Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 24

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 23 July 25 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @745  ·  16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's All for You

edit
It's All for You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable demo song, fails WP:MUSIC. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gather Now The Mighty

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

This book has no assertion of notability. A search for the author's name has only 1 ghit. Triplestop x3 03:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @792  ·  18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grind Worldwide: Ca$his Part II: Capo Of Shady

edit
AfDs for this article:
Grind Worldwide: Ca$his Part II: Capo Of Shady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was actually !voted a delete in earlier this year, but an admin changed it to a procedural keep due to a sockpuppet involvement. In short, the album fails WP:NALBUM. It was a non-notable mix tape from a barely notable artist that even the article, which was written by the artists manager, says was released for promotional purposes. Never charted and completely lacking reliable sources. Can't really speedy it, so here we are. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Zero Band

edit
Slave Zero Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod (tag removed by article creator) about a band that does not seem to pass WP:BAND. Another user tried to speedy this (the creator removed that tag too), and while I don't feel it should be speedied, well, all the references in the article lead to the band's own website, and a Google search mainly pulls up hits for an unrelated video game called Slave Zero. Moreover, the article and the website lists a discography of several albums created by the band, but the only slight info I could find was for the album called The Pain Remits, and the place where you can supposedly purchase that album from Amazon leads to a dead link. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Dharma

edit
AfDs for this article:
Krishna Dharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Last year the Afd resulted in No Consensus. To date, there has been no reasons given why this individual is notable, nor relaible sources provided. As such, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find sources to show that his books (a 1999 Mahabharata novelisation and 2000 condensed version, and stories from Ramayana - in English) have been translated. Have I missed it from those cited? Plutonium27 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC). I also checked out the subject's website (which includes publisher info). Plutonium27 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to his website, his books have been translated into 12 languages. In Google books I've found his Mahabharata in Italian, Portuguese, and two other languages.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Olafur Eliasson. (X! · talk)  · @699  ·  15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Round Rainbow

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

This is an article about a work of art that hasn't recieved the serious, in-depth coverage that is necessitated by [WP:N]]. I'd like to avoid a redirect because the title doesn't specify that this is an article about a work of art. ThemFromSpace 20:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - it's clear this should be a merge. A quick look at the article shows it was written by someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines/style. Oliafur Eliasson is unquestioningly notable, and any new works should be listed on his page. (This work is not listed). Deadchildstar (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @699  ·  15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trilli By Da Milli

edit
Trilli By Da Milli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This doesn't appear to be notable, and has no sources on it. It looks like a self-made record label with nothing of apparent note released on it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio IBS Liberty

edit
Radio IBS Liberty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable radio network; no reliable sources are available. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Klamm. —Emufarmers(T/C) 08:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @699  ·  15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bukisa

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

Delete as nn website ZagZagg (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article reads like a brochure. It fails to explain exactly how it contributes to anything outside of it, i.e. it is not notable. And, the article was created by a WP:SPA. Groink (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request The author, BlackWalker sited third party sources to show that Bukisa is a legitimate business. Why is Bukisa. com listed as a spam site even though there was a request to remove it as such, since it is not spam? Avivbehisrael 30 July 2009
  • The third party sources you refer to are a press release by the entity in question reproduced by Reuters online and a "review" on Mashable. Moreover the issue is not about Bukisa as a legitimate corporate operation, rather it's notability per our policies. Crafty (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone wants to create a redirect they can. Wizardman 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2esae

edit
2esae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't satisfy the criteria specified here. Specifically, "The Hardest" has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Aditya (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced and non-notable per WP:ARTIST (is mentioned once, in passing, in the NTY article linked), so delete and redirect to Graffiti Research Lab. Unitanode 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Dcs's post below, I've added that I believe this article should be redirected to GRL. Unitanode 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Graffiti - graffiti art by its very nature resists the kind of coverage one needs for notability. The case is interesting (though likely non-notable) because it seems he was being made a case by New York - for whatever reason - and caused the Brooklyn graffiti community to fundraiser and rally on his behalf, to pay his legal fees which the artist describes as being debilitating. Also seems much of the press related to this is associated with his pals Graffiti_Research_Lab - who are notable enough. You sometimes see this, groups take on a cause, only to get press for themselves.... Whatever the case, he shouldn't have his own page, he's not notable enough in his own right. Deadchildstar (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 McWane. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but there is not really enough comments to establish a consensus. Closing as "merge" as a good argument is made for doing so but consider this a "no consensus" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clow Water Systems

edit
Clow Water Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. Iowateen (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to McWane. Clow Water systems is a division of McWane. I couldn't find any substantial sources to establish this division as independently notable. Given the information in the history section showing how long the company has been in business, there may be offline sources that could establish notability. A merge will preserve the information in this article and allow for a spin-out of independent notability is established later on. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. 26 days is long enough. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Godin

edit
AfDs for this article:
Christophe Godin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There seems to be little evidence of notability. The bands that he is associated with do not have wiki pages, and from googling do not seem notable in themselves. magnius (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment As far as I can tell, there are insufficient RS to satisfy the 'significant coverage' aspect of notability, but this really will require a native-French speaker to investigate, per the first AfD. It's a pity that this has not been resolved.  Chzz  ► 
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello,

I've seen the question of User:Polargeo here : fr:Discussion_Projet:Rock#Christope_Godin. I don't know this guitarist at all, but as I know almost no guitar players, it doesn't prove anything :)

Anyway, I've found this article : [1] which talks about him and, as France Inter is a really famous french radio, could be a good source. In this article : [2], it's written that he has played in an "international guitar and bass guitar festival". Here you have the list of the people who have played in this festival :

Caron-Ecay- Lockwood, Saïd Chrabi, les newyorkais Hiram Bullock et Will Lee, Mike Manring, Marco Pereira, Sylvain Luc. Sans oublier Ray Gomez, Christophe Godin et Atanas Ourkouzounov qui initieront les stagiaires à leur coup de riffs et à leur soli de génie.

Maybe you could check these names to see if they are famous guitar players. Lot of articles from the website http://www.guitariste.com (big french website specialized in guitar actuality) say lot of good about him, but I don't know if it's enough to prove his notability... Here is a music compilation from this website : [3] and the article says :

13 titres dans différents styles musicaux sur lesquels vous aurez la surprise d'entendre quelques invités de renoms, de Christophe Godin à Jean-Michel Kajdan en passant par Sébastien Chouard, Elmobo ou Matthieu Rabaté.

Which means : "13 tracks of differents music styles where you will listen to a lot of famous guest, from Christophe Godin to Jean-Michel Kajdan..." (approximately, as you've noticed, my english isn't really good ;) )

I hope this would help and if you find some others french articles which could bring some evidence of his notability, feel free to ask me for a translation, I'll try to do my best. Balrogou (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was merge to List of Harper's Island episodes. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whap

edit
AfDs for this article:
Whap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also nominated:

Delete - per WP:EPISODE, no indication that the individual episodes of this TV series are independently notable. Articles are little more than plot summaries, in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Text is closely adapted from the CBS site and may constitute a copyvio. PRODs removed from all articles by an editor who has made no edits outside Harper's Island articles. Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of airports in Alaska by borough, redirect the rest. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in Alaska by borough

edit
List of airports in Alaska by borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessarys list and content fork of List of airports in Alaska. Many airports do not even have a borough to be categorised in. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in the Aleutians East Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Municipality of Anchorage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Bristol Bay Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Denali Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in Fairbanks North Star Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Haines Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the City and Borough of Juneau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Kodiak Island Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Lake and Peninsula Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Airports in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the North Slope Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Northwest Arctic Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the City and Borough of Sitka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Airports in the Municipality of Skagway Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the City and Borough of Wrangell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Yakutat City and Borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of aiports in the Aleutians West Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Airports in the Bethel Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Dillingham Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Hoonah-Angoon Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Nome Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Airports in the Prince-Hyder Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Aiports in the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Valdez-Cordova Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Airports in the Wade Hampton Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airports in the Petersburg Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Airports in Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge should continue elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Amarillo

edit
List of tallest buildings in Amarillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The cities in which I have nominated do not have enough buildings of a substantial height to have their own list. Many of these lists already exist, and are meant for cities with large skylines, like New York and Chicago for example. Cities like Amarillo with less than ten buildings over 150 meters are nominated here, and should be deleted. Fryedk (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all There is no reason not to list this. Is it not encyclopedic to have information like this? A building's height shouldn't be considered less spectacular simply because some other city has something bigger, or more tall buildings than they do. If someone wants to look up what all the tallest buildings are in a certain area, then its nice to have an article for that information. Dream Focus 22:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every city can't have its own list. Many of these pages only list 5 buildings, and the majority of these buildings don't have their own pages. In the city's own page a brief reference to the few tallest structures could be made, but unless the city has a remarkable skyline, there is no need to make lists about every city. Fryedk (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can they not have their own list? The wikipedia isn't running out of space. And who determines if the skyline is remarkable or not? The local news would comment on it, making remarks about it. Dream Focus 22:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Billings has a population under 100,000. There are 250 cities with populations over Billings and most do not have such lists because their tallest buildings do not rise to a substantial height. WP does not need 250 such lists.Fryedk (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that such lists are not created based on city size, but by high-rise count. Billings may not be the site of as many high-rises as New York City or Chicago, but it is the ___location of all of the tallest buildings in Montana and many of the tallest structures in the Mountain states outside of Denver. We don't need 250 lists, and we would never have that many (right now, the count is 92, and it hasn't increased) as not all larger cities have high-rises. Cheers, Rai•me 02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having less than 10 high rise buildings isn't very much, which all the cities i nominated have less than. In some cases, like Lubbock, there aren't even 5 over 100 m. Fryedk (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a list only needs 10 entries to become an FL. I think many of these cities can be expanded to more than 5 or 10 buildings - it appears that 10 buildings was just used as the cut-off point for some. I'll try to work on them. I think that if a city has 5 high-rises or less (as is the case with Lubbock), then perhaps a merge with the city article is more appropriate (depending, of course, on the length of the city article). But we should have definite criteria before carrying out any merges/deletions. Cheers, Rai•me 22:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the smaller lists to the cities articles. The information is useful and would be helpful on a city page, but in some cases the list is very small and will not be expanded due to lack of high rise buildings. 11kowrom 22:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs)
  • 'unsure' Although I did start the Grand Rapids page I do not feel every city needs one. I do think that Grand Rapids is significant for several reasons. First GR is the second largest city in that state of Michigan. Next the number of buildings is not a lot there is some significant since one of those is also the tallest residential building in the state. Lastly the city is still building tall towers. The future is uncertain but for the time being I do some need. I will not comment on the other cities since I have not looked at them but I do think each city needs to be evaluated individually. --Mihsfbstadium (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the pages have to be deleted necessarily if they can be proven notable. I still want to get the point across that not every city needs to have a list. Fryedk (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most of these lists can be substantially expanded, particularly Winston-Salem, Wichita, El Paso, and Grand Rapids. I especially agree with Mihsfbstadium that Grand Rapids should have a list; the city's SkyscraperPage diagram indicates that it has a quite a few tall, notable buildings. There is no standard that cities with no 150 m+ buildings and/or small populations should not have tallest building lists - we have many FLs for smaller cities with smaller skylines, including List of tallest buildings in Providence and List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford (the latter of which only has two articles for its buildings). The only city I can see a good argument for deleting/merging is Riverside; that city really has very few high-rises according to both SkyscraperPage and Emporis (the two largest building resource websites). I agree that not every city should have a tallest building list, but these cities (with the exception of Riverside) meet the criteria of having several high-rises that are notable and/or rank among the tallest in their respective states or regions. Cheers, Rai•me 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it is true that every city doesn't "need" to have a list, the question that should be answered is whether or not the list is helpful to the reader. I think it is reasonable to include a list of tallest buildings for any city, since there are probably readers out there somewhere that might be interested in such information, even if that person is a gradeschool student doing a report for school. Whether it is more appropriate to have a separate list, or just be part of the main article for the city, would seem the better discussion to have. I find that any list that gets too long, especially tabled lists, should be on a separate article because long lists tend to detract from the main article when the list is embedded. Then the question becomes how long is "too" long, and that is an asthetic question that everyone sees differently. Therefore, I would recommmend leaving the lists as they are, but I if someone feels one ore more of these lists should be merged, I recommend you merge them, then request the separate list be deleted. Someone put some effort into all of these lists, and that should be respected. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thought: If these list articles are deleted, then it would be helpful if somone could provide answers to the following questions: 1)What criteria will be used to decide what buildings are "substantial" enough to warrant being on such a list, 2) How many are "enough" buildings to warrant creating such a list, and 3) What criteria will be used to decide which cities are the "cities with large skylines" that deserve such a list? MissionInn.Jim (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thought2: The argument to remove these lists makes no mention of how removing these lists would benefit the reader of Wikipedia. If they could frame their argument in the context of what is best for the reader, it would be helpful in understanding why it is important to delete these lists. I didn't create any of these lists, and I wouldn't have a problem if someone decided to merge them, but I would hate to see useful information trashed because of someone's personal preference. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thought3: The original comment indicating that these lists should be removed does not reference one of the reasons for deletion found in the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. After reviewing the possible reasons, I feel more strongly that these lists should stay. No good explanation has been provided to say why these should be deleted. If there is a standard, or style guide, to be followed for these types of lists, please include a reference to that standard. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Question I am not for deletion of these lists. However, I want to ask what exactly would differentiate a city deserving a list or not? 10 high rises? 5? Or does a city qualify if if it is the center of a geographic region (as one user suggested was the qualification for the Billings page. Obviously we wouldn't want a list of some small town, but what about other small cities like Billings? Would Flint, MI deserve one? Duluth, MN? What would be the criteria to decide?11kowrom 22:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @092  ·  01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of 12-string guitar players

edit
List of 12-string guitar players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Well-intentioned list but any list starting with "notable performers" is bound to face serious trouble of OR. What is a "notable performer of the 12-string guitar"? A notable musician who has touched a 12-string? (this seems to be the current criterion) If so, the list might as well include any professional guitarist. If not, what makes someone's 12-string use significant enough for inclusion on the list? Simply unmaintainable. Pichpich (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary list.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's obvious that the people who said keep are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and as such, have been discounted. That leaves a consensus to delete. (X! · talk)  · @092  ·  01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prill

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

PROD was removed, so I am sending to to AfD. No real notability established. External sources is local newspapers about some organisation, not the person itself. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 20:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @092  ·  01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Costlow

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

The only possible way this doesn't fail WP:BAND is if the "Independent Music Awards" counts as a "major music award". Since we don't have an article on them, I'm guessing not. —Chowbok ☠ 20:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob had not recived any Awards. But he has got many fan following and his creation has been used in many media. I think we should get grace period before taking any step--Suyogtalk to me! 04:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article can always be recreated if he meets one of the notability criteria in the future.—Chowbok ☠ 04:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.—Chowbok ☠ 14:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's clear that this group is notable, thanks to the given sources. (X! · talk)  · @701  ·  15:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Nigras

edit
AfDs for this article:
Patriotic Nigras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am fixing this broken nomination by Da Killa Wabbit and am not expressing any opinion myself -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 20:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet trolls, an offshoot of the GNAA and 4chan. They exist strictly to troll SL and other venues, in addition to a passing notability outside of SL. This article seems to serve primarily to glorify them. It's been speedily deleted twice already, this version looks as if it's sourced but the sourced are not substantially about this group, just about the phenomenon of people getting their kicks by disrupting gameplay, with one or two namechecks as examples of a griefer group. A redirect might be appropriate, but this group appears to me to fail any independent measure of notability by a fair margin. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Knife fights in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article is a list of events that lacks sources that discuss and analyze the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @092  ·  01:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deadfish

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

A non-notable game invented a few months ago. Polly (Parrot) 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, The song has indeed been charted, currently at #35 on the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs billboard, this merits notability and therefore should be kept per the most recent consensus. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC) 04:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Run This Town

edit
Run This Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Unreleased single, has not charted. Might be notable eventually but not right now. Fails WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The song was officially released today, so how can it chart? This is ignorance. Many artist on Wikipedia have an upcoming single that hasn't charted, but hasn't been considered for deletion. I revoke this!74.236.156.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, the song has charted. The song actually charted already. On Hot 100 Airplay at #169. On R&B airplay the song is #70. And that was yesterdays July 25, 2009 update; so it possibly has changed since then. 74.236.156.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • update as of July 28, 2009
      Hot 100 Airplay: #105
      R&B Airplay: #47
      and I'm searching more. So add the charts and search for sources if you don't believe me. The song has charted making the article credible, right?
      74.236.156.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment Um, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Hot 100 stop at 100? Also what is your source for this information, Billboard.com doesn't even list the song.--RadioFan (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Yes but the Airplay has it's own bubbling under charts as well so it can go down to 125, and this already signifies it will chart on thursday when it's first week of qualification on the major charts is over... Str8cash (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent album, The Blueprint 3. Airplay charts aren't enough, per WP:NSONGS, and besides, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." We aren't there yet, the information can and should live in the album article for now. Amalthea 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does Wikipedia is not paper mean anything to you? It comes before the "crystal ball" thing, so it MUST be more important. Tom Danson (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has officially charted, so you can all stop complaining. It has charted at #35 on the Billboard R&B 100 list, and at #108 on the Billboard Hot 100.
Comment please add the chart information and cite your sources.--RadioFan (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It also charted #67 on the Billboard Radio Songs list, and at #20 Billboard Rap Songs list. I'd source it, but I can't find a static page on Billboard to source it from. I hate their new design.--KyleEshna 13:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleEshna (talk • contribs)
Comment a URL isnt necessary, source it as a print publication. It's verifiable so thats okay. A URL isn't a requirement.--RadioFan (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @792  ·  18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Place With No Name

edit
A Place With No Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable 25 second sound clip. It hasn't been released as a single and hasn't appeared on any charts. The song clip fails notability per WP:NSONGS. All relevant information can and should be added to "A Horse with No Name". Pyrrhus16 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This song has no relevance to "A Horse With No Name" besides the fact that it sounds similar. This song will prove historical as it is the very first snippet of music heard following Jackson's Death. Whether it is 25 seconds long or two minutes long, it is still music and it is still an interesting topic that people would like to find out about. As time goes on, this page will develop and morph into the full song's article, however, as long as people want to know about Jackson's leaked music, this article should remain intact. --JDelo93 (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1632 Editorial Board

edit
1632 Editorial Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fan fiction board. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's clear that there are sources that are reliable, and as such, it passes the notability argement. (X! · talk)  · @095  ·  01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionpedia

edit
AfDs for this article:
Deletionpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The first discussion was closed as no consensus, primarily due to the sheer volume of voters directed there from deletionpedia itself and lack of critical analysis of the quality of the sources cited (the second was just a goof). I believe the sources cited are either (1) not independent (i.e. sourced to deletionpedia itself), (2) not reliable (blogs and such), or (3) only trivial mentions, and thus fail the notability guidelines at WP:WEB.

The short version is this: websites must be notable enough to receive substantial non-blog media coverage. Deletionpedia has only been mentioned trivially offweb and this article is nearly all information sourced to deletionpedia itself or blogs.

Long version: there are 15 footnotes. 6 are links to deletionpedia itself. The CIO reference is original research, mentioning the concept of a “wikimorgue” but not deletionpedia. 20 Minuten is a non-reliable Swiss tabloid, and in any case contains only one sentence about deletionpedia, the rest of the (short) article being about Wikipedia itself. The WSJ reference is a textbook trivial mention in a human interest story 99% about Wikipedia. The Industry Standard used to be a real newspaper, but went bankrupt in 2001 and now is essentially a web-only blog, no more reliable than the average blog. Slashdot is just a reposting of one of the Industry Standard articles. The claim that the article was subjected to the Slashdot effect is, of course, more original research; as the reference is only a link to the Slashdot page. The De Telegraaf link (translation is another web-only trivial mention, essentially a human interest blurb. Theinquirer.de is another web-only blog as is ars technica (albeit slightly more well-known). The last source comes the closest, but at the end of the day these are web-only human interest stories. Ars technica is notable, but not reliable enough to establish the notability of other topics on its own. Savidan 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionopedia stopped collecting articles in August 2008. This is not the only irony. The two millionth article on wikipedia was put up for deletion. Everyone has deletion horror stories, this is just another one, often perpretrated by the same small group of editors. Rumpsenate (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have discussed every source in the article in my nomination. Savidan 02:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-reliable and non-notable blog. Savidan 02:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS is not a valid form of deletion discussion. You must demonstrate that the sources are reliable and the mentions non-trivial, which it is clear that those fail. Savidan 13:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GHITS, "searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources". That was done in this case and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AT is internet-only and it is in no way clear that Conde Nast edits it to any degree comparable to printed work. There is a serious problem with using this as the primary source to establish notability. Savidan 13:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that a source must be in print. Most of the sources on wikipedia would fail such a test. The only serious problem is that only a few editors have expressed non-notability while the majority of editors seem to have gauged substantive notability. This renomination is just a disruption. Biofase flame| stalk  14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The site pays their writers and editors. Their activities resemble a print source, and are themselves reported on. Abductive (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Savidan, your dislike of online-only sources is odd. What makes a source printed on dead trees more reliable? Fences&Windows 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://lifehacker.com/5052543/deletionpedia-compiles-deleted-articles-from-wikipedia (renowned blog; posted by a senior editor)
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/deletionpedia-where-entries-too-trivial-for-wikipedia-live-on.ars (renowned blog; posted by a senior editor)
http://hvg.hu/Tudomany.cool/20080924_wikipedia_deletionpedia_delutube_szocikk.aspx (translation) (Heti Világgazdaság, a Hungarian weekly magazine)
http://www.taz.de/1/leben/internet/artikel/1/friedhof-der-nebensaechlichkeiten/ (translation) (Die Tageszeitung, a German newspaper)
http://www.tagesschau.de/schlusslicht/delitionpedia100.html (translation)(Tagesschau, a German news service)
Other:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-187374450.html (The Mail on Sunday, tabloid, may not meet WP:RS)
http://www.itexaminer.com/wikipedia-wants-to-delete-deletionpedia.aspx (IT Examiner, may not meet WP:RS)
http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/web/deletionpedia-makes-wikipedia-look-good-470367 (may not meet WP:RS) — Rankiri (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources seem sufficient. Artw (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm persuaded by Rankiri's assessment of the sources. Btw, the Mail isn't the best newspaper in the world, but it does in theory have fact-checking, while spewing a heavily biased view of the world. Fences&Windows 20:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh It's not going to get deleted. It has a bare minimum of sources. It's not a very good article, partly because the subject matter attracts partisans and invites navel gazing. But it meets our minimum standards for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it is isn't really a large and widely used wiki. As a Wikipedia editor, I haven't even heard about it until I came across this AfD. It only has 63,000 articles, according to this article. The site is basically anti-Wikipedia, and is leans towards WP:SOAPBOX as a result of its functionality and purpose. Groink (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and size and use doesn't have anything to do with notability. It's their policy to not allow public editing but then the times have the same policy. Biofase flame| stalk  03:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @093  ·  01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multilanguage encyclopedia

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

This has sat for a week as an empty placeholder article. The current content simply restates the title (so it's a possible A3 speedy, although I've tried that already, and let it go rather than edit war with the author).

I don't see much prospect for a longer article. Either this is going to be an empty tautology like is is now, or it's going to largely duplicate encyclopedia. This could fly with some background or history specific to multilingual encylopedias, but so far there's no sign of either. Seems to have come out of user's edits to Wikipedia, they didn't like "multilingual encyclopedia" being two links instead of one. Hairhorn (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @094  ·  01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1632 universe background history

edit
AfDs for this article:
1632 universe background history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Excessive fancraft. Call it 1632craft or whatever, but universal background is excessive. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hatfields and the Thirty Years' War? cheers, Jack Merridew 07:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan | 39 05:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1632 series battles

edit
Large Dump Truck—Frontal view. Imagine this bearing down on you and your stick (pike) when you've never seen an automobile, much less.
This sort of Semi Dump Truck is documented as present in the novel 1633, and further as having been used as an APC until needed for transporting speed boats for the pivotal Naval battle of Wismar and Rostock.
Caterpillar make Dump Truck similar to the truck above... "Cat" hats are popular in Grantville for a reason.
Another large Dump Truck... far more likely to be available in rural Grantville, and far more common. Imagine yourself on a tall horse... looking up at one of these spitting bullets.
See: 1632: Armored Personnel Carrier
1632 series battles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely fictional battles. No indication of real-world notability. The excessive quotations could also be a copyright concern. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hits & Unreleased: The Ultimate Collection

edit
AfDs for this article:
Hits & Unreleased: The Ultimate Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability. Mixtape failed to chart and did not receive substantial coverage from secondary reliable sources, thus not meeting the criteria for inclusion (WP:NALBUMS). Prod was contested. — Σxplicit 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. Enigmamsg 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robloxian Politics

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

Absolute nonsense, WP:NFT violation. Triplestop x3 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Being an orphaned article or of perceived poor literary quality are not reasons for deletion. Those who are bold are welcome to take the initiative to merge the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses in Nigeria

edit
AfDs for this article:
Jehovah's Witnesses in Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orphan. Poor quality. No other articles of format 'Jehovah's Witnesses in [country]' exist, and JW activities in Nigeria are not especially notable. Jeffro77 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only English references provided are on Watch Tower websites, only one of which has any passing notability in the media. Of the references in German, 2 simply state the ratio of JWs in Nigeria (0.2%), and the other makes a passing reference to the total number of members there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i wrote this article although I by no means an advocate of JW. There is no additional to get hold of. You can see the importance of the topic by the number of JW in Nigeria, which is shown by references in the text. Sarcelles (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is not entirely clear what you mean by "there is no additional to get hold of", if there is no other information in reliable third-party sources other than some trivial statistics in German, it is probably not notable in relation to JW activities in other countries. The number of JWs in Nigeria in relation to the total population (0.2%) is also not particularly notable. If there are notable third-party sources, a brief comment in Religion in Nigeria would be sufficient coverage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant There is no additional information to get hold of Sarcelles (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And if "there is no additional information to get hold of", then JW activities in Nigeria in particular are probably not notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i know that other stuff exists isn't an argument but since the nominator is using "other stuff doesn't exist" as an argument for deletion I think it is in order to mention that while there is no other articles about "jehovah's witnesses in X-country" there are several articles of "X-religion in Nigeria". For example there is an article on Bahá'í Faith in Nigeria (the bahai have 1000 members in Nigeria) and several other small religous groups such as Rosencrucians, Ogboni Fraternity and others. This article is clearly part of this series of articles·Maunus·ƛ· 03:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Bahá'í Faith is a branch of religion, not a denomination; the relevant analogous article to Bahá'í Faith in Nigeria would be Christianity in Nigeria, which is not being disputed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Catholicism in Nigeria·Maunus·ƛ· 13:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Catholics make up 15% of the population and over 37% of the Christian population in Nigeria. JWs make up 0.2% of the population, and 0.5% of the Christian population.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what are you're criteria here? They are certainly not obvious. Bahá'í make up much less than JW and have their article which is ok to you because they are a religion. Catholicism is a denomination but also has their own article which is ok because theres a lot of them? You seem to be setting up arbitrary criteria for why this religious movement in Nigeria is less notable than Catholics, Church of Nigeria, Bahá'i, Hindus, Chrislam etc. What does wikipedia gain by not having an article on Jehovah's witnesses in Nigeria if I may ask?·Maunus·ƛ· 13:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should be obvious to you from the link that was added to the main JW article - a 'see also' link to 'Jehovah's Witnesses in Nigeria' - which implies that JW activities are somehow notable not only in Nigeria specifically, but also somehow more notable than their activities in any other place. However, in reality, it has been demonstrated that JW activities there form neither a significant part of the population, nor a particularly remarkable instance of JW activities compared to anywhere else in the world. This is also demonstrated by the recent inclusion of the poor-quality text of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nigeria copied verbatim to Religion in Nigeria - which indicates, without explanation, JW's minor presence while omitting other Christian denominations in Nigeria that make up the other nearly 30% of other Christians in the country in addition to the Catholic Church and Church of Nigeria which together make up 70% of Christians there. (There is passing mention in a single sentence about some other denominations but they don't have their own section - this would be a suitable level of coverage for JW activities there.) I intend no specific endorsement of the notability or the quality of the Bahá'í article, however the religion does form a specific set of religious beliefs, as opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses which are a Christian denomination (despite the biased unrelated claims of some). Bahá'ís make up 100% of Bahá'ís in Nigeria; by comparison, JWs make up less than 1% of Christians in Nigeria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Christianity in Nigeria. The subject did receive it's own entry in the Historical Dictionary of Nigeria, which is now included in the references. This leads me to think that there are other, additional, sources available from which that information is drawn. Having said that, unless that information is found and added, the article in its current state could well be easily added to the Christianity in Nigeria article with no loss of data. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done. Based on the significance of JW activities in Nigeria relative to 1) JW activities in the rest of the world and 2) other Christian religions in Nigeria, a very brief summary at Christianity in Nigeria is sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @094  ·  01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kelly (English footballer)

edit
Danny Kelly (English footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adeyemi Dweller (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @094  ·  01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Habergham

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adeyemi Dweller (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @094  ·  01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Dumic

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adeyemi Dweller (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @094  ·  01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Rudd

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adeyemi Dweller (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By the end, people are agreeing that the article should be kept. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience

edit
The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

FailsWP:N and WP:BK, Googling shows no sources available to establish notability. Artw (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another bad faith POV-based edit: this editor came over from Ian Stevenson where he is trying first to claim the book is not a reliable source and then that it didn't say what it clearly said, all so he could remove the POV the expert opinion he disagrees with from the article in question. If Artw is arguing against people showing up and voting without following procedures, it's interesting to not that the only people actually doing so are people *he* brought over. 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Addendum: the topic may meet the "multiple, non-trivial published works" criteria of WP:BK, but does not, as yet, meet the "at least some of these works serving a general audience" caveat to that criteria. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm thoroughly persuaded by Cardamon and GRuban's arguments. The publicly unavailable reviews are legitimate[14]. The CHOICE review is concise (~150 words) but acceptable. It evaluates the book as "Optional. High school, college, and public libraries" and lists "weak article bibliographies...and inconsistency in writing quality and depth of subject coverage" as its most notable shortcomings. The encyclopedia is cited by other academic publications like Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience or General philosophy of science [15][16]; and a number of educational institutions seem to regard it as a valid academic reference[17][18][19] — Rankiri (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been trying to make up my mind, and Cardamon, GRuban, and particularly Rankiri have convinced me. I had already noted that there are quite a few citations to various articles in the book in other academic publications but had not been clear about the implications of that. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The further references found for the article have convinced me it's clearly notable. Nevard (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviews have now been found and added, it meeting all requirements a book has to in order to have its own wikipedia article. Dream Focus 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I'm seeing the same references we had 2 days ago. All of which fail to give any indication of what the actual text of the reference is and it's degree of significance. Some links of quotes would do a lot here. From the look of the current Scitech Book News it consists of simple listings for books, and so tyhat one in particular would not count towards WP:N. Artw (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4 - nothing has changed since the first AfD. Black Kite 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Lathrope

edit
AfDs for this article:
Damon Lathrope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adeyemi Dweller (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless Tour

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

None of the sources gives any significant coverage beyond "She sold eight zillion tickets, and Kellie Pickler and Gloriana toured with her". Tours are almost inherently non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. In terms of albums, Swift is probably the best-selling musical artist in the U.S. right now. This is likely to be one of the major tours of the year. Moreover, this tour raises a number of interesting questions that the article can address:
    • are her concerts aimed at her original country audience or her crossover pop audience?
    • what is the age/gender breakdown of her audiences? (seems to be mostly female, but with preteens through 30s adults)
    • is the show really suitable for the younger audience members? (see http://wvgazette.com/News/200907190023 for a 'no' response)
    • at only 19 years old, how polished is she as a stage performer?
    • is the show along the "just sing" model, à la Martina McBride, or along the diva production model, à la Britney, Beyoncé, et al? or somewhere in between?
    • how elaborate are the sets and stage effects? does she do costume changes? (apparently, eight)
    • is she always singing live, or are backing tracks used to help out in places (a common fault of diva concerts)?
    • does the elaborate production detract from the simplicity and immediacy of her 'everygirl' songs?
    • how long is the typical show? are there different arrangements of any songs from their studio versions?
    • what has been the critical reaction to her shows?
And so forth. And there are plenty of mainstream, third-party sources for the tour, starting with this Rolling Stone article, newspaper reviews such as this one or this one or this one. A bunch more can be found with this Google search or this Google News search. There is no justification for deleting this article. And the assertion that 'Tours are almost inherently non-notable' is untrue. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @094  ·  01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hargrave

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

Unnotable stuntman. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:Entertainer. Prod removed by article creator with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7 - article about web content with no credible claim of significance or importance). the wub "?!" 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scribble Ninja

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

non notable game, only references are to authors own website WuhWuzDat 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Facepunch is not his website. I can include a link to every single topic he's posted there, and I'll find some more references. Second, I might as well create an article that is as balanced as possible before he creates one that touts it as the next Super Mario Bros. Even if he wouldn't, it's not like creating an 29.6 kb article is going to be a strain on Wikipedia. I would understand if it was bigger, more notable, or horribly unbalanced and badly spelled, but it's not. Adam Eldemire (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Richard Barker

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

Not notable. Minor school board administrator in Memphis. Has some peer-reviewed articles, but from before his current job - presumably from his previous life as an academic. But he is not notable as an academic either. Hairhorn (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the article does a good job of making the company sound important, but there is insufficient substantial reliable source coverage to back that up and demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 08:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inglesina Baby

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

Claim that "Inglesina is the unique company in the world, that produces prams with this particular design" is unsubstantiated -- both that it is "the unique" ("only", I assume) company, or that these pram designs matter. Article reads like an advertisement. --EEMIV (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - I agree that the sources I've found are weak. But they are indicative of notability for the company. Given the newness of the article, it would make more sense to tag the article for notability, and referencing to give a chance for other editors to improve the article before making a deletion decision. -- Whpq (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 14:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Tingle

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

Question: is it notable in itself to run for election and loosing? I think not and propose deletion of this article unless notability can be demonstrated. Favonian (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was copyvio, also spam (non admin closure) - 2 ... says you, says me 03:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Casco, Jr.

edit
Franklin Casco, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertisement for a personal-injury lawyer and how much mony he makes for his clients. Only sources are passing mentions of lawsuits and a press release. Calton | Talk 14:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently its also a copyright violation looks like it was lifted directly from [26]. - 2 ... says you, says me 18:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LP7 (album)

edit
LP7 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (not scheduled for release until November). Album will not, apparently, even be called "LP7" - it's unnamed, as well as unreleased. Appears to fail WP:NSONGSWP:MUSIC at present. TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Corruption Measures

edit
Anti-Corruption Measures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an essay and would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. WuhWuzDat 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: That sounds mighty fimiliar. There may also be a conflict of interest based on the username, I've left a warning but no response. Personally I think someone posted their college paper to the site. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you wrote the message just some minutes ago, I did already request that the username is changed, but I suppose the request is also not handled in seconds. As for the article, I have deleted the first part, I understand that it is more similar to an essay and maybe too biased. The part about anti-corruption treaties, however, adds something new to the encyclopedia and is only based on facts. Please comment on that and tell me how to improve it! I'm new here, and as I have read wikipedia welcomes the contribution of amateurs (like me), so I am really only trying to help and give people more information. --Fightagainstcorruption (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is awesome, thanks for letting us know! Have you checked and seen iif any of these intiatives are allready documented here? One of the main problems is that it is redundant many of these allready have their own pages with sufficient detail.

[[27]] [[28]] [[29]] etc, it goes on down the list. Maybe you can make a list of anticorruption laws that link to their pages without the summaries. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have considerably shortened the article to avoid having the same information as in other entries. I have also created a new article about the African Union Convention about Corruption, because this article still had to be edited. I have also added a "stub" note to this article here, because it needs to be extended. The anti-corruption treaties should now be allright, but I have not added anything about civil society initiatives, etc. I will see if I have time for that soon, and maybe other people will contribute. What do you think about the article now? What should be improved? Thank you for your help! --Fightagainstcorruption (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - The reason why I started this Article is the short sentence concerning "fighting corruption" in the Political corruption-article: Mobile telecommunications and radio broadcasting help to fight corruption, especially in developing regions like Africa,[24] where other forms of communications are limited. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption#Fighting_corruption). It does not give a good picture of what is really done, on local, national, regional, international level, to tackle corruption. I think that this short sentence might be misleading, because it omits a lot of things. Should we maybe move the information contained in the present article to this section? --Fightagainstcorruption (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 08:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos with homosexual scenes

edit
List of music videos with homosexual scenes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary list. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pastoe Pasta

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

Hoax. Google searches produce only a "walled garden" of similar hoax entries. Images are largely amateurish photoshop, all tagged with "Own work by uploader". Completing broken AfD nom begun by User:Bernasco. Hairhorn (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any accusations of canvassing aside, there is still definitely no consensus to delete this article at all. I have taken no action on the other five articles nominated, as they were added far too late in the discussion. ~ mazca talk 08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Little Liars (novel)

edit
Pretty Little Liars (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This derivative article is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article about the series. This new article is merely a means to include an expanded plot summary (as explained by the "creator" here and provides no unique real-world coverage, so should be deleted per WP:PLOT. — TAnthonyTalk 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, I'm OK with a merge/redirect, but I'm seeking consensus because the author has reverted my attempts to boldly do so.— TAnthonyTalk 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the discussion is over an individual book in this series, the other books should be added:

Flawless (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Perfect (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wicked (Sara Shepard novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Killer (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unbelievable (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Smashvilletalk 18:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why these others would need to be deleted rather than at worst edited to redirects. The original non at least shares a title with the likely redirect target. That is not the case with these others. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is not a redundant spinoff. It merely explains the plot and says the main events of the novel, while the Pretty Little Liars page had a very very broad summary, explaining nothing. TANTHONY also says it does not have much real world coverage. For real world coverage, I did have one review of the book on the page, while on the pretty little liars SERIES page also had only one review. The reason for this is because it is still under constuction, while the page he worked on is not under construction. As for being redundant, I said before, I AM UNDER CONSTRUCTION and am still revising.MissBobLoblaw (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is relatively small and underdeveloped; you would do better to slightly expand the plot summary there, and add any notable reviews and such you may find. At the point where the material for this one novel becomes too much for the main article, it can then be split off. That's how things work here. We do not need six articles of plot summary that can be covered adequately in one main article; these novels are not so notable and critically acclaimed that they require lengthy, detailed synopses and analysis.— TAnthonyTalk 21:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "so notable" mean? If the novels are notable there is no reason they should not have their own articles. If all the novel articles are short enough that they could better fit within a single article, that is a topic for a merge discussion, not AfD. But even a merge discussion would be premature while one of the relevant articles is in the midst of an active expansion. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case the extent to which this article will be expanded is obvious, but regardless, we're in an AfD now. I still fail to see why she can't simply expand the novel's section in the main article. A work-in-progress like this would be more acceptable if there wasn't already a perfectly acceptable place for the information in existence. Anyway, if this gets deleted, she can do as I suggest, or rebuild a dazzling article in userspace and re-present it when it actually has substance.— TAnthonyTalk 01:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An argument that there is "already a perfectly acceptable place for the information in existance" is an argument for merge, not delete. As is a hope that she put the information in that article. Why should she start over after the article is deleted rather than just merge the content that has already been created? Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state, this article is completely redundant; the only difference from the content in the main article are a couple more sentences of plot. What is there to merge?? I boldly redirected it, but MissBobLoblaw reverted me. An AfD is cleaner, and no potentially valuable information will be lost because there is none.— TAnthonyTalk 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to address your comment about notability above, even the main article has few references asserting any notability for any of the novels or the series as a whole. I'm fine with a consensus to merge or redirect, but what would link to it? The main article appears to have less than six real articles linking to it (including the author's article, "Emily" (um, OK), and not including the newly-recreated wastes of megabytes Flawless (novel), Perfect (novel), Unbelievable (novel), Wicked (novel), and Killer (novel)). And I see no indication that any serious improvement is going to happen. Oh how I love when teenage fans create articles where none need be.— TAnthonyTalk 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - A novel and a series are not the same thing. Deletion seems premature given active expansion and the claim that there is real world coverage that can be referenced. Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is premature, why not prove the worthiness of the topic in the main article?— TAnthonyTalk 21:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is the article premature? There is no need to "prove" this worthiness of one article within a different article. Rlendog (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is premature because there is no content! These books are apparently notable and so they are covered in an article , but there is nothing here which makes individual articles necessary. Despite her "revamping" tags, this editor has not yet made any significant improvements ... but has found time to recreate one-sentence stubs for the rest of the novels. As I said, she can take all the time she needs, starting now, building a magnificent article in userspace, but there is no point in driving readers to six tiny articles when the topic can be covered in one.— TAnthonyTalk 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pretty Little Liars series is just to complicated to put in one article .Also it's easy if there's one page/novel because the readers can serach easily what happened in which book . Anthony i think you know nothing about this series so stop talking about it and go to the library and read it ! PS : don't dare to say that i need to sign up first to wikipedia because you say that all the time . I've got an account ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.126.212 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, my familiarity with the series is not the issue, this isn't a vote, and clearly your only "reason" for keeping this article is that you like the book. A summary of each book will fit nicely in the main article, isn't that easier than going to six articles? Now go finish your homework.— TAnthonyTalk 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for much-needed participation, I said nothing about supporting or opposing my nom, get a grip.— TAnthonyTalk 03:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @746  ·  16:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Software Database

edit
Scientific Software Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about something that doesn't exist (supposedly it will on Jan 1, 2010), with no reputable sources. Looie496 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today (Gary Allan song)

edit
Today (Gary Allan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails wp:music: the only source is a wordpress blog. There's nothing at [30]. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-22t11:38z 11:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect until it gets higher on the charts or Keep and yes this article meets WP:MUSIC by charting on a major chart (Billboard). --Caldorwards4 (talk)
  • Since it charted, it should be kept, as said above. I know for sure that it won't be a failure. However, a redirect might be fine. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TenPoundHammer - charted, referenced, and not a stub CloversMallRat (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • wp:v: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The 2 new refs are also blogs, one of which doesn't even have a copy editor to fix spelling mistakes. The genre chart is not referenced, and there's no mention of a major chart. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-25t15:29z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) under G5 (Non-admin closure). The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Magne

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

Not notable Concernedfather (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal Children's Advancement Society

edit
Aboriginal Children's Advancement Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG hardly any third party coverage, [31], 2 of the 5 articles are for someone winning an award for working for this organisation, rather than an article about the organisation itself. Google search is mainly directory listings and mirror sites. LibStar (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of parishes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Catholic churches in Hawaii

edit
Malia Puka O Kalani Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Agnes Roman Catholic Church in Kakaako (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(View AfD)

Two Catholic parishes in Hawaii: unlike the ones at this AFD, there's a bit of content, but neither of these articles have any content derived from reliable sources. All information is either unsourced, derived from blogs, or taken from church publications. In short — no demonstration of notability, and no reason to expect that there is any notability either. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 8 July 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 // 00:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a redirect is appropriate here. If RS content turns up the articles can be re-established easily. Springnuts (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and create a redirect to the album at What Do You See. The consensus here seems to be that it fails WP:NSONGS, and also that a redirect to the album here would be an unlikely search term due to the extraneous (single) disambiguation. ~ mazca talk 08:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Do You See (single)

edit
What Do You See (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:NSONGS. Redirect to album reverted. RadioFan (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore redirect - And probably move to What Do You See, since there does not seem to be any dab issue that would necessitate a parenthetical remark in the title. The redirect was reverted once, by the new user who created the article. That hardly warrants deletion, especially since the redirect can be useful to other users looking for this song. If the redirect is continually reverted, request protection. It may be worthwhile to discuss the issue with that user (I see that another editor has discussed a different article on that user's talk page) rather than jump immediately to AfD. Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The keep arguments are stronger than the merge/redirect arguments. However, this does not preclude merging if there is consensus to do so on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Cold War

edit
AfDs for this article:
Temporal Cold War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe this article violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), being a partial plot summary of a fictional work. I have nominated it separately because it contains a "Controversy" section talking about various production details. I do not believe any of the external links in this section, however, to constitute reliable sources. They are links to fan forums or else articles on fan sites and thus do not demonstrate out-of-universe notability. The first nomination (linked to right) was flawed I believe, referencing the number (rather than the quality or type) of google and google books hits. Articles about fiction should be expected to get google books hits, as google books includes fictional works, in-universe works (fan encyclopedias, etc.), and so on. None of the keep voters made an effort to show how any of these hits constituted out-of-universe notability. The article as it stands contains no information cited to reliable published sources demonstrating any out of universe significance at all, let alone notability. Savidan 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - significant aspect of the Enterprise series which appeared in multiple episodes. The lack of references should be addressed, of course. Artw (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the nominator wants Google Books references then he should research and add them rather than bringing the article here - AFD is not cleanup. I have added such a reference to show how it's done. Please see WP:BEFORE for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I applaud Col Warden finding some real-world commentary, it is insufficient to retain a separate article. That production rationale/blurb is easily -- and most appropriately -- merge-able into the overall series article. --EEMIV (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're only here to decide whether to push the delete button or not and we both agree that we shouldn't. Detailed consideration of how this material may be improved and presented alongside other aspects of Star Trek/Enterprise is a matter of ordinary content editing which we don't do here. Again, this is covered by our deletion policy, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some references seem worth keeping as part of the production of Enterprise perhaps, but nothing really seems to establish this article as keeping in it's own right. The google news search seems to be full of Trek sites or odd DVD reviews for example. Alastairward (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable part of a very notable series. The number of episodes listed as involving the Temporal Cold War story arc, add to its notability. This wasn't just some passing mention of an event somewhere. Dream Focus 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Dream Focus, Artw and DrWho42. The article has its issues but the subject is passably notable to meet the guidelines. From Google Books: [40][41][42][43].— Rankiri (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Substantial coverage in reliable sources do seem to lead most participants to agree this passes WP:N. There's something of a collision of notability standards here - the fact that they play in the top tier of a national league in the sport should make them notable without question, but the sheer obscurity of American football in Britain means it's actually rather borderline. Nonetheless, the prevailing opinion does seem to be to keep this; although this close should not preclude a possible discussion about the notability of BAFL teams overall. ~ mazca talk 08:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster Mustangs (American football)

edit
Doncaster Mustangs (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG, and would certainly fail WP:ATHLETE if it extended to athletic organisations. I can find no references that are reputable, detailed and independent of the source. There are many that fulfill two of three (their website, the website of BAFL, so on) but nothing decent. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 20:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is this BAFL a professional American football league or semi-pro that would help make a decision; I found a few refs; [44], [45], [46] not sure what help it would be though. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, didn't see those. Certainly not professional, and I'm not sure what role local news would play in this sort of thing (you'd expect them to cover local sporting activities, really). Ironholds (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as much as I'd like us to have articles about American football in Europe, I don't think this has met the standards. Improve the article and I'll change my mind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as refs [1] & [2] in the Doncaster Free Press found by Marcusmax above are significant coverage in an independent, reliable source, as is [47] in The Star. WP:ATHLETE does not apply to teams, only individuals, so whether the team is amateur or professional doesn't matter. The fact that these sources are local or regional papers is irrelevant; what matters is that the coverage is significant, which it certainly is as these articles are specifically about this single team (mentions in passing, e.g. [3] above, or inclusion in lists of scores or league tables would not be enough). The article certainly needs improvement and expansion, but that's not a reason to delete it. --Qwfp (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Just found another article with significant coverage in another regional newspaper, the Northern Echo: [48]. Qwfp (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They aren't professional. Mentions in the local press about them should be discounted since the local press has to report on local events. That's what they do. They report on high school sports, local bowling leagues and semi-pro teams that play in their area. That's not notability, that's just filling space. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is the Doncaster team less notable than the other 20 or so BAFL franchises? I note there is a substantial article about the BAFL as well as articles on most teams. Cbl62 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The others may be non-notable as well, they just haven't been nominated for deletion yet. Ironholds (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that we should look at teh BAFL as a whole to determine whether it is notable. If BAFL is notable, then each team presumably should be included. Before deleting this particular team's article, I think a broader inquiry should be undertaken into the notability of the BAFL. Cbl62 (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That logic doesn't necessarily apply. If we're using WP:ORG here and BAFL has multiple references, fine, but that doesn't automatically make the clubs notable unless they've got the required amount of coverage. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether this team is professional or not should be irrelevant. Although it would be of relevance to an athlete there's already precedence, with soccer teams, that notabality extends far lower for teams than for individuals, well into the non-professional teams. Personally I'm still undecided whether they meet the notabality requirements or not. Dpmuk (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply to clubs, and semi-professional and amateur teams can be notable. WP:ORG is essentially just re-wording of WP:GNG, which I am not convinced this team fails. In my research, there appears to be some (although not terribly extensive) media coverage of this team's results and the occasional news story. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this the club compete at the highest tier of American football in the United Kingdom? Strikehold (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, division one is the second tier (the first is the premier division). In any case with the tiny amount of interest American football gets in the United Kingdom it'd be like being in the first tier of the American Urine Quaffing Championships. not suprising, really, since American football nicked football's name and rugby's general principle, added about 3 tons of padding per play and lo! Rugby for Pansies. No idea why you people love it so. Ironholds (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I asked a couple days ago about the status of the BAFL before weighing in on this. It appears that the BAFL is the highest level of American football in the U.K. The BAFL appears to meet notability standards, and every team in the league has an article. Before deleting the article on this particular franchise within the BAFL, an argument needs to be made as to why the BAFL is not notable. The main article on BAFL indicates it has been around since 1998 and has received coveage in major media outlets, including the BBC. Based on the news coverage, and the BAFL's status as the primary American football in the U.K., I think the BAFL (and its teams) warrant inclusion -- despite User:Ironholds' tongue-in-cheek (I assume) assertion that only "pansies" play the sport. Cbl62 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the wub "?!" 11:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ta'awon

edit
AfDs for this article:
Al Ta'awon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Team of the Lybian Second Division - fails WP:ORG by a long shot per the refs I can find. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Webcast. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wedcast

edit
AfDs for this article:
Wedcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic article; it is basically a dicdef or borderline neologism and the notability remains dubious. The page survived an AfD discussion 18 months ago but has not been worked on since then. It is not linked to by any mainspace articles. Paddles TC 10:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @701  ·  15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenniel Martin

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a FPL per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Article claims appearances in MSL but references supplied do not back that up, showing only that he played in reserve games, and Web search failed to prove otherwise. Current club in Suomi is too far down the pyramid. No significant coverage found to satify WP:GNG ClubOranjeT 09:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Hlavaty

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a FPL per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Appears to have only played in development and youth leagues. No significant coverage found to satify WP:GNG Withdraw --ClubOranjeT 09:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @701  ·  15:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wilson II

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a FPL per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. No significant coverage found to pass WP:GNG ClubOranjeT 09:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been returned to the correct title. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowy delete --B (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison for Three DVD Rippers

edit
Comparison for Three DVD Rippers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:OR - unreferenced (by definition), spammy (removed EL). Deprodded by original author without improvement.    7   talk | Δ |   09:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Alexf(talk) 22:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animus (band)

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

This is a new (2009) band, with no indication that it has been signed. No web presence could be found via google (indicating but not proving limited notability). Of the two sources cited, one has so far been unverifiable (though someone with access to the paper's hard-copy archives might try). The second is a web forum (so not a reliable source), where no mention of Animus or the band's founder could be found by me.

None of the criteria at WP:BAND appear to be met. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7 - article about web content with no credible claim of significance or importance). the wub "?!" 10:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dudeskull

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

Nonnotable subject of forum wars as the dispute hasn't been discussed in any external media. ThemFromSpace 08:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 any unreferenced biographies. Dr. Blofeld has respectfully requested that these articles be deleted. Given the author request combined with the mandate to delete here, I'm closing this discussion. An admin, likely Juliancolton (possibly with help from others), will go through the list to ensure that any articles that have been improved since creation are not deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claus Peter Poppe

edit
Claus Peter Poppe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

From the discussion here, 2798 biographies (some BLPs, some BPDs) were created in the past few days by one editor in good faith. These politician bios were transwikied from the German Wikipedia using AWB. They are each sub-stubs which include only the same introductory sentence and no actual references. The reference section links to the original German article, some of which are not referenced. So, in addition to this article, this nomination also includes the other 2797 articles listed here.

If this listing was done incorrectly, I apologize. I'm not sure how to nominate this many articles at once, and tagging them seems implausible. But, considering the circumstances, I think notification to the author and Dr. Blofeld is sufficient. Lara 06:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all unreferenced biographies: With no prejudice to re-create them at a later time with proper references. (Note: Linking to the German Wikipedia, to me at least, does not qualify as a reference. Wikipedia, even the German variant, is not a reliable source.) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The articles are a BLP nightmare, and a libel case just waiting to happen, adding strain to an already overworked system with articles in the vein of "Hans-Ulrich Pfaffmann is a German politician, representative of the Social Democratic Party". The articles can be recreated in time by those interested in the subject matter, since those people will hopefully have the inclination to write a decent article, reference it and watchlist it to keep a good eye on it. Ironholds (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) and MzMcBride's point above (which I don't know why nobody brought up at WP:AN/I - referencing another WP version is not "referencing". Ironholds (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ironholds. Yeeesh. Crafty (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. In my experience, having stubs like this (which makes it look like we have an article while there is only a substub listing name and party affiliation) is actually counterproductive and makes it take longer until we have a proper article. (Personally, I enjoy filling red links, possible with a DYK-worthy article, but hardly ever expand substubs). The people should be sorted by their political position and then added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/German politicians to request creation of proper articles. Kusma (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading through the discussion link Lara posted, I'm convinced that this has to be a delete. If anyone wants to take on expanding a few, they should have it userfied, but as such there are enough BLP articles out there to source, including the ones that haven't been tagged. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 07:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the articles that I've spot-checked on Juliancolton's page read "X is a German politician, representative of the Social Democratic Party." even if the subject is clearly dead, such as Karl Müller (1890–1968). This shows an utter lack of care on the part of the creator and I doubt that many of these will be improved to a usable standard anytime soon. No prejudice against recreation of any or all of these if each are given personal attention. Slightly off topic, but I am also concerned that the creator is an Autoreviewer, which means that none of these articles were subject to the eyes of new page patrollers. To me, this casts a shadow on the concept of the editor group as a whole and I think closer scrutiny should be used for assigning this privilege to editors in the future. ThemFromSpace 07:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Kusma (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all without prejudice to recreation with references and actual content. "X is a German politician" contains so little information as to be entirely useless to the reader. Additionally, as it stands, these articles are so poor as to be borderline A7 candidates. "X is a German politician" does not even establish notability. Is X a cabinet minister, an MP, an MEP, a local councillor, or just someone who once stood in a local election? And of course, creating thousands of unwatched, unmaintained, unloved BLPs to which anyone with a grudge can add libel which may go un-noticed for months or years is a very bad idea indeed. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 07:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per failure to establish notability as written, conform to WP:BLP. No objection to recreation in a useful form, i.e. with dates of birth and death, political position and at least one source.  Sandstein  07:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I stumbled into this issue when I noticed auto-created articles for Claus Weselsky and Manfred Schell. Both were created as "German politicians", but are, in fact, trade union leaders who just happen to be party members (a fact merely worth mentioning). So beside the poor amount of information in these articles, the little information provided often seem to be false and misleading. --Bigbug21 (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I began reviewing the articles after the discussion started on AN/I. Per my comment here, I found this article and many others to not have in line citations in the German version of the article. Many of the German articles were stub length and not a high quality well sourced article that I would automatically consider a keep if uploaded to Wikipedia English as a translation. I don't want to keep articles that might have stale or unsourced information about people if we were to use the German version of the article. And I don't want to keep these pre-stub length articles in the state that they now exist with little chance that they will be updated and maintained as a group. FloNight♥♥♥ 07:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't care what the formal reason for deleting is, if any. Unsourced BLP that doesn't even establish notability should suffice in most cases. The real point is that this doesn't help us build the encyclopedia, and it has a serious potential to hurt some subjects. (At least they haven't got around to doing the PDS or the NPD yet. Membership in one of these parties reduces one's employment choices, and the German party categories include people who left the party.) Hans Adler 08:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all BLPs that aren't sourced when this is closed. I'm as amazed by this as everyone else. There's no effort to provide any independent coverage by reliable sources and with the volume and the way these were created it's unlikely that the creator intended to provide such sources. Add to this that they contain nothing that can't be found in List of Social Democratic Party of Germany members and I'd say you have as strong a candidate for deletion as you can get. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. I'd also suggest a closing message detailing that Wikipedia would be very receptive to recreation providing that they are referenced. We want the articles - we just don't want them the way they are. Pedro :  Chat  08:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mass delete the ones that are about deceased persons. It is easy to spot those by looking at the German version to see if a death date is given. Those are not a BLP problem and we can afford to wait for people whose German is better than mine to review them individually to see if there see if there are sources. Cardamon (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Given that many of these are BLPs, and unlikely to be watched (who can watch 3,000 articles, for crying out loud?) then they need to be mass deleted and then perhaps transferred individually with references, or their names merged to appropriate articles/lists if they aren't completely notable. Skinny87 (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost for words' - I can't believe this. These are notable biographies and should be expanded not deleted. Over half of them do not even violate BLP . This is really silly. I've expanded this nomintation and it is clearly notable and within guidelines this politician was one of the List of members of the Lower Saxon Landtag 2003-2008 a representative of regional parliament and you honestly think sources can't be found??. God give us a few weeks to expand a few of them. I DO NOT waste my time and neither does Albert in that we create articles we believe could reasonably be expanded immediately by anybody. You are all the lazy ones by taking the easy way out and deleting articles which in due course will become perfectly accpetable and much needed encyclopedia articles. This is the kind of ignorance I've come to expect from the shitty community (meaning editors give each other little support when most of us all have a common goal) that runs this website and forces away the decent editors . A bot could EASILY salvage all of these articles by adding a reference linked to the main website of the parties and reliable publication and just sheer hard work to fill them out. These articles WILL be started again so I think we should not waste time and just work hard at expanding them. If people here really care about content in the long term they would certainly not think deleting articles which can become acceptable within minutes would be the right answer. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do care about the long term - we appreciate that in the long term, these articles could be valuable additions to Wikipedia's coverage. In the short term, however (and unless you are a bot, I mean " the next six months") these are nothing more than one massive liability. I'm sure you and Albert can work on a few, but that's the problem - you can only do a few. If a few is what you can maintain, limit yourself to writing a few. Sheer hard work is being used to cut down the current BLP backlog, a backlog you've massively added to. With the size it is currently at it will be months before people get near your articles. If you have such a problem with the Wikipedia community then you can leave, and read WP:STICK on the way out. Ironholds (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look I don't have a problem with everybody here. There some very kind and helpful editors on here who are a pleasure to know and discuss things with. It is just the way the general community responds and sees us in bad faith for trying to start the transfer of content that's all. I agree to a point that these articles will require a massive amount of work, what I hate about the general response given here is the snippy comments that we should somehow be heartily ashamed of outsevles for trying to start the prcess of transferring notable articles into English. I just think some of the responses to this have been quite mean. I differ from a lot of people in that I look towards our long term goals for wikipedia, I root out articles and believe there is a set task for every subject to work towards. The problem here may be that the task is a little big for us to take on at least within the next few months so if there are BLP issues then I se eyour views. I just wish more people would see why such articles are created and why we create small stubs because of the sheer amount to transfer. As normal this is a conflict between quality and quantity. Ideally I'd like both but given the few editors who seme willing to help is often beyond possibility. Can't we at least keep several hundred of these articles to work through?

Claus Peter Poppe as it stands is not deletable, it meets our content requirements. Several hundred of these articles could be expanded with a reference similarly within a few days. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with deleting all the substubs and then working through the list? Kusma (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone assuming bad faith. I see a lot of people disagreeing with your good-faith actions though. I think it was implicit in all delete !votes that they apply only to the unsourced sub-stubs. I would expect the closer to make it explicit that whoever is going to perform the deletions should, if practicable, spare any seriously improved articles. Hans Adler 10:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm I've been called all sorted of names and been insulted many times during the ANI discussion unnecessarily. I do a lot of good work on wikipedia other than just creating stubs of which I rarely get credit for. Not one person has said that they appreciate my efforts to "try" to transfer content even if it was certainly not the best way to go about it. These article should and could all be translated and expand fully. The problem is lack of content and an external reliable source which will be difficult to tackle manually in the short time at least. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right so we've established that we definately think these articles have the potential to be good articles at least that's something. The problem is that nobody was bothering to start the articles. I think the best solution would be to remove the BLP tags with a bot. Then maybe delete the living ones using German wikipedia as a check until they can be started fully. We can at least work towards the deceased bios which do not violate BLP. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These people have potential to have articles written about them, but that does not mean we need these substubs. Kusma (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way wikipedia has grown to date has revealed that if the article is created it stands a much better chance of being expanded. A lot of people ignore red links and will not create an article but if they come across a lacking article may wish to expand it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience that's WP:BOLLOCKS. When I see a redlink I'm a lot more likely to write an article on the thing than if there was something sub-standard there that I'd have to work into my prose. a lot of articles drew my attention because of the honking red words in the middle of an article that mentioned them, not because I went to them first and went "this needs to be expanded". Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. We have loads of poorly written articles now. We are behind on maintaining them already. A large number of our articles about people are stale because they are not updated after the original user starts them. Frequently, articles are on few people's watchlist so vandalism with remain for hours, days, or sometimes weeks and months. This is a large issue already that will not be helped by adding thousands of articles that are on no one's watchlist. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not alright to start any article without content or sources. There needs to be a minimum standard for the content that is added to Wikipedia English. We give some leeway to brand new users for adding material that is poorly written and sourced. There is not any reason that we should allow it from experienced users. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason nobody starts a particular article; lack of interest. Creating stubs won't change that, why would it? The stubs you created for all those Greek museums never went anywhere. Abductive (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm that's why wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles on low league baseball and soccer players and lists of Pokemon charatcers rather than decent articles about national Greek museums. If that is the interest of wikipedians overwhlemingly I wonder what that tells us about the people who use wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If people want to write about pokemon, who are we to stop them? If you know that Wikipedians are interested in such areas rather than more serious subjects then creating 3,000 articles and expecting the same community to pick up the pieces is just.. well, silly. Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a volunteer project. Nobody is obliged to work in any particular area so it's not surprising that most editors prefer to write about subjects that they are interested in and know something about. This does mean that there are many subject areas which have the potential for good articles which never get written because there few or no editors with the time, interest or inclination to write them - be it Greek museums, villages in Uzbekistan or minor German politicians. But this is an inevitable consequence of the way Wikipedia works, and the mass-creation of sub-stubs won't change it, or cause dozens of editors to develop an interest in German politicians and start working on the articles. And if some editors with an interest in German politicians do come along and decide to start writing proper articles about some of these people (which I agree would be a worthwhile thing for someone to do, though I doubt anything like 3000 good articles will be written any time soon), they won't find their job is made more difficult by the lack of one-line substubs. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 11:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I do me best to try to overcome the bias and uneveness in articles on here but I can't force people to edit articles they are not interested in. I've created a lot of good articles about places all over the world but little in comparison to what could and should be written. This is why I create so many stubs is because I try to venture into poorly developed areas and try in the long term to make them produce results by relying on the sheer traffic and mix of interests this site has. A lot of my stubs have been expanded into really good articles, even the most seemingly "perma stub" type of stubs like Der Müller und sein Kind for instance and Xinjiang Medical University etc (which is what inspires me to create more) but there are also many of my stubs which have remained untouched. I am pretty certain a fair number of these German politicians will have fairly decent articles eventually. If you believe it is best to build it one at a time rather than building upon 3000 empty stubs then I respect your views people I just really hate the tone of some of the editors especially at ANI and how they react to an honest attempt to develop wikipedia. I am a human being, I have feelings. At least the nominator Jenna has not described me as "intellectually lazy" anyway.

Where editors like myself and Albert differ in our outlook on wikipedia is that we see a fixed amount of articles on any given subject and believe that we as a project are working towards providing a more complete coverage of each subject with a fixed amount of articles to work towards and build up. I believe it was exactly the same with these German politicians in that in order to catch up and work towards filling this field starting the articles however stubby was the first step on the path to a better future coverage of this area of the encyclopedia. Sure we knew it would take a lot of work but both Albert and I firmly believe that the articles were worthy of creation, however stubby because we believed the content exists on German wikipedia and the articles could have bene brought easily up to scratch. Luckily I managed to organize a bot to trasnfer articles on czech municipalities more efficiently it is a great shame I can't organize a project and bot to do the same thing here. I am thinking of proposing a new wikiproject dedicated to trasnwikiying articles properly and the use of a bot, judging how many people here seme to regard me I'm having second thoughts. I personally think this project would benefit massively from content translated form other wikipedias esepcially if supported by reliable sources. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're talking past each other here. I, for one, don't have a problem with you creating stubs for old movies or museums or geographic locations for that matter. The problem here is that many of these are BLPs. It has been consensus for quite a while now that these default to delete, meaning that the onus is on the creator to source them and prove that they are indeed notable. If you want to develop these one at a time with proper sourcing from the beginning then I don't have a problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with the creation of thousands of more underwatched stubs of living people. I'm not sure if you've worked with watching these articles in the past but politicians are frequent targets of very bad BLP violations. This just isn't a good idea. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I'm glad you've clarified that. I agree if there are BLP problems but remember the BLP tagswere wrongly applied to half the articles on people who died 30 years ago etc . The misconception is that I don't want the encyclopedia to be of the highest quality as other people, I do, as much as anybody here, but I also think in order to achieve our project goals of "the sum of all knowledge" which is equally as important we could not ignore 99% of the notable politicians in Germany. I thought at least starting the articles was the first step even if they were poorly started. Can you understand how I view wikipedia? Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely and if this had been about any other area than BLPs I would probably agree but this is one area where growth without a plan for further improvement and patrolling isn't a good idea. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I think Claus Peter Poppe should be kept now anyway. Christian v. Ditfurth too. I'm certain if they had all been started like this we would not be here now. It is a valid source about a clearly notable politician. If I was fluent in German I'd expand it to b-class. Can we please keep this article even if you delete the others? If I try to fill out a handful of articles when we come to delete the mass can we at least keep the ones I've sorted a little bit? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to go through the list and seperate the BLPs from the ones which are not. After all the BLP tags were applied wrongly to many many articles on deceased politicians which is partly what the problem was. I just need some time to be able to sort out the BLP vios. If you are going to delete the lot anyway I will not bother to at least try to salvage a few of them if you are adament they should all be deleted even if some of them are expanded to start class with references. Well. I'm probably wasting my time here. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral This is very long so I'm breaking it into sections. BLP issue: I don't think the BLP problem is too grave. For the same reason German politician articles are unlikely to be improved or watched in the short term, they are also unlikely to be vandalized. If someone wants to libel a relatively obscure German politician, they'll do it in the German wikipedia, not here. (And if someone wanted to write an attack, they could start a page to do so - though obviously this isn't true for IPs.) Value to readers: I think there is still significant value to readers, even when the articles are extremely short. They all include an expand tag that links to a machine translation of the German article, so English-language readers have immediate access to decent (if not great) information about the person they're looking for. Potential for expansion: I firmly believe that sub-stubs like this are more likely to be expanded than redlinks, because I have been monitoring translations done where {{Expand German}}-type tags had been on articles. Most of the translations that get done are actually by IPs and un-autoconfirmed users who would not have been able to start articles themselves. These new users find a stub and are immediately instructed on how to improve it - simply translate! This is a much easier undertaking than having to do research from scratch. Content of article in short term This is my biggest problem with these articles. A good number of the stubs created are inaccurate. I suggested that at very least the creators look for the word Politiker (politician) in the article before assuming that the subject is actually a politician. I think deletion might be productive so that these articles can be started with better information, with a bot reading basic facts from the German article and transferring the reference section to the English article. Conclusion I'm ok with deleting (but don't think it's necessary) because a nontrivial number of these articles are inaccurate. I don't think BLP problems justify deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked through the sub-stubs and the German articles, I saw several different problems. Much of the content in the German articles do not have inline citations. As well, some of the articles looked stale and out dated. So, if we bring that wording to Wikipedi-en, then we are not starting out ahead in my opinion. I think that all articles need to be sourced. We should not knowingly start any article without refs. We support our model for writing articles by non-experts by saying that our articles are sourced. That all content can be verified. If we are not doing this then we are not following core Wikipedia policy. For those reason, I think these articles need to be deleted (unless they have been improved with sourcing). FloNight♥♥♥ 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly how I feel about it actually. Especially what you said about the experiences we know of on many articles which have been expanded very well by IPs and we would not have had that content if it wasn't for them. So I do not think that view is WP:BOLLOCKS as was claimed above. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that these articles were started but that care was not taken to write them at a minimum standard that we expect of users that are not newbies. We have loads of examples of stubs that have been on site for years without significant improvement and that have even grown worse with passing time because they are stale and outdated now. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I wish there was someway we could methodically plough through huge banks of missing articles and have everyone with adequate info and details first time. If they could be started in the way that Claus Peter Poppe is now I seriously doubt anybody in the community would seirously mind. A lot of new content could be started much more efficiently using well programmed bots and I have always requested them before I've started banks of stubs. The lack of bot operators actually interested in running bots to produce starter article more efficiently and productively seem extremely small compared to the amount that run bots for practically every other part of wikipedia. Maybe this is because the coding required to autogenerate articles correctly in this way is beyond most capabilities I don't know. What matters most to me is content and it a shabby human attempt by myself to try to do something about the mass of missing content on here. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...speedy, if necessary. If it makes life easier for people, by all means...I didn't mean to cause problems, which is what this seems to have become. So get rid of the lot. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 13:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. 1) In addition to the very real issue of sources and BLP considerations, I only see a few mentions of the fact that because a subject is notable on another Wikipedia site does not make it so here. Every article should display notability on its own merits. I'm a lightweight deleter, but still, after a couple of thousand deletions in the last year, I see a very common pattern: song article created and deleted because artist is non-notable; artist article created; song article re-created and no-longer qualifies for A9. There are similar scenarios; BIO articles created in near proximity to company articles, in support of each other. We're like deer in the headlights on this (sometimes). So here we have a similar situation: they're on another project's Wikipedia (a non-trivial one, at that - with apologies to other, less-established versions). But this doesn't mean they are notable here. No prejudice against recreation of any (or even all) if and when notability is established in reliable sources, same as any other article. 2) I would also like to see some sort of policy on trans-wiki articles and mass creation of new articles; that may not be appropriate in this discussion but it would help if such existed. I would add that, quite apart from the merits (or lack thereof) of these articles, their robotic creation clogged up the new pages patrol, such that those watching the list would have to look carefully for clear CSD candidates (which I agree these are not). The limitation on creation is a separate issue, not really for this AfD since they are already created, but bears noting.  Frank  |  talk  13:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Claus Peter Poppe is really non notable? WOuld you say that somebody who represented the Scottish Parliament would also not be notable? I am certain if you researched any of these articles you'd realise the vast majority are notable figures in German politics, that isn't the issue I'm sure. The problems are mainly those that have been highlighted previously. I can guarantee that a lot of these articles will be restarted eventually but perhaps rather more impressively than what was attempted recently. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this doesn't mean they are notable here Disagree. If they are notable in Germany (or whatever country), then they are notable, fullstop. Just the same way some back-bench local politican is notable in the UK, regardless if anyone has heard of him/her in another country. Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By here I mean on en.wikipedia. Each project has its own definition of notability. The assertion of notability of these articles seems to be "they have an article on de.wikipedia", at least in part. I'm not by any means asserting they aren't notable, and I have no prejudice against the articles existing. But I don't think it's appropriate to carpet-bomb the project because the pages exist elsewhere and leave it for others to clean up. That's not expanding the project; it's expanding a "to-do" list.  Frank  |  talk  15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that Claus Peter Poppe is really non notable? Arguments from Incredulity don't work; arguments from evidence do. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my general reasoning at the ANI thread this sprung out of. There's no reasonable expectation that these articles will become more than stubs in months or even years, given that even the longstanding articles are stubs in their native language. They weren't given enough detail and sourcing in the beginning to merit their inclusion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now what you said there was reasonable and justifiable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all except the two I highlighted as worked on. OK so this didn't work out and it is obvious where this is headed. Can we please end this nomination and delete per request of the creator. I'm tired of this now. We get the point and I now have work to do in improving quality which believe it or not I am interested in. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except those that are already being worked on, without prejudice to recreation with references and actual content, where the original article is already sufficiently well-referenced. - Pointillist (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all absent any actual work being on. The article creators should focus on actual quality rather than pumping up their edit counts. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I improved Tea production in Sri Lanka and many others precisely for that reason, obviously true. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A proposal for the bulk deletion of almost three thousand articles has to be much more convincing than this is. I cannot countenance a drastic expansion of living person biography policy such that it would compass the deletion of any article that might be vandalized in the future, which seems to be the apparent concern. Even the Wikimedia Foundation resolution that underlies BLP policy observes that "(p)eople sometimes vandalize articles about living people. The Wikimedia community has developed tools and techniques for counteracting vandalism: in general they seem to work reasonably well." And, since Wikipedia is not paper, any political figure notable in the German language is also notable in English. It seems that people are becoming too timid rather than bold in the creation of new content, if an adequate article of a politician on a foreign language edition does not make a prima facie case for a translation of that article in English.

    I'd suggest that a bulk deletion of these 3000 articles be first mooted on the German Wikipedia. See how that flies. If inadequacy of references, BLP concerns, or lack of notability leads to the deletion of the original articles in German, I'd defer to the German Wikipedia's conclusions and delete only those articles. But I doubt that a similar proposal for bulk deletion of material would sit well there. It shouldn't sit well here either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (except those that have been improved since the start of this AFD) as unreferenced one-lines but with no prejudice against recreation with actual sources and content. Any article(s) that have already been improved should be removed from the list though, so that they are not deleted with the mix. Abecedare (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (except those that have been improved since the start of this AFD) as there is a clear duty of care on editors using automative tools, such as Bots, to ensure that their work stictly complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is a clear breach of good faith create or contribute to Wikipedia on an industrial scale if there is no quality control. The creator of these articles should be blocked indefinately - its clear that this mass creation of articles is just a stunt to attract attention. Childish pranks like this may be forgiven on a smaller scale, but on a large scale is hard to defend that this act of vandalism is not a premeditated attempt to disrupt Wikipedia on a grand scale. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion regarding the (absurd) call for the creator to be blocked has been moved to the talk page. Lara 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all From evidence already shown above, human hands (as opposed to bots) and reliable sources are both needed to fulfill core WP:BLP policy ("We must get the article right"). This mass creation of dodgy BLPs is all wrong. Allow recreation of individual articles by human hands, with reliable sources. Priyanath talk 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Substubs aren't useful. Articles are. Whoever will expand any of these substubs into an article can (and will) also simply create a new one to do the same. --Conti|✉ 15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Claus Peter Poppe was a member of a state legislature in Germany, as is referenced in the article, which clearly meets WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:V. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all which are referenced only to a Wikipedia in a different language. A Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Someone fluent in a language other than English who is actually willing to invest a little time, rather than running a poorly written bot or acting like a poorly written bot, could create articles about notable foreign politicians and improve Wikipedia. No bragging rights should accrue to an editor who runs up his edit count by creating such unreferenced stubs. Verify the reference in the foreign Wiki, then translate the article and include the reference. "Willi Brundert" is a German politician? No, Willi Brundert is dead. Such nonsense greatly harms this Wikipedia. If a German encyclopedia said "Calvin Coolidge is a U.S. politician" it would invite similar scorn of that encyclopedia. Get the basic facts correct and referenced or don't create the article. Do not run unapproved bots. Edison (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please end this debate. We know where it is headed and the stub creator has even voted delete. This is embarrassing to those involved and a very unpleasant situation which has caused the creator to leave wikipedia. Please end this asap, this is pretty much a snowball delete. Further drama here is unnecessary and I think you should do the decent thing any admin viewing this and make the obvious decision. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong Field Naturalists Club

edit
Geelong Field Naturalists Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, hardly any coverage [49]. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are 16 mentions in Google scholar but some of them are passing mentions eg they made a submission to a study. there is still a lack of third party non trivial coverage that would meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Geelong Field Naturalists' Club and the Geelong Field Naturalists Club are one and the same, this might be a useful source for someone to track down. That's, in part, why I commented as I did above. Deor (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are reviews of the organization, ("The Geelong Field Naturalist Club formed in 1897, issued the Geelong Naturalist in the same year; but two years later, it was merged in the journal.." Google books preview of Nature in Australia‎ - Page 135 1917) and their journal http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU904024.pdf There are people whose fame includes being part of the organization http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A110213b.htm http://books.google.com/books?um=1&lr=&q=Geelong+Field+naturalist%27s+club&btnG=Search+Books and so on which count as independent third party non-trivial mentions. Their role in conservation activism is mentioned in http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/publicland/Submissions/pl-sub129.pdf http://books.google.com/books?id=OYrE_Gw7aAoC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=Geelong+Field+Naturalists+Club+opposed&source=bl&ots=Zafw0eQAYg&sig=CeglOPOaFxZa5BiiZ7Tr83p92nE&hl=en&ei=caxpStebFYnYtgOx-LWWBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8 A bit of history is apparently covered in http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/HR9760320007.htm The only problem I see is the lack of clarity on the legal status of organizations in Australia and whether the one with the "Incorporated" suffix is a new form of an already existing organization. Shyamal (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (PS: oops edit conflict, sorry if there is some duplication)[reply]
  • The article at ADB did not think it trivial to mention the awards given to Edward Edgar Pescott by the GFNC, an organisation with which he had extensive involvement. The article also says "was associated with many natural history organizations', but few others are noted. Our article on Trevor Pescott says he founded the club in 1961, but I think we can assume there is a continuity in the organisation. The NLA gives GFNC, GFNC (1880) and GFNC (1961) as authors, their journal (not a newsletter) is called Geelong Naturalist. cygnis insignis 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable organisation with a well documented history. Nominators should remember that the world of published sources does not end with a quick and dirty google search. -- Mattinbgn\talk 14:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a google news search is a standard way of finding third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google is a way of finding reliable sources, ghits are not a rationale for deletion. cygnis insignis 20:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the no. of hits is not a rationale for my preference for deletion, it is the lack of actual third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GFNC does have well over a century of history, though there was a period of, let's say, dormancy, followed by reestablishment. I do not currently have access to the published history of the club of its first half century or so, though I will try to obtain some further info. Maias (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tannhauser Gate

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

This is an article about a fictional battle (in this case mentioned, not even depicted in the original work) that violates Wikipedia's policies about writing about fiction. I have nominated it separately because it include an original research-laden section about minor references in other fictional works. Savidan 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contains way too much material not properly sourced. If the article cannot be better sourced to secondary sources, as per WP:PSTS, then merge and redirect as per User:EEMIV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Delete and create redirect to Blade Runner. Much speculation, essentially zero content. --Calton | Talk 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the only content was the mention in the Blade Runner speech, I would say we should delete it, however, it does have a lot of usage elsewhere in popular culture. In addition to the examples given in the article, I also found this, and I have heard it used countless times in various sci-fi contexts, particularly in scif-fi computer games. I believe in the example I gave it says it was "a level in Homeworld", which is a space sim. Because of the fact that it springs up in so many places outside of Blade Runner, I think the article satisfies WP:N. That single line in Blade Runner does not make it notable, but the impact that line has had makes it notable. Another interesting thing to check out is the number of times the line is used on Flickr. I am also curious as to what makes you say that it violates Wikipedia's policy on fiction. How does it violate WP:WAF? Also, you called the "References in popular culture" section original research, but it isn't OR. I agree that it doesn't have references and it should, but the fact that information isn't cited doesn't make it OR. Lastly, Jack Merridew's quote of "There has been popular speculation" was taken out of context. He construed the quote to be in reference to what a/the Tannhauser Gate is, but it was saying that there has been popular speculation that the name derived from the Wagner opera or its title character, which is perfectly reasonable, as the script writers of Blade Runner did not give an origin for the name and the opera and character are a famous use of the same name. Neil Clancy 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TV tropes is a user-generated site, not a reliable source. And...Flikr? Seriously? Savidan 02:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that TV tropes is user-generated. So is Wikipedia, in case you haven't noticed. But that's not the point. I'm not advocating using those sites as references, I'm simply saying that there is far more to the term "Tannhauser Gate" than just the line from Blade Runner. I was giving examples of other places that the term is used. Neil Clancy 20:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neil Clancy; while the original reference itself is not notable, it's wider appearance in popular culture is.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a fictional element occurring in two separate franchises, there is no good merge target. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this bit of a quote from a movie has ramified astoundingly far into books and other reliable sources. Also, the article gets 200 page views a day. If ever there was a case for the sort of arguments that are usually disparaged in AfDs; "useful", "interesting", "the kind of thing Wikipedia is for", "people want detailed coverage of fictional topics" or "Ignore All Rules", this one is it. Abductive (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neil Clancy. This is not just about Blade Runner. It's about a fictional place or event that has been mentioned in many other works as well. Devon1980 (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I realize that the argument "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason for keeping and article that has been nominated for deletion, we do have other articles, such as Antidisestablishmentarianism, which are notable not for their original usage but for their subsequent uses and impact on popular culture. Antidisestablishmentarianism would be an obscure and archaic term describing a no-longer-relevant sociopolitical issue, not notable enough for its own article, except for the fact that it has been used since then countless times in popular culture. Neil Clancy 13:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this article appears to be pure speculation. There are no published sourced listed for the claims that these are references to the film, only fan speculation. Savidan 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just added an explicit reference; but the point is irrelevant, see Devon1980's comment below. --Michael C. Price talk 09:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Tannhauser Gate is used as reference to Blade Runner, does not make the entire article pure speculation. It's TG itself that is referred to, by several media. For that reason alone the article cannot be merged with any other article. One can hardly ignore the fact though that TG isn't mentioned anywhere before 1982. Devon1980 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blade Runner is one of those rare entities that has touched people and whilst not factual in an Encyclopaedia Britannica fashion it has managed to pervade into popular culture and remain there for 20+ years. It stands as a bastion of good cinema, based on an even better book. I thought this wiki was there as a source of knowledge, all knowledge, not a restricted sphere. Fahrenheit 420. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.57.43 (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tannhauser Gate has taken on a life of its own since 1982, film neo-noir references abound.--Michael C. Price talk 07:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @701  ·  15:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Channel email

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

Technical term mentioned in a single magazine. Non-notable neologism. Oscarthecat (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union. (X! · talk)  · @746  ·  16:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birds Australia Parrot Association

edit
Birds Australia Parrot Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, no coverage [50], oppose redirect to Birds Australia because if you typed Birds Australia Parrot Association , you would have already typed Birds Australia!}} LibStar (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the page be redirected not to Birds Australia but to Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, since Birds Australia is a redirect itself. Maias (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, the redirect should be to Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union#Special Interest Groups. Maias (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speech and Drama Teachers Association of Queensland Inc

edit
Speech and Drama Teachers Association of Queensland Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, hardly any coverage [51], article has been existence for a few years and I'm guessing hasn't been improved due to lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manathuruthil

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

I was going to PROD when I noticed that it was already PRODded/contested. NN local family, I found only two Gsearch hits in English for this spelling, one to Youtube and one LinkedIn, nothing on Gbooks or Gnews either. No refs within the article. Delete -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Tamil Film Awards. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITFA Dream Girl Award

edit
ITFA Dream Girl Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable Bdb484 (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @746  ·  16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop High School

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

Not notable Bdb484 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Should consider nominating its sequel, Homeboyz, as well. JDoorjam JDiscourse 02:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think it has just enough independent sources. There are more out there, but not free to read. Fences&Windows 17:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep You are quite right. Articles that are not free to read are a particular problem for The Children's Literature Project. Frankly, most Children's books in that project are Stub class. The few that make it to the ranks of Good Article or Featured Article are classics with a wealth of independent sources, or books made into movies. One might question the educational value of a child's book turned into a movie with regard to encouraging more reading. The expansion of this article may someday include the general scope of using popular culture to interest inner city youth to acheive educational goals, and perhaps future published reports on how such books and teaching methods are of value in today's society. Adding this book to the The Children's Literature Project was clearly needed.Prapsnot (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We cannot expect the same amount of references to determine notability among chilren's and young adult literature. That the next book in the series made the top ten list referenced in the article is very good indicator that this novel fits the notability requirement. Norwaystudent (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Strangers and a Foosball

edit
2 Strangers and a Foosball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Bdb484 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem, people?

I am the filmmaker of this movie. The title is mentioned in articles (not only in the English site, but also in other languages) of one of the cast members and that is the reason that motivated me to make a Wikipedia article. I have not expanded much on the article out of modesty, as I hope it will be fans of my film and of this actor (Tim Rozon) who will later add information. Also, I would feel a bit uncomfortable if there was too much information, as I don't think my movies deserve long articles, but they definitely deserve something. Feel free to edit the information (such as the links to Canadian film festivals), but I think it is extremely pretentious from your part to determine that my work is not notable. I have dedicated my whole life to make movies and even if you judge that they are small, they are the product of an unbeatable passion that hopefully will be more fruitful in years to come.

If you think this article requires some specific additions right away in order to be considered a more relevant source of information, then just tell me what you need and I will add it. Be constructive, not destructive.

Finally, have you even seen my film before considering it non-notable? You are certainly invited and welcome to watch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmforever (talk • contribs) 06:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I can learn about the notability of your film by watching it. Alexius08 (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Filmforever, per your request, I've added some section suggestions. Remember the following:
98.71.214.182 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. The delete votes are more substantial and are backed by policy \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sky-blue-pink (color)

edit
Sky-blue-pink (color) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

moved from MfD Bduke (Discussion) 01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (moved from MfD) Delete. No independent references or relevance to any other article worth a mention. Don't see any point in redirecting to Uncle Wiggily or Howard Roger Garis, and cannot find any more relevant article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As you see I have moved this here from MfD. The external link describes a wider use of this term than the book. I can certainly recall its wide use in England as a kid in the 1940s and 1950s. I expect this use will be documented elsewhere, but just the external link on its own gives some indication of notability. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comments from the Contributor) Thanks for the vote of lingustic confidence, Bduke -- however weak the keep, I'll take it! :)
  • Believe it or not, the reason behind this article is a lengthy discussion about colorways and color origins happening on a forum over at Ravelry, a vast social networking website for knitters. Here is a link directly to the forum discussion in question, although you would need a login to read it. The discussion began started about 8 hours ago and has generated 35 posts and 589 readers. Pipesdreams (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some relevant remarks from the discussion:
    • START: I plan to make a scarf for a friend’s October birthday. The problem? Her favorite color is “sky blue pink”.
    • My mom’s favorite color is sky blue pink, but i always imagine it’s got more white mixed in.
    • Sky Blue Pink. Funny, that is one my my favs as well!
    • It was always my Dad’s fav colour - though only as a joke to confuse us as kids :)
    • This was also my mother’s favorite color. I always wondered where it came from. Does anyone know?
    • Apparently (according to world wide words) it comes from a Children’s story about an old rabbit called Uncle Wiggily by an american author called Howard R Garis but it has gone into common use to describe a colour you can’t quite put your finger on or for people who can’t make up their mind as to their favourite colour :)
    • FINISH: One of my favorite colors too!! Must admit… I thought it was just a made up thing from our family!
  • There are also several External Links that I omitted as being too commercial and potentially short-lived, such as Sky-blue-pink as a yarn colorway produced by PageWood Farms
  • Thanks again! Pipesdreams (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for not being able to format properly - I typically do not participate in Wikipedia in this manner. I believe the term "sky-blue pink" should be kept in the database as it is an important cultural reference. It is not, however, a color. It is an expression, one that stems from a child's story about an imaginary color and has become a term for referencing fantasy colors, or as a sort of American and British "je ne sois quoi" response. There are designers and artisans out there in the art and fashion community using "sky blue pink" as a color, but since it was originally made-up, everyone's idea of what that color is actually, is different. I think this serves a purpose just as the made-up words from things like Alice and Wonderland and Mary Poppins have entered the lexicon. Just take a look at Google - articles about "sky-blue pink", Nike shoes in the colorway "sky-blue pink, and several different artisans as well as a history of the term at World Wide Words. I vote: keep. --Lizabeth83
    • This is not a vote. And if you are thinking about "words that have […] entered the lexicon" and example occurrences of a word in use, you are in the wrong place. This is the encyclopaedia, not the dictionary. Encyclopaedia articles are about the concepts/places/events/people/things that titles denote, and (as should be evident) there's no actual colour denoted here. The dictionary (i.e. lexicon) where such lexicography is done is where you should go for words; and it is over there. It has had "sky-blue pink" (which is ripe for expansion with etymology and dated quotations) since before your discussion forum thread started. Uncle G (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT. The relevant parts can be merged into the relevant articles SmokeyJoe identified, and the page made into a redirect, if the phrase is indeed, as claimed, somewhat popular or of some literary interest. As it stands, there's no indication that this satisfies WP:N. Tim Song (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we tend not to have articles on phrases. There are certainly many phrases and expressions more notable than this one, but we have chosen not to write about them. They belong in Wiktionary, where this expression already has an entry - [52]. SilkTork *YES! 23:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete the article as written on Idera Software as there is no clear demonstration of notability of that company. However, there is no prejudice against the creation of an article on the parent company, BBS Technologies, provided notability is proved with reliable sources (not press releases as noted in Wikipedia:CORP) SilkTork *YES! 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idera Software

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

Spam from a COI editor. No evidence this passes WP:CORP Triplestop x3 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems to be that WP:ATHLETE is not binding, and that there are other indicators of notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selvish Capers

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

Delete hasn't played professionally, fails WP:ATHLETE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the best players on college football with a future potencial career at the NFL--Zta ♠talk♠ July 21 2009 ♠Nastia '♠

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE--Yankees10 01:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:ATHLETE is a guideline and not policy, and it is inclusionary, not exclusionary. Google News shows 100+ news articles about the subject, so I see no reason to delete. Quite easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:ATHLETE is used as an automatic measure of notability, but a player who has achieved notability in college football may still be notable -- even without ever playing a game in the NFL/CFL. Capers meets general notability standards based on extensive non-trivial coverage in the media. Over 100 articles found in NewsBank search. Examples of articles focusing specifically on Capers include: (1) Capers Feasting on Defensive Linemen, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 24, 2007, (2) Capers has come a long way, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, July 10, 2009, (3) Capers' transition complete, Charleston Gazette (WV), October 23, 2007, (4) Capers picks West Virginia, Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), December 15, 2004, (5) Capers' career not over yet: Right tackle has one more year, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, December 18, 2008, and (6) Mountaineers get promising tight end, Charleston Daily Mail, December 15, 2004. Cbl62 (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alcazar songs

edit
List of Alcazar songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, unsourced, repeated info already found in Alcazar discography. Fails WP:NOT#IINFO - eo (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @087  ·  01:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand FA Cup 2009 First Round

edit
Thailand FA Cup 2009 First Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Please conduct discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand FA Cup 2009 Qualifying Round. Part of a set of noms. Shadowjams (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the article has been expanded and referenced since it was nominated, this does not render prior votes, which cited notability concerns, useless. However, it is fairly clear that there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovan–Maldivian relations

edit
Kosovan–Maldivian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

simply recognising Kosovo has been done by many countries and covered in International recognition of Kosovo. I'm also not entirely sure this bribery incident is enough to make a stand alone article. it could be covered in Wikinews or Foreign relations of Maldives. there is very limited coverage besides this issue. [53]. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM. even if it has content, any article can be deleted if it does not meet WP:N.
WP:JUSTAVOTE, Avala's argument is quite unique...and suddenly it is endorsed without discussion of how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE is applicable to neither of those arguments. Stop badgering keep !voters. Fences&Windows 19:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
justavote was only intended for turkish flame not avala and for this original comment by turkish flame [54]. LibStar (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no, not all these bilateral articles are automatically notable, at least 300 have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every international agreement has a degree of notability. The question is whether they are notable enough to warrant inclusion in a WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia. Perhaps an article that explains how the president of Such-and-Such banana republic once met the foreign minister of XYZ atoll in the lobby of the UN is not notable enough to be included. But any contentious international agreement that has caused political ructions is of sufficient notability. This is such a situaion. Bazonka (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article contain lots of encyclopaedic notable information on the matter. This so called "bribery" incident is notable. I have also added to the article that the Maldives supports Kosovo at the ICJ and that it sent a written statement to favour Kosovo's independence. This is also notable information. Ijanderson (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article might appear to be very obscure but as it is it is acceptable. I think as an encyclopedia we should give international relations between countries a fair approach. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Admin reviewing this proposed AFD Please note and take into consideration that this article has been significantly updated since this AFD was originally proposed, regards Ijanderson (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Franklin

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

No sources provided to support notability. Ghits are either promotional, trivial, or reports of his death. No in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as a content fork and licensing violation of Amin Saigol and recreated as a redirect. No prejudice against nomination of that article, but with the correct spelling notability may be easier to verify. See, for example, [55]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sahgals

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

This article is a stub, cites no sources, has not been edited in quite some time and for the most part only contains red links. Does not seem notable per WP:BIO as I have been unable to locate any external information on this family Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while being a stub and "not being edited in a while" don't seem like valid arguments, after doing about 15 minutes of research via Google I can find no references to assert notability or that they even exist. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Sehgal is valid for the Khatri clanname, but the family has used spelling "Saigol".

--Malaiya (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the wub "?!" 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balikpapan Gulf

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

fails Wikipedia:Notability Davidelit (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Geographic feature that needs cleanup and some geo coordinates, but large geographic features are an encyclopedia's bread and butter. There is little room to game a geographic feature (unlike your local garage band). I'll add coords, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no strong consensus for deletion of either articles. Editorial decisions, such as merging/redirecting, should be discussed elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grail (DC Comics)

edit
Grail (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a minor plot point in the Preacher comic series. It has no chance for expansion, and anything important is already included within the main article. TTN (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating an another minor plot point that cannot be properly expanded into an article that asserts independent notability:

Salvation, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Grail to the comic's page. Breakout not necessary, and nn. Weak keep for the town. JJL (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a plot regurgitation which has not garnered any outside interest. Abductive (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer editors to WP:WAF. If applied, most of the content will be removed, and a merge to Preacher (comics) would be appropriate. If that article needs splitting, there are better things to form independent articles that these pages nominated here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the comic's page, which is only 22kb total anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PERNOM is not a compelling reason for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for sharing your opinion, as well as your link to an essay; however, it is just an essay and it doesn't seem to say what you think it does. Keep in mind that an essay is full of opinions, not indisputable facts. As it says on the top of the essay you linked to, "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Also, the essay you've linked to explains that "just because an argument appears here does not mean that it is always invalid." It goes on to explain in the specific section you linked to, "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per nom'." So, you just linked to an opinion piece that says "per nom" can be, in the opinion of its authors, a sufficient comment for this discussion if I feel, as I do, that the nominator has made a compelling presentation of evidence. In the future, don't link to essays as if they are indisputable laws, and take the time to read carefully an opinion piece before linking to it with a dismissive comment. Otherwise, you just not only look condescending and misinformed, but illiterate. Best, Blackbirdz (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a weak "reason", because 1) it demonstrates no evidence of having actually looked for sources or considered the discussion, nor does it demonstrate any knowledge or familiarity with the subject under discussion; 2) it is inconsiderate to the article creator and writers to approach their work in a drive by three word fashion rather than through careful thought and analysis; and 3) is doubly weakened due to the nomination presenting no reason why we would not at worst redirect per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, i.e. the nomination says the information can be covered elsewhere, which is a call to merge and/or redirect, not really to red link. There is no evidence presented that these subjects are hoaxes or libelous and therefroe need to be urgently deleted. Moreover, given that at least Salvation, Texas may be a real place is a reason to rewrite rather than redlink the article. In other words, ideas and points of concern raised beyond the nomination and that the nomination itself does not address, which makes a "per nom" seem remarkably weak and reflects poorly on the poster as if the discussion was not really read and as if no efforts were made beyond the discussion to find additional sources or first try to improve the articles under consideration. We are here to build and try to improve an encyclopedia and have mature academic discussions on how to deal with content, not to simply vote. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have neglected to mention that you were wrong to link to an essay that does not say what you claimed it said, and you regret this error. Blackbirdz (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I linked to an essay titled "Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions". As the essay says, "Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion." Now the part that you quote from supports per noms when the nomination is comprehensive and provides policy based reasons for deletion, which is not the case here. The nomination is brief and cites no policy or guidelines. Given that the nomination really suggests merges and does not discount redirecting as valid per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, saying to delete per nom is still not really a convincing reason to red link even per the guideline as the nomination in this case did not demonstrate evidence of source searching or other alternatives and if anything does not suggest that something other than outright deletion, such as merging or redirecting would be totally uncalled for. Even one of the others who said to delete above, acknowledges that because Salvation, Texas may be a real city it merits consideration of rewriting the article to be about the real city and perhaps having a section of such an article on how it has been fictionalized could be a better alternative. Where have you checked for sources? What we could do is start revising on that model and see where it takes us. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems you do not quite grasp the meaning of the phrase "and/or" in the sentence you are paraphrasing. Not only does that essay not support your sweeping generalizations, but it's an ESSAY. It is not a RULE. It is an OPINION and it may be WRONG. Further, this essay says "while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised." In other words, this essay that you seem to agree with says that your comment was ill-advised. So, better luck with reading comprehension next time. In case you haven't realized it yet, I think your statements are condescending and unintelligent, and so I don't really see much purpose in discussing this further with you. Regards, Blackbirdz (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The bottom line is to support deletion per nom in this case is weak and incorrect. That you say nothing about the article itself or about where you have looked for sources is telling. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You are being unnecessarily argumentative. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It gets old seeing drive by "per noms" with no actual discussion of the article, sources, or any efforts to improve the articles either. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or not? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You assume too much. There is no requirement that those participating in AfD do specific article improvement tasks at your direction. All that is required is that they inform themselves of the article and its merits. Your assertion that "per nom" is automatically indicative of a lack of research assumes bad faith. Discontinue this line of argumentation. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Actually, editors should be required to demonstrate that they searched for sources and where if we are to have an academic discussion and not a vote. I am not directing anyone to do anything. I after all am thus far the only participant here to add sources to and try to improve these articles. I do not just template things myself without myself trying to do what I am able to improve them. Moreover, I am not assuming anything, just not being naive. In any event, the articles have improved and we have some options for merges or further improvement. So, I will keep an open eye out for additional sources as well and will gladly assist in any additional merge efforts. Take care! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yeah, you're right Lar, this editor does seem to assume far too many negative things about other editors. I did exhaustive research on this topic and found nothing worthwhile. So, with nothing that would lead me to disagree with the nominator, I said delete per nom. Blackbirdz (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Where specifically did you research? It is helpful to know these things, so we can try different venues and discuss different locals. From my searches on Google Books, enough sources turn up to establish at least WP:V and arguably WP:N. If you do ever search anywhere, I strongly encourage you to mention specifically where and what kind of results emerged. Doing so either strengths one's position or at least opens up the way for more academic discussion. Please keep that in mind in the future. Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Oh my God, you have totally made a mess of that Salvation, Texas article and filled it full of incorrect information and totally unimportant and unrelated crap about things like student films. Next time go to a library to do your research rather than just doing a half-assed google search and then giving us all a lecture on being "more academic." I strongly encourage you to never use a single source in an encyclopedia article for something like the existence of an actual town. IT'S PROBABLY JUST A TYPO FOR GALVESTON. Don't be so incredibly stupid in the future. Thanks! Take care! Sincerely, Regards, etc. Blackbirdz (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • And, no, I'm not going to list a bunch of stuff I didn't find at the library BECAUSE I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING. If Wikipedia were the place for this horrible article where we just include every time the words "Salvation" and Texas" appear next to each other in completely unrelated ways, then it might be useful for me to go, yeah, there was an Australian that wrote back in 1992 that "Americans instinctively began to look further afield for their salvation. Texas billionaire Ross Perot ..." and back in 1995 the Chicago Tribune wrote that "cattle proved to be the economic salvation of Texas" and some writer in Dallas thinks "Hunting for profit has been the salvation of Texas wildlife habitat" and on and on but that really isn't useful for an article on a fictional town in the Preacher books. None of what I've found in all of my library and its databases, other than the Preacher books, has anything to do with the original topic of this article. DELETE PER NOM. Thanks! Take care! Sincerely, Regards, etc. Blackbirdz (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as last resort standard fictional entry that is verifiable and notable, it appears too big to merge into the main article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TTN. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first article is a minor plot point in the Preacher comic series which has no chance for expansion, and anything important is already included within the main article. The second article is a minor plot point that cannot be properly expanded to meet our notability guidelines. No prejudice against recreating the second article for the town, book, or as a dab page. ThemFromSpace 08:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Grail I Googled about and its been featured in dozens of these comic books, and apparently is the evil organization the main characters are going up against. And it isn't just something vague mentioned in passing, but an organization shown to send out people to fight the heroes. A significant fictional group for a popular series. Dream Focus 10:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Salvation, Texas The article has a lot of information in it. The previous arguments about it being notable, seem well thought out. Dream Focus 10:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing I see above or in changes to the articles since nomination raises these above minor aspects of the series that are already included in the main Preacher article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To make it clear it clear in light of the comment posted below mine, I'll reiterate what I wrote above that the changes to the article since the nomination (which mostly includes adding trivia unrelated to the comics) do not change my assessment that this topic is too minor for an encyclopedia article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A real city that served as the title of both a positively reviewed book and film that showed at at least two different festivals is hardly trivial. In any event, at least that article clearly meets WP:V, WP:RS. and WP:N now and discounts the nomination and any other of the "per noms", because the article is unquestionably no longer solely in-universe or plot related. Rather, because it is a real town and the title of multiple works of fiction as verifeid on Google News and Googles books, it has real world notability as confirmed through secondary sources. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would you be kind enough to supply the geographic coordinates of this "real town"? For example, 33.563444,-101.858223 are the coordinates of a place in Texas that offers salvation, although it's in a town named something else. If you cannot provide the coordinates, and there is no reasonable expectation that someone else can, it's, I submit, a mythical place. I believe almost all our articles on real places carry coordinates. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am looking for additional sources now, but even so, the fact that it is the TITLE of a book and film and that we do have multiple reviews of this book, as well as information on the film festival, at worst we would either determine which is most notable and expand the article to be about that one and then maybe have another one like Salvation, Texas (book) or Salvation, Texas (film). Put simply we would try these other options first. Deletion is an extreme last resort. There is no urgent need not to continue to see what can be done with this content, especially when there seems a reasonable expectation of other options or improvement. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Be careful not to conflate arguments. I'm always fine with merging and leaving a redirect, but the article as it is... no. It's not a real place, and any assertion that it is should be stricken. I'm glad you're dropping that line of argument. Also, being screened in multiple film festivals is not, itself, a guaranteed free pass to notability. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • As a note, the book "Salvation, Texas" has an Amazon Sales Rank of 528,321 as of when I checked: [56] It appears to be a "run of the mill" romance, one of many by the author Anna Jeffrey (note the red link? The author's not notable enough for an article) ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • As she has written multiple books that have also been reviewed, we could always merge what we have here as the start of an article on her and her various writings using any interviews with her and reviews of the various books. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thus adding one more article to the BLP problem. No thanks. She's not notable, I don't think, based on the research I've done so far. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • She is verifiable through multiple reliable sources and has written multiple novels available from Amazon.com, etc.; i.e. sufficiently notable for our purposes, but even then, we still have the potential of the article on the film. As for the possible real town, my suspicion is that it existed back in the day, but not any more. I wonder if there are some kind of Texas government history archives that can be researched. But in any event, I have to wrap things up for today. So, take care. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This does not appear to be a real city supported by sources, the sources for the romance novel seem to be unreliable blogs, and the student film seems entirely non-notable based on the sources for it. I do not see how this comes close to meeting WP:V, or WP:RS. or WP:N. I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of these subjects, so the nominator remains correct in his or her original assessment. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because the sources for the Romance novels (multiple ones actually) are from Google Books and Google News and are not just blooks, they meet WP:RS. The film's sources and fact that it was at multiple festivals meets WP:N. And because we can verify all of this information, they meet WP:V. Thus, due to significance coverage in reliable sources that are independent of these subjects, the nominator has been proven incorrect in his/her original comments, especially because his/her original comments did not apply to the film or book, but only the notable comic series. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree with your assessment of the article as you've written it and its sources, and I still agree with the nominator's original assessment. Your addition of poorly sourced trivia to this article has not improved it, nor has it changed the accuracy of the nominator's original assessment in any way other than to strengthen his or her argument. You are dangerously close to trolling here and I suggest you might want to just let it go. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The original nomination referred only to unsourced information about the comics. That information has now been sourced in part plus the addition by not just me, but a couple of others of additional non-trivial sources about items beyond the comic that further weakens the nomination's inaccurate claims. Saying otherwise is dangeriously close to a false assessment of the facts. In any event, we clearly have at worst merge and redirectable material per WP:PRESERVE and can continue efforts and discussions to that effect on the relevant talk pages. Take care! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I disagree. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nevertheless, we do have material we can either continue to improve or merge and redirect somewhere as a compromise and I am more than happy to assist further in such efforts. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Nevertheless, no we don't. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We have already established that we can verify the information on the films and books in reliable sources and that they are neither hoaxes nor libelous, ergo no need to delete them. As for the comic information, as this information is also verifiable, part of a notable series, and an integral aspect of its plot, we can merge it to the Preacher article. Of course, the Grail information could be relevant as well to an article on the Holy Grail in popular culture. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Not really. The sources for the Anna Jeffrey romance novel are: The novel (not independent), a blog that is neither reliable nor significant,[57] and another blog that is neither reliable nor significant[58] . Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • If only one random blog reviewed it, okay, but we have multiple reviews and hey we can see the book on Google Books and Amazon.com, so we know it is not made up, and again, it is not just one book. There is another novel with the fictional town in it. Deletion in any event is an extreme last resort. These articles do not contain libelous or other damaging information that there is a pressing need to get rid of and to prevent editors from continuing to improve, as after all Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Finally, per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, when we have at worst redirect locations to the comics series, we do that at least, as a courtesy to our readers who come here for this information and then with the edit history intact, as additinal sources are discovered, we can work from a basis rather than having to start over. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • No, you're still wrong, and now arguing against straw-men. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                              • You have presented no reason beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT for deletion, which is not a valid reason. Just because you do not care for these topics, thousands ([59] and [60]) of our readers apparently do. We are not here for what we do or do not personally like. Because the subjects are verifiable through reliable sources, they are notable and as such we either continue to improve or merge and redirect per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                • No, I pointed to several specific problems with the article such as that the town you said was a "real city" does not appear to be, and and that we have no relaible sources discussing this romance novel in a significant way. You, on the other hand, have presented no reason beyond WP:ILIKEIT for keeping this, which is not a valid reason. And those charts? All they show is like 10 views (not readers as you claim, but views) a day on these articles until they were listed for deletion. So, nobody is really interested in viewing these other than editors considering whether they ought to be deleted. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • You haven't pointed to any really legitimate problems. Because we have reliable sources that discuss the romance novel in a significant way, there is no reason not to keep it and improve further. Or to do the same for the film. Or at worst to merge and redirect the comic information, some of which incidentally already has been merged and thus cannot be deleted anyway per the GFDL, by which we must keep attribution history public. So, at this point the articles cannot be deleted. We can however, discuss whether to redirect or merge further or keep altogether. But hey, I am probably going to go hunting now, so take care! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Yes, I did. That you wrote an article about a "real city" that is not a real city is a legitimate problem of major proportions. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • The woodchuck ran away before we could get a shot off.  :( Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that we have valid redirect locations and other editors who do see validity in perhaps expanding the film article. For example, Michael below is a real actor and expert on some of these short films and the like that many of us aren't. I tend to take his word on these sorts of things. But I'm going watching that REC (film) and/or The Haunting in Connecticut, so... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep due to considerable improvements since nomination and above deletes that do not address most recent improvements. Salvation, Texas has just now been revised to cover the book and film that are titled as such, the real town, as well as the comic setting. Any town that shares its name with a book reviewed multiple time and a film shown in multiple film festivals is obviously notable, and of course verifiable. As for Grail, no reason has been presented why at worst we would not merge and redirect as indeed most of the deletes essentially say it can be covered elsewhere, which is a call to do just that, but that is something to handle on article talk pages, not here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Grail per nom. What I mean by that, in case there is any doubt or confusion, is that I have carefully reviewed the nominator's arguments, checked them against the article in question, and found them to be valid, and it would be a silly exercise to repeat them verbatim. Also, the article is written in an in-universe style, and is uncited. If there's anything of value there, it should be merged into the main article on Preacher. As for Salvation, delete all the fictional elements and keep the article focused on the real place, assuming it exists... however, aside from the cite given in the lead I can't find where this place is. If it can't be located, I'd go with it not existing, so delete as well. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is not really true of course, because the nominator's comments have been disproven. Grail is a notable aspect of a major work of fiction that does contain at least one citation, and moreover some of it already has been merged, which means per the GFDL we cannot delete as attribution history must remain public for merged articles. In teh case of Salvation, Texas, we could use the information in it as bases for articles on the film or book with the title as the same or continue to expand this article accordingly, but again, there remains no valid reason to red link either, i.e. nothing beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no objection to leaving a redirect behind. That preserves the attribution information. The rest of what you say is armwaving. I stand by my characterization of Grail as not notable enough to merit an article of its own. You may not agree with the nominator's argument but I do. And I have so noted, and expect the closing admin to take that into account. You are being unnecessarily argumentative, there is little value in trying to rebut everything every other person writes if you repeat yourself to do so. We do not measure volume of text as a metric in deciding deletion. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we measure validity of arguments rather than number of drive by "per noms", then there is no doubt the articles will be kept, or at worst merged and redirected, as no closing admin could reasonably see any pressing need to redlink. In any event, imagine what more would be accomplished if instead of arguing here, everyone pitched in to actually improve the articles under discussion or see where we can merge what we can. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't try to prejudge the outcome. Also, stop disparaging those who chose to say 'per nom' instead of regurgitating the argument. I'm fine with merge and redirect as an outcome for both these articles but most of the material in them needs to not survive the merge, it's unsourced and too trivial. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Grail Breaking down the plot into elements like this is not appropriate--andi would say the same for almost any work of fiction. The discussion is much better integrated with the rest of the article. Only a little need be merged--the reference to other works using this theme.

Merge for Salvation. Locations, on the other hand, are elements which sometimes can be appropriately separated, and where in particular a list of locations can be helpful in understandng an article. But for this article, it's probably not long enough for that. DGG (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dual nomination shows does show confusion--plot elements as vague as the Grail are absurd splits--locations are possible ones. It might be clearer to renominate separately. DGG (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The book portion of the Salvation, Texas article has greater notability than the film portion, while the comic portion is decently sourced... and there may even be historical notability found for the ___location portion. 4 different articles under the one name. Yikes. And then there is the discussion about the merging and setting a redirect of some content from the Grail article into the DC Comics article. What a confusing situation. I do not feel a blanket keep or a blanket delete best serves in this instance, and do not envy the closer who has to weigh various arguments angainst various portions of various comments and perhaps come up with 5 different decisions for one nomination. Again, yikes. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @745  ·  16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LEOs (RTOS)

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

Pretty blatant advertising for obscure embedded Linux distro. I don't see any coverage of this anywhere, or evidence that it's notable in any way. —Chowbok ☠ 18:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motocross Challenge

edit
AfDs for this article:
Motocross Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This game was never published or critically reviewed. The most that could possibly dug up for it would be reviews from websites dealing specifically in homebrew games, which would not generally be considered important or reliable sources. TTN (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the wub "?!" 11:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porter (band)

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

Non-notable band. Clearly they have a following, as indicated by the number of editors who have had a hand in this article, but they really don't meet notability requirements. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial tournament

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

Appears to be a thinly-veiled promotional attempt in violation of WP:SOAP, consisting wholly of assertions not supported (and largely unsupportable to V and RS standards. Author appears to be creating a number of very similar articles (such as Financial gaming, also a present candidate for deletion) for the apparent purpose of promoting related websites. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Common (Waterford, Ontario)

edit
Boston Common (Waterford, Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local restaurant. No reliable sources, no indication whatsoever what would make this restaurant notable. Crusio (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trading competition

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

Appears to be a thinly-veiled promotional attempt in violation of WP:SOAP, consisting wholly of assertions not supported (and largely unsupportable to V and RS standards. Author appears to be creating a number of very similar articles (such as Financial gaming, also a present candidate for deletion) for the apparent purpose of promoting related websites. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gopher Dunes

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

Non-notable track. Prod was removed with comment that there are 4470 Google results. There are indeed many Ghits for a search on Gopher Dunes. However, a search for "Gopher Dunes" Norfolk renders only 65 Ghits, none more notable than YouTube or local websites describing local attractions. No reliable sources, no indication of notability. Crusio (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Conceded this discusion generated little input, but no request for keep. Consensus for deletion. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevan Ohtsji

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

Unnotable person. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Most listed rolls are ridiculously minor and entirely unsourced - just taken from IMDB and a Wikia. Found one or two interviews with him, but not enough to be the significant coverage needed to meet WP:N or WP:BIO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_24&oldid=1234119305"