or Robotech, and it is definitely not assured that it would be Macross that is primary. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sigh... I've been a freeshell user for many years, and it's a rather significant ISP, web host and shell provider from a computer historical point of view, but I can kind of see that it couldn't really survive a strict application of the notability guidelines. --Slashme (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of things out there im sure that people would love to see on wikipedia that fail notability guidelines here, there is a chance however that references can be found in the future and remaking an article around new info takes time but is worth it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On their website it says its called that. As the article says "is one of the oldest and largest nonprofit public access UNIX systems on the Internet." That makes it notable. Does anyone doubt that statement is true? Dream Focus 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can claim that, it doesn't make it so. Boasts from the people involved do not make something notable. This is elementary stuff here, such a claim requires reliable third party sources to prove it. use some of that common sense you keep suggesting other people use. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I used Google and found that "freeshell.org" has 98,500 hits and just "freeshell" has 121,000. I see no reason to doubt the statement of Slashme, who states its rather significant, nor that of those who edited the article in years past. Need to check to see how many people have used it over time. Dream Focus 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as you already know, the number of google hits are irrelevant. Reliable Third party references are the only sufficient evidence. Not google hits, hearsay or conjecture. And Slashme has admitted it's difficult to prove notability. No one is doubting anything, but it needs to be proved. Per pretty much the entire history of this wiki. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines and takes the name of the well known starship macross. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:WEB. No significant coverage in reliable sources, just another run of the mill, unnotable website. Recreate as locked redirect to Macross per Andrew and IP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing nothing here that would pass WP:NOTE or WP:WEB. The article lacks any reliable third-party sources, and a Google search doesn't turn up any either. Would recommend recreating as a redirect to The Super Dimension Fortress Macross as a possible search term. —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability requirements are satisfied by Stephen Jones of SDF being interviewed in BBS: The Documentary (itself a "notable" work apparently.) This also backs up the facts stated in the article. The only valid point I see here is the name confusion with SDF Macross, which could and IMO probably should be resolved by renaming this page to "Super Dimension Fortress (computing)" or something. 94.192.228.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 29 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 The Fray (album) JoshSiber (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicate (song)

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

Song not notable. Fails WP:NSONGS. Suggest a redirect to The Fray (album) WPTX-FM (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Fray (album). FMQB confirms the January 12 release date, and per Mediabase's website, the song has already started to receive spins at Hot AC and Top 40 radio. While I believe it's likely to chart in the next few weeks, at this time there is no in-depth coverage for the song to warrant an independent article. Redirect for now until notability (beyond the mere fact that it's a single) is established. Gongshow ^Talk 19:36, 22 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. While the subject might be worthy of an article, something the deletion !voters do mostly agree with, there is consensus here that the article in its current form it's not worthy of inclusion and there is no material that could be salvaged from it. As such, per WP:DEL#REASON, this article, as only consisting of material unsuitable for inclusion, can be deleted. The consensus here is not against a recreation that covers the subject itself though. Regards So Why 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage_snowmobiling

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vintage snowmobiling

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

Cannot find reliable sources indicating notability of subject. Google search brings up various vintage snowmobile organizations around North America, but I couldn't find any third party sources. Article as it currently stands seems to be about one particular vintage snowmobiling organization, not the topic in general, and consists mainly of a how-to on restoring vintage snowmobiles. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Section 3 is a how to, this is one of the things wikipedia is not. (per: WP:NOTGUIDE) Also, no reliable sources for the rest of the article, and if we removed section three, the rest might quailify as CSD A1. --MWOAP (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom -- "There is a $50 entrance fee"? This is totally unencyclopedic: half club rules and half a how-to guide. Glenfarclas (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I should say that I did find a lot of articles in local papers either mentioning that there would be a vintage snowmobile show or race, either as a stand-alone event, or as part of a larger winter festival, and a few "area man enjoys passion for vintage snowmobiles" stories, also in local papers, but even though some of these claimed "it's a bigger hobby than people realize," or "it's really been growing in the past few years," none seemed, in my opinion, to be substantial enough articles in large enough publications to really establish notability. Probably the most mainstream source I found was this, from Minn. Public Radio, and even it seems more like a promo for a couple of events. Just felt I should disclose what I did manage to find, to be fair. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and even if there really are more good sources out there, it needs to be rewritten, almost from scratch. fetchcomms☛ 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found the Vintage Snowmobile Club of America, which produces a quarterly magazine; a Pacific Northwest Vintage Snowmobile Club, and a New Hampshire Snowmobile Museum Association. With those three sources plus the rest of what has been found there should be enough to create a plausible article with this title. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Edward Vielmetti. Willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt, with some sourcing that shows the sport is widespread and notable. The article will need a great deal of work, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I guess I don't understand whether this article is supposed to be about one group of snowmobilers, or a general activity called "vintage snowmobiling." If the former, the title is wrong and the club is non-notable; if the latter, the activity seems weakly notable but the article itself is completely off topic. Either way, the entire text of the article (club rules followed by a how-to guide) is unencyclopedic and needs to go, so I'm not sure I see a point in keeping the article unless someone says they want to develop it into an actual article about the general activity of vintage snowmobiling. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, a clean start would not be a bad idea, which is why I'm only weakly on the Keep side of things. The article would almost need to be stubbed. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I approached it under the assumption that the article should be about a general activity, not a single group. I was actually hoping I would find some sources that would warrant a rewrite along those lines, but what I found were articles in, as I said, local papers that were either "this guy really loves collecting old snowmobiles," or "come to the Winter festival January 14-18! There'll be ice sculpture, skating, ski jumping, and a vintage snowmobile race!" I didn't see anything that really suggested a coherent activity that's been covered in any real way by third-party sources. I'd love to see some dug up, to tell the truth. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If anyone wants to rewrite this article, I'll change to a keep, otherwise it's more of a delete. fetchcomms☛ 01:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic is not discussed in secondary sources, and the treatment of the topic is how-to and wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest that the author work on improving coverage of the topic in http://www.wikihow.com and http://wikitravel.org Abductive (reasoning) 01:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject is somewhat notable as Edward Vielmetti indicates. To allay some of the concerns, there is Vintage snowmobile a stubby article that can be used to perhaps redirect this article and to incorporate any notable sourced information about such organizations. --Pink Bull 04:15, 30 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 30 Seconds to Mars (album). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of the Earth

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Attempts to redirect to album article are reverted by various IP editors. AfD in attempt to gain consensus to delete then create a redirect (to prevent article recreation). Nouse4aname (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 30 Seconds to Mars (album), fails WP:NSONGS. Doesn't appear to show any notability (charts, etc) other than actually being a single. kiac. (talk-contrib) 22:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 30 Seconds to Mars (album) per above. No significant coverage found, and just being a single does not satisfy WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 07:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A top 81 charting single in Japan.--Matthew Riva (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No source for charting, please provide evidence not just unsourced claims. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is encyclopedic.--Loverdrive (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid argument. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article contains no useful information. It does not even list who wrote the song. This article fails to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article and fails to satisfy the notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC guidelines).--Yanq (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It peaked the #81 on the Japan Singles Chart.--ItHysteria (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source for this charting? I cannot find it on Oricon and Billboard only lists the top 50. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, source needed please... I can't find anything to back up these claims. Regardless of this, charting alone does not make a song notable. Coverage in reliable, third party sources is required for an article as per WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, lacks coverage and fails WP:MUSIC ffm is now L Faraone 15:38, 29 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 Withdrawn. By the way, I was the one that contested the prod and added the reviews. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Be Such a Scientist (book)

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

Contested prod. No claims to notability. All references are about the author or his lectures, and the only one mentioning his book is the Penn State news page. No reliable third party sources for notability of the book. Canterbury Tail talk 15:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. It would be helpful if editors specifically addressed the reviews listed in the article in regard to WP:BK. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And I am a complete and utter idiot who missed the reviews while checking the references. Guess I should withdraw this. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 22 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Stomp II

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS, can find no independent coverage of this compilation album. J04n(talk page) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator seems exactly right. None of these artists is particularly notable (the Logan Campbell indicated is obviously the wrong guy and Russell Harrison seems like a very minor musician). Likewise no coverage of the album. Glenfarclas (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMSNiteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 07:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:32, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mawson Lakes Football Club

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

Does this amateur team meet the notability criteria? It doesn't appear to be competing at the highest level of the sport, or to be the subject of significant media coverage. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not because of the level at which the club competes, but because of the near total lack of coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Team barely rates a mention in the amateur sporting results section of The Messenger (local free newspaper), let alone significant coverage anywhere. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:54, 26 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women of the Apocalypse

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

Non-notable book, appears to fail WP:NBOOKS. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [45]. Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BK. Warrah (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not (yet) notable. The book came out a few months ago; if it ends up getting more coverage, or goes into a wider release, or otherwise becomes notable, then an article may be warranted. But as it stands, the sourcing is not available to make a good show of it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to show evidence of meeting book-related notability requirements. --EEMIV (talk) 22:29, 28 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sasson

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

Lacks credible third party sources. not a notable person (TurnWild (talk))

Keep - third party sources are in the article itself including a full article on Forbes specifically about the person as the main subject. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look at the Sunday Times giving a 2 page story just about Sasson. This with the Forbes article above pretty much cinches the notability claim for me. The article is in terrible shape, as it was created by a paid advertiser, but that means it needs to be fixed, not deleted. -- Atama頭 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons well stated above. Glenfarclas (talk) 11:11, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Mortara

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

Subject is not notable for planning an attempted circumnavigation. If he is successful, that will be notable, but until then, this is pretty much a crystal ball issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like an interesting guy. That's doesn't make him notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Secondary coverage of this guy is between thin and nothing. I'd be cautious of applying crystal ballautomatically here, because the subject matter would probably 'be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred'. The problem is there's nothing strong enough to verify that the event will actually occur, which makes it unverifiable' speculation per crystal ball. Plus, there's nothing to suggest this person is notable as a person, so he fails WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish Baptist College people

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

A "list" implies that there are plural entries, whereas, once all non-notable names have been removed, only one entry remains in this "list". Ἀλήθεια 14:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't meet any of the Speedy criteria, else I'd do it myself - but we have no need for this article. The one individual listed, Hamilton Moore, is discussed at the Irish Baptist College article itself. The only two non-AFD-related links to this article were Irish Baptist College (which I removed) and Hamilton Moore, which I also removed (since the college was already linked). Add to that the fact that the title is not a good search term, and delete becomes the better option (over a redirect, though I would not object to a redirect). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given by UltraExactZZ and Ἀλήθεια|. This is not a close call. Novaseminary (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure the lone entry, Moore, even passes WP:PROF. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I gave Moore a weak pass on the following basis: "Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university..." I agree that his notability is suspect at best. Ἀλήθεια 19:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless one of those titles in the article mean Chancellor etc, then I still don't see it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Cyrillic

AfDs for this article:

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

Still Original research, still fails WP:N. Could be selectively merged into Cyrillic if you can't bring yourself to vote delete. Polarpanda (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criterion for deletion is not that the current article is or isn't original research, but whether it could become a good article with better research. When this article grows up, I'd think it would make more sense for it to include all novelty letterforms based on non-Latin letters, including faux Chinese brushstroke fonts, faux Greek using Σ for E, etc. But in the meantime, I think it's fine to have this article. --macrakis (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the title of the page (and the term 'faux cyrillic') may not be the best one (I'm sure that there must be a proper name for this kind of thing, like the 'faux Chinese' used by various Chinese restaurants, etc), the phonomena exists - and with the correct term, more sources could be found. I found a couple of sources that referred to this typographic usage as 'faux cyrillic' (see page 4 of 'Evolution of the tetrominostacking game: An historical design study of Tetris' by Will Jordan, 'Prehistories and Afterlives: The Packaging and Re-packaging of Soviet Rock' by Polly McMichael and page 132 of 'HYPERTEXTUAL ULTRASTRUCTURES: MOVEMENT AND CONTAINMENT IN TEXTS AND HYPERTEXTS' by Rosemarie L. Coste - and those are just 3 I found in a very quick search. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-written informative article the presence of which enhances Wikipedia. It includes references already and I'm sure more could be found. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More original research is possible here, you might even find more mentions of the term. You just won't be able to satisfy WP:N, however hard you try. Polarpanda (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have sufficient references to meet WP:N, may need a better title though. ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as the first go round, which is that the notability of this subject is confirmed by sources. God forbid that this be merged into the article about the Cyrillic alphabet. Looks like a lot of people can't bring themselves to vote delete. Mandsford (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless there are any new arguments since last time. The original OR/N charges have been addressed to some extent by a couple of references concerning the use of pseudo-cyrillic in 'foreign branding'. This material is of little relevance to true cyrillic; I understand it originally consisted of all mentions of pseudo-cyrillic cut from articles about individual cyrillic letters. --catslash (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written and well documented. Where exactly is the original research? While there is no standard title for this topic, we are debating the concept, not the title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ШP:БИOШ Mandsford (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simulation fonts are not unusual. See Samples of simulation typefaces for more examples.--DThomsen8 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW in that no one aside from the nominator has said to delete (and that is over a half dozen arguments for keeping after c. four days of discussion), even the nominator acknowledges the possibility of a merge per WP:PRESERVE, and as a previous discussion closed as keep with similar "near-unanimity of response." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:01, 26 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JDnevnik

(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) 14:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another non-notable free software; no sources found beyond confirmation of existence. Mattg82 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find secondary sources that cover it. Pcap ping 02:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For me that's just a case of blatant self-advertizing... -- Alain R 3 4 5
^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 07:04, 24 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 with Comparison of ISO image software. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ISO image software

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

A fork of Comparison of ISO image software, which bears very similar contents. There is no point in keeping two articles with so close resemblances when keeping one would suffice. Fleet Command (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as demonstrated in List of antivirus software. --Hm2k (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've completed the merge. AfD can be closed. In future, you may wish to use the talk page to discuss such issues rather than raising a pointless AfD. --Hm2k (talk) 13:38, 22 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 Deletion under CSD A7 (non-admin closure). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exun

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

This article is based entirely on self-published sources. There appears to be one reliable source, but it is a list of winners of a competition and only provides a trivial mention of the subject. No other mentions of the club (besides its website and this article) were found through a Google search, so notability does not exist and cannot be established. Xenon54 / talk / 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - should have been a simple db-club. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing, but I was quite reluctant as there appears to be at least an assertion of notability with the list of achievements. Xenon54 / talk / 13:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this in the Times of India (a major Newpspaper). May not be enough to establish notability. Certainly it is more than trivial treatment though. What you really need is someone who reads Urdu or Hindi to do some searches. Of course the onus is on the creator to find sufficient sources.--162.83.163.199 (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading that article, I have strong doubts that the text was written by someone outside the club, and am almost certain that person is not a professional journalist; there are numerous grammatical errors and vocabulary choices that would not normally be made by a journalist, not to mention the complete lack of capital letters. You are correct that this is the first instance of a source that significantly mentions the subject, but whether the source is independent or reliable is hard to ascertain. Xenon54 / talk / 13:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Speedy delete per A7, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:01, 22 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, unambiguous advertising: to motivate and educate people about entrepreneurship and serve as a meeting ground for Corporate and young budding entrepreneurs from distinguished institutions across the country and eDC aims to not only show you the doors of opportunity, but also equips to walk through them.... Help us make this summit a huge success!! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurship Summit 2010

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

Contested prod non-notable event. Ridernyc (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, spam, partial copyvio of this and other pages. Hairhorn (talk) 14:13, 22 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Crownie Day

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

Contested prod. Non-notable promotional event. Ridernyc (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible hoax, as barely any web hits exist to allow verification; at best promotional event receiving apparently no news coverage at all, and thus failing notability guidelines. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable even if true, and if was sourced. (Besides it's National Delete Day.) Steve Dufour (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reality is not enough, you need significant coverage in reliable sources see WP:GNG Polarpanda (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I know this is contested, but it's so clearly non-notable brand promotion that I don't see the point of waiting for a consensus to appear. --Slashme (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those times when it's obvious this article should be deleted but it fails to fit into any category for speedy. I also strongly oppose early closures unless there is obvious bad faith, just let the debate run it's course. Ridernyc (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The website has only been just set up. The event has been running for 4 years. A google search of "national crownie day" will provide as the first entry ;

http://dwarkarn.com/simplemachinesforum/

Which is the URL for our forums.

Please do not delete this wikipedia entry, it is a celebration, it has a website and forums, and while it might be insignificant to people who do not partake in the event, it is a real event that people attend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarkarn (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. 7107delicious ^{Weinachtsgespräch} 11:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom Line. Real Event. Real Website. Real Beer. Happens every year as evidenced by the past 4 years. This is not vandalism it is a real event, thus should not be deleted.

Once again I say that plenty of other events were marked for deletion years ago that turned out to be significant events. You are all being a bit speedy ninja trying to get this deleted. It is not offensive in any form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarkarn (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N, events need to be notable, end of story. Ridernyc (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand how this falls under brand "promotion" since Crown Lager is already a well established brand that I have no affiliation with. If you are trying to delete "non notable events" then maybe you should look at Bed_Time and direct your energy to there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarkarn (talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that argument just Wikipedia:Other stuff exists? If you don't think that that song is notable, that doesn't make Crownie Day notable. --Slashme (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure that this can be mentioned in the advertisement that masquerades as a Wikipedia article called Crown Lager. Bottom line- real event, real website, real beer, real advertising. Mandsford (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NOT because it's a beer promotion (we have an article on Spuds MacKenzie after all) but because it's completely and utterly non-notable. The forum linked above has all of THREE members total, at least one of which is whoever started the forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply a non-notable event. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 22 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, as limited policy-related issues with the article seem to have been brought up. Please continue merge/redirect discussion on article talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon culture

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Klingon culture

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

This is an embarrassing, over-detailed article about a fictional world, just waiting to be a wikigroan (if it isn't already). It should be merged into klingon as a paragraph if not deleted outright. Compare for example Afrikaner culture. That's right, it doesn't exist. It's a subsection of Afrikaner, which is appropriate. --Slashme (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. This article looks like it's been the merge repository for a bunch of cruft that's never been cleaned up. I suspect some of this content should be merged to Klingon, but I'm having a hard time identifying anything specific. It's really hard, because the Klingon article has become pretty good; this content here would be a pretty ugly smudge. I'm whacking at it piecemeal now, but really I don't see anything that isn't already sufficiently covered in Klingon (e.g. the religious stuff) or the purely inconsequential (e.g. sexuality). Inclined toward redirect, with possible, extremely limited merge. --EEMIV (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable element of a HUGE fictional franchise. Article currently has at least two third party RS'es. Having said that, I have no objection to appropriate trimming and/or merging to Klingon if the result doesn't lose any worthwhile (non-OR, etc.) content. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete our Klingon article is actually very good, and I think we'd be doing a disservice to that article and its editors by foisting this on them via merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Expand Culture section in Klingon article if necessary. Slighty OT now but I think Klingon law should be cleaned up and merged into Klingon. Mattg82 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Klingon. Pointlessly replicates much of the in-universe content in the main article, so there won't be much to merge. Fences&Windows 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While I agree that such a subject would hardly ever make a feasible article on Wikipedia without breaking WP:OR, WP:POV and so on, I do think it could potentially become a valid sub-topic. The Klingon culture is exceptionally popular, more so than any other in the Star Trek universe I suspect, and is emulated or investigated all over the world. SGGH ^ping! 22:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Apart from Cirts argument above I don't see much policy based argumentation here. Some of you even admit that the article is too big to merge into the culture section of Klingon - this should be a hint that a sinout article on the topic is warranted. Now I agree that the article is of low quality and written in an in universe perspective - these are however not arguments for deletion, but arguments for improval. One possible argument towards deletion could be the sources - it is clearly undersourced and I have my doubts about the reliability of some of the sources it does have. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:01, 29 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tana Louise

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

I can't find significant coverage for this porn star. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Not a porn star, but an old-timey Bettie Page-ish pinup model. So WP:PORNBIO is not applicable. Google search reveals many photo archives and a community of fans. I think she meets #2 and possibly #3 of WP:ENTERTAINER but more discussion and investigation is needed. Therefore I have a "weak" vote but I encourage more discussion in this direction. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Tana Louise is mentioned only once in a long list of other models in the book Burlesque: legendary stars of the stage by Jane Briggeman. So I think she fails dead trees notability for a separate bio. I don't know how much javasbachelorpad.com, the only source used in the article, counts towards establishing notability. Pcap ping 11:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 13:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep.~~ Found a bit more, added some references and a bit more info to the article to meet WP:GNG, and as Doomsdayer520 points out criterion 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER by the volume of profiles and pictorials of her 55 years after her peak. J04n(talk page) 02:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for using Wikipedia as source for this article. ([WP]: there means the entry is from Wikipedia). retrojunkie.com's page also shares a significant amount of text with the wiki article (don't know who copied from who). The other references you added are just picture galleries that verify the sentence: "Her following is extended into the 21st century over the internet with profiles and pictorials." Pcap ping 07:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it meant 'World Press' or something, I suppose these is nothing out there then. Seems a shame though J04n(talk page) 11:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but no need to be rude about it. Just an honest mistake, if a little careless. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be rude. Sorry if I seem that way. Pcap ping 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken :) J04n(talk page) 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When you use Google news search, it has a lot of hits. By adding in the word burlesque[%22++%22source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-press%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a I was able to find a dozen certain hits concerning this person. She had plenty of coverage in a notable magazine back in the 50's also. Dream Focus 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note to Dream Focus: I went through all of those hits plus dozens more in an attempt to expand the article but they are just ads for her appearances. J04n(talk page) 08:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with complete understanding that notability is not temporary... even for a dancer who had her peak 40 years before Wikipedia was ever created. [46], [47]. Yes, she started being touted in 1950 [48], and I was surprised that she was sued by Tina Louise in 1957 [49] and that the suit was still dragging on in 1959.... but it is unrealistic to assume that she will be in news articles nearly 60 years later. The article may always be a stub, but that's okay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I don't think significant coverage can be found via google, but that doesn't mean it does exist in some dead tree form. Polarpanda (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found; see WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how a couple of extremely short news pieces on a lawsuit between her and a real celebrity amount to in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pcap ping 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know that I've done more flip-flopping than John Kerry on this one but come on, we can find news clippings of her hitting other strippers and getting sued by a star from Gilligan's Island from 50 years ago! She has been mentioned in Billboard twice. Let's keep this article! Surely it meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 00:02, 27 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Whybrew

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

There is no real assertation of notability other than looking at some bloke that was sat on the Queen's bed!! raseaC^{talk to me} 23:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many Google hits, several news hits including multiple articles solely about him, was a major player in the Michael Fagan incident. Seems to pass WP:BIO with flying colors, and also satisfies the additional requirement of having received a notable award or honor, having been appointed Serjeant-at-Arms. Cerebellum (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be part of the Mighael Fagan incident article. It's pretty small, and it doesn't seem like he'd have an article if not for that incident. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:19, 22 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gray (Entertainer)

Delete can't see evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Notability tags repeatedly removed by anon, and prod tag removed without reason given. Boleyn2 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

}

Don't Delete this is a music artist who has appeared on countless stations and has a very loyal fanbase. He is a major label artist who tours the country and has appeared on various major media outlets such as LOGO, The Advocate Magazine, Out Magazine, and has toured the country. He is an independent artist with major label distribution and his single "Lost & Found" has charted on various music dance music charts such as GBM Music Chart, Starfleet Dance Music Charts, ect. I feel this artist does infact meet the WP:Music standard as he has aquired much non-trivial press coverage and is releasing his album on an important indie label. This artist is known nation wide and has created an impact in indie music, especially in the LGBT dance community. He has received press coverage by media and publications independent from himself such as Expressions Magazine, Pride Source Magazine, Rage Monthly, Baltimore Out Loud, Instinct, NEXT Magazine, OutSmart Magazine, OutFront Colorado, Camp Magazine, Out Impact Magazine, Horizon Barcelona Magazine, The Advocate magazine and on such national radio coverage on shows such as This Show Is So Gay and Question Reality. He also has two music videos in rotation on the LOGO network, his first of which was debuted on a major show by Jennifer Hudson and has toured and performed in many substantial and important LGBT festivals and music clubs (a complete list can be found on his website). This artist has created an impact on people like myself as well as other fans of LGBT dance music. Many articles are listed on his page with links to verify their validity as well as his music video link on a major television network. When googled his website appears at second on my page and only beaten by facebook. If this artist, with his multiples of press coverage, tours, and his current rotation on major music network and various dance music radio programs, should be deleted then I would say other artist such as Semi Precious Weapons and Tony Enos as well as many others should be deleted. All of these artist have proven themselves in their own rights and have received much considertion and press coverage especially in the LGBT community. If we are saying the press coverage from the LGBT community doesn't count as viable or important press coverage then I would say delete all articles, but as I see it now, this article and artist meet the standards of notablity.

Comment. I rewrote Tony Enos last night to remove all the 'hype' and stick to the facts, again, none of which can be verified due to the lack of independent evidence. I personally would delete that article as not meeting WPMusic.
I feel that you are get confused about quality and quantity. There may well be 'multiples of press coverage' - but they are all derived from self promo interviews conducted by the artist. I can't find anything that isn't - certainly no reviews which don't derive from the artist himself. (If you read WPMusic, you get a good idea of what is and isn't considered good sources of information.)This leads me to question the popularity of the artist - if he was a popular as you say, I would expect a lot more press coverage which doesn't rely on the same old self promo interviews - which to be honest are not at the forefront of independent music - whether from the gay or straight scenes. His current rotation may break him - and in time he may warrant an entry under WP Music but at this time, sorry he doesn't. RichardLowther (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a self promo, referencing in the main only interviews given by the artist in which he promotes himself in a postitive light or from his own facebook etc pages. The article is full of weasel words - relying on details which have note been or can not be independently verified. If he has a fan base, it appears to be small and I am not convinced that all the edits are not being made by the same one or two people - they are never signed in or under a name. RichardLowther (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with RichardLowther, one of my initial concerns was that this article has only been edited by very persistent anons (anons rarely check so regularly on a page to remove any negative tags) and that the creator has edited several pages, but only to add information on this one person. Although it may not be a conflict of interests, it looks like self-promotion. Boleyn2 (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can assure everyone that the article is not self promotion and that I do edit the article under annons because I don't always feel like signing in, sometimes forgetting to. I was unsure how to properly write an article on Wikipedia and did try to do it like a book report based on a few articles that I have read and that were online, the artist facebook updates, and website updates. I can and will rewrite the article to comply more with the an informative article and not like an interview, if that would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, and I wouldn't expect someone who is new to understand all the rules - we're all still learning, however long we've been on here - and we're pleased to see people creating articles! However, we need to be really clear who is editing in situations where tags are being removed in particular. Are you the anon who fist voted 'don't delete' on here? If so, please merge your comments so there is only one heading of 'don't delete' and it is clear that they are all the comments of one person. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had the first comment on here but I am not sure how to merge them. I am in the process of rewriting the article now and should have it done sometime this weekend (if all goes well). If you do have any tips of any kind that would be greatly appreciated. Should I inform the creator of the Tony Enos article of the same, I sort of try to follow that lead on writing, as he is another artist that is known by the LGBT community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've merged your comments now so they're clearly from the same person. Asking people who've created similar articles for advice is a good idea. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So can this conversation be considered closed and can I remove the deletion notice off of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify, my vote is definitely for deletion as he doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. If you work on it and can prove me wrong, then try to do so. You might also want to move the content to User:YouCalledMeBeautiful/sandbox where you could work on it, and if the article's deleted but he becomes more notable later on, you could recreate the article. Boleyn2 (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails every criterion of WP:MUSIC. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even with a substantial rewrite, I still can't see it meeting the criteria set in WP Music, there is a complete lack of any independent comment about him - everything derives from his self promotional interviews which have been picked up by fringe magazines - none of which seem to question or independently verify any of stories. I think that Boleyn2's comments about reworking in a sandbox for the future and repost should he meet WPmusic in the future is good advice. RichardLowther (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i cannot find any third party, reliable sources to attest to his notability. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many links to third party sources listed in the article. If you would like to delete the article then go ahead and do so. I thought I explained and proved how this artist met the criteria for an article. If it is that serious then go ahead and delete the article. I will continue to build my knowledge of this website, writing articles, and I hope everyone will at least look up the artist as he is a good artist and has an impact in the LGBT dance music community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.48.109 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just checking, is that last anon comment by you, YouCalledMeBeautiful? If so, I'm very pleased that you plan to continue writing article no matter the result on this one article. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes it is, sorry I have to get used to logging in. I do plan to continue writing articles about things that I care about and that I find significant, that are not on Wikipedia. I understand this website has rules and regulations, which I did think I followed with this article. I don't think there is a big enough LGBT community presence on this website and artist that are legitimately involved in doing something for the LGBT community should be recognized for their contributions. I also do not understand why this article is being criticized so much when other articles are clearly for self promotion and show no reference, links, or support the claims made in the articles, while the article I wrote has all of those things. I became a fan of this artist over the summer when I saw his show and then looked up his music, read his articles, watched his videos, and video blogs and I think he is a legitimate person to write about based on his press coverage, video rotation on a major network, and he is signed to a major label distributed indie. If this article is really that offensive to everyone please let me know how to add it to my sandbox because I don't want this article to be permanently gone and will wait until I get the "OKAY" for the Wikipedia editors to relist the article because standard society says it's okay. How one article is picked over another for this is beyond my comprehension. I need someone to explain to me how articles like Tony Enos are not deleted since he has no supporting articles, label, or rotation or charting, an he is not the only one. I don't understand this at all and need someone to explain this to me please.YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, we know: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but doesn't let this article off the hook. Tony Enos should probably also be deleted, and if and when it is nominated for WP:AfD I'll most likely !vote for deletion.Yilloslime ^T_C 07:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ KEEP I think that all this article needs to make it “retainable” is more independent, third-party, verifiable references/citations about Daniel Gray. As it stands now, there is are only ~~one~~ two reference(s) that is are about the artist, inasmuch as ~~it is~~ they are review(s) and not interview(s). Perhaps YouCalledMeBeautiful could do more Googling and see what s/he could come up with? For instance, this reference in the wikiarticle, actually has an entire article on Mr. Gray distinct from the interview that follows: this may be useful in further developing and improving the wikiarticle. (The other reference already in the wikiarticle that is not an interview is this one.) But be careful, there are other musicians named Daniel Gray out there (example).

In the meantime, YouCalledMeBeautiful, you ought to userfy the article, or ask to have it done for you, so that if it does end up being deleted, you can work on it in your own user namespace, improving it as per the comments made here in this AfD. If you want the article userfied, and do not know how to do it yourself, leave me a note on my talk page, and I’ll do it for you. — Spike Toronto 20:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SpikeToronto if you could please let help me in anyway that would be greatly appreciated. As I said I am new to Wikipedia.YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Question I was wondering if Invictus (Daniel Gray album) should also be considered for deletion? Boleyn2 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I don't yet have a view as to notability. Two points, however, in reaction to the above. Weasel words, self promotion, and/or COI are not reasons to bring an article to AfD. Or to delete it. They are reasons to clean it up. Second, wp:othercrapexists is innapplicable when what is point to is not the only reason given to support keeping an article. In such circumstances, that other crap can form part of a cogent, acceptable argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- COMMENT I agree with Epeefleche. To be honest, I could not understand why this discussion had veered at all from notability. The cleanup tags at WP:TMC exist to encourage editors to correct most of the deficiencies that have been highlighted in this article. The fact that the article needed to be more encyclopedic and less “fluffy,” less of a puff piece, would suggest that the article be appropriately tagged for improvement, not deleted. — Spike Toronto 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I disagree with Epeefleche. No matter how you clean up this article, it still fails to meet the basic criteria of WPMusic or notability. If you start to allow well written articles about anyone, then you are on the slippy slope. I still see that the supporters of keeping this article, still haven't produced any independent evidence/detail to support the keeping of this article. Merry Christmas to all. RichardLowther (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I've just stripped out most if not all of the fluff.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to say that I still find that there's a lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I have to say that this is an artist that I really like and I learned of him when I saw his video on LOGO. I say keep it! He wrote about this on his website and I have read his articles and reviews on more than one occasion in credible and reliable publications.HilaryDuffFan1 (talk)

Comment is the new user above the creator? I'm a bit confused that someone's first edit on WP is on an AfD, and one where it's been difficult to keep track of people editing under different names/IPs, but perhaps this has made me unnecessarily cynical... Boleyn2 (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no I am the creator and I don't know who the above person is. I have already admitted and posted during this discussion, that I do sometimes forget to log in so it's not like I'm being deceitful and would turn around and create a new login. I don't understand why it's hard for you to believe that people like this artist. The artist also did write a response on his blog to this discussion so that might have prompted someone to write in this talk box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 07:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(NOT A NEW 'KEEP' - FROM CREATOR WHO HAS ALREADY WRITTEN ABOVE) Keep everyone should know my vote and that is to keep the now cleaned up article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC) — YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Fails notability as a musician and as an actor/entertainer. Being popular in a niche publications doesn't equal notability to me. If people removed his sexual preference from the equation, this wouldn't even be disputed, which makes me question how many are !voting to keep based on that and not his actual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One would think if this gent was as famous as his partisans here maintain, and there had been as many articles about him as all of that, some would have shown up on Google News. As it happens, a G-News search for "Daniel Gray" + Invictus turns up zero hits, either on recent or on the archive search. Of the references in the article that actually pertain to him, all are specialty LGBT blogs (only one, Horizon, even appears to be printed, and does not itself appear to be a notable publication by WP:RS standards). A single album even were it a major studio release would fail WP:MUSIC. Fails WP:BIO. A powerful lot of SPAing here as well ... Ravenswing 07:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just filed on the album. Ravenswing 01:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why this article is going up for deletion. I got an email from a friend of mine telling me about this article being up for deletion and was asked to help vote to keep it. There have been legitimate articles written about this artist and he has notoriety.

www.outimpact.com/entertainment/music-entertainment/album-reviews/daniel-gray-invokes-invictus-2914
www.horizonbarcelona.com (October 2009 Issue)
http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=36767
www.thisshowissogay.com/?q=node/9
http://baltimoreoutloud.com (August 2009 Issue)
www.nextmagazine.com (September 2009 Issue)
http://www.logoonline.com/video/daniel-gray/444862/lost-found.jhtml?id=1623600

There are artist with far less on on here.PopMusicLover03 (talk)— PopMusicLover03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Don't Delete I vote to keep the article. I don't know what people are being so uptight for. Keep it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RainbowLover2009 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to remain paranoid, but both the above have made no other edits on WP apart from here. In fact, only Spike Toronto has expressed the opinion that this should be kept and has ever edited other than about this man. I'm concerned that those who got this e-mail from a friend may not have looked up the inclusion guidelines at all, but I'm more worried that they are not separate people. Boleyn2 (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet I share Boleyn2's concerns. I will repeat my comments that some posters - ie PopMusicLover03 don't understand the difference between self promotional articles appearing in very niche magazines to independently written non biased articles written in notable press. None of the 'to keep' posters have yet provided anything to suggest that WPMUSIC is met, and at the end of the day that is the only criteria against which we are measuring. RichardLowther (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment think what you want, but I am my own person. I sent an email out to 5 people and that email asks them to send it to 5 people, to help save this article. Think what you want.PopMusicLover03 (talk)

Reply: What I think, and what is in fact Wikipedia's policy, is that e-mailing people to "save" an article is a violation which can if unchecked lead to account blocking. I'll reiterate the template at the top of this discussion: this is not a vote. This is a discussion that weighs whether the article meets Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and the only valid arguments are those which address them. Please take a look at WP:CANVASS and please stop any e-mail campaign at once. Ravenswing 14:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not create other profiles and nor will I ever create other profiles. I do apologize if I broke any rules, as I said before, I am new to Wikipedia and am only trying to save my article because I worked very hard on it. If there is a place I can put the article for now until later please let me know. But I think that the many of other votes prove that this artist is viable with articles being written about him in various publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yo dude think what you want and say what you want. I think that this debate was started by someone with a bias and discrimination against the LGBT community. For users to say that "the articles listed don't count because they are in specialty based magazines is unfair. So only articles written about artist in heterosexual geared blanket magazines count as a legitimate article about a person? There is something wrong here, and reading back this whole thing seems to have started because of one person's grudge. Do what you want and say what you will, but it's an article and I am 100% sure that this is a campaign in and of it self to erase LGBT known artist and people off of Wikipedia and it's a crying shame. Be conservative if you like, that's fine, but for a bias, and feud to start something like this is a shame and I frown upon all of it. I will stop sending the emails and I will inform the people I sent them to, to please not send it out so I can follow the rules, but I think the campaign against this must stop as well. I'm a fighter and just because I didn't write this article doesn't mean I won't fight against the injustice being done. To me this is greater then an article written by a friend, based on the comments I've read, the article seems to be a target and that IS NOT FAIR!!!PopMusicLover03 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Reply: You want to fight to save the article? Great. Go take a look at the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO and demonstrate to us which ones he meets. Has he been the the subject of multiple newspaper articles or TV movies? Has he had a release that's made a national chart or gone gold? Has he had a major international concert tour? Has he had two or more albums released on a major label? Has he been a member of two or more notable bands or been the most notable regional proponent of a particular musical style? Has he ever been a Grammy nominee? Are any of his tunes in national rotation on a major radio network? That would be, as far as I can see, no, no, no, no, no, no and no. That is the bar Mr. Gray must meet for there to be an article about him on Wikipedia. He does not meet it. Ravenswing 22:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYes many articles have been published about him in various independent publications by legitimate reporters, all of which I have already listed above, but I can do it again if you like. Unless you are saying that because these publications just so happen to be geared toward the LGBT Community there for they don't count. In reading the history this article was criticized for being poorly written, which has been rectified, and now about publication and notoriety which has been proven time and time again. Here is that list again in case you didn't see it before.

www.outimpact.com/entertainment/music-entertainment/album-reviews/daniel-gray-invokes-invictus-2914
www.horizonbarcelona.com (October 2009 Issue)
http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=36767
www.thisshowissogay.com/?q=node/9
http://baltimoreoutloud.com (August 2009 Issue)
www.nextmagazine.com (September 2009 Issue)
http://www.logoonline.com/video/daniel-gray/444862/lost-found.jhtml?id=1623600
http://www.starfleetmusic.com/record_pool/new-music-reviews/daniel-gray-lose-a-found-extended.html
http://www.starfleetmusic.com/record_pool/dance-charts/top-50-dance-chart-101-1507.html (Charting)

PopMusicLover03 (talk) Comment As I started this discussion, I take the comments above as aimed at me and that I have therefore been accused of being someone with a bias and discrimination against the LGBT community. This kind of unfounded allegation has no place on WP and is ridiculously petty. We are discussing whether this meets WP:MUSIC - to resort to accusations that this seems to have started because of one person's grudge makes no sense. Boleyn2 (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't mean to offend but based on what I've been reading that is how I feel. In a discussion I figured I can say how I felt regarding the article and decisions people are making regarding it, unless there is a rule saying I can't about that. Let me know if that's the case.PopMusicLover03 (talk)

Comment Making completely unfounded accusations that someone has a bias and discrimination against the LGBT community would come under Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not personally attack anyone and didn't single out anyone in my comments. I simply am stating my opinion about how the nature of many comments are being perceived by me. PopMusicLover03 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Hello everyone, I am the artist this article is about and I have received many emails about this debate. I would first like to thank my fans for all their love and support. I am also very flattered to see that someone took the time to make this page about me. However I do ask that all the rules of Wikipedia be followed and that while I think it's great for people to debate I don't feel it is necessary to resort to name calling, mud slinging, and talking down to people. I make music to make people happy and I ask for people to understand there is a time and place for everything. If this is not my time to be on Wikipedia then that is fine by me because I will continue to make the music and projects I love. Let's end this year off great with peace, love and dancing. I respect everyone's opinions and thank all my fans and non fans for taking part. Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all! Much love all around! DanielGrayWorld (talk) 8:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magma: Volcanic Disaster

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

Unnotable made for television film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. Only a single review, in DVDTalk, for the DVD release, and listings in the usual movie directories with little details there. It can be verified it exist (it was hilarious at that), but it has not managed to establish any notability since 2006. Even for a Sci Fi channel thing, having only one review is pretty bad. Prod removed by User:Arbitrarily0 with note of "contested prod; please pursue deletion through AfD". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than DVD Talk, I found this. If someone can find a third reliable source with significant coverage, I will change my !vote. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have performed some major sandblasting and moved the quite lengthy storyline to its talk page, as there is no need to retell the entire film in the article. DVD Talk, Monsters and Critics, and DVD Verdict all panned the film. If a film is a stinker, they are happy to tell us. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the plot was ridiculously long, I was a little surprised at just how much you removed. That said, with three reviews I'm on the border of its being notable (yeah, it was bad, but that's why it was funny!). If all we can ever say on it is the plot and quote three reviews, does it really make the film notable enough for an article? As a side note, the lead really doesn't need that citation on who starred, directed, etc. The film is verifiable and that info is available in the film itself. 13:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Its moved to the talk page. When I first began going through it, I realized it was script outline and not a plot. I'll be working on it more and returning a far sleeker version, but would love assistance. And sourcing is not yet complete, as yes... critics did find it so bad it was almost funny. I'm finding more on the deeper pages of my search. Will be back and advise further. Best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I just returned a slightly trimed version of the storyline to the article. Though it is lengthier than I might wish, it is informative to readers in context to the film's reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per changes and sources provided by User:MichaelQSchmidt. JBsupreme (talk) 19:32, 29 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadra Street

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

Non-notable road, or at least nothing mentioned in this article. Prod applied and disputed. PK T(alk) 14:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding anything about the street that makes it more than a street. There is an Old Quadra Street Burying Ground that might be a notable entity, if anybody from the area wants to create an article. Abductive (reasoning) 14:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This does appear to be a major north-south thoroughfare of Victoria, BC which connects many neighborhoods and to other municipalities to the north. [50] Even following the very limiting WP:STREET proposal, it would still pass.--Oakshade (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I can't drum a single source that even says that. Abductive (reasoning) 22:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That maps confirm it.--Oakshade (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no source talks about this street in any detail, not bothering to say something, anything at all about this street means only one thing; not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 23:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed I've found detailed articles about this street, but just that it is a major thoroughfare of this city that connects neighborhoods, which maps confirm.--Oakshade (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are more and less important streets, and then there's this one. Looking at the map I can't imagine why Quadra Street would be more important than, say, Shellbourne Street to its east. And sure enough, there's no source to indicate it is. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is an article that suggests the street is of some importance, and fairly busy: Report says turning curb lanes over to buses on Quadra Street won't work during rush hour. I have also seen references to Quadra Village at http://www.blanshardcc.com/qvd/ , but I am not sure what the village's boundaries are. - Eastmain (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of busy streets during rush hours; not all are notable. Apart from that, the article is still just one sentence long. PK T(alk) 13:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROTM street. --Slashme (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, an article that mentions that a street has traffic (and how many streets don't?) doesn't come remotely close to satisfying notability. I'm sure, for instance, that I can come up with hundreds of articles gleaned from the Boston newspapers that X Road or Y Street was the ___location of SuchAndSuch accident, Soandso murder or Thisandthat new construction. That neither makes the source about the street or the ___location notable. RGTraynor 08:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arterial roads are likely to be able to show notability. However this article fails completely. Delete until someone can write a well sourced stub. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:27, 28 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. Blatant hoax. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical shocker

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

The author probably means TASER,makes no sense Adi4094 (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: incomprehensible, not clear what the article is supposed to be about! --Slashme (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per.....common sense. This thing makes no sense and doesn't even leave enough to clean up. This is a perfect example of go home and do it over. Niteshift36 (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to Catherine_Asaro#Saga_of_the_Skolian_Empire. There is no consensus how to deal with this article, although consensus is also against keeping the article in its current form. Several options were presented in this discussion, from outright deletion to redirecting without merging to merging the content to a new Saga of the Skolian Empire article. There is no agreement though which of those options should be used to deal with the article, so further discussion on the relevant talk pages is probably needed. As such, I have closed this as redirect to Catherine_Asaro#Saga_of_the_Skolian_Empire for now, which removes the article itself (which was the outcome those arguing for deletion or redirecting wanted) without removing the content (which allows the material to be merged somewhere else) and thus should reflect the general consensus of this discussion that the subject is not worthy of a stand-alone article. Regards So Why 15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jagernaut

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

This deprodded article is on a type of fighter pilot in a science fiction series. It contains nothing but WP:PLOT description, presented in a most unencyclopedic way. Title cannot be redirected (a favorite solution of some editors who don't want outright deletion), since the term Jagernaut is the name of both real and fictional places going back hundreds of years. But most importantly to this nomination is the total lack of independent third party sources. Abductive (reasoning) 15:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although sources are absent, this is because the information is culled from the books of the Saga of the Skolian Empire. It is an article with not a superfluous sentence or even word to it: all three sections full of relevant information. No plot descriptions at all, and as encyclopedic as any average article on Wikipedia. No idea why the nominator is so denegrating towards this article. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no secondary sources, and all original research. Abductive (reasoning) 15:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, see WP:OR: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Debresser (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confused; that requires secondary sources, which this topic has none. Abductive (reasoning) 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say so? Debresser (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." in the WP:OR policy, towards the top. WP:POLICY is a very high level of consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 15:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stress in this sentence from the policy that enjoys such a high level of consensus is on "can". See e.g. Template_talk:Unreferenced#RFC:_Should_the_template_employ_.22unverifiable.22_or_.22unverified.22.3F for illustrational purposes only. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this nominator has embarked on a quest against the Saga of the Skolian Empire. He has redirected five articles already. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected articles which have no secondary sources to the main series, as DGG always suggests I do. Abductive (reasoning) 15:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try getting consensus next time. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we wait for other people to comment? It is possible that you might be wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 15:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, by all means. I had something to say, so I said it. Anything wrong with that? Debresser (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to educate, and not to alienate, my fellow editors in these discussions. Abductive (reasoning) 15:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your talking down will make that a hard thing to do. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The term Jagernaut is the name of both real and fictional places going back hundreds of years". I know the terms "Juggernaut" and "Argonaut", but am unfamiliar with "Jagernaut" outside this fiction series. What else does it refer to? Debresser (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the Google Books link at the top. Abductive (reasoning) 16:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a Catherine Asaro book tops that list... Anyway, since we have no other titles with "Jagernaut" on Wikipedia(no disambiguation), I do not see the problem with redirecting you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we calm it down a little guys? But yeah, delete, unsourced, no notability established. Been plenty of time to address the 8 issues and no effort has been made to improve the article to Wikipedia's standards. I doubt the notability issue could ever be addressed, I can't really find any reliable coverage on the subject itself. Rehevkor ✉ 16:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Smerge (selectively merge) to "Catherine Asaro#Saga of the Skolian Empire" section of the article about the author. She has written a series of short stories and novels over a period of years dealing with this fictional sci-fi universe. ~~Much of the body of the work is only ebooks, though some may have appeared in conventional publication.~~ (added: See below: Amazon verifies hardback or paperback publication by imprints such as Baen) It is not encyclopedic to make articles out of every character type, imaginary place, gadget or event which appears in a fictional universe of this sort, when no secondary sources have discussed them. We have cut back on the similar offshoot articles in the Buffyverse, the Gundum series, and other better known and more discussed fictional worlds. If the Saga of the Skolian Empire section of the author's article gets too long, it could be spun off, undoing the earlier merge. I would prefer one article on the series if it is judged the fiction series is notable enough for one, rather than such a series of article about every plot element. It is helpful to a reader of one of the books to be able to figure out the previous events the particular work refers to. The set of articles about characters, places and events in the series appears to be a Wikipedia:Walled garden created by a fan of the series without secondary sources in early 2006, which should be should be similarly smerged or redirected. Violates WP:PLOT.Edison (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all are printed, and many have received awards (see Catherine_Asaro#Awards). Debresser (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not reject ebook publication as an index of notability, but actual hardback.paperback publication by a major publisher is an easier criterion to judge, since the lower bounds of webposting get down to amateur garbage and fanfiction. A vanity or on-demand imprint is not much evidence of notability, but these appear to be traditionally published. In the emerging world of Kindles and Sony Readers, the number of trees which give their lives to publish a work will be less and less of an effective criterion. Edison (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two small references. That is a start. And a reason the more to keep this article. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some of the Wikipedia article lack publication information,. Where is the publication information for The Radiant Seas, Ascendant Sun, Spherical Harmonic,and The Moon's Shadow? Several novels' articles say that some part was published as a short story, but that surely does not establish notabilty of the whole novel. [Schism (novel)]] has an ISBN listed but what is it for, the whole book or the short story portion?. "The Ruby Dice" and "Diamond Star" have neither articles nor publication info. Since The Quantum Rose was a Nebula award winner, I see the series as likely notable enough for coverage either as a part of the author's article or as a stand-alone, but I object to making articles about every plot element. Edison (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out things that need to be remedied. I'll make an effort in the next few hours. And I, of course, agree with you that not all plot elements should have an article. Just some of them; those that are most distinguishing. Actually, some were deleted in July 2009. Although I was disappointed that Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia was deletd, being that she is arguably the most central character of the whole series. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If S.L.V.S is that important, some mention in one article about the series is called for. Amazon could apparently be used to source the publication info for print editions of the books. I found a number of hardbacks or paperbacks in the series by the author. I made a change in my comment above, accordingly. Notability for a book requires more than being published by Baen books and having an Amazon sales rank of #600,000. Independent editorial reviews (which some have) are needed on a case by case basis. That still does not justify the indiscriminate information of breakout articles about each plot element. I would like to see one article about the series, with perhaps a timeline if one was provided and isn't OR, and summaries of various important plot elements. Edison (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ISFDB is IMO a significantly more through and relaible source for publication information than Amazon is, and it is already linked to from the author's article. DES ^(talk) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a timeline at the end of most of the series' books. I can put a copy up anywhere you want. But would that be a copyright infringement? Debresser (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Infobox Book}} and references to the four articles you mentioned. Perhaps we continue on my talkpage, if you have any more suggestion to improve the overall quality of the articles on this series. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge but certainly not what is called "smerge, " a merge with only a little bit of content preserved. I see that a comment above refers to "I would prefer to see". What a particular person would prefer to see has nothing to do with what should be in an encyclopedia; it's IDONTLIKEIT. , Some of us might like to see the minimal treatment of fiction possible; some of us might light to see a full treatment of everything but fanfic, just a little less than a fansite would have. Some of us would prefer to have it in one article, some in many. The actual standard is " encyclopedic content", which can only mean what the readers will expect in an encyclopedia like this-a modern comprehensive encyclopedia known for its coverage of popular culture, and with no limit on size--all very different from what they would have expected in a printed encyclopedia, one traditionally been used mainly for conventional school assignments. The point of Wikipedia was not to emulate Brittanica. The virtue of a broad approach is to be very simple & obvious: if we cover it fully, we can satisfy both those who want full information on the topic and those who do not--because those who do not will simply not read the article. It takes up no space in their bookshelves. It displaces nothing else that they would want to see more. I can imagine few reasons why I should ever want to read this article, unless I encounter a fan and am desperate to make conversation--but it being here does not interfere with what i might want to read about. If I had to keep Wikipedia in print, then I'd want material like this cut, to make it more convenient to read. If its presence does bother someone, there is nothing stopping them from making a partial mirror of Wikipedia--a technique not available in a printed work. it shouldn't be that hard to take the category scheme and set it up automatically. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "selectively merge" in no way implies "preserve only a little bit of content." See WP:SMERGE. It calls for preserving more content than the common practice of replacing an article with a redirect. An "unselective merge" would likely add too much detailed text about the plot to the main article. An article about a book should not paraphrase the book. (See WP:NOT indiscriminate information). Also, I did not say or imply that I did not like the series or its plot elements. I encouraged the restoration of an article about the series, previously merged into the article about the author. You note that "encyclopedic content" is "what the readers will expect in an encyclopedia like this." As a reader and editor, I am entitled to state what I expect to see. "It displaces nothing" is a poor reason to keep content. Edison (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but what to do about the fact that "Jagernaut" has been used in fiction (or maybe it was a real place?) before Asaro? This usage has secondary sources, whereas the Asaro material has none. Is it fair, or scholarly, to allow this term to be hijacked in this manner? Abductive (reasoning) 17:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

then we would need a disam note, and possibly a page or pages on the other use(s). that's a routine situation when terms are used in various fictional contexts. Or are you proposing we eliminate all such articles? DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not true that items in disambigs have to have some basis? For example, I can't put my name into the disambig for my surname unless there is an article on me, or I am mentioned in an article. Right? So this "jagernaut", a job description, has no mention in secondary sources, and therefore should have no mention in any article on Wikipedia, since nothing encyclopedic can be said about it. Some of the other terms associated with the Skolian Empire series have a few scattered references, perhaps enough to allow their mention in an overall article, but not this one. Abductive (reasoning) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of POV terms like "hijacking" noticed, there are rules on Wikipedia about redirecting and disambiguating. If there is no other Wikipedia article with this term, there is (for the time being) no reason not to have this as the mean article for Jagernaut. Debresser (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing a POV isn't forbidden in an AfD debate, it is only problematic in mainspace. Abductive (reasoning) 17:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But using POV language is problematic anywhere, because it antagonises people. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like you are the article creator or Ms Asaro herself, right? I wasn't accusing you, but I am sorry if you felt antagonized. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. :) Although I have substantially edited Catherine Asaro and most articles connected wth the Saga of the Skolian Empire. Ok, let's be professional about this. Friends! Debresser (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect mostly per Edison above. This type of character has no out-of-universe notability. I also don't see anyone asserting that they don't like this article. Every editor on Wikipedia has their own personal view of what the encyclopedia should contain; that's why we have AfDs to judge broad consensus instead of letting editors delete without discussion. Them From Space 18:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PLOT, WP:OR, and as per some of the arguments by Edison above. Detailed articles on specific plot elements of works of fiction that do not have separate secondary source coverage are generally not appropriate for Wikipedia articles, except possibly where the works of fiction are so well known as to have significant real-world cultural impact. But in such cases there will generally be secondary sources available. And in any such case a vaid article will not be primarily in in-universe style, but will discuss how the plot element fits into the work of fiction, and perhaps its separate cultural impacts. If any of the info in this article is relevant enough it can be merged, but I suspect that would result in an article with an overly detailed plot description, in contravention of WP:PLOT. DES ^(talk) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asaro is a major SF author, and her work (at least the overall body of it) is clearly notable. (The ISFDB link in her article gives specific and detailed publication information). But that doesn't make every character or group of charaters in her books individually notable or article-worthy. If someone does a critical study of her work (published in a reliable source) in which the Jagernauts are discussed in some detail, that will be time enough to consider an article such as this. I don't, frankly, see a reason to preserve even a redirect in this case. DES ^(talk) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weren't all the articles for this book series nominated before? No one cares about the suggested guidelines, they not binding in any way. They were passed by a small number of people, and used as an excuse to delete things they don't like. Wikipedia is not a set of elitist rules. There is nothing gained by deleting articles that some would find interesting to read, and which those who don't aren't likely to find at all. Jagernauts are notable aspects of this series, found in several of the books. Clicking on the Google news search at the top of the AFD, I see 7 results, most of them book reviews, they an important and interesting part of the series. WP:IAR If a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. Dream Focus 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a Saga of the Skolian Empire article (Create the article from all the redirected stuff) 76.66.201.33 (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect merging after redirecting is acceptable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete as non-notable fictional element. This is simple; it is not appropriate for inclusion; all we have here is a regurgitation of chunks of the parent work as a vicarious means of participating in the fictional universe. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources (whatsoever) that could begin to approach justifying inclusion. I direct fanboys to fanfiction sites where they can show more heart and write to their hearts content.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added another few references. Compare this related Afd, where the closing comment shows that sourcing is a good enough reason to gain a keep. I would advise the nominator and all those who voted "delete" (many of whom I remember from other discussion as hard-line deletionists), to start searching for sources and actually improve the article, instead of taking the easy way out with an Afd. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, the people who don't think it's notable should prove notability? I would think that the person that asserts notability should bear the burden of proof. --Slashme (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Making a genuine effort to improve the article, including sourcing it, may open up their eyes to the notability of the article. How can anybody assess notability without first having a good look for sources? Debresser (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've looked, and I can't find any reliable third-party sources on this topic per se, so my vote remains delete as below. Please show me if you find something to support your keep vote. --Slashme (talk)

Delete: this is an article about a type of military force in a series of novels. The topic is completely non-notable on its own. Where is the evidence of significant coverage by reliable third parties? --Slashme (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There quite a few primary and secondary sources. Which is good enough for fictional elements. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the additions mentioned above the cited references are: 1) several primary sources: the texts of the Asaro books themselves. These establish that the term is used in the books, but are no help whatever in establishing real world notability; and 2) three book reviews or notices. Each uses the term exactly once, in a single sentence not further elaborated on, as part of a plot summary. At least one appears to be a reprint or rephrasing of the publisher's blurb. I don't see these, separately or together, as establishing any notability for the term. My view to delete above remains unchanged, and my reasoning above still applies. Sourcing can be a good reason to change a Delete to a Keep, but not the kind of sources now cited. If a source -- even one source -- discussed the Jagernauts in some depth, perhaps comparing therm to other fictiopnal or real-world military organizations, or discussing the role they play in these works, that would be a different matter. That would IMO establish notability, or at least strongly suggest it. So far, no cited secondary source does this. As it stands, the term is used merely as an identifying name in the secondary sources, and could be changed to "Death Commandos" or "Grand Military Forces" or any other plausible name for a fictional military group and there would be no effective change in those sources. DES ^(talk) 16:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the current secondary sources say:

"Young Soz secretly applies to become a Jagernaut, a member of the Skolian elite fighting force, against the wishes of her father, Eldrinson." (AccessMyLibrary)
"Roca and Eldrinson now have a numerous and respectable family, which includes Althor, a trained Imperial Jagernaut (cybernetic warrior), and 17-year-old Sauscony, who wants to become an IJ, despite her father's violent objections." (AccessMyLibrary)
"Sauscony Valdoria is a Jagernaut Primary, a rank equivalent to Admiral, a Rhon Psion, and a member of the Ruby dynasty." (Challenging Destiny)

By the way, the two listings from AccessMyLibrary look very much like publisher's blurbs, and I'm not sure just how independant they actually are. But even assuming that they are fully independent, IMO all three are "trivial" as far as this term/plot element (Jagernaut) goes. DES ^(talk) 16:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on Jagernaut Asaro finds several blog/forum posts and some fan sites; Google books and Baen Books sites with the text (or excerpts from the text) of the books themselves (primary sources); a number of vendor sites with plot summaries or blurbs of the books; and a single additional review with a one-line trivial mention very similar to those quoted above. The reviews would be excallant for establishing th notability of this series or the books in it, were that in doubt, but not for the term/plot element "Jagernaut". DES ^(talk) 16:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedians with an interest in Saga of the Skolian Empire may have more positive work to contribute by working on the existing articles for Catherine Asaro and her books, making sure that their notability meets or approaches WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BK. Spinning off additional articles from the books, especially when the books' own notability is unclear from the articles in their current state is a problem per "articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability" WP:BKD. See also the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines and Wikipedia:Systemic bias. What "real and fictional places going back hundreds of years" are there? Шизомби (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because fictional topics should have real-world context here at Wikipedia. This article has no such context, and its content is wholly in-universe. The sourcing is deceitful; secondary sources reiterating details from the primary source is not contributing. There should be analysis from secondary sources. Erik (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary editor has restored the deceitful sourcing. Secondary sources should be analytic, in this case providing real-world context of a fictional topic. Here, the secondary sources basically repeat details that are found in the primary source, and they are padded onto this article to give the false appearance that the topic is notable apart from the work. Boiled down to its essence, it's basically the primary source, the book itself, being cited, and this goes to show that there is no real-world context available for this topic, no matter how hard the primary editor tries. Erik (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a primary source is. What is a primary editor? Debresser (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary contributor of the article. You. Now please explain why you are padding the article with secondary sources that fail to analyze this particular topic. You are using secondary sources that basically repeat the information as found in the primary source. This gives the article the false appearance that the topic has been analyzed in multiple reliable sources. Erik (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only added a few sources. The text was written by somebody else. So by no means am I the primary contributor.

The issue you raise you should have discussed on the article's talk page. Now you are on WP:ANI for repeated removal of sources. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roca_Skolia_(2nd_nomination) for a proposal with merit, to merge all these articles into Saga of the Skolian Empire (now just a redirect). Debresser (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial and independent sources. Merge and redirect would be fine, though, as t's a plausible search term. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to author's page. No citations to third-party, independent sources to establish real-world notability. Refs in the article merely regurgitate plot. --EEMIV (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Saga of the Skolian Empire (new article), as proposed in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roca_Skolia_(2nd_nomination) per Debresser. Looks like a good solution to me for several problem articles. Plvekamp (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sufficient sources (if only just) to pass WP:Notability RP459 (talk) 20:21, 27 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 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom

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

Inherently involves synthesis, and 90% of the alleged "anti-Christian sentiment" is either a) not sourced directly to anti-Christian sentiment, or b) not even anti-Christian. This also has a inherent pro-Christian right-wing slant bye effectively defining anything that affects Christians negatively as anti-Christian. Of the numerous examples given, only eight of them are slightly objectively anti-Christian. This sort of article belongs on Conservapedia, not here. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an extra observation: you can bet your bottom dollar if the Commons tried to remove the bishops from the Lords, it'd be definitely listed. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is an essay. This kind of thing belongs in a publication or blog, not an encyclopedia. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is tendentious garbage, from which nothing of value can be salvaged. It presents the subject as being an established fact, despite some Christians regarding the claims as being nonsense [51]. The year-by-year listing is a classic example of a synthesis, in which a cherry-picked combination of semi-relevant references has been used to support a predetermined conclusion. It provides a collection of unconnected cases, and then presents them as evidence for this "anti-Christian sentiment". — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion little has changed from the AfD of its predecessor articles. Yes the references are in general, although not wholly, more reliable and the title is a little less POV-pusing. However, this article still basically cherry picks a few anecdotes to illustrate a conclusion that many of the examples cited do not even suggest. Many of these are plainly not anti-Christian or only dubiously anti-Christian.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs a serious re-write, but -- in the absence of a showing that these haven't happened, or that the descriptions of the crime are greatly exaggerated-- that's a surprising number of incidents of priests and vicars being attacked. Indeed, if there are other persons who have said in the news that such claims are nonsense, that in itself is notable. All I can say is that if there was pattern in the United States of attacks on priests, preachers, rabbis, Muslim clerics, etc., it would be considered hate crime. Apparently, this does make news in Great Britain, but it's not clear whether it's taken seriously there. Mandsford (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It really depends on the motive for the attacks. For example, there are at least a couple of incidents in Northern Ireland highlighted. I would have serious concerns that these are in some way related to the troubles (Protestant vs Catholic violence). Although, the official line is that they weren't sectarian, I guess that depends on what the security services term as sectarian. The sectarian gangs (e.g the IRA et al) might be quiet but there is by all accounts still a great deal of suspicion (and even hatred) between the protestant/unionist and catholic/nationalist communities. This is still stuff which , as far as I am aware, is still being preached from the pulpits of some churches in Northern Ireland.

Equally, I'm unsure as to whether drunken youths beating up a priest is anti-Christian or just representative of a wider break-down in the values and respect for authority in British society. Such youths tend to congregate in dark unlit areas so cemeteries are an ideal "breeding ground". I used to live near a park which suffered from badly drunken youths at night. The police are next to powerless to do anything they just move them from place to place (their resources are already stretched enough without parenting gangs of drunken teenagers) and to be frank, most of the youths' parents couldn't give a s*** what their offspring are doing Pit-yacker (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford - this just isn't the point. This is original research. Read the section on synthesis. Do you have a reference to sociological research that explores this claim? The quote from the MP doesn't count. The validity of the article is _not_ the issue. This issue must be explored and peer-reviewed elsewhere. Until then, this simply this does not belong on this site. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, the common margin makes this look like one long comment from the same person. I'm in the minority, but I'm of the opinion that the validity of a topic is always relevant, and that we must first consider whether an article can be improved. Perhaps Erik H. is right, but I will be surprised if this hasn't been explored and peer-reviewed elsewhere, even if the opinion of the peers is that claims, of anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom, are unfounded. I've done my part in preventing a snowball. Seven days is better than a rush to judgment. Mandsford (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mansford, you can easily demonstrate the existence of such research by citing it. Until then, this article needs to go. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I need to go. Talk to you later. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hyperdeath who is spot-on. ninety:one 23:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is little more than soapboxing from a conservative christian viewpoint. The various sources are used to represent a particular opinion that does not reflect the reality of those sources. Overall an un-encyclopedic essay. Crafty (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate if there are editors willing to devote the intensive efforts required to create a useful encyclopaedic article from this mess. The WP:Article Incubator allows collaborative work on articles outside mainspace, which are Noindexed while incubated. The current version of this article seems to be somewhere between an essay and a chronological list of otherwise unsorted references of varying relevance to the subject. The latter is a potentially valuable research resource for those who may wish to rewrite this or write a related article from scratch: as such, I would be very reluctant to discard it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree in principle, but what would this future useful article be? Some of the references might be useful, but the present conflation of random crimes and miscellaneous things that some Christians find offensive™ is useless and will always be useless. Perhaps it would be better to first trim the article down to a list of violent incidents, by cutting out the Christians-get-offended items and removing the whining editorial at the beginning. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 13:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate I like the incubate option - there is a lot of work put into this, it would be a shame to lose it if there's any hope of rehabilitation. It does require a lot of work; I agree it suffers form synthesis, so someone need to find some peer-reviewed relevant studies to form a basis of support for a claim. If incuabtion is not an option, I'd reluctantly choose delete over keep.--SPhilbrick T 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate Of course, there could be an article on intergroup tensions, some of which are inter-religious and some sectarian and some merely selected anti-religious. In America, we're told, a hate crime occurs every 8 seconds. Cultivating civility is a long struggle, but "the arc of history bends towards justice" (we might hope).MaynardClark (talk)
Incubate it needs work, but with a serious rewrite, I think it has a chance. The topic is definitely fine. Airplaneman ^talk 03:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not even really an essay, it's a list of perceived slights against Christians in the UK. There's no coherent point, so the entire article is simply original research synthesis and a WP:NPOV minefield. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's content is an amalgam of anything and everything, some even spilling into India (which I believe has achieved independence from the UK), others incidentally involving identifiable Christians (not unexpected, given that they are members of the community), and some relating to Christians accusing others (March 2009 Grantow(n-on-Spey) incident). The lack of a specific grounding for the article makes it unlikely that an "incubate" process could yield anything better that this shopping list of perceived slights. AllyD (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while an article about criticism of christian elements of english culture from within the nation,or documented "anti christian" movements (but wait, most of this isnt anti christian, just atheistic or other religions) could be a really interesting article, this isnt it. a list of crimes against clergy dating back only 20 years? each and every crime would have to be extensively explained as a conscious attack on a christian institution. thats just for starters. hopelessly unsalvageable in this form, and title doesnt match content. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:04, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Starr

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ENT, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of availability of reliable third-party sources mean this article fails to cross either the verifiability or notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Having a public job doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Baker

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

Retired minor league pitcher, never reached big leagues. Not too notable. Alex (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Played four seasons in AAA, the highest minor league, and very plainly meets WP:ATHLETE as having played in a "fully professional" league, quite aside from being an All-Star one of those seasons. Ravenswing 08:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rookie league ball is fully professional. Should we start making articles for every single rookie leaguer? Alex (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic WP:WAX argument. If you believe that WP:ATHLETE somehow means that minor leaguers in all sports aren't notable, why not get consensus around to have the rule explicitly say so? The fact of the matter is that all attempts to do so have failed by a wide margin. Ravenswing 08:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree. Minor league simply doesn't get it in reality. (And yes, other editors have expressed that opinion too, so don't act like this is something I made up). It is training to play professional baseball. Many of the players still keep side jobs to make ends meet. Almost all of them enter with the hopes and intentions of making it to play as a real professional, not some sort of apprentice. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "training" to play professional baseball; it is playing professional baseball, and despite the opinion of a cadre of Wikipedia editors, the public at large has been using "going to the pros" and "playing pro ball" as euphemisms for being signed to a minor league baseball contract for a century. I appreciate the frustration some have over the loose criteria of WP:ATHLETE, which I share, but until consensus changes to alter WP:ATHLETE or to devolve standards to the various Wikiprojects, it is what it is. Ravenswing 08:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to disagree. I regularly attend minor league games and I'm not sure what part of the "public at large" you're talking to, but the ones I talk to look at minor league ball as a stepping stone to being a real professional. But my personal experiences mean nothing, just as your take on what the "public at large" thinks does. I don't feel he meets WP:ATHLETE. That's my opinion. Thanks for the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where does notability end? See below. The user states: "Baker played in the highest level of professional baseball other than the MLB." And AA is the highest level other than AAA. So do we start making articles for each AA player? And so on and so forth. Alex (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one compels you to do so, but until and unless WP:ATHLETE is changed, no one debars you from it either. Ravenswing 21:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It ends at AAA. It applies to the level below the Highest Form of professional baseball. I does not have a chain effect on every level of baseball.Kithira (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets WP:ATHLETE, as Baker played in the highest level of professional baseball other than the MLB. AAA baseball is a long way past Rookie-ball. Kithira (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Was also a former first round draft pick and did reach AAA baseball on multiple occasions. Also involved in important trade for Alan Embree who many think helped the Red Sox win the 2004 World Series.(talk)
Keep. In addition to the claims to fame listed above, he was on teams' 40-man rosters not once but twice. There are some sources from a past notability debate regarding Baker at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability#Case_study:_Brad_Baker, certainly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stints on the 40-man roster and being a first round pick makes me lean towards keep.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:16, 27 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Womack (baseball)

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

Non-notable minor league figure. Alex (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:19, 27 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 Elf (Middle-earth). There is so little content and no references that it is hard to justify existence of this article as a separate one. A merge to a list would be relevant, if there is one. Until then, a redirect. Tone 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lambengolmor

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

Contested prod. Very minor aspect of the works of Tolkien, doesn't have any impact on the plot, doesn't play any significant role (as a group: the individual people are important, but not as being a member of the Lambengolmor. Two Google news hits[52], not from reliable independent sources though. Among the Google Books results, most are not very impressive, referencing the yahoo group of the same name, not the Tolkien fiction directly. Only the 1000 page "The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion & Guide: Chronology" [53] gives one short reference to the Lambengolmor, basically restating our article. This is not sufficient basis to have an article here. If even such an extensive book mentions this in such a minor way, then it is obviously an extremely minor aspect of the works of Tolkien. Fram (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is not significant, reliable, 3rd party coverage of the topic of the article as such, therefore it completely fails notability. Would be an OK article on a fan site, but not Wikipedia. --Slashme (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe trivia; redirect to Elf (Middle-earth). --EEMIV (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hate this aspect of Wikipedia. There's no reason whatsoever to delete this page — some people, notably myself, found it helpful, it is obviously reference-able by the admission of the nominator and yet people still want to delete it. Notability is not a crusade. The point of Wikipedia is not to keep out information that is only helpful to a small group of people (such as Tolkien fans); in fact, keeping this information has been crucial to our success. Deleting this article is deleting sourceable, accurate, valuable, if niche, information that is not a vanity page. There is never a good reason to do such as thing. Kyle Barbour 02:04, 24 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. There is unanimous consensus that the article does not bear sufficient notability to stand alone as its own page. However there's no strong agreement on whether or not to merge or simply delete. Given that, the most reasonable solution seems to be to delete the article and allow for a redirect or merge to be made at a later time if deemed appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Eldarin

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

Contested prod. The accompanying article on literature was deleted over a year ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Eldarin literature. This is basically the languages used by Tolkien fans when writing new texts, expanding the languages devised by Tolkien. While the original languages by Tolkine are notable (and not up for deletion), these are not made by him, have not received any significant attention in reliable sources, and thus fail WP:N completely. No Google news or books hits. Fram (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge at least some parts of it into Elvish languages (Middle-earth) – or is there a more appropriate article on Tolkien fandom? —Tamfang (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Tamfang, parts of the article could incorporated into other articles about this subject.--MaximilianT (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inline citations appear to be only to original Tolkien creations; no citations to third-party work on these new creations. Oppose merge because no content on Neo-Eldarin is cited to third-party sources; entirety of the coverage of this new work is original research, which we ought not to be shoveling to another article. If someone can point out citations to or just evidence of third-party coverage of this topic, I'd probably reconsider my opposition to a merge (that said, I'm not putting this discussion on my watchlist; please give a heads-up on my talk page if it seems warranted). --EEMIV (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Carl Hostetter's essay "Elvish As She Is Spoke" counts as third-party, at least. —Tamfang (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing is said about this topic in secondary sources, so Wikipedia should say nothing about it. Abductive (reasoning) 01:44, 30 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OKCLipo

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

I'm going to save everyone the time of having a prod, and then having it removed, because this article's inevitably headed there.

Regional liposuction clinic, no apparent sources outside of primary ones. My searches don't lend much to make me doubt the speedy nominator, excpet that they've registered on twitter, facebook, and myspace. Google news reveals nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I'm sorry for removing the CSD. I should have done a bit of due diligence. Delete for reasons stated. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all PMDrive. I've got absolutely no problem with people that de-csd and followup on the articles. Shadowjams (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the one who CSD'd this article, I see no notability here. I know this not really the proper place for this but I would also like to point out that this user is developing a history of having promotional articles deleted. Ridernyc (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can not find a single source out of the 200 on google that is not self published. They seem to have spammed their ad everywhere. Ridernyc (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree it fails WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 22 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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dallas

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

Non-notable, created by subject, subject continues to remove "speedy" label. Not sure what to do here. Newt ^(winkle) 06:54, 22 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of English origin

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

Endorsed prod that was declined by another user. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is this encyclopedic. Both of those would be reasons even assuming it was well sourced, but this is not that either. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete problem is with this kind of lists that many entries are not sourced and thus are original research, some words may be in fact of German origin given that some English words are similar to German or even Dutch. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I might add that the prod-decliner referenced another, somewhat narrower, subsegment of borrowed words. I might think that some small segment of borrowed words would be unique and therefore encyclopedic, so I don't think that's especially relevant here, which is a hugely encompassing list (english borrowed from nearly every language it could), but maybe that argument comes up here. I would point out too that a tremendours majority of every word english adopted of latin is going to be a plausible candidate for inclusion on a list of Spanish words of english origin (of course that kind of list we typically call a dictionary). Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on that point as well, many English words have Latin or French roots...and many Spanish words also have Latin or French roots. it just becomes original research, even linguists dispute origins of words. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if sourced, since its a list of spanish words, the references would all be in spanish, thus really not appropriate here. belongs on spanish WP if anywhere once sourced. we could make a case for a list of english words of spanish origin, but for me the standard for such a list would be pretty high, not a casual creation.oh, that exists here, and guess what, its not well sourced!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Fayenatic (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep along with the other four members of Category:Lists of Spanish words of foreign origin. See previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin which was resolved as Keep in 2008. Several contributors agreed that discussion of linguistic origins is an encyclopedic theme; and whereas mere etymologies are dictionary articles, wordlists are encyclopedic. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a discussion of linguistic origins might be encyclopaedic, but this isn't such a discussion. This is just an unsourced list of words with rough gloss translations. See Wiktionary:Category:es:English derivations the category that contains dictionary definitions in English of Spanish of English origin. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate or trivial list. As Thryduulf suggests, and contra Fayenatic, there is no discussion of linguistic origins or Spanish etymologies on this page or a page related to it. It is simply a list of words that serves no encyclopedic purpose. Cnilep (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mercurywoodrose: "belongs on spanish WP if anywhere once sourced. we could make a case for a List of English words of Spanish origin [which we do actually have], but for me the standard for such a list would be pretty high". I agree with Fayenetic that the [...words of Nahuatl origin] list is a good list, but would suggest that this list, and List of Spanish words of Italic origin and List of Spanish words of African origin are better left for es: to deal with (at least initially). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see why it would be acceptable at the Spanish Wikipedia and not here. If it is acceptable at the Spanish Wikipedia, then it should be acceptable here (though in English and not Spanish). Notability does not change if we switch languages. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, as an appendix. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 07:00, 24 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISpy(2010 series)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sarilox (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too soon to tell about notability. JBsupreme (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, WP:CRYSTAL -- frankly, not sure this isn't a hoax. --EEMIV (talk) 22:53, 28 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears Seventh Studio Album

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Airplaneman ^talk 04:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. This can be recreated when notability increases. Schfifty3 04:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." Such information is not available at this time; violates WP:CRYSTAL. Gongshow ^Talk 05:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gongshow phrases it quite nicely. There is hardly any information other than that she is recording it. A mention in Britney Spears should suffice for now (sourced, of course). talking birds 16:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:42, 22 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 Six Apart. Tone 13:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rojo.com

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable website, no sources, and defunct for quite some time. A defunct site is not likely to gain new sources. Miami33139 (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably speedy G4. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No reason to delete (or nominate) when parent company Six Apart references explicitly. Close AfD at will with redirect. ∴ here…♠ 07:45, 24 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 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Griffith

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find coverage for Griffith as an actor, and only a small bit of coverage as a playwright.[54][55].

An editor had added this article to a proposed deletion category rather than adding the prod template, and I now realise that the editor has identified as Griffith, see User talk:Colleyhampton. As he seems to be requesting deletion (and has asked about this on his talk page before), I think we should respect this wish. Fences&Windows 22:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My understanding is that if someone is on the edge of notability but thesubject prefers not to be included, we defer to that wish. I'm not even convinced this person is close enough to be notable, but they certainly aren't so notable that we would ignore their wishes.--SPhilbrick T 22:22, 18 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) 02:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a very notable actor per WP:ENT, as I don't see "significant roles in multiple notable films," etc. IMDb lists him 66th in credit order for Forrest Gump.[56]. --Glenfarclas (talk) 03:52, 22 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. Kevin (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Baker

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

Non-notable individual. Lacks GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Article creator removed PROD tag. ttonyb (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @036 · 23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Wow. Here's an individual who appears to meet WP:ENT, but his name is so common that it is nigh on impossible to find sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:27, 21 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) 02:41, 22 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. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Montana

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

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Article creator User:Thankful08 is a single-purpose account promoting Lucas Kazan Productions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 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) 02:40, 22 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) 18:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Bay Restaurant

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

Non-notable New York City restaurant - even in a city with no shortage of famous eateries, this one isn't famous at all. The article's sole references relate to what happened to the property after the restaurant was shut down - a local real estate story with no encyclopedic value. Warrah (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local restaurant that shut down 70 years ago, and nobody seems to have taken any note of it since. Why did anyone even bother to write this article? --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robertg9, the creator of the article, left this note (presumably inadvertently) on the article's talk page:

Oyster Bay Restaurant was a highly frequented establishment for a period of four decades, 1900-1940, in Manhattan, New York City. The establishment was centered in the Times Square area. The history of the business and what happened to the property is important to the history of New York City. I plan to expand the article ASAP, utilizing additional references. There is a good possibility I will be able to find more about the antecedents to Oyster Bay Restaurant, specifically its history prior to the name change from Fay's Restaurant in 1900.--Robert (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say my own view is a weak delete. I've seen that the restaurant was mentioned in passing in a memoir here, and if its closing merited mention in the New York Times, that's something. I'm also generally an inclusionist on things more than a hundred years old that anyone cares to write about today. However, WP:CORP asks for "significant coverage in secondary sources," and unless more is pointed out I'm just not seeing that. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 22 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) 18:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkTank Learning

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. A search returns just directory listings and self-published social media pages, and the references in the article mostly return general news pages where the purported articles are inaccessible. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as per nom. First 50 results on Google return nothing but directory listings and contnt from the company. this newspaper article refernced in the current articel does seem to be independent, but doesn't have much depth of coverage. WP:CORP says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I don't think this newspaper article has "substantial depth". DES ^(talk) 18:39, 15 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) 02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As failing WP:N. A review of search results doesn't provide much coverage of this company, and what is there is very light. I saw nothing else in any other sources. Googlization (talk) 13:22, 24 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BasicATOM

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable computer chip, no reliable sources for verification. GlassCobra 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs to be cleaned up, but notability is certainly arguable. A quick google check for "BasicATOM" turns up 218,000 hits. I would suggest tagging the article for clean up and adding sources. There are references both from the ACM and Penn State. Bkellihan (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turning up 218,000 (actually 216,000) hits on google seems to mean there is quite a bit of interest in the content of the article and hardly makes it "non-notable". I was trying to add references to the article when it was tagged. If there are any comments on what should and should not be included in the article I would like to hear them as I thought I was abiding by the guidelines. PoPCulture69 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that searching for "+basicatom" on Google, so as to remove all the "basic atom" hits, turns up only about 13000 hits, and I can't find anything remotely resembling significant 3rd party sources on the first few pages, so my vote is delete. --Slashme (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all product articles with no third party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the microcontroller's name is spelled both as "BASIC Atom" (two words) and "BASICAtom" (one word). For example, the "BASIC Atom Pro" uses the two word version. Bkellihan (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any coverage in WP:RS. ffm is now L Faraone 15:45, 29 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 14:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Buckley

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

No third-party sources indicate notability. (A page from the publisher of an author's book is not sufficient.) Danger (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 says "He has worked as a client director with Fleishman-Hillard for the past two years. Prior to this, he was a journalist with the Sunday Business Post, RTÉ and the Irish Farmers Journal. He also held key positions with Microsoft from 1999 to 2001, including head of internet and technical communications." Much of this is mentioned in the article already... --can dle •wicke 02:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source 2 is public service broadcaster RTÉ Radio — "On farmweek this week, the author of a new book "Strong Farmer", Ciaran Buckley, talks to Damien O Reilly" (see Programme 42: 26th October 2007). --can dle •wicke 02:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Source 3 is an event by Tipperary Libraries — "This event will feature Liberties Press Publisher Seán O’Keeffe, and writers Chris Ward and Ciaran Buckley speaking at Thurles Library on Tuesday, 09 October 2007 at 8pm." --can dle •wicke 02:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Source 4 simply proves he worked for the SBP. --can dle •wicke 03:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Source 5 shows he did go to Yale (first mention under "Technology" at the bottom of the page). --can dle •wicke 03:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Source 6 shows he worked for the IFJ. --can dle •wicke 03:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions in several sources is not sufficient to prove notability. Not everyone whose name is on the internet is notable. --Danger (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 15 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) 02:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we accept those sources as RS's, the author still fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing encyclopedic to say about the fellow. Abductive (reasoning) 01:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. ALthough there is coverage as linked above, the coverage is not significant.--Pink Bull 03:04, 30 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 19:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Resistance to Early Muslim Invaders Up to 1206 A.D.

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

Not a significant enough book to meet the WP:GNG. The book, while it exists, is not mentioned significantly in any major sources. A mere mention in book review blogs don't cut it. Tavix | Talk 02:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not a very useful article, the book itself seems to meet notability requirements since published reviews are cited. The editor would do better to contribute to the articles on the historic events themselves. Borock (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the book makes interesting points about a rather grey era of history, and is a useful contribution to popular history. The author has chosen a field of study too long neglected. That makes it notable enough.--Brunnian (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the "interesting points" should be related in articles about the events. This article should be about the book. See: WP:Coatrack (as you probably already have heard of.)Borock (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps they will be. But they also represent a non-main-line approach to history that makes the book notable, and hence worthy of an article.--Brunnian (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that WP have less articles on non-fiction books, unless they are very influential and/or the topic of controversy. In most cases the article tends to be about the contents of the book and should be merged with the article on that, with the book cited as a source. It comes out to the same thing. Borock (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Fiction books should mostly be merged to the article on their authors. P.P.S. I think that Indian Resistance to Early Muslim Invaders is a tremedously important and interesting topic that I really should know more about. Borock (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:56, 15 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) 02:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party reviews in RSs, and it's just a reprint of his thesis, a/c Worldcat. Essentially zero library holding in the US--not that WCat covers India, but still I;d expect at least a few. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. I cannot believe I'm saying this! JBsupreme (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-fiction books are not generally notable unless there is some compelling reason why they should be. I can see no such reason here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book is cited in other works and presumably is a reliable source for use in articles, but for a book to be the subject of its own article there needs to be some commentary about the book, not just citations of it. On that score, the only thing presented so far is a single review from a weekly paper. That's just not enough coverage to establish notability, nor is there any evidence that this book has met any specialized criteria per WP:BK, such as winning awards. --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 22 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 Only significant contributor consents to deletion[57] Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NSGP Championship

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

I can find no evidence that this online tournament is covered in reliable sources and therefore believe it fails the notability criteria.

I am also nominating the following related page, because it exists only to elaborate on the NSGP Championship with a list of 2009 participants:

Gonzonoir (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This tournament exists per http://newstarsoccer.com/newstarforum/showthread.php?t=10255 It does not only elaborate a list of the championship racers, it also contains a table along with the winners, 2nd placed players and of the players that got pole positions and where --85.139.161.97 (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)— 85.139.161.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue isn't whether it exists, it's whether there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 12:34, 21 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) 02:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existing is great and all, but we need enough independent reliable sources to both establish notability and to use as the basis of the article's content. If these can be provided I will reconsider. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly ... there is no notability of the league (i am the one who has been maintaining the article), so it probably should be deleted although i'm not going to argue if you all turn a blind eye! Peter-27 (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an admin could help Peter27 userfy the data so he can host it elsewhere? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting our standards. If you would like a copy of the article just ask me on my talk page and I will e-mail it to you. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:31, 22 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) 18:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Game Ever Played (disambiguation)

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

No reason for disambiguation page as only one article, The Greatest Game Ever Played, exist. Labattblueboy (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator is correct that we don't make disambiguation pages if there's only one article of a particular name, and no similar sounding redirects. However, the lone article called "The Greatest Game Ever Played" is about an obscure Disney film, the very last thing that any sports fan would think of upon hearing that phrase. I think that it would make sense to have an article about the phrase and the various events that it applies to, similar to Trial of the century. Maybe then there would be a need for a dab page. Mandsford (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do in fact make disambiguation pages to also list alternate names. The reason why "only one article, The Greatest Game Ever Played, exists" is because the other articles listed on The Greatest Game Ever Played (disambiguation) are following option #1 of WP:NCDAB: "When there is another term or more complete name that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used". In the NFL Championship Game, 1958 article, for example, it clearly has a cited sentence in its lead section that says, "The game has since become widely known as The Greatest Game Ever Played" (emphasis added). Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't think using a dead-linked nfl.com article is a reliable source in claiming that an NFL game, or any game for that matter, is the Greatest Game Ever Played and obviously as the dab. page creator your likely to support its continued existence. Bit of a conflict of interest I would say. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's understood that all that's required is that people call it that.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You're right. I was looking further at this, and the dab page doesn't at all make it clear that The Greatest Game Ever Played (American football) redirects to the 1958 championship game. There's room to fix some of the redirects. "Greatest game ever played" is nothing more than a redirect to the film, made after someone left out the word "The". Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dab page about a generic phrase. If someone is interested in developing a list called List of Greatest Games Ever Played with WP:RS that would be great and far more appropriate. However, this is not currently a dab. page as in intended by WP:NCDAB, it's a very poor list that is unsupported.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:39, 16 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) 02:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kind of an ugly page, but it seems to serve a purpose. I'm not sure if much would be made better by changing the form or name. I am not moved to do so. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many games are called "the greatest game every played" ; how would we find the articles for those games if not for the dab page? It's not as if people will actually know how we name game articles. 05:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:55, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Racism Watch

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

This has had a {{notability}} tag for a year, either it should be deleted or the tag removed. As far as I can tell, the google news hits mentioning it are reporting what it says, not discussing the group itself. Do they make it notable? Polarpanda (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 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) 02:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently, even having a big name such as Ed Asner as a spokesman wasn't enough to get this organization off the ground. All I could find as a source was a widely disseminated press release. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A group focused on protesting a single TV ad? As WP:CORP says, we may for a non-commercial organization we may look at "[t]he organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements." As best I can tell, it was a failure, failure, failure. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's never a failure to speak up for what you believe is right. This was an organization of notable people involved in notable events, and covered in secondary sources. Not a major topic, I wouldn't have bothered to write an article on it, but still worth keeping. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The kind of secondary sources I'd be looking for is reactions by the press to the group's press releases. Can you provide that? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:49, 22 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. Kevin (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sawyer (author)

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

Does "As a critic of advertising and consumer culture he has been quoted in a number of publications" make him notable? Polarpanda (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets in NYT [58] . Published poet. Collect (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Being a published poet does not mean the subject is notable. I would suggest being the winner of the Joan Leiman Jacobson Poetry Prize of the Unterberg Poetry Center is a better chance at claiming notability, but I have searched for articles that discuss the subject and have not found anything that will help verify the information on this page, save for the mention in The Nation. He is briefly mentioned in major publications as the auther of Kiss and Sell, but no biographical information is provided in the articles I have found, which means that these references do not provide content that helps claim notability. The subject may suffer from having a popular name, which makes it hard to do searches on him because one has to wade through articles on "Sir Robert Sawyer" and the Canadian science fiction writer, but I have not found any sufficient proof that the subject is either notable as a poet or as an expert on advertising writing. Mrathel (talk) 15:30, 18 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) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The prize he won does not seem notable even if its issuer is. As for the New York Times article, it is actually an opinion which he wrote, conveying barely more notability than an entry in the Letters to the Editor section. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the criteria at WP:AUTH. --Slashme (talk) 09:16, 23 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. It has been a lively discussion with some interesting comments. Wikipedia:Systemic bias is always worth being aware of - though it also has to be accepted, that it will always be present by the very nature of who contributes to the English version of Wikipedia, and that while we can take positive steps to counter it (Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias have some ideas), we have to do the appropriate thing when required. This article does not assert notability, and does not provide sources which suggest notability. It doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:CORP. Numbers of employees are not a notability indicator. I will userfy this on request. SilkTork *^YES! 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daiko Group

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

This article contains no references that suggests the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP. A corporation with "over 100 employees" is not likely to cross the bar anyway. I can't find any independent sources on Daiko or Daitec, but I can't search in Japanese. Mkativerata (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about a holding company with over 700 employees. It is also the parent company of 7 subsidiaries. The "over 100 employees" mentioned above is for only one of the subsidiaries. If you can't improve the article, how about tagging it for improvement? Articles which need improvement should not be brought up for deletion before the chance is given to improve the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. 700 employees + 7 subsidiaries does not = notability. The test of notability is independent coverage. The article doesn't establish any independent coverage and I can't find any. Deletion, rather than tagging for improvement, is therefore entirely proper. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that the current guidelines and policies are very Western-centric. Japan lags far behind the US in putting older articles online, and they often remove articles after a week or two or four. I can guarantee you that this holding company (as well as at least some of its subsidiaries) have been written about in Japanese business magazines and newspapers. However, as I don't live in Japan, I don't have any way to try finding those magazines and newspapers. Until you've tried sourcing a Japanese article, please don't preach to me about policies and guidelines. I'm well aware of them, and well aware of how Western-centric they are. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Be that as it may, the notability of this organisation cannot be verified. We can't compensate for any Western centricity of guidelines by breaking the guidelines. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, you are wrong. The notability of this organization can be verified, just likely not online. There's a big difference. That's why I said above that you shouldn't have taken this path to try to get the article improved. Now you've created a situation where your misguided efforts are creating an unrealistic timeline for improvement of the article with references. I've asked someone in Japan to see what they can find, but finding sources within four days is unrealistic (as I stated). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The article has been around for three years. That's long enough. If sources can be found, it can always be re-created. The page can be userfied in the meantime. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's sad to see the extreme Western bias in some of the editors here. Another thing to note with this company and its subsidiaries is the fact that they tend to be "background" companies (they produce things used by other companies to produce things), so they tend to not be covered in the press as much. The place where references will likely be found is in in industry trade journals rather than mainstream press, and Japanese industry trade journals are even farther behind than the Japanese mainstream press in getting material online, especially older material. I've added one reference regarding a collaboration with Subaru in the creation of another subsidiary company and what it's doing, so only one more to go. Can you restrain yourself long enough to allow the article to receive one more source? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. I don't think anyone's going to close this as a delete at the moment and I'm more than happy to see sources added if they show notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nihonjoe is absolutely right about the difficulties in working in non-English areas. Passive bias, I think, results when editors write about what they are familiar with, neglecting the old/foreign/out-of-the-mainstream, etc. This kind of bias is OK, since eventually, we hope, someone with specialised interest or knowledge will fill in those gaps. Active bias results when editors create criteria for exclusion based on that with which they are familiar. This has the result of actively excluding or removing the non-mainstream subjects, which may be perfectly "notable" within their own national/linguistic/historical/or other type of area. This is what happens when, for example, an old Japanese film is held strictly to criteria set up by people who have in mind the current Hollywood blockbuster. This, I think, we should work against. That said, I have no opinion one way or the other on the current subject, only that it be given a fair look which takes into consideration the sourcing issues. Dekkappai (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New sources are good enough to establish minimum baseline. ~~Delete, unfortunately~~ unverified information must be removed. AND: Comment it is unfortunate that it may be hard to search for sources online because of the nature of Japanese media. it is the job of the article writers to provide the sources. you cannot expect random commentators on the English Wikipedia to be able to find sources that verify this article. verification is a fundamental necessity. deletion isn't final, you can ask to WP:INCUBATE if you think you can do Japanese language print media searches outside the deadline of AfD. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- No, if this article ends up being deleted, I'll just userfy it myself and work on it until it meets the biased requirements. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And no consideration for the fact that it is simple for an article on a comparable US subject to pass the requirements? This is a recipe for bias. Dekkappai (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - agreed, but I don't think "countering bias" is a reason to abandon the precept that all information on wikipedia must be verifiable. I am well known for stating verifiability doesn't have to be easy for the reader. verifiable information might be rare, expensive, or geographically challenging to see but that does not preclude it from being used. I favor much more reliance on foreign language sources - but it is still the job of the author to show verifiable sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    - I'm all for verifiable sources myself. In cases like these, a sourced stub, I think, is perfectly acceptable. Problem is "notability" requirements increasingly frown on simple verifiability, requiring a fuller article, which, in cases like these, can be very difficult for non-Anglosphere subjects, but very easy for their US counterparts... Dekkappai (talk) 20:14, 19 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) 02:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the company does not appear to have any claim to notability, nor any evidence to support such a claim in accordance with WP:CORP. There is nothing biased about the notability requirements, for if this group was notable, signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources in the Japanese edtition of Wikipedia could be transcribed here, but that does not appear to be the case. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability requirements are all about bias. That it is unintentional makes it no less so. Dekkappai (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Gavin Collins, you say that the company does not appear to have any claim to notability. You surprise me. One claim it makes to notability is that it employs seven hundred people (here). Is employment of seven hundred people (in the real world) less notable than, say, a Star Trek ship class, a Jennifer Lopez song, an American astrologer, a Final Fantasy character, or a "Miss America" winner? Secondly, you say: if this group was notable, signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources in the Japanese edtition of Wikipedia could be transcribed here: I don't understand the logic at all. Are you perhaps under the impression that notable Japanese groups have articles in ja:WP that are properly sourced? If so, your view of ja:WP is very different from mine. Take the Japanese article on Sharp, for example. I think most people would say that Sharp is a significant outfit. Total number of references in this article on it: zero. Total number of footnotes: one (which is to material by Sharp itself). And this is in no way unusual for medium-length articles in ja:WP, which (as I see it) makes even en:WP look good. Or do I misunderstand you in some other way? -- Hoary (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is employment of seven hundred people evidence of notablity? I think Mkativerata has already explained that the number of companies in the group, or employees is not significant in itself. Barebones facts are not evidence of notability. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Mkativerata said: 700 employees + 7 subsidiaries does not = notability. The test of notability is independent coverage. Mkativerata is straightforwardly using "notability" in the way that Wikipedia (perhaps alone in the world) uses it. I had the impression that you were saying that no significant claim of notability (as the word is used by most of the world) is made, and, separately, that no discernible claim comes backed with evidence. But perhaps I misread you. -- Hoary (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the problem, as Nihonjoe has pointed out, is that Japanese "reliable sources" may indeed-- probably do-- cover the subject, but that they're not available through a simple Google search. I've been working on Japanese subjects for a couple years now and have seen many very good "reliable sources"-- articles which covered particular subjects in full-- come and go (online) within a few weeks. And they are routinely blocked from archives-- don't ask me why. Sourcing for English counterparts to these subjects would remain, while the Japanese subjects-- every bit as "notable" using WP's own standards-- are, to all available evidence, not "notable". Dekkappai (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case someone's thinking of linking to "Assume Good Faith" or some such: I think we should clarify that by "bias", I don't think we mean an obvious bias against another group. The kind of bias Wiki's "notability" promotes comes from the assumption that the sources which cover equally "notable" subjects from all time periods, in all subject areas, in all locations and in all languages, are equally accessable as they are for the current, mainstream, English-speaking world. And that if they aren't, they don't exist. Dekkappai (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a second reliable source for the article and I've added it. The article now meets WP:CORP. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple secondary reliable sourcing no longer theoretical thanks to Nihonjoe. Dekkappai (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alas, the addition of trivial coverage does not provide any evidence of notability. The announcement that the company makes "automotive service manuals" or "recently announced the expansion of its Shanghai facilities" is specifically disallowed as evidence of notability by WP:CORP, which says:

"The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story. Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.

These trivial sources are far removed from what constitutes evidence of notability, such as a company's demonstrable impact or influence in the fields of culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Barebones statements that is company makes manuals is Japan and resins in China is not evidence of notability by a long shot. What is lacking is significant coverage about this group in accordance with WP:GNG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gavin, you're setting the bar for notability rather high. I have a certain interest in photography. If a company must demonstrate impact or influence in the fields of culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education then I think what are well/best known as camera companies can be whittled down from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Mamiya, Minolta, Konica, Graflex, Argus, Kodak, Rollei, and a pile of others I can't be bothered to type to just three: Polaroid (for reasons that I surely need not list), Eastman Kodak (but only for what it did in the 19th century), and Ernst Leitz, which only after it had achieved a genuine impact renamed itself after its main product, Leica. Take Nikon, for example. The Nikon F was (and remains) a fine product; but if Nihon Kōgaku, its maker, hadn't existed, then more of the SLR market pie would have gone within one or two years to Canon, the now largely forgotten Tōkyō Kōgaku (maker of the Topcon) or some other company making modular and tough SLRs, and to little or no discernible effect the photography of the Vietnam war, etc. If Leitz had vanished during the war (decades before it became Leica), more attention would have been paid circa 1950 to the similar (and in my opinion superior) cameras from Canon and other makers. And I think that much the same could be said for most industries, no matter how grandly their companies describe themselves. Your user page suggests that you are in the accountancy biz. How many accountancy companies do you suppose demonstrate impact or influence in the fields of culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education; if Wikipedia whittled its coverage to these, would it thereby be improved? -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are missing the principles of what a claim to notability is based upon as set out in WP:CORP. There is no significant coverage in this article, and hence there is no reason for a standalone article about this group or its products at this time. Wikipedia is not a buisness directory, afterall. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, WP:CORP, yes. Here's the gist: A company [...] is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. So it doesn't need to have any impact or influence in the fields of culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education; though if it demonstrably (via RS) does, then that's your notability delivered with ribbons. Well, time permitting, I'll poke around the library on the 25th. -- Hoary (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it does pass WP:CORP. That guideline sets up some specifics, written by US/English speaking editors. And right at the top, in a big, obtrusive banner, I read, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In order to prevent bias towards the Anglosphere, it is common sense to give a foreign-language subject some leeway. Insisting that it literally follow guidelines set up by editors whose only familiarity is the Anglosphere is a sure way to create biased coverage. Dekkappai (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Hoary, You shamed me into doing a search. I'm an artsy-fartsy, film/music guy, and my eyes glaze over at anything faintly business-related, so I don't know how relevant any of this is. But I found two pages worth of article-citations to Daiko on InfoTrac. The ones with the name in the title are:

* The second largest ad agency in Japan, Hakuhodo, is to merge with the fifth and sixth largest agencies, Daiko and Yomiko. (International).(Brief Article) (Brief Article) Brand Strategy, 0965-9390, Jan 2003 p5(1)
Hakuhodo, Daiko, Yomiko to Merge in Autumn 2003. Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, Dec 2, 2002 pNA

World's top 25: 19 Daiko Advertising; Ad organization profiles: Rankings, worldwide holdings and developments throughout the year for agency groups above $11 million gross income. (Brief Article)(Statistical Data Included) Advertising Age, 0001-8899, April 23, 2001 v72 pS20

Daiko could be slow to change under IPG. David Kilburn, Marketing Magazine, 1196-4650, April 17, 2000 p6(1)

Daiko deal offers IPG little spin-off; IPG's planned purchases of a stake in Daiko will catapult parent company Lowe Lintas into a prime position in Japan. But capitalising on this new clout may prove a challenge, says David Kilburn.(Brief Article) (Brief Article) Marketing Week, 0141-9285, April 13, 2000 p30

IPG Acquires Daiko Stake; Seeks Lowe Partnership.(Brief Article) (Brief Article) ADWEEK Eastern Edition, 0199-2864, April 3, 2000 v41 i14 p8

INTERPUBLIC GROUP TO TAKE 20% STAKE IN DAIKO ADVERTISING. AsiaPulse News, April 3, 2000 p0414

GREY ACQUIRES FULL OWNERSHIP OF GREY DAIKO IN JAPAN. AsiaPulse News, August 3, 1999 p1008214u6684

Daiko sets up Beijing joint venture.(Daiko Advertising Inc. joins the China Council for Promotion of International Trade to create the Daiko Pacific International Advertising Co.)(Brief Article) (Brief Article) ADWEEK Eastern Edition, 0199-2864, Sept 25, 1995 v36 n39 p9(1)

Daiko profits drop 44.8%. (Brief Article) Advertising Age, 0001-8899, July 6, 1992 v63 n27 p8(1)

Daiko mulls staffing Grey Europe. David Kilburn, Elena Bowes, Advertising Age, 0001-8899, Sept 24, 1990 v61 n39 p39(1)

Daiko, Japan's no. 5 shop, considers European moves. Elena Bowes, David Kilburn, Advertising Age, 0001-8899, August 20, 1990 v61 n34 p59(1)

~~Hope there's something useful there, and Hoary can stay home & enjoy something Kaji Meiko-ish for the holidays... Dekkappai (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nevermind. On second glance it looks like these all refer to a different Daiko. Looks like we're back to applying common sense to English-based "notability" criteria, and Kaji will have to wait till New Year... Dekkappai (talk) 22:06, 23 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. The consensus here is in favor of keeping the content in another form, possibly in the form of a list. The target of the merge needs to be discussed though. So Why 15:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little John Palm

(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) 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, I'll take a more in depth look. I actually found out about this software via Wikipedia, and was really happy I found it. Considering it's the most comprensive and probably most popular (or the only?) emulator for PalmOS, I'd like to keep it if possible. Let me poke around and see if it's notable enough to satisfy WP:N. -kslays (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, there doesn't seem to be many really high-quality references revealed by a Google search. Surprising, because you'd think an emulator for a somewhat popular phone OS that works with all these systems (Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), Nintendo Gameboy/Gameboy Color (GB/GBC), Sega Genesis/Megadrive, Sega Master System (SMS), Sega Game Gear (GG), Bandai Wonderswan/Wonderswan Color (WS), NeoGeo Pocket/NeoGeo Pocket Color (NGP), and Atari 2600 (VCS)) would get more coverage. The only even somewhat good refs I found are these:

If the consensus is delete, I'll be sad to see the article go. LJP has quite a wiki and forum following. By the way, take a look at the only other console emulator for PalmOS I know of, Phoinix (external here). -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 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) 02:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article on Palm OS game console emulators (or similar title). Except for news stories, it's always mentioned together [59] with similar products in round-ups. An article on this type of Palm software seems supported by multiple sources in sufficient depth. This software alone is not. Pcap ping 15:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support a merge. It saves the valuable content, but doesn't give it the status of a dedicated article. Place it in more appropriate context, as supported by the references. Good idea. -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, into a more generic article covering this type of software ffm is now L Faraone 15:50, 29 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 Kiss & Tell (Selena Gomez & the Scene album). Discussion shows that the article does not meet requirements of WP:NSONGS at the moment. As suggested, article to be merged with parent until such time as the single achieves the notability requirments of WP:NSONGS, in which case it can be broken out into a stand alone article in WP:Summary style SilkTork *^YES! 00:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Naturally (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)

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

No awards, no covers: fails WP:NSONGS. Some versions of this article have claimed a one-week blip on the "Bubbling Under" chart, but I haven't been able to verify that, and the claims have contradicted themselves. Efforts to redirect the article have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 01:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to the article itself, the song was released as a single just days ago so the song might become notable if it charts. However, due to severe shortage of sources I can find no independent verification of the single's release and the date on which it occurred. For the article to survive, the single's actual release needs verification, and then some time must pass to see if the single hits the charts. Unless both of those happen, the article should be deleted. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There appears to be enough coverage (MTV and others here, like the AceShowbiz article) to support an independent article. Gongshow ^Talk 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that aceshowbiz is on the spam blacklist, so it cannot be used as a source. The rest simply announce the debut of the video, which would comfortably fit in the parent album article.—Kww(talk) 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info about AceShowbiz. I believe the MTV article goes beyond a passing mention (a couple lines on what the song is about, a few more lines on the video, which can be used in the Wiki article), so that combined with another source would be enough in my view to satisfy WP:NSONGS, but as I cannot find another WP:RS at this time, I'll stay neutral for now. Gongshow ^Talk 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but - Delete as of this date, due to conflicting and unsupported charting claims. However as time passes, and Doomsdayer520 points out, the song might chart. If this does indeed occur, you may automatically consider my position [at that time] to be Keep.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chelo61 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelo61's talk page helps determine weighting for his !vote.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The new Billboard is coming out this upcoming week, and chart information, and possibly more information from mainstream sources will be able to keep the article afloat. Candyo32 (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a music video that runs on Disney Channel, VH1, and MTV, it's in various music news articles (just Google it), and on iTunes as of 11:07 EST on 20 December, it's number 41. I think it's very worthy of it's own Wikipedia article. From [60] “Naturally” is available as a digital single on iTunes and Gomez is scheduled to perform the song on “Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve with Ryan Seacrest 2010.” It will be performed on a major TV broadcast soon which I think is more reason to keep it. --ThaGRANDlyfe6984 (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)— ThaGRANDlyfe6984 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kiss & Tell (Selena Gomez & the Scene album). Any useful information can be discussed in that article as there doesn't seem to be much available for it right now. As for those who say "It's going to chart, she's going to perform it," when she does, perhaps then it can get an article if it gets enough discussion in reliable sources. But as of now, keep it in the album article. Chase wc ⁹¹ 07:00, 23 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.

Kevin R. D. Shepherd

The result was delete.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

To challenge the outcome, please approach deletion review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blatant copyvio of this. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur T. Denzau

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

Currently written in a first person style. He has written a lot of books/articles/papers but I can't find anything that would make him notable beyond a couple of passing mentions and therefore it is difficult to make this article encyclopedic. It was de-prodded twice so I've added it here to see what other people think. Mattg82 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio He's almost certainly notable, but this is a copyvio of [61] followed by his CV. An article could probably be written, and normally I would rewrite this myself, but this is such a travesty that I am not willing to. I point our that it is precisely their publications that make academics notable; I'm not sure the nom. is aware of WP:PROF. Anyextensive academic bio that does not list the person's web site should be suspected of being copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 22 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. Blatant hoax, no sources. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Criminal (TV Series)

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

Non-notable and possible hoax. I can find no information for the series, actors, creator or the production company. List_of_Smooth_Criminal_episodes should also be included in this discussion. Ridernyc (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. If this was really going to air, there would be at least unreliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The single provided reference doesn't support notability Rirunmot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- There is no references. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete very blatant hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking at Television Jamaicas website shows they do not seem to produce any shows even close to this one. It looks like they are a slight step above community access. Ridernyc (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. Sarilox (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-verifiable. Whattup with that. Whatsup with that? JBsupreme (talk) 07:32, 22 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.

Robert Dickinson

The result was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

[1] Michael M. Gunter, Dept. of Political Science Tennessee Technological University: ARMENIAN TERRORISM IN THE 20TH CENTURY

[2] Pursuing The Just Cause of Their People: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism

[3] Henze, Paul, Goal: Destablization Soviet Agitational Propaganda, Instability and Terrorism in NATO South, (Marina Del Ray, California, American Institute for Security Research, 1981).

[4] Hoffman, Bruce, Terrorism in the United States During 1985, Rand Paper P-7194, (Santa Monica, California 1985).

[5] Szaz, Michael, Armenian Terrorists and the East-West Conflict, Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies (Winter 1983), pp.387-394.

[6] Wilkinson, Paul, Armenian Terrorism, World Today V.39 (September 1983), pp.344-350.

[7] Corsun, Andrew, Armenian Terrorism: A Profile, U.S. Department of State Bulletin, No. 82, (Washington, D.C., August 1982), pp.31-35.

[8] Erich Feigl. Ein Mythos des Terrors. Armenischer Terrorismus, seine Ursachen und Hintergründe. Edition Zeitgeschichte, Freilassing 1986. (german)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]