Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 8

< 7 July	9 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charmest

neologism, not notable, no refs, etc. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NAD. There are two different English words with the spelling "charmest". The first is the archaic second-person singular present tense of wikt:charm, where in modern English we would say "you charm", e.g. "You charm people", previously we would have used "thou charmest", e.g. "Thou charmest people". The second is a modern possibly slang, possibly south-Asian English word meaning "most charming", e.g. "Sarah is the charmest girl in school". The first sense clearly meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, but I'm not sure about the second. Regardless, I can find no evidence that the meanings presented in this article are in use so there is no point in transwikiing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost certainly WP:NEO. In any case, WP:NAD and no possibility of any expansion except for (Heaven forbid) yet another "in popular culture" section taking up 95% of the article. --Closeapple (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the definition of a neologism. (Did you notice the name of the user who created the page, by the way?) Cnilep (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. No refs, WP:NEO says it all. Andy (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NEO --mhking (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is the WP:NEOest violationest everest! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:49, 15 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reframe It

nn website Gotttor (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This stub article is an extension of the page about web annotations - it gives more detail about what a specific company is and does. It allows people to learn more about a web tool they might be interested in, since Wikipedia is the first place people check when they want to learn about a product they aren't familiar with.

Text isn't biased (doesn't unfairly promote or put down Reframe It) - simply states functionality of browser extension. Is not an advertisement: doesn't say the company/product is "great!" or anything of the sort.

Page should be kept so that people can learn about Reframe It from an open source that can be edited by anyone - not just from the Firefox and Reframe It websites.

Also, article is still a stub - hoping that people will add to it (as this is my first wiki page).

Thanks. Hp4life (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. WuhWuzDat 20:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally fails WP:WEB. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has a whole section on impact and significance. Think that means it passes. To be legitimate it has to mention the website's achievements, impact or historical significance, and this page has 2 of those 3. 69.4.157.189 (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That section's not encyclopedic content, it's an advertisement with a side of WP:CRYSTAL, "cited" to a blog post. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a work in progress. As the company is just starting, it stands to reason that it won't have as detailed a list of achievements or historical significance. Give people time to update it. Also, Reframe It shouldn't be listed with articles about websites being considered for deletion, as it is not a website. The Reframe It company HAS a website - but that's different. It is an internet related tool available to the public. Try it. Hp4life (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia; it is not a place for articles about non-notable new ideas. Your position seems to be another rephrasing of the old "up-and-coming" "next big thing" "shows potential" argument: in other words, you tacitly admit that it isn't notable yet, but argue that "it might be someday"! We don't accept articles based on your reading of a crystal ball. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:08, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB clearly. Triplestop x3 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--sorry, no reliable sources, no notability. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked to other web annotation pages for references in making a reliable page - what's the difference between Reframe It's page and sources and Diigo's? That one cites its own website and blog entries. Hp4life (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only citation to Diigo's own site is the first footnote, which tells us what d.i.i.g.o. stands for. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gonna have to agree with Hp4life about the whole Diigo thing. I just checked it out, and their pages basically look the same, with both referencing the same sorts of online articles. And I got rid of all those repeated cites to reframeit.com on the Reframe It page - they seemed pretty unnecessary. (No offense.) So now it isn't constantly referencing its "creator"
Appears to meet these requirements from WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" and also "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" because it is distributed by Mozilla Firefox. Sarah Hubbard 15 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand what "the content is distributed" means. That means that an article, for example, is on the Associated Press newswires as opposed to on somebody's MySpace page. Not all websites are equally reliable sources; what's on cnn.com is of considerably more weight than what's on GloriousPeoplesRevolutionaryCaucusHoxhaTendencyReformed.org. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 10 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WePapers

nn website Gotttor (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning to keep, but need to know better before voting, there's some coverage in The Hindu, I found another in Italian and a few in Hebrew, but since I can't read either, some sort of vetting of the sources is needed. But given that it's covered in three countries, it looks notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom but only if other similar/identical NN websites from Category:File sharing communities are deleted as well. --Shuki (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit like a reverse OSE? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what's up with a brand-new user like User:Gottor starting a Wikipedia career with a series of AFDs.Historicist (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know nothing about this field, but a news google archives search certainly bears out the claim in the article that it is a new company that received coverage around the world last winter. I put some of the links to news articles in. Historicist (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'm not fully convinced of the non-English sources yet, but the fact that they exist, and that the English source actually shows notability, I'm going with a keep for now. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:40, 12 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David K. Lappin

Player does not have 3rd party coverage, the coverage there is available is largely not reliable or online poker fansites. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I declined CSD:A7 due to an assertion of importance, and put article up for ProD for lack of notability as determined by not having reliable, verifiable 3rd party coverage. The ProD was contested without fixing the underlying issues. — X S G 04:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. No evidence person has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable and intellectually independent. — Satori Son 20:06, 15 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TutyFrutySlot

Entirely unnotable bit of software with just 23 google hits including this article. Also the article almost WP:COI certainly was created by the maker of the software, and tags were removed by him without proper hangon process. 2005 (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable and soapboxing. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mentioned Google results show no signs of notability whatsoever. — Rankiri (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We aren't a catalog of all available software, and I see nothing notable about this software package. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not improving Wikipedia. Likely spaming of the product IMHO. Pedro : Chat 23:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': per nom and Rankiri. Iowateen (talk) 21:29, 10 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. Nomination withdrawn by Alchaenist. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Heights School

It is not a notable special school. Article makes no claim of notability for its subject. Alchaenist (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nomination. It seems to be notable, after all. Alchaenist (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - educates to high school level and sources are available from which the article can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Harmony is a chartered and registered high school accredited by the Middle States Association and New York State..." Keep secondary schools. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:32, 9 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. Nomination withdrawn by Alchaenist. TerriersFan (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt High School (Hempstead (town), New York)

It is not a notable high school. Article makes no claim of notability for its subject. Alchaenist (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nomination. It seems to be notable, after all. Alchaenist (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Although it is on the small side with ~700 students, I think in this case the age probably makes it notable. It began in the mid 1800s as a one-room school house, &c. NYT article.—RJH (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- historical school; should be noted. However I don't think it should include the demographics. Broadwayfan15 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article ([1]) states a private school in Roosevelt that is no longer here. It has nothing to do with Roosevelt High School. Roosevelt Union Free School District is notable due to long-standing problems in funding, facilities, and academic achievement, the Roosevelt Schools has drawn nationwide attention. [2] But nothing does it say that Roosevelt High School is notable. It has never been on the Newsweek "Best High Schools in America" list. Alchaenist (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guidelines and pervious consensus agree that secondary schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:ORG and from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--guidelines don't say this, but consensus does: high schools are notable. That reminds me, I need to add mine. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The consensus is that high schools are inherently notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep via consensus. Article needs work mind. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This high school has had quite notable alumni, which were listed in earlier versions like [3], at least one, Eddie Murphy with a citation. (Some others may only be former residents of the town, not alumni, but Murphy definitely was.) The school is in Roosevelt, New York, it is odd and confusing to have it under Hempstead (town) in the title, which should be changed.John Z (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has anyone else noticed the upsurge in WP:POINTY nominations of towns and high schools, just because we haven't formalized the notability guidelines - perhaps we should. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am inclined to say this, and all secondary schools, are inherently non-notable unless proven otherwise. But it seems no-one but the nominator agrees. I've never taken part in an AfD for a high school before...where has consensus been reached on secondary schools being notable? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is broad de facto consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable, and this article provides adequate sources to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 12 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 transwiki to Wikibooks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Group

This article does not belong per WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTHOWTO. A search of this also indicates that this does not meet WP:N, and there are no RS about the subject. Triplestop x3 21:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting one, this. The underlying concept could arguably be encyclopaedic, but it has various names ("writing group", "writing circle", "critique group", etc.) and if you google for any of those names individually, most of what you get is not really very usable. Anyone got a useful paper source?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Writing circle. The majority of this article fails WP:NOTGUIDE. I42 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks for their how-to shelf, then redirect to Writing circle per I42. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 8 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. BJ^Talk 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy W. Goss

Non-notable musician. DB tag removed by anon IP editor whose only contributions have been to this article. Likely the article's author removed the DB without logging in, but lacking proof of this, I bring the article here to Afd. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, per nom. I42 (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for lack of WP:RS to show notability. Springnuts (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VERIFY#Sources and WP:MUSICBIO. No substantial coverage of subject by multiple reliable sources. — Satori Son 20:11, 15 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo and the snowmen mystery

Fails ~~"the Google test," and is a possible hoax. If not deleted could be cleaned up.~~ WP:Note as it is an LP that does not seem to be in a more modern form. Gosox5555 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Which "Google test" are you applying? Google lead me to this among other things. Certainly not a hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going with delete here. Not a hoax doing a quick google search, it exists as an LP - basically a radio show. The problem I'm seeing is that I don't see much notability. Is there some provision here on WP that would change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Tiger. The article doesn't have much nobility. Delete KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 00:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Hairhorn demonstrates, it is real. By itself, it's not notable. Back in the 1970s, before there were VHS cassettes, it wasn't unusual for stories for children to be recorded on a long playing 33 1/3 record. Dennis describes it perfectly -- essentially, a radio program that could be listened to at any time. Many a child was disappointed when the characters sounded nothing at all like anyone on the TV show. We have an article about the manufacturer Music for Pleasure (record label) and maybe a spinoff about the children's LPs can be created, since they often become collectibles. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe this article is something just for the swedish Wikipedia, since this LP seems more notable in Sweden than in US/UK. The answer to why it was more notable in swedish could be this:

1. In Sweden at the 1970s there were only two TV channels and hardly any cartoons from the west (it was under the "DDR Sweden" time!) with mostly eastern european shows for the kids so an LP with cartoons (from west) could be even more unique than in US for example. 2. The actors on the swedish LP were real great actors, among them actors who later worked with swedish directors such as Ingmar Bergman (Börje Ahlstedt as Fred) and Bo Widerberg (Håkan Serner as Scooby). And since it was real actors, the whole adventure sounded more believable than it would be if "anyone" had done the voices. Also most of the actors participated in at least 2 more LP:s with Scooby Doo and that led to a feeling of contuinity. 3. There was no Dr Evil-song on the album (like in the english version), just the Scooby Doo song as an intro and outro, so it sounded a bit more scary for the grown ups with an effective thriller/action story.

Mistereks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - notability is not geographically specific, so if this is notable in Sweden it meets notability criteria. Rlendog (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zöinks! Delete. None of what Mistereks has said, taken at face value, indicates that this was "notable in Sweden". When he created the article, it was about a record sold in the United Kingdom, and there was no mention any of this stuff about famous Swedish actors lending their dramatic skills to portrayals of "Fred" and "Scooby", or even that this was a Swedish-language record. At most, it shows that someone in Sweden listened to a Swedish language version of the English language record that's the subject of the article. I don't believe a word of it. Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 11 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 under G11 (by Nyttend) Plastikspork (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Williamson

This advert page was created by User:Mastcom, whose user page declares himself to be Master Communications Group, with which Desi Williamson is affiliated. It is largely a copy-and-paste of Williamson's bio on a speakers' bureau promo page. PRRfan (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, the page easily qualified for speedy deletion under G11, unambiguous promotion or advertising. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 8 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 by Dank, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Nelson

Very promotional in tone and lacks sufficient references to claims. The April 19, 1996 New York Times reference does mention this person as does the Daily News reference, but all others focus on the company he works for, dont mention him at all or are primary sources. Claims of notability are not sufficiently referenced. Also, I find it interesting that this article was created as a copy and paste duplicate of his bio on the company website which conveniently has a CC license notice at the bottom, saving it from previous speedy deletion for copyright violation. RadioFan (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - biospam for non-notable businessman, apparently planted by his press agent. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the creator of this article was blocked indefinitely for a username violation. I'm pretty sure that creative commons license showed up on the page after the article was nominated for speedy deletion for copyright concerns. I guess it was easier than rewriting this spam for Wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11; agreed with RadioFan's and OrangeMike's rationales. It was a good call to bring it to AfD, but I'm comfortable deleting if we get consensus here for speedy. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go Dank is what I say. – B.hotep •talk• 20:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. This looks like consensus to speedy delete per G11 to me, and I have made it so. If a 6th person who hasn't been involved so far would like to concur and close, that will be even better, or if you disagree, let me know, please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 10 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poncho (drinking game)

non-notable drinking game, something made up one night. WuhWuzDat 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to prod it. Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, self-created, no notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article states it was created 6 days ago, on July 2. Textbook case of WP:MADEUP. No references to demonstrate any form of notability whatsoever. It's also written in an unacceptably self-referential style, but that can be fixed with editing. —LedgendGamer 00:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP Niteshift36 (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To quote the article: "Poncho is a drinking game developed over several days in Ontario, Canada beginning on July 2nd 2009." If that doesn't say that it was made up one day, I don't know what does. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am starting to consider an RfC to make Drinking Game without a reliable source in the initial article, a CSD category. Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 14 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 Gyeongbu Line. BJ^Talk 21:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeungyak

Delete nn unref'd one-liner about a closed railway station with no indication of notability; railway stations aren't inherently notable. Barely any context or content. One of dozens created by a user recently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect and mention in Gyeongbu Line. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An English language search engine just wont provide anything on suburban South Korean train stations - especially ones that are closed. This place would probably get an article if it was located somewhere English speaking where we could write a referenced stub Francium12 (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Korean name is 증약역/增若驛. It closed in 1974 so I don't imagine teh internets will be especially helpful. More information at [4] (in Korean) including passenger numbers. I'd imagine there'd be some kind of coverage from 1972 when train service seems to have stopped ... cab (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gyeongbu Line. Closed train station not notable in its own right, even if it broke down a few times.Fuzbaby (talk) 14:06, 9 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. BJ^Talk 21:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syrus Yarbrough

Short BLP with questionable notability beyond one event. IMDB listing shows almost (if not all) appearances are related to his appearance on the Real World. He is also listed as the host of 'Reggae Nation TV', but it appears to be not notable enough to have its own WP article. Plastikspork (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple roles in notable shows. It's not huge notability, but I think it's enough to warrant inclusion. There's also some coverage here [5] and [6] ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ONEEVENT - single role on a "reality" show = notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Reggae Nation is the closest thing to notability and that doesn't get it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - multiple roles all are very minor so far. We cannot have article based on potential. Notability comes before the article - not the other way round--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - a lot mentiosn of his name bit not articles really about him. It's unclear from the summary whether the Herald & Review article ChildofMidnight linked is primarily about him or the Rock the Vote effort. Note that the first link that Childofmidnight provided is a press release issued through PR Newswire -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 14 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. JHunterJ makes a valid WP:IAR argument (that it will assist navigation), but so far, that is not the current consensus on disambiguation pages. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avtozavodsky City District

Disambiguation page, delete per MOS:DABRL second paragraph. Guy0307 (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That is a guideline, besides which, I count 3 blue links, so it doesn't apply. Also per reasoning at Talk:Avtozavodsky City District. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a disambiguation page, it is a set index article (and is now tagged accordingly). And honestly, it would take just as much effort to actually make these links blue as it did for setting up an AfD. What a waste of others' time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:45, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Ezhiki. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Avtozavodsky. They fit in there and it's no risk that Avtozavodsky becomes too big. Geschichte (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Avtozavodsky is a dab page, so WP:MOSDAB applies to it. Per this MOSDAB provision, on a page called Title, entries merely having Title as a part of the name should not be created. Examples that follow include "Title County", "Title City", etc. "Avtozavodsky City District" was split from "Avtozavodsky" exactly because the guidlines call for it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:33, July 9, 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Avtozavodsky. WP:MOSDAB does not preclude their inclusion there -- the linked articles refer to the districts as just "Avtozavodsky", so they should be dabbed by that name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The articles do not refer to them simply as "Avtozavodsky"; "Avtozavodsky" in both cases is a part of the bulleted list, with each entry being preceded by "city district". The full name of the entries would always be "Avtozavodsky City District". Consider this—even if there were nothing else besides the districts to disambiguate on the "Avtozavodsky" dab (i.e., no metro stations and metro lines), we would still have the districts listed on the "Avtozavodsky City District" page, with "Avtozavodsky" being a redirect to them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, July 14, 2009 (UTC)
I (and I think the "common name" policy) disagree. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Avtozavodsky City District" is the official name (well, in Russian, obviously). It (they) can be (and usually are) referred to as "Avtozavodsky District" colloquially, and as "Avtozavodsky" only when it is crystal clear from the context that the city district is meant. ~~If the official name were just "Avtozavodsky", the links would be to "Avtozavodsky (city district)", not to "Avtozavodsky City District".~~ Hopefully this clarifies my argument above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, July 14, 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I crossed off the last sentence as it's not compliant with this MOSDAB provision. Per that provision, "Jefferson County (disambiguation) should list the counties in all the states, but Jefferson (disambiguation) ideally would not. Instead, it should link to the Jefferson County disambiguation page." Replace "Jefferson County" with "Avtozavodsky City District" and "Jefferson" with "Avtozavodsky", and you'll see this in an identical situation. Would you still disagree? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, July 14, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would still disagree. Jefferson County (disambiguation) includes a long list of blue links to ambiguous articles. Including them in Jefferson (disambiguation) would be cumbersome. The Avtozavodsky lists are not long, and should be combined. In both cases, reader navigation is assisted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is just your preference and interpretation, is it not? The MOSDAB clause giving the Jefferson/Jefferson County example says nothing at all of reader navigation being assisted if one of the lists is short, or about cumbersomeness of merging two such lists if both are long. What it does say, verbatim, is "on a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name". It further refers to WP:DAB#Lists, which, in turn, says to not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Based on these, I do not quite understand how you arrive at your "it's still OK to merge them" conclusion.

On top of that, the pages should not be merged because one is a dab while the ohter is a set.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:12, July 14, 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The keep arguments at the end are somewhat weak; one is WP:NOTAVOTE, and the other does not provide a valid reason for retention. As for merging, there is no consensus over whether the target should be Recreational drug use or Harm reduction. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible drug use

I redirected this POV essay to Recreational drug use and was reverted. The article is so bad it would require a complete rewrite to salvage, but the topic is close enough to Recreational drug use that it does not seem necessary to have a separate article. ⟳ausa کui ^× 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as nominator. ⟳ausa کui ^× 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's unnecessary. This is not a vote, and we know what you think should happen from the nomination.
The merger target suggested in the previous AFD discussion was harm reduction, not recreational drug use, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I often nominate articles to AFD where I don't want to delete them. ⟳ausa کui ^× 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proper forum for such a discussion as you describe, unpronounceably named(?) person, is RFC. Anarchangel (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP An article about a social movement with a POV does not define a POV article, else you'd have to delete the one on U.S. Republicans. This is an article about a momevement which is attempting to make recreational drug use safer for both user and society, something like an article on teenager condom use advocates, or seat-belt advocacy groups in the days when seatbelt use was optional (these guys did their job too well). It really doesn't have the focus as recreational drug use, which is interested in the various drugs and what they do, and doesn't give an ethical dang. It doesn't duplicate material. Yes, it's always possible to merge articles. But for articles which seem likely to grow larger as time (large enought to consider a split) it's a waste of time merging them, just as much as it's a waste of time going around and stamping out stubs by doing the same (which I've seen more than one war over). Give Wikipedia room to grow already. S B H arris 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or mergeThis movement seems notable enough to merit inclusion, if not its own page then in a mainpage on drug use. I think if more references can be found to support it it could stand on its own. And as far as AfD goes, if someone wants to merge an article they can always tag it so instead of for AfD.Fuzbaby (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse because I've spent too long working in youth offending teams and drug strategy units to be entirely objective about this, but as a comment and not a !vote, DGG's recommendation in the last AfD is extremely sensible.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let experience with minors influence you, since this article really doesn't apply to them. We wouldn't let a child fly in the space shuttle or climb Mt. Everest. That doesn't mean adults cannot do these things responsibly (even if not in complete safety). S B H arris 02:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. More often than not, it's the parents who're the users, mate (which is why the kids go off the rails).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, "harm reduction" isn't a "social movement" in the UK. It is, or was, official local authority strategy, brought in under Tony Blair.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish people could practice what that page states. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I mean not to attack your view, and I can see where you are coming from. However, if I have read correctly, you seem to have argued for the retention of the article because you agree with the article's opinion. I am sorry if I am wrong, but I can't see additional reasoning beyond that. If I am correct, then I do not think your reason is valid. I intend that as no slur, and I am still rusty at AFDs after my hiatus, but looking through AFD material it seems that just as in 2007 agreeing with the article's opinion is not a valid keep reason. Thank you in advance for any clarification. Otumba (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to harm reduction ~~Keep~~ Taking S Marshall's unused vote to vote twice. No? Ok. Anarchangel (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. -- œ ^™ 19:44, 15 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. BJ^Talk 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Davis

Independent sources about the subject are generally lacking. Horrid vanity tone, but in any case seems like self-promotion of a non-notable individual than something we should fix through editing. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability as professor or artist to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero GS cites. Fails WP:Prof. No sign of other WP:Notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I take it that the nominator is raising a COI concern in pointing to the "vanity tone." On that point, Davis is a professor at the University of Tampa, and the lion's share of the edits (see [7]) are from an IP address in Tampa ([8]). Moreover, the user account that created the article (and the only other contributor) is an WP:SPA. Neither of these prove violation of WP:AB, but it raises the inference.

A COI violation doesn't require deletion, of course, but lack of notability generally does. See WP:FAILN. None of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC appear to apply; that leaves WP:BIO, but the article fares little better on that front. It cites no secondary source material ("reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" or otherwise) that has Davis as its subject. A google search doesn't turn up much, and although I've hardly combed the desert, my view is that WP:BURDEN places the onus on the article's creator and lead editors to demonstrate notability.

For all that, however, I think this nomination is unfortunate. The article has existed for barely a month, and there is at least a colorable claim that Davis could be notable. A better approach might have been to cut the article down to size and add the {{notability}} tag, as WP:FAILN suggests.

Nevertheless, we have a nomination. Given the COI problems and the apparent lack of notability, I lean towards and will support deletion. I would prefer, however, that the nomination be withdrawn, and the approach noted above be tried for a reasonable period -- say, a month. If the nominator will withdraw, I'm willing to make those changes and take responsibility for relisting. If we do that and no reliable sources have been added in a month (if we are correct that this is a WP:AB, Davis will of course have very strong incentive to find such sources), I would fully support renomination. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for that thoughtful reply, Simon. As the nomination doesn't expire until July 15, and as the author of the article hasn't edited here since June 16, how about we wait until July 12-13 or so, see if anyone turns up material, in what direction the discussion is moving, and then go for a withdrawal if appropriate? I have no particular objection to withdrawing, but at the same time, the pressure of AfD has often worked wonders when it comes to bettering articles. Let's see if that can happen in the next few days. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all points. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that withdrawal is only appropriate when there are no delete opinions other than the nominator's. The nominator can, of course, change his or her mind at any point, but the AfD should be closed normally by an uninvolved party based on all opinions represented in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As we're all aware, there are often pleas of "let's wait and see because more notable points would be added", but I'm afraid that's unlikely to be the case here, at least from the WP:PROF persepctive (which I believe is relevant, since she's a professor). I've examined her scholarly output based upon her own CV. Her one peer-reviewed publication is listed in WoS, "Fractured Cybertales: Navigating the Feminine" Leonardo 41(1), but it has not been cited by any other work. The other items she lists in "articles" on her CV would not be considered notable by academic standards, for example 2 articles are from Rhizome Digest. According to the Rhizome website, this appears to have been nothing more than a short-lived e-mail list, quoting from the site: "The Rhizome Digest merged into the Rhizome News in November 2008. These pages serve as an archive for 6-years worth of discussions and happenings from when the Digest when was simply a plain-text, weekly email". Several items are in Media-N, a recent electronic publication that does not appear to be indexed. One article, "Like a Virgin - Or Not", was "published" by a virtual on-line museum called The International Museum of Women. This seems to be a website where women are encouraged to submit personal stories. Another article was published in Intelligent Agent Magazine, which, according to their website was/is published (somewhat sporadically) as an online and/or print newsletter and magazine – yet again, not an academic-standard journal. Finally, the book listed by her CV has not been published yet. I'm afraid that, at best, we get the picture of "a-scholar-not-yet-notable", which does not pass muster with respect to WP:PROF. I'll leave it to others to argue if she passes on any other grounds. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Certainly not notable at this point per WP:PROF. Leonardo is a first rate journal of its sort, but one does not expect material from there to be cited the way scientific articles are--to show up in WoS it would have to be cited by another article in WoS. The dispersal of the humanities material is why WoS and Scopus do not work well in that field. Per WP:PROF, academics who are creative artists must be considered from that perspective as well. Might possibly be notable as a visual artist, especially for the award , but the citation for it does not make sense. However, there might well sooner or later be discussions of her work, and that will show notability. DGG (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Permit me to point out that DGG and I respectfully disagree on the usefulness/applicability of WoS for scholars in the humanities. This is a good case in point: A person's CV publication list will often be puffed up with entries that will be perceived by most casual observers to be bona fide peer-reviewed publications in mainstream academic journals. Of course, the problem is that there are quite literally tens of thousands of such journals across all academic specialties, making it enormously difficult for any single commentator in this forum to always discern the WP:PUFF. A WoS search will often help: articles in the CV that are not in WoS are immediately suspect, prompting one to check further. I concede that not everything of academic value is in WoS, but we routinely find that absence in WoS correctly pegs a "journal" as something much much less, e.g. as in the case of Rhizome Digest here. For the numerous true academic journals that actually exist, there are vastly more impostors. Furthermore, and unfortunately so, academics (in the very broad sense of the term) are often not shy about employing puff to elevate their status – this tends to find its way, sometimes intentionally, into a WP article. Puff can extend even to what is essentially subtly faked authorship, which WoS will also reveal. I believe all these aspects make WoS a useful assessment tool for all cases where the claimed notability rests at least partially on "journal publication", humanities or otherwise. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Do you distinguish between WoS and WoK? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I think there is a distinction. My understanding is that WoK is the umbrella under which all the Thomson-Reuters tools exist, including WoS (quoting) "Access the world’s leading scholarly literature in the sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities...", Inspec (quoting) "A comprehensive index to the global journal and proceedings literature in physics, electrical/electronic engineering, computing, control engineering, and information technology", and Journal Citation Reports (quoting) "Journal performance metrics...", ISI HighlyCited.com (the database of highly-cited researchers), ResearcherID.com, and so forth. WoS is probably the most useful of these for our purposes in AfD. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Per nom, Xxanthippe and Agricola44. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:40, 14 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 apparent hoax. DS (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 80s

Non-notable game that has yet to be released; fails WP:CRYSTAL. A Google News Archive search returns no results, while a Google search returns a scant 52 results, none of which are reliable sources. One the talk page of the article, the creator, Emmet1994 (talk · contribs), contested the proposed deletion, saying

“

The game is real, but has only been released to shareholders who own a lot of shares. The game won't be released to the public until late November and will be releaesed some time next year, so as not to compete with FIFA 10.

I can't post any proof of the game right now though. Emmet1994 (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

I have no prejudice to recreation when/if the videogame is ever released, but at this moment, the lack of verifiability means that the article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until the article is needed. Gosox5555 (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, no reliable sources. It may be a hoax. --Carioca (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – I smell hoax bigtime. See File:FIFA 80s game box art small.jpg and File:FIFA 80s game box art BRAZIL SMALL.jpg (which are also tagged for deletion, so hurry!) and read the source sections under the fair-use rationale: I created this work entirely by myself. I have a strong feeling this has been photoshopped. MuZemike 03:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hey! The 80 is 08 flipped upside down! \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:12, 9 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. BJ^Talk 21:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fanchento

Nonnotable new martial art. Possibly its founder Michael Davidow [9] is notable, but no evidence that the art itself is. JJL (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it has 500+ Google results. Gosox5555 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google hits do not confer notability as per WP:GHITS. --Jimbo^[online] 23:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, thinly veiled or cleaned up advert. As for 500+ g hits several have the same text as this and it sounds like marketing campaign spam or a copyvio. --Nate 14 81 15:27, 9 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewd Acts

No claims of notability, no reliable sources, and yet my speedy deletion tag was removed. Nonsense, as well. You don't get Down Syndrome from drinking bleach, and there is nobody in the accompanying photo with the characteristic features of a Down Syndrome sufferer. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable band that fails to assert notability. Should've been speedied. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability and misleading information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now; if they put out some discs on Deathwish, which appears to be a notable label, then they may be appropriate - for now, not enough notability for us. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as initial decliner of CSD. When I originally read the article, I thought that it did give some claim of notability in some form. I'm not sure what I was thinking. (X! · talk) · @033 · 23:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found one review (of their split EP) on punknews.org, but other than that it was just concert listings or other trivial mentions. That's not enough for WP:BAND. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought maybe this was going to be a how-to guide.....imagine my disappointment. While I'm here, let's say Delete for total lack of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated. Frankly, I didn't know that drinking bleach affected one's chromosomes in such a manner...the things you learn. Seriously, it's a NN band article with dubious factual claims. The photo speaks volumes. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original poster has been blocked for spamming and an inappropriate username. This is likely a speedy at this point. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:23, 14 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. As G7. There were quite a few editors on this article but almost all the content added came from the same single user who has requested deletion. So Why 08:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-Mobile Huddle Up

This article is about a charity that is run by T-Mobile. Many of the external links resemble internal documents, which leads me to believe there is a conflict of interest. Mad Pierrot (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable spam. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:06, 14 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. There is a strong consensus that this is not actually a disambiguation per our guidelines and that currently no disambiguation page is needed for Wal-Mart. I was somewhat inclined to go with S Marshall's suggestion to move this to List of Wal-Mart articles (of which this article is essentially a remake of) as a compromise but given that the content in its entirety exists within the "See Also" section at Wal-Mart, to create a separate list would seem redundant. Therefore I am going with the simple consensus which is to delete. As for the notion of splitting the "See Also" section of the Wal-Mart article into a standalone list article I can make no decisions here; that'd be something to discuss on the article's talk page. Shereth 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 1. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a disambiguation page, no conflict over the title exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't see how this isn't a disambiguation page. It seems a hatnote to this over Walmart hurts nothing. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per seresin.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 18:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - disambiguation pages should be for resolving conflicts between articles with similar names. As a "List of Wal-Mart articles", this might make sense, but even that's questionable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating articles with the same title, not listing related topics that have the same words in their titles. So this page should be deleted. Concerns in the AfD about where to list this content can be discussed elsewhere, but a disambiguation page is not how to do it. ÷seresin 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a dab, would be best handled in Category:Wal-Mart. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and refactor to List of Wal-Mart articles (which is presently a redirect, and its history is enlightening). The key point here is around WP:CLN—i.e. to group the articles such that end-users can find them. And per WP:CLN a category is not sufficient, and is best supplemented by a list.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Disambig pages are cheap, and I don't think this page violates the intent of WP:DAB. Would not be opposed to renaming to List of Wal-Mart articles, but don't really see a need for that either. — Satori Son 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the text on the page, it's second line states: "Wal-Mart or Walmart may also refer to:", which is followed by the bulleted links. Problem is, if you think of it, the term "Wal-Mart" or "Walmart" is used to refer specifically to the company. One doesn't use those terms to refer specifically to the "Wal-Mart Camel" or the "Wal-Mart Bill" or the documentary. So there's no need whatsoever for this DAB page. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wal-mart the reatil chain and Wal-mart (neologism) are two topics with the same name. The dab also disambiguates other topics with similar names. I don't see the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't a dab page, it's a list of related articles. (I can't bloody believe we kept Walmarting, to boot, considering it looks rather OR-ish to me.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DAB guidelines, which allow for disambig pages when two or more articles have identical or similar titles. The primary example given is to disambiguate Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet), among others. Given this argument, you could say that both of these titles should be on a page pertaining to Mercury (mythology) instead because both the element and the planet draw their names from Mercury (mythology). Likewise, many other things called "Wal-Mart" or "Walmart" draw their name from the store and its cultural meaning. Tatterfly (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of the articles have similar titles. Should be handled with headnotes. Drawn Some (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belongs in a category, maybe See also, but not DAB. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the items shown on the page are distinct enough from the Wal-Mart store that they would not belong on a page having to do with Wal-Mart. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates does not forbid there to be lists, disambiguation pages, and navigational templates all for the same title or topic. This page also should not be renamed to "List of Wal-Mart articles." This is not standard Wikipedia convention. That would be like renaming Honolulu (disambiguation) to List of Honolulu articles because they supposedly all have something to do with Honolulu. Sebwite (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is inappropriate per WP:DISAMBIG. Only two of the terms, the store and the neologism, are appropriate as the others could not conceivably share the same title. The two are supposed to be disambiguated with headnotes. The people saying to keep don't understand our editing guideline at WP:DAB or else deliberately choose to ignore the consensus expressed there. Drawn Some (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the guideline is either stupid or deliberately disruptive? I’d like to think we could respectfully disagree on this subject without engaging in ad hominem attacks. — Satori Son 13:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree with you that the former are stupid, they probably haven't bothered to read it, I'm not really interpreting it, it's pretty clear cut. As far as whether or not people deliberately ignoring the consensus expressed there are being disruptive, I agree with you that they are. Whether it is deliberate or not as you suggest I wouldn't speculate on because of AGF. Drawn Some (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to speculate whether it is deliberate or not, you probably shouldn't use the word "deliberately". — Satori Son 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant what I said. One possibility is that they are deliberately ignoring consensus but I am not willing to go as far as you are and say that they are deliberately being disruptive, that could be an unintended consequence of deliberately ignoring consensus. Drawn Some (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category would be awkward, the best solution is to keep the disambig page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drawn Some. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not disambiguating among things that are named "Wal-Mart" but things that have "Wal-Mart" in the title. Why not throw "Wal-Mart Flowers" by Stephen Cochran or "Wal-Mart Parking Lot" by Chris Cagle up there while you're at it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:DAB guidelines. There is actually another title that can be added to this: Wal-Mart bill (which redirects to Fair Share Health Care Act). There are some situations where you do place something containing a term in part of its title on a disambiguation page. For example, Washington College gets placed on Washington (disambiguation), and Ford Explorer gets placed on Explorer (disambiguation). This is totally appropriate to do. Shaliya waya (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those don't meet the guideline for inclusion on the disambig page, either, please review WP:DAB, you're saying it meets that guideline when it clearly doesn't. Drawn Some (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 46 articles that should be included in a list (rather than a dab page). See Category:Wal-Mart and its sub-pages.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have not expressed an opinion, so it's not per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, perhaps it was one of the nominations from the other two times it has been nominated. My mistake To expand my thoughts: This looks relatively clear to me as a candidate. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Might be better named (moved to) "Walmart (disambiguation)". Two ambiguous redirects and an ambiguous documentary (which I added) make it a disambiguation page. I moved the other partial matches to a new "See also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I thought we resolved this shiat a long time ago. This is NOT a Disambiguation page, the purpose of which should be to separate similarly named but unrelated topics/articles. All items on the page relate to Wal-Mart itself, and as such, should be linked to from the Wal-Mart article, either in the article text or in the "see also" section. Everything on the DAB page should be moved to "see also", with the exception of Wal-Mart intercom codes, which isn't even an article itself, but in fact, links to the Code Adam article. There already is a Category:Wal-Mart, where Wal-Mart related articles can be placed. But this so-called DAB page is NOT a DAB page and should be redirected to Wal-Mart immediately. It violates the spirit and principles of Wikipedia, and quite possibly WP:NPOV, by trying to connect so very obscure things with Wal-Mart. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the {{npov}} tag to the disambiguation page. I believe that this so-called DAB page violates WP:NPOV because it is an incomplete listing of some randomly selected Wal-Mart articles that draws unnecessary attention to several selected articles. The proper way to address this is to add information and discussion about this in the context of the Wal-Mart article itself, so that their pros and cons can be sufficiently covered. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That tag is just silly on a disambiguation page, whether or not the disambiguation page needs to be deleted. If you want to keep it there, please raise your concerns on Talk:Wal-Mart (disambiguation) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that five of the links on the page are, in fact, redirects themselves: Walmart (neologism) redirects to Walmarting (Walmarting is already in the main article's "see also" section), Walmart (golf tournament) redirects to Walmart First Tee Open at Pebble Beach, Wal-Mart bill redirects to Fair Share Health Care Act, Wal-Mart camel redirects to Camelops, and Wal-Mart intercom codes redirects to Code Adam. So disambiguating these links is really completely unnecessary, which is 5/6 of the links on the page! The only thing linked here that goes to an actual article is Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, which is already linked to from the main Wal-Mart article itself. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are perfectly valid disambiguation page entries and often need disambiguating. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete if wal-mart related articles need further organization a disambig page is not a way to accomplish that. Jon513 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment not all of these are Wal-Mart articles per say. Tatterfly (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the content listed doesn't actually need to be disambiguated as aside from Walmart itself, the other items aren't known as walmart but merely contain walmart as a string within the full name. -- Whpq (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many things are disambiguated without parenthesis, but with the ambiguous term paired with one or more other words. For example, swimming stroke and stroke play are various meanings of the word stroke. Yet you do need a disambiguation page for these things. Tatterfly (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That things without parentheses are included in disambigutation pages is a given. It's the reason they are included which is crucial. That the thing happens to have a fragment of the word in its title is not sufficient for it to be included for disambiguation. It is the fact that it is actually known that name. Walmart First Tee Open at Pebble Beach isn't referred to as "Walmart". Walmart is merely a word that is included in the full title of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:35, 15 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. BJ^Talk 21:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Auerbach

Word for word copy of the bio on the synagogue web page (which permission has apparently been granted through OTRS) but it still reads like a resume but doesn't really assert why this person is notable. I'm having difficulty finding significant coverage of this person in 3rd party sources. There are a number of well known people which share his name and a number of rabbis which share his last name. RadioFan (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything to indicate notability that would warrant the need for an encyclopedia article. Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no 3rd party sources, NN. --Jayrav (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This Google News Search finds a lot of material behind pay walls from the Miami Herald. However, based on the text snippets, they appear to be event announcements or quoting him on something. this book mentions him and the founding of Bet Shira, but again this isn't very substantial. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 14 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 keep, obviously notable. Blueboy 96 19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Mall

delete, non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mall with 5 anchor stores is certainly notable, equally so as any other major enclosed shopping centre. Plenty of references (I've removed the tag stating there wasn't) as well. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Echelon Mall, this mall has had a documented impact on the area economy and therefore is an integral part of the region. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Strong keep I smell WP:POINT. This editor also nominated Lansing Mall, an article I wrote about a mall in the same town, for deletion, claiming it lacked sources and notability when it clearly doesn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Ec}}? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you edit conflicted me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per 10#Hammer, I have half a mind to do it myself.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 17:23, 8 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. BJ^Talk 21:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThreePeace

Non notable band autobiography. The author has made a valiant attempt at producing an article that lives up to various standards and guidelines, but notability is nowhere established.

I count only two references that are independent of the band itself, both reviews, no features or interviews.

Other references are the band's own webpage, press releases from the band, their myspace page, the band's own writeups of itself on the few webpages where their discs are available for purchase, and a link to their YouTube video embedded in the page of the guy who made the video.

The article describes a list of non-notable accomplishments in otherwise glowing terms. For example:

"Crystal Pyramid Video Productions of San Diego, California commissioned the band for the use of their song “Gone Away" [12],edited by Patty Mooney, to further promote World Peace through the creation of a YouTube music video dedicated to the cause."

(ie someone used their music in a YouTube video.)

"The band is Published by the Sheehan Sound Engineering Indie Label"

This label does not appear to have any commercially available releases (ie, not available in stores, not available on sites like Amazon). Discs are available through sites like CD Baby, that sell discs on commission. Also, Sheehan Sound Engineering has only two acts. This is either the band's own label, a name they've simply slapped on the spine, or their friend's hobby label.

their music is Administered by ASCAP

ASCAP is not an arbiter of notability, applying for membership is largely a formality. This is a royalty agency, membership does not even guarantee that you'll ever get a penny in royalties. I myself am an ASCAP member. Even mentioning ASCAP at all smacks of clutching at straws.

"ThreePeace was added to the Clear Channel Communications Family of websites at iheart.com, and listed on over 350+ radio stations websites in the United States."

www.iheartradio.com (not iheart.com), is a page that aggregates "350+"radio streams and allows you to submit your disc for "consideration". The disc was accepted (what that means isn't clear at all). Hairhorn (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed all the guidelines outlined by the editor I have been in contact with. This one editor seems to have a personal feeling that this band is not relevant. I have listed many references and accomplishments the band has made according to the terms I was asked to do and all are verifiable. I have been to other bands wikipedia articles and have found much less relevance then ThreePeace has. I wrote the ariticle to place excitement for the reader. To call these accomplishments non-notable is rediculous. I sinecerely believed a Band being featured on a Anti-War Clip is very rellevant, after all they didn't produce it themselves. They were chosen for it. A simple Bing.Com, Yahoo.Com, or Google.Com search on ThreePeace will give any editor the scope of ThreePeace. ThreePeace is very relevant considering the current music industry or lack there of. Just because the band is released on a small label of which I have yet to explore, there are other indie artist like Moe for instance that release all their own albums on their own label. Not comparing ThreePeace to Moe here, yet the size of a label seems irrelevant based on Moe releasing all their own stuff on FatBoy Records. If the article is deleted it will be a big mistake, furthermore, I am collecting more references of features of the Band on World Wide Radio Broadcasts. I have made a good effort to post all the facts the best that I have them. To call these accomplishments non-notable is certainly a matter of opinion. I am sure the thousands of ThreePeace fans world wide would not share this view! This is simply one editors view of which I certainly don't agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riddiman (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hairhorn. Just for the sake of argument. ThreePeace has 11,000 fans on their myspace and I would bet that each and every one of them would find this article notable to them. I have Radio Broadcasts and Playlists I am currently assembling. I have interviews as well that I am working on from the fans. This material takes time to collect. I have been editing this on the fly and trying valiantly according to your terms to collect this data. I have had success collecting information of Broadcasts and Interviews. In efforts to be complete and concise I am collecting more data. I don't want to just push out unsubstanciated claims without being able to verify them. However, to call all of my fact not notable only relates to your opinion and not the opinion of the ThreePeace fans who's countless comments are viewable at www.myspace.com/threepeacerocks. As a ThreePeace fan I understand just how notable these things are. This conversation is simply a matter of perspective. If you were a ThreePeace fan you may see these things as more notable. I don't see how you can argue anything to the contrary.Riddiman (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Editor is trying to work on the article but notability isn't established yet. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is needed. May just need some time to pass for that coverage to happen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there appears to be no way this band can meet the guidelines for bands at this time. I don't see any wide-range coverage in reliable sources, which makes it hard to verify if they've toured, put out multiple albums on notable labels, etc. I'm sorry, but the number of fans on Myspace counts for nothing when it comes to determining if a band is encyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the guidelines and again. I have been putting together the media play, interviews and features. However I don't want to post them without actually getting the information directly from the sources. So I will continue to do so. If the article is deleted it certainly won't be the end. I am gathering information on the fly. By the way, I wasn't using the myspace comment as a matter of wheter the band is encyclopedic or not, please note that comment was used as a reference to notability in regards to the ThreePeace fans.Riddiman (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here. What is the time frame for deletion so I can gain the facts from broadcasts, interviews and playlists. Just not familiar with all of this. This is my first article attempt. Gathering as fast as possible.Riddiman (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, first of all thanks for the Music Notability page, I wasn't aware of these things. ThreePeace has been featured on a national satellite radio program of which I have a recording. I am gathering other features and airplay information. If the article is deleted I will just resubmit it when the remaining information comes in. I have nothing but respect for this process. I believe ThreePeace will be eventually accepted and this is a learning process which can only be achieved by doing it.Riddiman (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This discussion lasts for seven days. If you can provide the necessary references in that time, then most of the time editors will re-evaluate it; at the end of the process, an uninvolved administrator evaluates consensus and makes a decision whether to keep or delete the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fans of Indie Bands here on Wikipedia. I believe you should stand up for ThreePeace. I ask any of you to search ThreePeace (1 Word) on Bing.Com, Yahoo.Com or Google and you will find countless listings of the band World Wide for various songs and categories....even chinese I can decifer. On Bing.Com I am getting returns from Many Radio Station in the Us that list their songs, with different numbers of plays on each station. I believe these are all Clear Channel Communications Stations. It is not logical to have this degree of exposure simply by themselves. The search results speak for themselves in regard to broadcast. I found that on Bing.com and also the countless search returns which I can only estimate in the thousands. If this article is deleted, I will certainly save my work as I accumulate the subsequent references. This is my first submission and I have learned alot so far. If one of the details of inclusion is details of broadcast nationally which qualify a Music Group, then ThreePeace is qualified. I know ThreePeace has satisfied that. I don't have playlists as generally these are not published. However, it seems they are being played by clear channel or my search isn't working correctly. Likewise, I have recordings of the band featured on KUAC Alaska as a tribute to the Prince William Sound Oil Spill, Likewise, this show was broadcast into Russia as is stated on the program by Alaska Jahn of KUAC. There is actually a clip of this on the website. I also have a recording of the band from a show on the Jammin Reggae Achieves. Another recording of a 40 minute interview of the band, featuring all their songs on Progressive Soundscapes Radio from 2006. I know the band has alot of play I can't verify. That is just the nature of the beast. Not all play is internet noted. There is no doubt there is all kinds of air play I simply won't be able to track down. In any event, I will continue to collect the material and resubmit it at a later time if it is deleted. I wasn't aware of this process and just decided to give it a go one night as a fan of the band. If they are accepted or not won't change my mind, and I will continue to collect data for their inclusion when the band is deemed notable by the editors on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.4.151 (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Last Post because I am becoming exhausted in this work anyway. I just searched rock music on here and found articles like this one......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utris. They are not up for deletion and none of this makes any sense at all. So many other bands with fewer credentials not up for deletion, so what is one to believe?68.41.4.151 (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to login.....I submitted the last two posts.Riddiman (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bit of data that the editor above said didn't exist for ThreePeace in commercial stores like amazon,target and itunes. Here are some links to those which will be helpful. Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=threepeace. Target - http://www.target.com/gp/search/181-7067944-9267339?field-keywords=ThreePeace&url=index%3Dtarget%26search-alias%3Dtgt-index&ref=sr_bx_1_1&x=15&y=9. and Itunes - http://www.apple.com/search/ipoditunes/?q=threepeace+rastaman. I find 29 tracks for sale on itunes.Riddiman (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate other bands that don't seem notable for deletion. But the existence of other articles that don't meet the inclusion guidelines isn't going to help your case for this article I'm afraid. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of these things you all are saying. I just looked up ThreePeace on Itunes and it shows a bunch of the songs on their albums as full bars as far as popularity. I have given you referneces which can be followed. Just check the links I have supplied and the rest becomes clear. They are selling lots of songs on Itunes and other outlets. It can be verified and it is indisputable. They are available from almost all media outlets I am checking. I simply am pointing out the facts a reasonable editor will see these facts. As a person new to the Wikipedia community and giving the best of efforts, I am just trying to make sense of how these decisions are made. I have sent a bunch of links tonight which can be verified. I feel I have stated my case for the band the best I can for now. We will just have to see the final decision. In any event the information is here for the deciding editor. The defense rests!LOL!Riddiman (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources like newspapers, magazines and books. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found an independant interview with ThreePeace. It appears to be done by an interviewer and is published on line at the following url. http://www.hussieskunk.com/reviews/intervs/threepeace-march2007.shtml. I must point out it seems like the more of these things I point out. Like above where it says there are no independant reviews, which I have just pointed out here. Likewise, I have the Radio Show interview from Progressive Soundscapes radio with host Kenny Solomon, I have linked to many reviews which are independant. To the final decision maker by reading these responses it should be clear that alot of the claims made by the editors have been proven wrong. Likewise, there is more references I am finding all the time. I have a full time job and can't put all my resources to this. I know this article will grow with more resources added along the way. I urge you to re-read this article for deletion completely before making your decision.68.41.4.151 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have provided linkes to interviews online, verification of play on radio, independant interviews, as well as proof that the music is available on all of these major distribution sources

Apple iTunes iMusica LastFM Amazon Pocketgroup Rhapsody Napster Amie Street Lala Spotify Shockhound MP3tunes USEN AudioLunchbox Interia MusicIsHere Puretracks Tradebit Bitmunk Daiki Inprodicon NTT Mouzika PlayIndies PayPlay ZuKool Starzik rVibe MOL GreatIndieMusic Liquid Digital Media Spotify Shockhound

I also have found numerous features like this one on MichiganBands.Com http://www.michiganbands.com/article1548.html, this one on collegemusicradio.com - http://www.collegemusicradio.com/index.cfm?method=musicdetail&id=2073. There are so many results in fact I could never list them all. Likewise, these distribution sources and articles are only a partial list of the returns I have found. Likewise, Keep in mind, I stongly feel that posting all of this information on Wikipedia just becomes a bit redundant and actually takes away from the aritcle and starts to approach redundancy. I have offered evidence here which very much disputes some of the claims made by the editors. I am still gathering sources from interviews, radio airplay. I have provided sources for the article support, however, I certainly don't think all of these things need to be in the article. However, here is the proof that they do exist.

Thanks for the opportunity to defend my article.Riddiman (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way in closing as this will be my last post before a decision is made. I just read the entire article for deletion and the comment by hairhorn which states "Even mentioning ASCAP at all smacks of clutching at straws". Claiming that I was using that fact to gain notability, is more a personal dig at me the editor. I find that comment offensive. I included all the information in this article simply as information of fact. That information is provided on on the back of each of the ThreePeace albums, and it was stated as facts about the band for those who were interested. I personally was never writing this from the perspective of if the band was notable. To me they are, and that is the end of the story. I find that comment a personal dig directed at myself and nothing to do with the notability of ThreePeace. I have shown where Hairhorn was wrong about a number of his comments above. The rest will be up to the final administrator. If I felt I was cluthing at straws, I would never have spent these countless hours writing and editing this article. I did it because I sincerely believe it is worthwhile and notable regardless of the label they are on or if they are on ASCAP. Those are simply facts about the band.Riddiman (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, editors sometimes take deletion nominations personally. But only in rare instances are they meant that way. I don't see any personal attacks in my nomination; it even uses the word "valiant" to describe the effort put into the article. Which copyright organization a band uses is irrelevant to notability, there are only 2 or 3 them in the USA anyhow, and membership is easy to get. Also, you've given a lot of information, but I don't see a mention of what your relationship to the band is. DId I miss it somewhere? It may be relevant in this case. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. None of the material identified as references in the article or noted in this discussiion establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My relationship to the band is fan of the band........One who thinks they are notable. I admit freely that once the notability issue came into this article. It just became a litany of links and blurbs to verify notabiltiy to all of you. That is the point at which this article lost its appeal and became fluff or window dressing. I should have just left it alone and let it be deleted if that was what was going to happen. I have saved all this work and will grab the nuggets that are useful, once I have the rest of the information to verify notability I will post it again. In any event a bunch of Wikipedia Editors and countless others have read about ThreePeace through this baptism of fire on Wikipedia. So with all things considered it did serve a very useful purpose. Educating Internet Users with undeniable and unnotable facts about ThreePeace! LOL! It could be worse!Riddiman (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks for your good efforts. I look forward to there being some news coverage of the band and their related activities so we can get an article up about them. Peace. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:02, 15 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 are many invalid keep arguments. However, there is clearly no consensus to delete, since there are valid arguments on both sides. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Parente

It has been a few months since it happened. But still no indication that it caused any effects on society. There is nothing notable about this individual. --Alchaenist (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I'm going to stick to my guns from the last AfD: this is a single event which has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Despite claims made in the last AfD about the media being on this story "day after day," well, they weren't then and they aren't now. As the nominator correctly states, this is not something that has impacted society. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, and per WP:BIO. A splash of news coverage, but no indication it is causing any effects on society. Wikipedia is not a compilation of every murder or murderer. There have been no societal effects, such as moves to decrease the likelihood of those in financial or legal trouble murdering their families. Very tragic for the family and their friends, but there are many familicides and suicides every year, and I do not see anything encyclopedic here. See also the essay Wikipedia:Notability (news) which discusses the different goals of news editors and encyclopedia editors. If the article were to be kept, it should be retitled Parente murder-suicide, since the supposed killer was otherwise not notable. Edison (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Very substantial coverage. Will certainly be studied and included as one of the incidents related to the financial crisis. This is not some random shooting, but a serious murder-suicide of an entire family related to notable financial fraud issues that are subject to a Federal investigation. Also of psychological noteworthiness [10]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First see WP:CRYSTAL which rejects your claim that it will be important in the future as a reason to keep the article. Second, are there any murder-suicides which are not "serious?????"Edison (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did not pass AfD closed less than 2 months ago so no need to start another one so soon. Well-sourced article with many references and substantial news coverage. 68.244.163.208 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very well covered and sourced. WP:NOTNEWS does not state that a news event cannot ever be notable, particular a very unusual type of event. While it says that routine coverage or events reported in tabloids only are not notable, this is anything but routine. There is also no guideline on Wikipedia that an event has to have daily coverage forever in order to be notable, or to continue to have occasional coverage every so often in order for the notability to remain. Hellno2 (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the amount of news coverage (the media loves tragedy), this is still a non-notable person who committed a horrific crime. Nothing beyond WP:ONEEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to an article about the event, and redirect William Parente to said event article. Symplectic Map (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage appears all to be routine news reporting: there is no evidence of more substantial coverage. Collecting large numbers of links to routine news reporting does not make the coverage anything other that routine news reporting. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that certain deletionist forces from the previous discussion, such as Drmies, were contacted regarding this discussion, but only one of the many keep voters was notified as best I can tell. I hate to invoke an accusation of canvassing, but were all the previous AfD participants notified or just "some"? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have messaged them in a friendly notice. How is this canvassing? Alchaenist (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you leave friendly notice messages mostly to previous delete votes, I think it's quite clear how that amounts to canvassing. Please notify the rest of the people who participated previously so as not to bias the outcome of this discussion unfairly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the rest of the people who participated previously. This is still unnecessary, because if there wasn't enough input, the administrator would relist the debate to generate a more thorough discussion. Alchaenist (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not rename. This ONEEVENT/WP:BLP1E argument cannot be used here because this is about a deceased person. There is not guideline stating deceased people are not notable over one event, just living people. It is normal that we have articles about those notable for a single crime, and they are titled by the name of the criminal; examples Patrick Critton, Josh Phillips (murderer), Kenneth Curtis (murderer). There is really no other practical way to title these articles (How does "The Patrick Critton Hijacking, the Josh Phillips murder case, the Kenneth Curtis murder" sound?). Shaliya waya (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT is not limited to living people. WP:BLP1E is a totally seperate guideline. Call is WP:BIO1E if it makes you feel better. Still doesn't change anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not a biography, though it purports to be one. This article is about a murder/suicide investigation. I'm sorry to say, IMHO, this sort of event must be classified as routine, for exactly the reason nominator gave: no great resonance in society, despite the (somewhat lurid and yellow) news reports. I'll concede significant news coverage, but we're not here for that. ~~Note to closing admin: Either this page is a bio and must be deleted, or it's an incident and must be renamed. A second "No consensus" outcome doesn't serve the community in this circumstance.~~ BusterD (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm note sure whether the pedia has a policy on this, but I certainly hope we haven't set up a "Wikipedia Fun Time Detective Club" here. I hope we're not here to solve mysteries ourselves. I'm intrigued by a mystery as much as anyone, but IMHO, just like the sources, this page seems to infer the guilt of the subject. Conspiracy issues can also be inferred from both the subject and the sources. IMHO, this seems like a pedia-version of rubber-necking. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've written a new section which offers some context. Now the article actually constitutes something approximating biography. I still think it should be deleted, but if it's going to be kept, it should at least resemble a bio page. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said a mere two months ago... Keep or rename. The article is well-sourced, and the crime was notable both for its execution (drawn out), and for the motivation (the FBI investigation into the Ponzi scheme). Refocus on the crime, not the individual. Why is this being listed again so soon after the previous AfD discussion? Fences&Windows 15:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has been about two months. Is there a requirement to how long we need to wait to request for a 2nd nomination? Alchaenist (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia: Notability (criminal acts). This was a nationally reported story. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the murders, and the suicide, and the probable motivation fort hem as reported in reliable source's, this isn;'t one event, and I do not see what other title there could be. The obvious titles for this is the name of a person. There are no BLP considerations. Once something has become notable, it remains notable. After a no-concensus close, btw, 2 months seems to me personally a perfectly reasonable time to renominate--I have no objections on that score. DGG (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no requirement of showing any "indication that it caused any effects on society". The actual standard is based on reliable and verifiable sources and the 20 or so sources in this article are more than adequate to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References show extensive coverage already -- no crystal ball required. At first I was inclined to agree with Symplectic Map's suggestion of renaming, but, on reflection, I think it's inappropriate here. Parente isn't someone who happened to be involved in a newsworthy event, but whose life is otherwise nonnotable; his career was directly related to the event. JamesMLane t c 09:30, 13 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) 00:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yukiwo P. Dengokl

I can find no notability for this topic. This is an orphan page with NO other articles linking to it. Seems to be a worthless article. Timneu22 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A highest-level legislator for his nation is a clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN, despite the small size of the country. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As David Eppstein said, members of a national legislative body are automatically notable as per WP:POLITICIAN, regardless of a lack of coverage. Otumba (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Potential for expansion. Geschichte (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Google turns up a tiny number of hits (unrelated to wikipedia mirrors), but those seem to suggest this not a hoax page; this book has info in snippet view which reports subject was vice-president of Senate. Could easily be expanded. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. The nominator probably should have read WP:BEFORE prior to nominating. Also note that the nominator did not correctly specify an appropriate edit summary in the article when nominating for deletion, per WP:AFDHOWTO, I have now rectified this with a dummy edit. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:03, 13 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. High schools are generally notable, and several editors seem to agree that the article can be expanded with new sources. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summit School (Queens, New York)

It is not a notable special school. Article makes no claim of notability for its subject. --Alchaenist (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found references pertaining to individuals who were in some way associated with the school, but I could find nothing that asserted the notability of the school itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains a high school and sources are available from which the article can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons noted by TerriersFan. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep high schools are notable Broadwayfan15 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Schools get the benefit of the doubt that they are notable unless proven otherwise. Scjessey points out the lack of sources in the article. I looked at the article, and it's been tagged requesting more sources for 18 months. That's plenty of time to have found them, if they were out there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on availability of sources on the school for an article that would greatly benefit from expansion. Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - C.Fred is correct that schools get the benefit of the doubt on notability. However, the length of time it has been tagged for sources is irrelevant, since Wikipedia does not impose time limits. Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 13 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 16:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altha weightlifting

Non-notable school group, ~~I don't even think~~ the school ~~has~~ doesn't even have an article. ceranthor 15:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of notability, and 2/3 links in the page are showing as Red on Web of Trust. Third link is broken. This is a great example on why you should use preview, although fixing the links to their correct destination won't help, since I didn't find information on a quick glance after going to the correct link. (Also, the school's article should be created before their individual teams.) --Sigma 7 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school function/team. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 9 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 16:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Zaide

I have found no evidence that One Zaide meets WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, or even WP:V. "One Zaide" and "First Year Zaide" turn up no relevant Google hits, and "ordinary students" and "local group", two phrases used in the article, add to my impression that this is a non-notable band. Otumba (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Otumba (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Otumba (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did raise my concerns with the author of the article about two days ago. I received no reply. Otumba (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Otumba (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
how can you say there is a lack of notability, maybe you should slow down and perfom an obviously long lost talent of read all the way throught not just scanning at the speed of light, all of the links are very accurate. Tell me how can you possibly say the schools official website is not verifiable. Second one of the links is to Wikipedia, the other is The only website for Florida Highschool sports...take more time before you jump the gun.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridasport (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I do not understand all of your statement. What official school website? What links? And may I ask how a sports website is relevant? Thank you. Otumba (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this band does not appear to be able to meet the notability guidelines - there's little to no indication that they exist, let alone have received coverage enough to prove notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A section in a school is not automatically notable; there are hundreds of those every school year, and I don't think not every school's sections (as in 100%) would have had accomplished or attained something that would pass WP's notability guidelines. I also think this one reeks like a vanity article. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:49, 11 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. Shereth 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M. Anthony Marlowe

The citations are self-published or adverts, the biography and author may be in violation of WP:COI, and requires significant rewrite for keeping. The author has repeatedly removed maintenance tags that indicate page issues and required improvements. A linked company information article, TMone, was deleted based on notability. TRL (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the author of this article. Actually, I believe SusanBagel is the author. Furthermore, I deleted the maintenance tags because I worked on the problems with this page. If you have such a problem with this article, why don't YOU rewrite it? User:ICIntern —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Reads as a vanity article for someone who's notability doesn't seem defined and the rash of SPAs editing this article worries me. treelo _radda 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Well, thanks ICIntern for editing our page. We appreciate the help, and know that any feedback is valuable. This article is still under construction. I started writing this page, with BillyBagel, as a class project about someone notable in our community, and we chose Marlowe because we are both business majors and he started a business from scratch at a very young age. We feel he is a good role model for people like us. We really don't understand why this article should be deleted, and a number of the issues that have been pointed out don't even really seem to apply. Any help improving this article is appreciated, as this is our first attempt at creating an article.SusanBagel

So this article is the result of a class project? Hm. treelo _radda 17:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Our professor wanted us to research young entrepreneurs, with a focus on their on-line presence. Instead of writing a boring paper about Marlowe, we thought we would try putting up a wikipedia article about him. You can contest our article but you cannot contest our integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanBagel (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC) --[reply]

That's good, we're here to discuss the future of the article, not the integrity of the editors involved. Even with that though, that article as it stands isn't passing notability on the face of it. Improve the article as you say you will and I'm sure if this person is notable then the article will be kept. treelo _radda 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to all the flags, we feel they are invalid for the following reasons:

Missing Citations—We have 9 citations with links as well as a further reading section Sources not from a third-party—All of our sources are from a third-party publication except for one which we found from the company website Neutrality—We wrote this article as unbiased as possible. This is just our first try at writing an article. If you find something that seems biased please let us know and we will be sure to fix it. Notability—As Susan mentioned earlier, Marlowe is a notable person in our community. He is also nationally recognized, see the awards section. Advertisement—I don’t know what we would be advertising Links from other articles—We did not add any links but we will work on it. Conflict of Interest and Autobiography—both claims are not valid seeing as we have no stake in the company and we are not Anthony Marlowe Self-Published Sources—As stated earlier our sources are from established news publications or are public information. We have not written anything ourselves. External Links—We don’t even know what this flag means.

We appreciate all the help and feedback with this article. We are new at this and it has been quite a learning experience. However, if you have concerns or decide to flag something please make it constructive and provide a specific explanation of what is wrong so we can remedy the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyBagel (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) --BillyBagel (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have just added internal links from 3 other articles, and are working on adding more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanBagel (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question to author: Why would you put the article up before it was reasonably finished? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of an accident really. As we said, it's our first attempt at this and we couldn't figure out how to keep the article from going live. We are using the under construction tag to inform people that we are still working on this article.--BillyBagel (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no offense to the students working on it: this is just another non-notable local businessman, most of whom will never get an article in Wikipedia. Why not work on the articles on some of your underrecognized local writers like Ed Gorman or Mickey Zucker Reichert? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC) has spent many a happy weekend in Greater Coralville[reply]

Delete - references do not appear to show notability. Question: is it a coincidence that an article for the company which this person is the founder of, TMone, is being repeatedly recreated in spite of several speedy deletions for lack of notability (and recreated by different users, including somebody who appears to be closely affiliated with the company)? --bonadea contributions talk 20:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to TMone. I've worked on cleaning that one up, and there may actually be an article there once it's received some more attention. This one, though, is a lost cause (imo)—too many of the references are about the company, not the person. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not quite there with notability. The current references are terrible: all but one are not reliable sources, and the remaining one has a passing mention and quote in paragraph 2 of a Reuters story. Therefore, the stub fails WP:N. He could become more notable as the company grows, so do not salt this one. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 15 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, as per consensus - with a special shout out to Hell in a Bucket's very interesting confession. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frandor Mall

Delete, non notable spam article Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are mostly personal sites, no non-trivial coverage found in third-party sources. (That, and it's actually called Frandor Shopping Center.) Unlike their enclosed bretheren, strip malls seem to have a pattern of being non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison, non-trivial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a minor strip mall. It is a regional mall, having 450,000 square feet of retail space. It was Michigan's first such shopping mall, and is of historical importance. Frandor mall had brief coverage] in Billboard on pages 96 and 98 in April 9, 1955, ("Lansing men build shop center kiddieland") where it was described as a $10,000,000 shopping center to be built on a former golf course. There was more brief coverage in Billboard July 9, 1955, p 15 ("Dealer doings") where it said there would be parking for 5,000 cars. It had a redevelopment and was to have a grand reopening in 1999 per Retail Traffic, March 1 1998. Over the years there were stories about a bank robberry there, problems with water runoff, tenants coming and going and the usual. Edison (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why would "the usual" help establish notability? Abductive (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Going with WP:SNOW. To the nom, I think it's time to take a chill pill, dude. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HMMMMM, I just say no to drugs. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As malls go, this one is pretty significant. Kestenbaum (talk) 17:40, 9 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. None of the criteria for speedy deletion quite apply, but with such a strong and obvious consensus WP:SNOW very much does. ~ mazca ^talk 11:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What The Googlies

WP:NEO, WP:ONEDAY, WP:NOTSUITABLEFORWIKIPEDIAATALL Fribbulus Xax (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't see what speedy criteria this could come under; it's neither nonsense nor vandalism. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Haven't found any sources that could even somewhat redeem the guideline deficiencies noted. I also can't think how this article could come under the speedy deletion criteria.Otumba (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More proof, if any was needed, that we need a a speedy delete category for blatantly non-notable neologisms. (the blatant part being "phrase that was first created during a hectic IT team collaboration event on the 8th of July 2009.") Hairhorn (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Looks like nonsense to me, whether or not it formally meets the definitions of 'nonsense'. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So friggin' tempting to delete this as a G3, but it doesn't quite fit. I second Hairhorn on neologisms, because this is garbage. Delete, speedily if someone can find a good category for it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:ONEDAY, WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS and probably several other things as well. Alas it doesn't fit any speedy deletion criteria that I can see - I think the best we can hope for is an early WP:SNOW closure. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-avowedly WP:MADEUP and violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Whoa! Was that a snowball that just rushed by? Cnilep (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP and WP:YOUVEGOTTOBESHITTINGME Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need that to not be a redlink. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 9 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. Valley2city^‽ 02:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tahar Ben-Romdhane

Article about footballer who has not played in a fully-pro league. A PROD was previously removed because the article claims he played one match in the fully-pro Ligue 2, but no reliable sources are available to verify this. On the contrary, he did not appear in the match claimed in the article. Jogurney (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find him on L'Equipe or the Paris FC website. Obviously that vote is provisional to someone finding a source for a professional appearance by this person. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the entire article is a hoax, but even if the information is accurate (other than the clearly false claim of an appearance in Ligue 2), the article fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probable hoax Spiderone (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not as hoax, although parts of article may be not strictly factual as no evidence of appearances seems to exist, simply per not notable amateur football mercenary looking for a job per this advert. Possibly real person who played for these clubs but not as first team.--ClubOranje^T 15:15, 14 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 keep, obviously notable. Blueboy 96 19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing Mall

AfDs for this article:

Delete, Non notable shopping mall. please see original deletion discussion Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original discussion. Article isn't any more notable now than it was when previously deleted. MovieMadness (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets WP:VERIFIABLE, meets WP:NOTE, falls under a project group WP:MALLS, and is well-written and sourced. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whatever it may have been before, it is certainly a perfectly acceptable, properly-sourced article now. Broad agreement with Paranormal Skeptic. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. How on earth is this not notable? The last version didn't have any sources, this one clearly has plenty of non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this mall is clearly notable based on the sources included in the article and the dozens more available on Google News. A previous AfD deletion, especially one that took place 2.5 years ago, is not sufficient reason to delete the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ten Pound Hammer and ThaddeusB. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has several sources and it pased it's last AFD which was worse then is was now :| Irunongames • play 16:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Echelon Mall, this mall has had a documented impact on the area economy and therefore is an integral part of the region. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Snowball close, there's no point in leaving this open for a week.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 17:24, 8 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. Research during the course of this discussion seems to have debunked most of the sourcing and left the consensus is that what remains does not establish notability. Shereth 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Griswold

Just because several references about a subject can be found and cited, does that make the person notable? This article is about a local newscaster who probably is unknown outside her viewing area. It includes such tidbits as "Before moving to the Twin Cities in 2006 she continuously monitored stories on the 5 Eyewitness News website as the news program caught her attention," "Growing up in a small town north of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and is used to the cold weather which is why she did not need to adjust to the weather of Minnesota," "She also has a pet cat that is named Athens," and "Jennifer updates her followers by posting at her twitter page." There is nothing relevant here at all. It sounds like a puff piece written by her publicist. MovieMadness (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm not her pulicist, I edit thousands of miles away from the US. The article's composition came about the searches that were made, if it was too pleasant for some, I'm sorry but that was the referenced matierial. --TitanOne (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because of some notability; however, needs serious cleanup. Lots of "Jennifer this" and "Jennifer that" sort of stuff. Suggest a thorough de-fluffing and some gratuitous stubbery. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't quite see the notability here. Local notability at best. Geschichte (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Insufficient notability and lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Over time we have kept more obscure articles with less notability. This individual appears in well respected media articles. If being the tagged as the 12th most eligible bachelorette in America by Forbes isn't notable enough, then why keep a massive list of porn stars who won the golden boner award? Sheeesh. --TitanOne (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Geschichte (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TitanOne. Royal broil 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing I see differentiates her from the thousands of other local affiliate reporters around the US. She is simply someone doing their job and that job happens to be on camera. We can always expect trivial local stuff about appearences at Rotary luncheons or riding on a parade float, but in the end, trivia doesn't equal notability. And yes, Forbes is notable, but being in it because you are just a pretty unmarried woman sounds trivial to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to comment, if you say Forbes is not notable, then where would we rely on to get the Billionaires list, the SEC? If you say Forbes is not notable then were discreditting past wealth-achievements of Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, etc. --TitanOne (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what part of "And yes, Forbes is notable" made you think I said Forbes is not notable? I said her inclusion was trivial. Hell, the whole list would be trivial since it is sheer opinion of an authors who limited themselves to the cities on the companion list of best cities for singles. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes mention is pretty trivial dontcha think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pure fluff. It sounds like a Facebook page instead of an encyclopedia article. If you Google Jennifer Griswold, most of the hits don't even pertain to her. Saying she's notable primarily because she was named #12 on a list of America's Most Eligible Bachelorettes by Forbes suggests the 11 women who preceded her on the list should have articles too. I agree with the rationales offered by both the nominator and Niteshift36. And I definitely disagree with the argument "Over time we have kept more obscure articles with less notability." Wikipedia should eliminate garbage, not continue to add to it just because it already exists. 63.3.15.129 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notabilty for several reasons.

She hasn't received a notable award or honor (being designated a pretty unmarried woman, even by Forbes, doesn't count), nor has she been nominated for any.
She has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her field.
None of the references cited indicate she is regarded as an important figure by her peers.
She hasn't originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
She doesn't appear to have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

It seems like TitanOne's primary reason for wanting to keep this article is the notability of Forbes, which doesn't necessarily make Griswold notable. According to Wikipedia:Notability (people), When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. In this case, the "single event" is being named #12 on a list of America's Most Eligible Bachelorettes by Forbes. Looking at the magazine and the role it plays overall, this particular list is not highly significant at all and isn't even listed here [11].

Basically, Griswold is just one of thousands of women who report the news for their local TV stations. If she deserves an article, why not them? LargoLarry (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Did anyone who voted to keep this article because it has sources actually look at them? The way this article was written it looks like it has ten, but it really has only seven, and most of them aren't even valid.

[12] is an article of a highly scientific nature. One of the authors was someone named Jennifer Griswold. It's obvious this is not the same Jennifer Griswold.

The same thing with [13]. The Jennifer Griswold profiled here has a BS in Biotechnology from the Rochester Institute of Technology. She's not the same person.

The Internet Movie Database is referenced twice. Not only is IMDb is not considered a valid source by the Wikipedia Film Project, but if you look at [14] it doesn't tell you anything about Jennifer Griswold other than the fact she plays herself in a faux semidocumentary horror film that hasn't been released, which means the film lacks notability.

Forbes.com is referenced twice, and all it proves is that she was #12 on their list of America's Most Eligible Bachelorettes, which isn't a significant achievement.

The KSTP-TV website is referenced twice. This is her biography, created by the station's publicity department and based on information she gave them, so it's not a valid source.

[15] is a personal web page she created herself, so it's not a reliable source.

[16] proves she went to the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. This does not make her notable.

Besides all the trivia in this article and the very sloppy researching, what bothers me is that the person who created it wrote, "In 2007, Jennifer Griswold was listed as Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minessota's most eligible bachelorette" which isn't even true. She was named #12 in America. Just because she was the first one on the list to be from St. Paul doesn't give someone the right to twist the facts and say she was #1 in St. Paul. This wasn't a list limited to St. Paul residents, it covered the entire country, so it's very misleading to say they named her #1 in St. Paul. It seems like an attempt to make her more notable than she actually is, and she isn't notable at all. 63.3.15.1 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per deleters. The ISPs points about sourcing above are well made. That the scientific work of another Jennifer Griswold has been lumped on is especially concerning. but she isn't notable anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Largo Larry and 63.3.15.1, who gave very complete and sensible rationales for deleting this article. Good work, both of you, especially 63.3.15.1, who took the time to check out all the references and prove they were useless. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I appreciate 63.3.15.1's comments, but I would like to correct a couple of points. The citation to UWOsh.edu shows someone named Jennifer Griswold who graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh in 2008. Given the article subject's career, it is unlikely that 2008 was her college graduation year, and the article (and her television station's website) both say she went to the University of Wisconsin at Madison. So the cited source is apparently about a different person. Also, it is correct to say that Forbes listed her as the most eligible bachelorette in Minneapolis-St. Paul, but not that she was listed as the #12 bachelorette in America. Rather, Minneapolis-St. Paul was named the 12th best (actually, tied for 12th) city for singles in America, and she was chosen as the most eligible bachelorette from that area. Each city had only one representative listed by Forbes. On the other hand, the selection of the most eligible bachelorette was not exactly scientific. Here is how Forbes described it: We selected a "most eligible" bachelor and bachelorette for many of our cities. Like any such list, our picks are a bit subjective and somewhat eclectic. We started by getting nominations from locals and held a newsroom poll to determine the winners. We considered only public figures--which is why the list is heavy on athletes and news anchors--and which is also why your brother the charming and handsome surgeon didn't get chosen. To determine eligibility, we merely confirmed that our selections were not married. We did not check to see if they had a "serious" boyfriend or girlfriend. [17] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the link to the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh was also incorrect, this means the only valid reference used for this article was Forbes, which I think should be enough reason to delete it. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically, the subject is a local television station news reporter -- not even an anchor of the news, just one of the reporters. She also played herself in a movie which has not been distributed yet, and was named her city's "most eligible bachelorette" in a magazine's newsroom poll which was slanted heavily toward television news personalities (see above comment). The claim that she is also a biochemist has been removed because it refers to a completely different person. I don't think that all of this adds up to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find any proof that the Jennifer Griswold in The Poughkeepsie Tapes is the same Jennifer Griswold as this one, so I removed the mention of the film in the article. I think it's interesting that on her talk page TitanOne admits she created this article in order to nominate herself for a DYK. She says the reason "Sounds kind of shallow" and she's right. Her research was sloppy and she included a lot of trivia and several statements that can't be verified. This article actually qualified for speedy deletion! 209.247.22.164 (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blog post indicates that this Jennifer Griswold is the one from The Poughkeepsie Tapes, for whatever that's worth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is a personal blog considered a reliable source? If it is, I'll revert the information about the film. It still won't make her notable, since it never was released. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a lack of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources means she fails to cross the notability threshold. The sloppy nature of the original version of this article is also quite concerning but not a matter for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real coverage about this Jennifer Griswold to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 21:41, 14 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. There is no firm consensus to merge but that does appear to be a fairly likely outcome. I suggest interested editors discuss the question of a merger on the proposed target's talk page. This closure as a keep is in no way prohibitive of a merger after discussion. Shereth 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vercingetorix in popular culture

This article, like other similar ones, does not give any context as to why its subject is notable enough for an independent article. There is no context for why it's important, and none of the material is sourced, so it can't be verified. It may well be that one day enough sourced, verifiable information will be found for such an article, but come on, add it to the main article first and fork it off at the point that becomes necessary. I'd have merged this stuff into Vercingetorix, but there's nothing to merge, as it's all unsourced. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the material is not particularly suitable for an encyclopedia, and must not move to the other article. Mintrick (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, definitely not encyclopedic. Essentially a trivia list. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - off the top of my head, the Asterix one I know well, and I am sure there are refs for it somewhere, other material may or may not have. Given the brevity of both the articles, size is no reason for split here. Nor is article quality a reason to vote delete. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Can be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. But includes relevant and notable appearances. Sourcing can also be improved and the list trimmed. (ec) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep or merge. While it may be unsourced at the moment, references can certainly be found to back it up, and the potential exists for it to be more encyclopedic. The information is relevant in giving a broader context to Vercingetorix, and may have utility. --QUANTUM ZENO 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I've added refs for more than half of the list, I'm sure refs for the rest can be found. I'm also incredibly thrilled to know that Vercingetorix has actually had a greater influence on pop culture than just throwing his shield at Ceasar's feet. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vercingetorix in a new section - Vercingetorix#Cultural depictions. Based on F&W's arguments below and the way the French have handled it, I'm convinced that, this would be a better option. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—He is an important historical figure and there are some notable cultural aspects listed. It looks like the references issue is being addressed.—RJH (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Vercingétorix actually had an important role in French culture, particularly in the 19th century, as a symbol of French nationalism.Rhinoracer (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if the article is improved (and some ground has been made thus far), the good content should be merged back to the main article, after whick point I think this fork will need to be redirected or deleted. It's senseless to focus on a fork without touching the article it's a fork from.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I immediately thought to look to see how we deal with Boudicca in popular culture: Boudicca#Cultural depictions. First, it is in the main article, and I can't see why it should be any different in this case. Second, it avoids those 'dog whistle' words, "in popular culture", using the more scholarly "Cultural depictions". Nice. I'm going to see if I can add to it, but as Spaceman7Spiff has already sourced some of it, put me down for a merge. Fences&Windows 23:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another useful comparison is how fr.wikipedia deals with the subject: [18]. Fences&Windows 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Showing how a historical figure has appeared throughout the ages in popular culture, is worthy of a wikipedia article. Dream Focus 01:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's an intelligent way to do this and a silly one. The French do the former, integrating a well-grounded discussion on Vercingetorix' influence upon Second Empire and Third Republic France into a general biography of his. We choose the latter, dwelling on trivial inanities like Air Gear and of course The Simpsons. Let's not: let's rise above that and do better. Fails WP:V - no sources actually discussing the concept have been presented. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When notable historical figures, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the person is referred to in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the fictional works directly. More specific secondary sources are better, and I see some here. So the argument is essentially IDONTLIKETHISTYPEOFARTICLE, as shown by the nom. wording "many similar ones". There's lots of types I articles i don't like myself, and I deal with them by leaving them alone. There's enough to do working on the ones I do like. DGG (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect since I do not believe that the subject of the article is discussed--it's only mentioned by the items listed, and I believe that the French way is the better way. (I've always wanted to say that and mean it.) Drmies (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic about a notable person, which is well-documented and well-referenced. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the thing is, it's not about a person. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 13 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. both Valley2city^‽ 02:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Graffiti

Articles are about a non-notable graffic artist. They are substantially identical to each other, so I am including both articles in this nomination. The main difference is that the article on the person also includes a little bit of biographical info in it. Per WP:N, the subject of an article needs to have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and I do not see evidence of that here. Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as they stand. There may be significant coverage to be found in print arts journals which aren't online, and if that can be found I'm willing to change my opinion, but as they stand these articles are sourced solely to a melange of blogs, self-published pages by the subject, and YouTube videos. – irides cent 2 15:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both due to lack of notability and otherwise poor sourcing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any sources that show notability. Fails WP:BIO. 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN...Modernist (talk) 19:50, 10 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 decision. Realistically this discussion was never one that was meant to take place here at AfD, and unfortunately it has failed to answer the question of whether or not to merge the article. The problem lies in the fact that "keep" and "merge" are not mutually exclusive; I cannot make the assumption that someone arguing "keep" is opposed to a merge, and vice versa, therefore this discussion does not allow me to judge whether or not a consensus to merge this information exists. Please engage in discussion at the target's talk page to determine whether or not a merge is appropriate. Shereth 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

AfDs for this article:

This page is a POV Fork dealing with a subject matter which does not have enough mainstream notability to warrant its own entry. It has also traditionally been a magnet for original research from editors who pile on their own criticism through claims about the organization which are not found in secondary sources -- e.g. Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations#CAIR members facing charges. Other article issues have not been dealt with in months and the talk page indicates a consensus to merge with Council on American-Islamic Relations. Since the entry survived a previous AfD I thought it best to bring it here instead of simply merging.PelleSmith (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork whose only purpose seems to be to showcase a handful of fringe voices and their increasingly shrill attacks on the organization. Some of this material should be removed for BLP reasons alone. If there is any truly notable criticism here it should be properly sourced and put in the Council on American-Islamic Relations article. csloat (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Consensus has changed on "Criticism of..." articles since the previous AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Getting rid of notable controversies is POV pushing that is just as bad as trying to include non-notable issues to smear. Well sources controversies and criticisms should be included, despite the success of of those censoring much of our political coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a criticism section in the main entry. The point is that this topic is not notable enough to warrant its own entry. If you believe that the mainstream media and other reliable sources are censored then your problem is really with WP:RS.PelleSmith (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thoroughly cited, well-referenced and the amount of solid information would make it impossible to merge it effectively in the CAIR article without compromising due weight/npov rules. What is this article a fork of? The content here is entirely independent from CAIR and is not an attempt to misconstrue the organization's image. For example, wikipedia hosts plenty of similar articles: Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, etc..etc..Don't site OTHERCRAPSEXIST - I'm just pointing out Criticisms of Cair meets the same requirements as the above articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly cited through the editorial content of sources that don't meet WP:RS. The very idea that CAIR is itself notable enough to merit an entire entry on criticism is rather absurd. Council on American-Islamic Relations is not Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International or the BBC so it should be no surprise that notable criticism reported in reliable secondary sources is hard to come by, and certainly not prevalent enough to warrant an entry. If you remove all the FrontPage Magazine style editorializing and original research, there isn't much left of the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported by an acceptable number of reliable sources. I never said CAIR's inherit notability warrants a criticisms page. Someone claimed the article is a fork, so answer my question: What is this a fork of? Forks tend to take the shape of the original article and replace NPOV content with a biased and POV slant. This article is simply expanding on the notable criticisms of CAIR that cannot be included in the pertinent article because it would compromise NPOV rules and due weight. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree in the least about the "acceptable number of reliable sources." There is a criticism section of the main entry, and this is simply a pile on of non-notable criticisms split off of the main entry which makes said criticism seem more notable than it is. Like I said a POV FORK.PelleSmith (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more explicit? Just saying "POV FORK" over and over again doesn't make it so. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even those supporting the page seem to agree that's what it is -- they are claiming that it was created in order to keep the main page (this page) more NPOV and to move the less notable criticism here. That is, frankly, the exemplar of a "POV fork." csloat (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See POV fork for details: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." That's exactly why this page was created. csloat (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how has NPOV been avoided? Criticisms articles tend to be made up of criticisms but voice is given to CAIR. If you could be more explicit as to how this is a POV fork - i.e, content examples, please do. We could copy and paste your reasoning in any of the criticism articles and the same reaction would occur. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan, it was you yourself who said that it was "impossible to merge it effectively in the CAIR article without compromising due weight/npov rules." You cannot have it both ways -- if the material is truly NPOV and not an undue weight, it can go in the article without compromising those rules. But if it cannot be in the main article without compromising those rules, it cannot be here without doing so either. csloat (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the quote csloat provided is clear in regards to your question (emphasis mine): "... to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Highlighting non-notable but negative viewpoints is exactly what the entry does.PelleSmith (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds nice. But what is non-notable? You seem to be very adamant about how there is criticism in the article but do not understand what constitutes notability. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I "don't understand what constitutes notability"? Criticism of an Islamic organization coming from Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, etc. is not notable in the least. Nor are any number of other fringe views published as editorials in fringe publications like FrontPage Magazine, Middle East Quarterly, and Daniel Pipes' personal blog. The two or three notable instances of criticism which remain be dealt with in the main entry.PelleSmith (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt's perfectly notable. Those are mainstream historian/authors. Regardless, Newsweek, Washington Post, and many other 3rd party references are used to support. CAIR press releases are also provided throughout the article. Be more explicit in terms of what content does not meet wikipedia:criticism guidelines. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "many other" such sources at all. Regarding other policy violations whole sections of the page are WP:OR (see nomination). Regarding your question about criticism "guidelines", there are no real guidelines or policies, just an essay. Per Wikipedia:Criticism:

Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example the "Criticism" section of Igor Stravinsky should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Igor Stravinsky".

The notability issue of course does not directly relate to criticism guidelines but to general article guidelines. I am going to disengage these tangents, red herrings and misdirections. People coming here should evaluate the entry themselves because regarding notability you are just turning this into he said she said while providing an inaccurate view. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keeping "criticsim" articles and main articles separately helps to improve NPOV. If anything, this might be merged. But an AfD nomination is not the way to discuss merging (see WP:Deletion).Biophys (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is contradictory logic -- suggesting that the entry should exist in order to keep the main entry NPOV by keeping the criticism out of it but then at the same time suggesting that it "might be merged" into the main entry. There is, as we know, already a criticism section at the main entry and I think the criticism entry should be deleted. I did not nominate in order to "discuss merging", but "merge" is also viable result of an AfD. I don't see anything int he guideline you link to suggest that there is anything wrong with this nomination. Criticism of CAIR is simply not notable enough to warrant an entry.PelleSmith (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing contradictory. If the "criticism" takes a lot of space, it can be placed to a separate article, leaving only a brief summary in main article. This improves readability and makes main article more neutral.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the actual article in question here. In this case should the standalone article exist? Arguing interpretations of policy and guideline in the abstract is not exactly helpful. Is this an objection on principle to the AfD? There are no such "ifs" regarding specific cases. I don't see an argument for maintaining the specific content here as an entry, only general arguments about hypothetical uses of spinning off or splitting content. PelleSmith (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Can we re-list this to get more people involved in the discussion if no more than the above is generated after 5 days?PelleSmith (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Keep~~ Although I usually hate "Criticism of ..." articles, and my initial reaction was to support a merge, after a lot of consideration I have concluded that it should be kept separate from the main article on CAIR for one main reason: there's just too much content to merge. Simply put, the criticism of CAIR is, by itself, a subject that is way too large to be properly merged into the CAIR article. Therefore, while I'm hesitant to support keeping any "Criticism of ..." article, I agree with Biophys that if the content was to be shoved into the main CAIR article, it would disrupt readability and smack of undue weight. -shirulashem^(talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that material doesn't belong here either -- if it creates an undue weight problem, the solution is to delete the undue material (e.g. crap from frontpagemag and other questionable sources), not to create a separate page for soapboxing. Any notable criticisms of CAIR can be easily summarized in 3-4 paragraphs in the main article. csloat (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lines are being blurred too much between two separate (but, in this particular case, related) issues. Undue weight is one thing, and "questionable sources" is another. This should not be a debate on whether to include material from unreliable sources. Such content should simply be deleted. If enough content is deleted (through consensus) from the Criticism article so that its contents can be properly merged into the main CAIR article, then I will reconsider. Otherwise, I maintain that it is undue weight for an article on an organization to have such a large part of it be devoted to criticism. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've made a head start in this direction by removing stuff that had no citations as well as blogs etc. I also think an entire section needs to be summarized in a sentence or two if not entirely deleted since it is entirely based on guilt by association, which WP:BLP explicitly warns against. What's left is not much at all -- Barbara Boxer expressed "concern", and some extreme right-wingers such as Daniel Pipes have repeatedly criticized the organization for condoning terrorism -- this too could be summed up in a sentence or two and there is no reason it needs a separate page. I will continue to pare down the page as I get time to because there is still a lot on it that is not really "criticism" and ultimately doesn't really amount to much. csloat (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article, in its current state, is a couple paragraphs and can certainly be put on the main article. -shirulashem^(talk) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Criticism sections should not be used to describe attributes that are likely to be criticized unless and until a meaningful individual has criticized the subject for that attribute. All criticism in the dedicated section should be attributed to a specific critic. Attributes which are likely to draw criticism may be documented elsewhere in the article if relevant.. The article relies on extremely notable critics and includes CAIR responses. Simply saying the article is NPOV over and over and over again does not make it so. You can copy and paste all the policies you want, unless you enumerate what is explicit wrong with the article the discussion should be closed. You already listed the various critics/authors/historians claiming they weren't notable when that was not the case. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per what you quote the entire "CAIR members facing charges" section should be deleted since none of it is "attributed to a specific critic." The individuals I mentioned above are critical of Islam in general, as their entries make clear. They also publish their views in fringe sources. Do you really think Wikipedia needs a "Criticism of" article for every Muslim, every Islamic institution, etc. that these individuals have expressed criticism of?PelleSmith (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what I think. It is you who thinks these historians/experts/political commentators are unreliable and non-notable. Whether or not they are critical of Islam in general is irrelevant. And what fringe sources? I see newsweek, Washington Post, etc..etc. You are currently deleting government cited information with false summaries. You really don't know what OR is. Also looks like you and User:Commodore Sloat are meatpuppets. I suggest you revert the article back to its pre-AFD state and then read wikipedia policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors using sources about alleged activities in order to criticize a person or group is original research. As in the quote you brought here unless the criticism itself is reported and can be attributed to a critic it does not belong. Please strike your accusation. If you wish to pursue it please do in an appropriate forum.PelleSmith (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which of my edits (or PelleSmith's) you have a problem with. And cite your evidence of meatpuppetry. Otherwise it's a really unwarranted personal attack. csloat (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just cited very lengthy edit above. You removed paragraphs of cited information (by the US Department of Justice) and claimed it was original research. Dubious as best, malicious at worst. I request that you revert the article back to its original pre-AFD state. It is extremely bad-faith to remove content you disagree with without consensus, doubly so during an active AFD. My meatpuppet accusation is simply based off the fact that you two seem to have a very similar editing style and are removing information with unsubstantiated summaries. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was Pelle not me; I did however flag that stuff as extraneous and explained why in talk. It's a guilt-by-association attack on the organization without any real evidence connecting it to "criticism." If there is actual criticism based on these incidents let's quote that, not have links to a few criminals who had some connection to this organization however distant. It borders on an attack page to fill it up with stuff about a few terrorists or with links to every lawsuit that anyone's filed even though they received no mainstream media coverage. I'm not opposed to a brief paragraph detailing the collective attacks of Pipes and crew (including frontpagemag and such) against the organization and the organization's response to that. We have the beginnings of that in fact. But all of this should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. And do not accuse people of bad faith for responding to the concerns expressed on this very page by editing the article. You can always link to the pre-AFD page if you think it helps make your point, or if you disagree with these edits, take issue with them on the talk page. csloat (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed cited material from the US justice department and 3rd party RS as original research. Whatever personal angst you have as clearly demonstrated in the above paragraph has no binding on content. I suggest you revert to the untampered pre-AFD version.Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop commenting on editors and please strike the meatpuppet accusation. I already clarified this. It is the use of the sources that constitutes OR -- as is always the case with OR. The fact that some sources are from the US justice department, or from newspapers doesn't make a lick of difference if they are not used properly. When these sources are not actually reporting on criticism attributable to a critic but are instead used as evidence of supposedly bad (or criticizable) behavior by individuals associated with the organization then I'm afraid the encyclopedia is doing or implying the criticizing and that is clearly WP:OR.PelleSmith (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you really understand what OR is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The synthesis of different sources to make a point that is not made in those sources is a type of original research that is unacceptable on an encyclopedia. csloat (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely ... and this has been explained far too many times by now. This particular mantra of denial is getting a hair away from trolling at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No reason for a seperate article, a very obvious example of a non-neutral POV fork. The article amounts to little more than numerous poorly sourced (majority are persaonal websites and opinion pieces) extremist/fringe views. I cannot actually find anything in the article that is properly sourced to the standard required by WP:BLP. Merge what can be salvaged. A single article will be far easier to monitor for neutrality. --neon white talk 17:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Child of Midnight. User:S Marshall's claim that the consensus on "Criticism of ..." articles has changed since the last AfD is belied by the existence and sheer size of articles such as Criticism of Noam Chomsky, [[Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)] or Criticism of Coca-Cola. If the Council on American-Islamic Relations is not too long, merge. Otherwise, keep. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed^^^. Pelle's original rationale for delete was flawed and now he just continues to make up reasons. He had little understanding of what constitutes OR by his habitual removal of cited information. Hopefully when this article is kept (I hope at least) we can return some of the information. I'd argue much of the dissent is sourced from POV issues rather concern for the actual article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also - Just a heads up. The current article has been severely reduced by Peppe and some others under dubious summaries, such as labeling entire paragraphs with strong references (from both the US DOJ and CAIR itself) as OR. It would unfair to consider the current state as a valid assessment. I believe this was an attempt to remove valid information to push a merge result. This is the version that should be considered. I think it's very inappropriate to do such heavy editing during an AFD especially when little discussion was allowed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's wholly appropriate to edit during an AFD. Remember, AFD is a process where we should be trying to build consensus, not just take a vote and argue about who's right. I'm not sure what you mean by only "little discussion" being "allowed" since this hasn't closed yet. -shirulashem^(talk) 01:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean little discussion for the edits. I've been pre-occupied with the AFD and just noticed the massive removal of cited material using false summaries by several users advocating merge/delete here. No consensus is being made, they are just editing to push for a delete. Look at the diffs, entire pages deleted that were cited with RS with a claim of "OR." Wth? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peppe? Please stop with the personal jabs (what are you even trying to say with that?) The OR issue has been explained repeatedly on this page and at the article talk page. Csloat and I have both used the entry talk page to explain our edits, but I don't see you engaging said talk page at all. You just keep on parroting yourself over and over here. I'm not sure this borderline trolling anymore.PelleSmith (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it has not. You left a redundant and ambiguous explanation saying all your edits are aimed at removing OR, POV when you were simply deleting threatening material that was well cited. OR typically isn't cited by the US department of Justice. And this is not a personal jab, own your edits. Sorry about the name, I've been calling you Peppe when I meant Pelle. Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the name calling specifically ... I have "owned" all my edits. I am not going to feed you anymore. Others are more than capable of understanding that WP:SYNTH is a prominent form of WP:OR. They are also more than capable of reading the explanations on this page and the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 02:32, 15 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 delet per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Smith (Footballer)

Contested PROD. Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league Giant Snowman 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and no evidence of particular notability to pass WP:BIO either. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Never played in a fully pro league, not enough external coverage to pass the general notability guideline. – Toon 13:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has played in Conference National, a professional football league Eldumpo (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Conference National isn't fully professional as the criteria states - teams such as Histon are and have only ever been part-time. --Jimbo^[online] 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - all clubs in the league pay their players Eldumpo (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't make them professional, only semi-professional. Footballers from as low as level 9 in the pyramid (possibly lower) get paid. --Jimbo^[online] 23:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - is your 'them' comment referring to players or clubs? Eldumpo (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Players. The clubs are notable, although players playing for them (clubs) are not. --Jimbo^[online] 11:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Individual players are an integral part of the club though. As I've said before I'm not sure with the current wording (and with reasonable evidence that may be out there) that you can have fully-defined meanings for semi and fully pro. If a player takes a 2nd wage is he automatically not a full pro. What if that extra wage is a small add-on of less than 5% of his club wage. In your eyes does that make him not a full-pro and thus the league would not be fully-pro either? Eldumpo (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I really think we're getting into semantics here., as well as drifting into more generalised discussion not specifically related to this AfD. The highest level at which this particular player has played is one at which at least 25% of players are part-timers who fit training and matches around their day jobs. This clearly isn't a "fully professional level" of football. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree this is getting away from the article, although I guess both Jimbo and I are trying to answer each other's points, so there is relevance. I would encourage all to contribute to the recent debates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues (I don't think Jimbo has yet) Eldumpo (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete English Conference is not fully professional. Even Promozione players are paid, that point is just senseless... --Angelo (talk) 12:21, 10 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. Valley2city^‽ 02:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Grubb

Contested PROD. Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league, and youth caps at international level do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 13:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a youth player for Wales doesn't make him notable. Spiderone (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And there's no evidence that he's notable in any other way either. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of notability under our criteria for athletes. Pedro : Chat 23:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is notable via under-21 international. Please note that WP:ATH refers to 'level' not 'league'. Eldumpo (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete playing international youth football is not the highest level a footballer can play at, as they can go on to play for the full senior side. Grubb has not played in the highest possibly level of national football or fully-professional league/competiton thus failing the criteria at WP:ATH. --Jimbo^[online] 22:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATH does not refer to 'highest level' or 'national football' or 'fully professional league/competition' Eldumpo (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ATH; "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" and "...competed at the highest amateur level of a sport", so for footballers, that would mean fully-professional leagues and competitions or international football. --Jimbo^[online] 23:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the 'amateur' reference is relevant here. Under 21-internationals are paid, there's nothing saying only senior international footballers. It is only a guide anyway. Eldumpo (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATH isn't a guide, it's inclusion criteria for sportspeople. Footballers in the deepest depths of non-league are paid, doesn't make them notable. --Jimbo^[online] 11:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from WP:BIO 'This notability guideline for biographies is not policy' Eldumpo (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting confused with things here. Policies are of course different to inclusion criteria. WP:N and it's subsidaries reflect consensus of what makes a person notable. There is not clear "policy" as to what it deleted or not, hence we have the criteria. --Jimbo^[online] 14:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, playing with a youth international team is definitely not the "highest professional level". No way. --Angelo (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please note there is no reference to 'highest professional level' in the guidance. Eldumpo (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not competed at a fully-profession level, and there is no indication that he satifies general notability guidelines. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:03, 14 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. Valley2city^‽ 02:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Zeilinger

Claims of notability do not meet WP:BIO. Independent blogger with a few minor school awards to her credit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no sources, this cannot possibly pass WP:BLP.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 12:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable independent sources of notability exist (no books or news reports). Additionally, the article does not assert the importance of the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, enough alleged awards to satisfy me as to claims of importance, but appears altogether nonnotable. What's more, the article is totally POV in her favour. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. WuhWuzDat 00:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well short of the general notability guidelines as well as the bio ones mentioned above. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Notability is not asserted as per WP:BIO. Hitro talk 19:22, 14 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. Shereth 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TAM Flight 8095

Passenger Injuries by turbulence are not really notable or uncommon (Contested PROD) MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily. Everything the nom said is spot on, and allow me to throw out WP:AIRCRASH as well.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 12:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~for now~~. It is an accident on a scheduled air carrier, so it meets WP:AIRCRASH. Was mislabled as an incident. The official accident investigation is still in progress, but has revealed parallel Air Data failures similar to what is thought to have happened on Air France flight 447. -- LeadSongDog come howl 18:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ref added to article about link to Air Data failure is a different flight on a different day using a different aicraft! MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Fails to meet WP:AIRCRASH as I read it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At another editor's request, I have reviewed the article to see if changes made satisfy WP:AIRCRASH. I find this is not the case, and I reaffirm my recommendation that this article be deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change my !vote to Keep. Expanded article demonstrates that it now meets WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are you sure? I have just de-expanded the article! MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both the current WP:AIRCRASH and gets -2 points on my draft replacement (E1, E2). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was just an everyday incident. Just received some attention because it happened close to when Air France Flight 447 happened, and the airplane was the same kind, but it's actually WP:ROTM. Also per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. It is more suitable to Wikinews. Algébrico (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Passing news. Ex nihil (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query Would someone voting delete please explain how that an accident on a scheduled commercial flight does not meet WP:AIRCRASH? To me it seems cut and dried.LeadSongDog come howl 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After one month and the newspapers have already forgotten about the subject. The most recent news about another TAM Flight 8095 is about Swine flu suspect cases: [19]. I believe that when a flight accident is notable enough, the flight companies usually change its number. For instance, AF 447 have changed its number to "AF 445" (for flights after the accident) [20]. Algébrico (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while a nice reminder to adhere to the announcements during your flight's taxiing, it isn't notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:19, 10 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. Shereth 14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walton Stowell

No evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO and no major architect work. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, IMHO this makes no claim of notability.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 12:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears to be a WP:COI, created by User:Walton Stowell. Sparse news results for the name, does not appear notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is subjective. Walton Stowell Sr. was a famous regional architect, politician, and National and Statewide Historic Preservationist. If you examine his creditials, and follow the links, and read about him in books and publications (newspapers, journals, reports) then it is clear that he deserves a Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drogo Empedocles (talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC) — Drogo Empedocles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's not subjective. WP:BIO. What does he meet? Where are the multiple examples of primary mentions in reliable third party sources? --Smashville^talk 19:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "multiple examples of primary mentions in reliable third party sources" are provided in the article, and continue to be added. My father was mayor of a very famous Town called Harpers Ferry, and has contributed more to the fields of architecture, history, design, art, politics, and society than many other people who have Wiki articles. Constructive criticism is fine, and I have more than enough sources to verify any specific questions. I find that most of the reasons for deletion of articles are unverifiable, as people have not even bothered to check the links I have provided, and have made up their mind that because they have not heard of him, he is not as worthy as Paris Hilton (irony). Also someone deleted all the additional references I had provided on this page. I am having alot of trouble understanding Wiki rules, so im learning as i go i guess. Maybe its time to try another site for posting general public information about my father and other articles on subjects i have knowledge of. Walton (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki language is difficult for me, as I try to match the format, and the rules for "notability" are very subjective to me. I see other politicians and people on Wiki of much less notability than my father, yet "notability" is the main reason my article is being attacked. I understand constructive criticism that would tell me to remove parts of it, and edit it better, however it looks like there is too much blatant rejection without constructive help for articles that may be very worthy for Wiki. Most of the information provided in this article ANYONE can find by watching video interviews of my father on YOUTUBE from local news channels. My father was, and is notable. Most of the articles, meetings, and projects that he worked on are not available because our region is rural and many of his credentials are not online. Therefore primary sources must be listed in general terms, as interviews of everyone and every project he worked on have not been conducted yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walton Stowell (talk • contribs) 00:53, July 11, 2009

Weak keep. According to his obit, He earned a reputation locally and statewide, even nationally, for his architectural designs and knowledge of historic preservation, and there's other press coverage from both his time as mayor and his work as an architect (although at least one of those does look like an advert). Article needs an awful lot of work to take out the autobio and commercial, and this !vote would be stronger if there was more evidence of the national reputation, but I'm not convinced it's not salvageable. If it is deleted, I'd recommend Walton take it to the userspace, work (possibly with others) to bash it into better, and better referenced shape to make more of that national reputation. Walton, we don't need credentials to be online (although a lot of wikipeadians can fall victim to google-itis), so long as a reference exists, say a book or newspapers that's in a library, that means it can be verified and used --Saalstin (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FORMATTING PLEASE - Don't list accomplishments here. Put them in the article. Then say "i put a load of sources in the article and this guy's notable for X Y Z" in short sentence form. This dump here does little to convince regular AfD contributors the subject's notable. Please, make this easy for people to analyze. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Users User talk:Burgessdr, User talk:Walton Stowell, User talk:Drogo Empedocles, and an anon IP appear to be a single purpose editors focusing only on this article.

Note: I have made a note in defense of the "Walton Stowell" article. This is my first time using Wikipedia, so I do not understand everything. Walton (Kip's son) has asked members of the town to write in on behalf of the article. Do not be suprised if more people make accounts on Wikipedia for this purpose. I know that Don Burgess is an Odd Fellow, and has also written on behalf of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drogo Empedocles (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from a single purpose account with this being the first and only edits:

Comment - Please do not be a regular contributor to AfD if you do not read the article nor supporting information. Please do not assess notability about a particular person if you have no knowledge of the subject matter. -

ApprenticeFan comment: No Major Architect Work. FACT: Kip Stowell designed visitor centers at National Parks for nearly 30 years.

ApprenticeFan comment: Fails Wiki BIO notability criteria. FACT: Kip Stowell was nationally recognized for his design work in National Parks and for his regional knowledge and contributions to historic preservation in West Virginia.

ApprenticeFan comment: No Evidence of Notability. FACT: excerpt from Jefferson County (West Virginia) Commission resolution February 26, 2009: Kip served as a member on the Jefferson County Historic Landmarks Commission, the West Virginia Preservation Alliance, Jefferson County African-American Community Association, the West Virginia Archives and History Commission and was the West Virginia adviser for the National Trust for Historic Preservation

CastAStone comment: recommends Speedy Delete. FACT: Criteria for Wiki Speedy Delete is for cases where submitted article can be categorized as Vandalism or Patent Nonsense or similar. One might argue that Kip Stowell was not sufficiently notable (which he was), but to make a recommendation for Speedy Delete, itself is Patent Nonsense.

CastAStone comment: No Claim of Notability. FACT: The article "claimed" that Kip Stowell contributed to architecture and historic preservation on a regional and national level for half a century. Most reasonable people would think that is a rather enormous Claim of Notability. To say there is no claim of notability is patent nonsense. This suggests that the AfD contributor did not even read the article at all, let alone the supporting information.

Odie5533 comment: Conflict of Interest. FACT: This article was submitted by Walton Stowell Jr about his father Walton "Kip" Stowell. Walton Jr does not hide this fact. Very likely that this article should be resubmitted by someone other than Walton Jr. However, it is hard to see how recognizing Kip's many and undeniable accomplishments is "self-promotion" (he is deceased) or "commercial" (he was retired from active work for over 10 years at the time of his death, plus he was a public servant - worked for the National Park Service and thus, was not a commerical architect).

Odie5533 comment: Sparse news results for name. FACT: Earth Day. April 22, 1998. President Clinton: Mayor Stowell, thank you for a lifetime of dedication to America's National Park system.

Odie5533 comment: Does not appear to be notable. FACT: Kip Stowell was nationally recognized for his design work in National Parks and for his regional knowledge and contributions to historic preservation in West Virginia. Kip Stowell contributed to architecture and historic preservation on a regional and national level for half a century. If this is not notable, I do not know what is

Edward321 comment: Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. FACT: Walton "Kip" Stowell is deceased and thus cannot have resume. This article is a summary of Kip's regional and national notability in the area of architectural design and historic preservation.

Smashville comment: Does not meet Wiki BIO notability criteria FACT: Kip Stowell was nationally recognized for his design work in National Parks and for his regional knowledge and contributions to historic preservation in West Virginia.

Saalstin comment: Needs more evidence of national reputation. FACT: Earth Day. April 22, 1998. President Clinton: Mayor Stowell, thank you for a lifetime of dedication to America's National Park system. Designed vistiors centers at National Parks for Three Decades. WV Advisor to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Worked as a public (Federal Government) servant in the area of architectural design and historic preservation for Five Decades.

Sandor Clegane comment: Delete per nom. FACT: See above many reasons why article should not be deleted.

Delete and userfy - I don't believe the editor pushing the article has any sense of the norms, or even basic formatting necessary to salvage this article, at the moment. There do seem to be some references to the individual, but there aren't any in the article right now. A local obit is certainly not enough for notability. Shadowjams (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams thank you for trying to help, unfortunately you have removed all the links to verify notability except for the obit. He only passed away in January. However, it is good you understanding Wikipedia well enough to make changes that I cannot do such as link formatting. If you could please add back some of the links to his published works with the Department of Interior back, in Wiki language, that would be even better. I worked closely to my father, and this is a personal article for me. I did not know what would happen when I tried to post this... and now I know. At least I tried, perhaps someday Wiki will be ready for him. Walton (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The links I removed were things like a link to the Library of Congress's main site. It didn't really count as a reference. Shadowjams (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You removed more than that one, you removed the specific links to his drawings in the Library of Congress, under HABS / HAER. Although I admit I could use help with this editing format. I do not intend to spend time writing many articles, this one may be the only one. If I get help, ok. If it gets deleted, at least I tried with the free time I have. Perhaps someone else will eventually write a page about him, if they get around to it. Any article written about him, should at least have the basics of this article (imo). Walton (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Burgess thank you for writing in defense of this article. I believe all should refer to his notes (see facts above in support). Don Burgess knew my father, and we are members of the Odd Fellows Lodge in Harpers Ferry, WV. Walton (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an article "Walton Danforth Stowell". Regarding Conflict of Interest, I am not related to the Stowells (although I am a Jr just like Walton Jr), I have no business relationship with the Stowells, I have no long standing personal relationship with the Stowells (I have only known them for maybe 3 years), I am not direct neighbors of them (they live in Harpers Ferry, I live in Bolivar - although their house is only about 5 blocks away), I am not close personal friends with the family, I do not regularly socialize with the Stowells (although they are very socialable) except for general interactions with Ferrians and Bolivarites, I do belong to the Odd Fellows Lodge in Harpers Ferry as did Kip and does Walton, but so do other people, I have no vested professional interest in Kip or Walton's architectural or historic preservation activities (which are hobbies of mine and cost me more $$$ than I derive from them - which is ZERO). I have included dozen of sources pertaining to Kip's contribution and notability in the areas of architecture and historic preservation. If those are not enough, I can add dozens more. Its shooting ducks in a barrel. To quote President Bill Clinton: Mayor Stowell, thank you for a lifetime of dedication to America's National Park system. (I realize Clinton also thanked ALL NPS employees on Earth Day 1998, but Mayor Stowell was the one on the stage sitting next to Al Gore. The point here is that Kip was sitting there BECAUSE he was notable, and was notable whether Clinton knew that or not, and in fact was notable decades before Wiki even existed). Burgessdr (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Like with the many entries for academics, this smells of scraping by. A long list of laudable but non-notable achievements does not somehow sum up to be notable. There's some completely irrelevant stuff thrown in too, as if that will somehow put him over the top (who cares where he went to summer school?) I don't see much more than local notability, which is never enough. Hairhorn (talk) 13:40, 15 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 as all versions were cut-and-dried copyright violations. Obviosly can be recreated in the future with sufficient sources, notability and lack of copyright violation - Peripitus (Talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Cricket Queensland

Copyvio, a large part of the article is copied straight from the ICQ website, also only few Google News mentions and nothing substantial. PROD contested. Jpeeling (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 8 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) 00:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuso Miso Technique

An unreferenced manga by a redlinked artist taffed for notability since last year. - Altenmann >t 09:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have sources.

http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/4140919/ Manga is ranked 11th in a survey asking which manga is the most interesting.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080209214547/http://www.zakzak.co.jp/top/2008_02/t2008020901_all.html Article dedicated to the manga. Mentions the social impact of this manga ("even child molesters use its lines"). Touches on the mysterious author.

http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/3951096/ A wrestler entered the stage in the costume of this manga's character, accompanied by the character's "theme song" that people made on the internet.

http://gigazine.net/index.php?/news/comments/20081117_yaranaika_shirts/ Yaranaika t-shirts.

_dk (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.itmedia.co.jp/news/articles/0712/28/news035.html The manga's catchphrase, "Yaranaika" was one of 2007's "most used phrases on the (Japanese) internet". It was ranked 16th in a survey for "Net Slang of the Year" for 2007. _dk (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Only one of _dk's links directly addresses any criterion of WP:BK, but the others support the continuing notability and influence of the manga (including five years later!), enough so that I'd count them towards satisfying the general notability guidelines. One-shots are rarely notable, but this one appears to be: Keep. Incidentally, arguing that an author is non-notable solely because there is no article on him/her is extremely dubious: Wikipedia still has massive holes in its encyclopedic coverage, and one of the largest is arts and artists outside the Anglosphere. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could swear I read something discussing how this was one of the earliest examples of homosexual pornography done in the manga format, and quite influential. No idea where that link is or what language it might be in, but this title probably has more notability than the meme alone suggests. Keep. Doceirias (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith keep. Not being terribly up on manga and not able to read Japanese I have to go on the article as it is and likely could be. It does assert notability and has sourcing; the issue remains if anything presented is false or misleading and from reading the discussion here it seems that's not the issue. What we're left with then is an article, like most, that needs improving and more sourcing. -- Banjeboi 01:57, 12 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. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prod'homme

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Prod'homme

Unsourced, orphaned. Fine to be recreated when somebody wanders along with sourced information, but since that hasn't happened for some time I feel this one garners a ~~delete.~~ ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 09:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there was sourced information, actually. Someone vandalised the article and removed it; I've replaced the reference as it originally stood. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 11:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with User:AlbertHerring. This article is about a brand of automobile from the 1910 decade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is always difficult to judge the potential quality of an article when it is still a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Someone wandered along and deleted a source. Anyway, it's a valid stub.--Oakshade (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very clearly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't it be spelt Prud'homme? Try googling that spelling + automobile...Rhinoracer (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so - I'll double-check the source when I get home, but doing such a Google search doesn't turn up anything else on the subject. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the vehicle being really old and the reference, Keep. Iowateen (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote to Keep, and closing this. It could have been closed as soon as it was noticed that the reference had been removed. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:42, 10 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Cyprus relations

neither country has a resident ambassador despite having a few agreements including a trade one. there is little third party coverage of these agreements or actual bilateral relations. [21]. they played a friendly football match last year which I know at least 1 editor would think this helps add notability. clearly not. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm beginning to think that the existence of resident ambassadors or the existence of hostile relations, are good filtering metrics for these kinds of articles. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual notability is demonstrated....and a soccer game won't change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate foreign relations articles. Not enough notability for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article is not notable per WP:NOTE so fails one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one of the following articles: Belarus' foreign policy towards Cyprus or Cyprus' foreign policy towards Belarus. Soldiers naysayed by Norw.-speakers (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neither article exists. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply nothing to this... and this coming from a hardcore international football fan. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've noticed this has been tagged for rescue but zero effort has been made to improve this article in 7 days. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 15 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 Golden Age (disambiguation)#As name or title of literary work or publication. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Age (novel)

duplicates some of the content of Golden Age (disambiguation), which now makes this disambig page unnecessary Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Golden Age (disambiguation)#As name or title of literary work or publication and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Tassedethe (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. i forgot that would be the most logical, helpful option. (nominator)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - suggest CLOSE of this AfD per WP:SNOW. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 8 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Irish Latin American Studies

fails WP:ORG almost no third party coverage [22]. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable organisation. A quick google search provides a lot more information. The article needs to be improved but that is not an argument to delete.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although presently a stub, there is plenty of information available via Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:37, 8 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 G4 and salt by J Milburn. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arby n the Chief

Non-notable machinima production. Barely asserts notability (youtube views and appeared at some film festival), provides no sources or even claims independent coverage of production. Repeatedly deleted under variations on name: AFD1, AFD2, speedies Drat (Talk) 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G4 Deleted several times via Arby 'n' the Chief and other titles. Salt too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G4. Non notable Irunongames • play 16:51, 8 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. Shereth 14:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double price discrimination

Term appears to be original research, with no cites to reliable sources to back it up. This Google search shows only two usages of the term other than in mirrors of the article itself, and furthermore, the two usages I can find appear to use the term in different senses to one another, and neither of them appears to use the term the sense given in the article. The Anome (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either price discrimination or consumer surplus. Having forks for technical articles is inherently problematic (due to synchronizing and accuracy issues), particularly when one of the terms is not notable itself. How long til we have triple price discrimination? Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to be a WP:MADEUP term. The references included in the page never mention this term or anything related to it. A search of Google, Google Books and Google Scholar revealed nothing to indicate this term has ever been used in any type of economic sense. Rcurtis5 (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete term itself seems to be OR / made up as noted above, thus not encyclopaedic or notable Nja²⁴⁷ 10:23, 15 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erno Rosenberg

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has only participated in the semi-professional Finnish league. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, player is competing in a notable, professional league Eldumpo (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete footballer fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition as the Veikkausliiga is only party-pro. --Jimbo^[online] 22:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- all of the clubs pay their players and the league is also listed at List of professional sports leagues Eldumpo (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a poorly maintained list, the one collated by WP:FOOTY members can be found at WP:FPL. Anyway the Veikkausliiga article says that it's not fully-professional. Players being paid doesn't make them professional, only semi-professional. --Jimbo^[online] 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm well aware of FPL, see my talk page questions there, but it is a Wiki only article and as far as I can tell none of the leagues are correctly sourced as per the page's definition (which is anyway not as ATH). Eldumpo (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is at least one semi-pro team in the Finnish league - which is IFK Mariehamn [23][24]. --Angelo (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play at a fully professional level, and I can find no indication of general notability. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE and no evidence of general notability. – Toon 21:28, 14 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of champions of major European football leagues

WP:LISTCRUFT. No justification why these leagues are the "major" leagues - other leagues have been in the top five of UEFA's coefficient listing (indeed, England was banned from Europe completely for a while). The former USSR, Netherlands and Belgium have all been in the top 5 of the rankings per Bert Kassies in the last 20 years (eg1 [25]. No reason either for the champions being listed from 1985 only. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - further to the listcruft point, why five leagues, rather than any other number of "major" leagues? This article is also redundant to List of English football champions, etc. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Mr Morrison has said, this all-in-one list is redundant to nation-specific lists. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jameboy (talk) 20:05, 14 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. Valley2city^‽ 02:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison for some Audio Converter

An orphaned, unsourced, dead-end article comparing non-notable software against each other. Alexius08 (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's an affiliate link to useesoft.com, isn't it? ReverendWayne (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, we don't need a comparison between multiple non-notable pieces of software. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software compared. Could be speedied as spam, in my humble opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Comparison for Some Video Converters. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomKMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 20:38, 10 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. After the two relists I am satisfied by the consensus to delete Valley2city^‽ 02:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads Foundation

I'll put a copy of Crossroads International, which was deleted on June 22 per proposed deletion and failure to come up with any sources, on the talk page of this AfD. I checked for sources on June 15 and couldn't find any; there are other similar organizations with the same name that I found a few sources for, but not this one that I could tell. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding some mentions in news story but they are passing mentions, not the kind of significant coverage WP:N asks for.--RadioFan (talk) 15:21, 24 June 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) 00:13, 1 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} 05:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the notability issue, the current text contains patches of promotional patent nonsense, a tissue of glittering generalities from which meaning has been carefully excluded: a non-profit organisation serving global need. Crossroads believes that, in a broken world that sees too much suffering, we should do all we can to link those who are in need with those who can provide help. So Crossroads provides an intersection, literally a crossroads, to bring both together. They offer four global crossroads services.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatantly promotional, as if it were an advertisement written by the company itself. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 9 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EMC Celerra

Apparently non-notable commercial product with no substantial secondary or tertiary references. Also, long-marked as adverting copy. Mikeblas (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unintelligible article about a non-notable, non-consumer tech product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 1 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} 05:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete product placement with insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to EMC Corporation. There are some news articles but they are press releases or trivial. I don't see any editorial reviews, they may exist, I don't see them. Non-notable product.Drawn Some (talk) 01:38, 9 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. Shereth 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FORUM8

Most content has no relevant source. One reference in other language. Most references to company site. Cargoking talk 18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find coverage in reliable sources [26] [27] [28] [29] (フォーラムエイト=FORUM8) That the coverage is in Japanese is not a problem. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References in Japanese don't really help. Cargoking talk 11:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, foreign language references are acceptable. English is preferred, but if only foreign is available, that is fine. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He said they didn't help, not that they weren't allowed. I too have issues with things I can't read being used as sources. Is it really WP:V if I can't verify it? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that a source that you in particular can't read because it's in a language you can't read isn't verifiable is like arguing that a source you in particular can't read because it's in a magazine from the 1960's that hasn't been digitized yet isn't. And no, that's not a strawman argument, because I've seen editors argue just that, multiple times -- if it's not something they can read with a single click then it's not a real reference, according to them. Which blatently flies in the face of what WP:V actually says. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 9 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) 00:06, 1 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} 05:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this article is pure spam. Aside from the issue of self-promotion, an extensive search for English language sources shows that Forum8 is the subject of self-published sources, but coverage manufactured by the company itself does not confer notability. The is no verifiable evidence to suggest that this company or its products meet the requirements of WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who translates articles from foreign-language Wikipedias to English, I want to say that it's established custom and practice on Wikipedia that foreign-language sources are fine, provided they're reliable. Frankly, I don't want to see my hard-written material deleted just because the five or six editors at an AfD don't speak the language and can't figure out Google translate, so I want that to be clearly understood.
Having said that, in this case Gavin.collins has the right of it, and I think the Japanese-language sources in this case do not establish notability. Delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just custom and practice -- it's policy. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate is not always accurate. Cargoking talk 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, it isn't. Always best to get someone who speaks the language to check.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of a Japanese speaker to check the sources, with the suspicion that they are not truly independent (ie. press releases or paid articles), noting that the only significant author has contributed only to this article and pages directly related to it, I smell an undisclosed WP:COI issue, and think deletion is the way to go. The article originated from ja.wikipedia.org; why hasn't that article been expanded? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 15 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pwnboxer

Prod was contested as the subject is considered by the contesting party as "very viable and very active". "Very viable" is subjective. "Very active": seems that it cannot be easily proven by this Google News search.

The article is poorly-referenced, being backed up only by two citations from different forums (one of which are owned by the developer of the software). Also, the only substantial part of the article, the "Highlights" section, seems to be promotional to me. Delete unless rewritten with my concerns addressed. Alexius08 (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find sporadic, trivial or unreliable mentions at google search. The software clearly exists, but since we can make noting reliable and/or independent exists beyond that fact, this does not appear to pass WP:N inclusion criteria. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very viable, very active; also unverifiable through reliable sources and unnotable. Marasmusine (talk) 17:37, 11 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. Several editors seem to agree that the article is not sufficiently notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatdown Music

Seems to be a non-notable/neologism music genre. No references provided and I can't find any via Google. The original author also stated in the edit history that it is difficult to reference as it "has not been written bout yet". Wickethewok (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obscure but seems notable. Hua Hsu, who is a very reputable writer, reviewed the first of the Detroit Beatdown compilation series in 2003, and said then that beatdown was "a micro-genre built on easygoing down-tempo beats", indicating that the term predates the series. In the hands of Detroit artists it becomes "affirming" and "exciting", apparently. "Beatdown is neither house nor techno, but it assimilates traits of both." (Hua Hsu, Boston Phoenix.)[30]
Allmusic's account of the same release says "As for the term 'beatdown,' it was coined by Eddie 'Flashin' Fowlkes as a way of describing the downtempo dance productions that came from [Detroit]. With the line between techno and house as blurry as ever, Fowlkes' descriptive term has caught on, evidenced by the title of this compilation -- it fits both the music and the city itself." (Andy Kellman, allmusic) [31]
Resident Advisor has a few passing mentions which match with a downtempo, rather deep Detroit house/techno style. It would be nice to have more in-depth accounts but they are probably out there. Note that the title needs to be changed: no capital "m" for music in wikipedia articles of this type. 86.44.25.131 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bean, "Detroit Beatdown", Wax Poetics, Issue #16, April/May, 2006: "Ask music lovers what Detroit means to them and you’ll probably hear mention of Berry Gordy or Norman Whitfield, perhaps George Clinton or Yusef Lateef. Were you to point out that there’s a direct link between these styles and the pared down machine funk of the city’s latter day sound (known by some as techno), you could safely expect incredulity from all but the most dedicated fans.

Yet there is a link, forged in the high school social parties of the seventies and the clubs and radio shows of the eighties by a few key figures. These musical visionaries shepherded their dancers and listeners from disco, via hi-nrg and italo through to the earliest house records, not forgetting a healthy dose of the leftfield and unexpected.

This sound, or maybe this ‘feeling’, is known as Beatdown and owes a great deal to the eclectic, boundary defying styles of DJs such as Ken Collier and the mysterious radio presenter Electrifyin’ Mojo.

The modern inheritors of this style are the present day Beatdown DJs of Detroit." 86.44.25.131 (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a show of BBC Radio 1's Gilles Peterson Worldwide dedicated to the genre per [32], which seems to be an official arrangement, though I can't track down corresponding info at either bbc.co.uk or Peterson's own site. 86.44.25.131 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable that there is no article here for Theo Parrish, btw. 86.44.25.131 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles seem to be in direct reference to the album "Detroit Beatdown". Would it not perhaps be more appropriate to create/move this article to an article about the album? Wickethewok (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in reference to the "Detriot Beatdown" compilation series. I only added that because I needed something to prove this genre exists. There is also a label based out of Detroit called Strictly Beatdown. I am a new contributing member to Wikipedia so I don't really know how to or what to reference to add validity to this article. I would appreciate any help. I agree I can't believe Theo Parrish has nothing on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyBlacktronika (talk • contribs) 10:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Wickethewok, the articles above concern either the compilation or its compilers (the Wax Poetics piece is about beatdown, not the compilation, but interviews its compilers), but I think I've been fairly careful to show that they all make the point that the genre exists independently of the release. It's hard to think of a search that wouldn't bring up Detroit Beatdown, just as it's hard to think of a piece about beatdown that wouldn't mention the compilation.

But here is a piece in De:Bug #95 [33]. It's their regular "blind test" feature, in which they play records to a DJ or artist and have them comment without seeing the label. It's called "Musik hören mit" ("Listening to music with") and this particular month is with Detroit DJ Seth Troxler. Machine translate:

V / A - In the Dark (The Soul Of Detroit) (Still Music)

Seth: What is it? This is super. Beatdown, you know. (hesitates) Well, I know das Oh yes, this is Still Music Compilation. Some great guys from Detroit are out there. Mike Huckaby, for example, or Keith Worthy, a pretty good DJ, a lot of stuff from New York plays. Body & Soul Style. (knocks thrilled with the bass line) Yes, those are great tracks. Beatdown, man. This is the sound of the hour. I hope the compilation sells well. I do not know how many people on this beat-down style exit.

Debug: Beatdown?

Seth: Yes, that is the name that they are with us in Detroit this new deep house tracks has been given. The pieces are very slowly, from 118 to 120 bpm. Greatly reduced. The Beatdown guys play a lot of minimal techno, such as Sleeparchive or Sten and Lawrence, just pitched down. Slow. This is the new House sound in Detroit. If the track plays slow, grooving it is often much better. If it's too fast you can't make an emotional experience with the music. If it's too close to you can not make emotional experience with the music. And this just sounds so warm someone like Lawrence unfold in this different context is very different. The Beatdown DJs mix it all with old disco records and classic deep house. Because then you see almost only blacks. And the average age is much higher. My parents, for example, go to Beatdown parties. 86.44.36.66 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in De:Bug #98 is a feature on beatdown, with Mike Clark, Norm Talley (compilers of Detroit Beatdown) and Delano Smith. google translate version (translates "Beatdown" as "Beat Down"). 86.44.36.66 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and the odd mention in a specialist music show on the radio or in a magazine isn't really enough to indicate that it needs an article. If it's a sub-genre, it could be mentioned in the article of the genre it belongs to, however. It's also worth noting that anonymous users cannot vote on AFD discussions. Esteffect (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everything you say is wrong. 86.44.16.6 (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding Theo Parrish, there was once an article at that name deleted some time ago as being blatant advertising. Esteffect (talk) 02:46, 5 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) · @229 · 04:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS, WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hua Hsu, Peterson @ the BBC, allmusic, Wax Poetics, and De:Bug are all reliable sources, so I think you need to be a little more expansive and include your reasoning.

If a non-beatdown Detroit DJ is printed in a German magazine talking in detail about the existence of beatdown and beatdown parties, and he's backed up by a myriad of other sources and articles, why the resistance? 86.44.16.7 (talk) 05:48, 15 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 consensus for action here, and I don't see one emerging soon, hence the close. Would suggest that redirection would solve a lot of problems, but that is an editorial decision to be made independent of this AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DMDirc

Non-notable software, fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Not a single proper reference despite several favourable claims in the second part of the article. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some references to this section to what documentation currently exists. Dataforce (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those are all selfrefs and therefore not reliable sources per WP:RS.

Comment: Actually, the official documentation is perfectly acceptable when used to verify the features and functionality of software and is usually preferred over published works that are often out of date by the time they are published due to the fact that software (and in particular open source software) tends to change rapidly. The only issue I see here is the notability guideline, which is almost always a problem for software that hasn't been written about in a physical book. This has been a huge problem for IRC-related topics which in turn has resulted in Wikipedia's current coverage of IRC-related topics getting very outdated. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is no less notable than Coolsmile, Jini (IRC client), LimeChat, Vortec IRC, and the client is often covered on a variety of irc-news reporting sites such as http://www.irc-junkie.org/, http://ircreport.com/, and http://www.wyldryde.org 78.32.24.9 (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those all appear to be blogs, not reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I'm not sure about wyldryde.org (it isn't pulling up right now), irc-junkie.org and ircreport.com are two of only a handful of IRC-related news sites that exist. "Blog style" reporting does not mean a source is "unreliable" and this is made quite clear in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion. In particular, I trust irc-junkie.org's reporting about IRC-related topics and won't hesitate to cite them if they happen to give coverage to a particular topic. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:26, 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, (X! · talk) · @229 · 04:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not appear to be generally notable. It is reported on IRC news sites, but only given passing coverage. I see no indication that this client is having any impact even within the IRC community. No hits on News, Books, or Scholar. Fails WP:N "significant coverage in reliable sources". --Odie5533 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official twitter page There was over 3300 downloads for the previous stable release, so its having an impact somewhere, theres no way of knowing the exact number of users as by default the client turns off any functionality that may compromise privacy (auto updates, automatic error submission). There has also been a few favorable reviews elsewhere such as Softonic Softonic 2 (Spanish) and ircinfo (Russian) 78.32.24.9 (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Self references, including "Official Twitter" messages are not reliable sources.

Comment I think this needs some clarification. As I already said above, some self references used in an article about software are fine as additional references when used to verify features or functionality, or when they are not otherwise being used to establish notability. In the case of this specific article, while the material is verifiable, notability is borderline. It is quite apparent that the software is indeed in popular use but because individual software programs such as this aren't commonly written about in say a published book, the notability guideline makes it very difficult to give the subject of IRC as a whole (overall, not this specific article) proper coverage. As it is currently, we are only giving coverage to a minority of these software programs (some of which are no longer in popular use) because those are the only applications that have been written about in a published book (some due to security flaws), distributed as part of a major operating system distribution, etc. This has resulted in an inability to give this subject proper, unbiased, equal coverage. The only workable solution currently is to merge many of these smaller articles into a much larger article (which is currently in-progress for IRC-related articles). While I personally don't think this is the best solution in the long term, in the short term it deals with the problems that the notability guideline is currently creating for these type of articles and allows us to give the subject as a whole much better, unbiased coverage. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#DMDirc to save the trouble of requesting undeletion of this article later when these are all merged into a larger article. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:22, 9 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) 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Coates

Woefully inadequate sources sufficient to demonstrate notability — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll work on this a little later (within the next couple of days) to expand and source it. She is a professional athlete that will pass WP:ATHLETE and has place in the top 10 at the Ms. Olympia and the top 5 at the Ms. International, which are two of professional body-building's most prestigious competitions. And she won the Jan Tana Classic, which was considered the third most presigious event behind the two I already listed. She also had a reasonable successful modelling career, having appeared on covers of notable publications. Unfortunately, the author chose to focus on her marginally notable wrestling involvement and made her professional body-building career almost an afterthought.Niteshift36 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A google search returns over 34,000 hits. She is notable for her bodybuilding career, as she has been included in several print sources. I have added a couple of short articles from Flex magazine that discuss her career. A lot more information is available in reliable sources, so she passes the General Notability Guideline. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some notability established in a search of Google News (note to GaryColemanFan - more relevant in an AfD than generic search hits) with actual mainstream media sources being available. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep pending the work promised by Niteshift. Relies too much on OWOW and needs additional sources. Probably notable. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 22:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The simple fact that she was a professional body-builder that competed in (and won one of) the 3 biggest competitions in the sport should get her past WP:ATHLETE easily. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep per Rick Doodle and all the recent work. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she was granted pro status in bodybuilding in 1995 and won her pro debut at the Jan Tana in 1996. Following that, she was on the cover of several magazines, including the previously mentioned Flex. Afterward, she competed in Ms. Olympia and Ms. International twice each, which is definitely the "fully professional level of a sport" mentioned at WP:ATHLETE. Nikki♥311 17:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bodybuilding record stands on it's own as notable. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:22, 14 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield (song)

It's apparently a "song" that's part of a longer "song" that's over twenty minutes long. There's absolutely no indication of notability, as all the page states is the song's content and part of the song's lyrics. Of this long song (Tarkus (song)), a different song was used as a single, not this one. So I'm kinda confused as to how this page came about, because to me, it clearly doesn't belong here. SKS (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles for portions of individual singles now? What next? a little insignificant 04:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 05:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 8 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 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Watson (Soccer)

Person only played at the amateur level and did not generate any coverage there that would satisfy WP:GNG. The article itself provides, I believe, enough evidence to justify the claim of non-notability. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was having a difficult time trying to comprehend even who Joe Watson is, the page would have to be completely re-written to be understandable. He does not appear to meet notability criteria some mentions of a Joe Watson scoring a goal etc. but I can't even verify if this is the same person because I could not understand the article in the first place. This is what I found [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] but even this just shows that Watson was a talented high school athlete and played for a local university but never went on to coach a major team or on to a professional soccer league (failing WP:ATHLETE). -Marcusmax(speak) 03:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although with the comment that as an All-American if he played a different sport there'd be people queuing up to say we should keep it. As it is he clearly fails to meet the notability criteria. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm open to finding an All-American notable, especially if we can find other coverage, but I don't see any evidence of either one. Besides failing ATHLETE, he doesn't get notability in any other way, either. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 22:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable has not achieved any significance in football and doesn't really seem likely to.--ClubOranje^T 15:16, 14 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) 00:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmina Siadatan

Non-notable; most other contestants on 'The Apprentice' don't have their own articles; other than appearing on British television for a few weeks, no reason to have an article about this person Coal-fired power station (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as winner of The Apprentice with significant press coverage (and all other winners do have their own article). I42 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Rather a surprising nom. Occuli (talk) 16:20, 11 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Colton

Clear autobiography of a non-notable performer. No evidence that the subject meets the inclusion criteria spelled out at Wikipedia:Notability or WP:BIO. Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks third party coverage [42]. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, I believe that this article meets the notability requirements spelled out by Wikipedia. Other notable links on Sandra include an article on her in the November 2008 Issue of Dance Spirit Magazine "Commercial dancer Sandra Colton gives you a glimpse at her life in L.A." - http://www.dancespirit.com/issues?year=2008

An article in Backstage East/West by Abby Jo Tagnalia "From Dancer To Singer" - Vol. 14, Issue 2 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0173316/publicity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinstripedpublishing (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC) — Pinstripedpublishing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Thanks to Pinstripedpublishing for providing some sources. I am satisfied that this meets inclusion criteria. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:18, 8 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 is clear in that the topic meets notability requirements. Many of the arguments for deletion are weak, and seem to have been cast without prior research. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Kenya relations

No evidence of notability, no matter of these bilateral relations are minor not as Operation Entebbe in 1976 from neighboring Uganda. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the coverage is multilateral. [43]. there was a bombing of an Israeli owned hotel in 2002 but the event in itself says little for actual bilateral relations. besides this "cooperation agreement" in 1989 not much evidence of ongoing relations. LibStar (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep evidence exists that this is more than merely a multilateral sort of relationship. Consider this source: [44]. This copy is currently at the Israel Foreign Ministry website, but it was originally published in an independent publication and is quite an indepth personal analysis of Israeli involvement in Kenya in the form of developmental aid. this page, which is actual Israeli government page, so may lack independence, but it clearly shows a close relationship between Israel and Nairobi beyond the fact that their officials may bump into each other at the U.N. These are countries with clear ties. The article is a stub, but I have found enough here and at other hits at a relevent google search that this is unlike many of the random "X-Y relations" articles in that this one really does have enough source material to pass WP:N inclusion criteria easily. If you take the same search to google news you find more stuff, including this article picked up by the Associated press, and this article from the Chicago Sun-Times. These are high-level meetings, the last one was an organized summit between the heads of state of the two nations. I appreciate that the article was a stub, and did not link these sources, but per WP:DELETE, one could at least do due dilligence and do a google search before ariving at the conclusion that the article should be deleted. I have often voted for deletion on many of these articles where the relations appear to not be notable. This one, however, clearly is based on about 2 minutes of google searching. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a measure of notability. the 2 articles you reference are just like any 2 ministers of different countries meeting...also there is not evidence of ongoing relations, if the best you can find is 20 years ago it doesn't say much for actual relations. In fact the Chicago Sun article you cite says Kenya denied that a meeting had taken place, so we can't even verify the meeting even took place! LibStar (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were random examples from the Google News search. Did you read WP:GOOGLEHITS? The number of googlehits is, of course, irrelevent. However, using google to find sources is a Good Idea. Fine, if those two didn't strike your fancy, how about this and this both about Kenya's reaction to Israel's raid on neighboring Uganda (Operation Entebbe). Plus, you conveniently ignore the first several sources I provided. And again, if those two are not good enough, here's another one from June 2008 and an unrelated one from December 2007 and one from 1988 and here's a recent one from earlier this year. I'm not even putting all of them here, there's more than enough in the relevent Google News search if you actually open and read the articles rather than just counting the hits. Look, I appreciate you wanting to get the "bad" international relations articles out of Wikipedia; its a noble cause, but this just isn't one of them! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jayron's evidence is strong enough--in fact, it is extremerly strong, and provides yet another reason why WP:BEFORE should be required. If he could do it, so could the nominator. DGG (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think AfD on this article is a little premature, although it is currently a stub it has the potential to grow beyond that based on the information that is currently available and hopefully will eventually turn into a meaningful encyclopedic article. Rcurtis5 (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like Israel wants say that they have had talks, but Kenya won't even admit they did. I suspect that establishing a good relationship with Israel would be tough for Kenya, given that anywhere from 10-20% of their population is Muslim. Their reaction to the raid is totally irrelevant to my mind. If you found actual agreements that were actually signed, I'd be willing to revisit my !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, try these, see if they meet your needs. This article describes a specific signed pact whereby Israel provided agricultural and military support to Kenya in 1989. Here is a different article about the same agreement Couple this with this more recent article which describes a personal account of the effects of development aid by Israel spent in Kenya or this Israeli government webpage which describes the relationship, and notes many specific instances of bilateral agreements, cooperation, and development aid. The lead picture in that article is a state visit of the Kenyan president Daniel Arap Moi, in which he met personally with then Israeli prime minister Yitzchak Rabin. Heads of state and government holding state visits for each other seems to me to be evidence of direct, notable relationship. There's another picture in the article of Golda Meir visiting Nairobi. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once Jayron32's links are inculcated into the article, I'm sure it'll be notable. --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't care much about these "bilateral relations" articles and I don't know if we need them at all, but the notability of this subject is guaranteed anyway. It is noteworthy that at least twice Israelis have been target of a terrorist attack in Kenya: the 1980 Norfolk Hotel blast [45] as well as the 2002 Mombasa attacks. Julius Sahara (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and notable topic, just needs to be worked on. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. All the info you added was on Uganda-Israel relations. Did you get confused, or am I missing something? Yilloslime ^T_C 21:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topics of articles included in Wikipedia must be notable and the subject of this one fails WP:NOTE. An article about a small part of something does not make the greater whole notable, notability is not inherited in that manner. This is a basic principle of notability here at Wikipedia. Some of the editors appear to be confusing notability of a topic with verifiabilty of facts in an article. Drawn Some (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I don't understand this comment. Notability is about there existing significant, independent, and reliable source material. Since I found a few dozen of these sources, could you perhaps clarify how these specific source do not make the subject notable? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not following this one at all, can someone explain it to me? It says "a small part of something does not make the greater whole notable, notability is not inherited in that manner". Is the argument that someone has to write a book and title it "Israel–Kenya relations" for the topic to be notable. Why is it that the same people always vote delete, no matter how strong the evidence is? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Rcurtis5 AdamD123 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many, many links to independent 3rd party news sources discussing various aspects of the relations between these two countries were not hard to find at all. I found the following in about 2 minutes with google news:[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] Obvious room for improvement. Claims that the subject matter is not notable have been addressed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to criticize the Keep voters, running the search is easy. I know we are all busy, but the hard part is adding the info and references to the article itself. If we don't the article will just get nominated again in a month. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, since notability is not about article content. If it were, we'd have several million other notable stub articles which would be up here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he has a good point. These articles are being nominated for deletion because they are not currently in a state that demonstrates notability. Even though the Afd should be a determination of what the article could become, too often it is only a reflection of what the article is at the moment. I would like to applaud RAN '58s excellent, excellent work improving these articles to a point where that notability is demonstrated. I agree that it is a shame that we spend so much time agonizing over whether to keep these articles when our time would be better spent improving them. But, again, you are right. We are all busy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BEFORE. It is the responsibility of the person nominating the article to perform the due dilligence to determine if deltion is a good idea. Stubs have never been a pretence for deletion. If people are so concerned about deletion discussions taking up too much time, don't nominate articles for deletion that should not be. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, keep talking about WP:BEFORE and completely ignore the responsibility an author should have to write an article to standards and source it adequately. We'd have half as many AfD's as we do if authors would exercise a little personal responsibility and do it right before posting the article to live space instead of doing a half-assed job and then hoping someone else will do the grunt work for them. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with that? If you do half the job you have to do the rest too? That doesn't sound like a collaborative wiki encyclopedia to me. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration implies that there is some work from both parties. The entire article was originally "Israel-Kenya relations are foreign relations between Israel and Kenya. Both countries established diplomatic relations in December 1963. Israel has an embassy in Nairobi. Kenya has an embassy in Tel Aviv." That's it. One sentence defining the obvious. 2 sentences telling us what the capital of each country was. Not a single source. Nothing. That isn't "collaboration". That is lazy and irresponsible. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:RS standards. This one of the Country X-Country Y pairings where notability is demonstrated. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a firm believer in the spirit, logic, and application of general notability guidelines--the idea that we need secondary, independent sources to write an an encyclopedia article on something, and at least some of those sources should address the topic directly and in detail. Without such sources, article writing becomes either an exercise in synthesis, or you end up with a collection of somewhat related facts with no context or interpretation to hold them together. And this is exactly what we have here--a collection of facts about interactions between Israel and Kenya and an attempt to synthesize them into a treatise on these country's relations. This is a noble academic exercise, but is not what wikipedia is for. The only source cited in the article that addresses the topic of Israel-Kenya relations in any depth or detail is the Israeli gov't website, which is not independent of the subject. None of the other cited sources discuss topic directly, with the possible exception of Glimpses of the Jews of Kenya which unfortunately I do not have access to. The word "relations" only appears 3 times in the book though, so I doubt it. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "relations" isn't the key, the concept is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The concept" as defined by...Richard Arthur Norton? Because I don't really see independent sources discussing this concept you speak of. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"International relations" as defined by Websters, Wikipedia and both countries at their websites. Or the US State Department at their website on the relations between the US and country X. All the same topics, and even sports. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point, which I thought was obvious, was that if Glimpses of the Jews of Kenya covered the topic of bilateral relations between Kenya and Israel in any kind of depth or detail, then the word "relations" would probably show more than 3 times in the book's 170 pages. Yes, there are synonyms for the concept of "bilateral relations between Kenya and Israel" that don't involve that word, but it's none the less reasonable to assume the word "relations" would appear a more than a few times in a treatment of the topic. Regardless, the burden is not me to prove that this book actually discusses the concept, but rather on any editor who might argue that the book establishes that the topic at hand is notable. (And lest I be accused of trying to set up a straw man, let me note that I don't actually see any editors explicitly making this argument. I only mentioned this book and my search for "relations" in my !vote to demonstrate that I had reviewed and carefully considered all the sources cited in the article.) Yilloslime ^T_C 23:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their relationship is clearly notable, as the Israelis themselves even state [55]. They've assisted them in solar power projects and agricultural. Dream Focus 20:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "... as the Israelis themselves even state" - there's the rub. You may wish to re-read WP:GNG, and the part about sources having to be "independent of the subject". The Israeli government cannot be used to validate the notability of its own relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Israel has assisted in building Kenya among other things. --Shuki (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one here has shown any particular knowledge of relations between Israel and Kenya (I don't have any either). So all we have is some editors saying the news stories and government announcements that mention Israel and Kenya show the relations are notable, while other editors say those same articles do not establish notability. That's precisely why we have WP:GNG which requires some independent analysis that concludes the topic has general significance. If this were an article about some recent musical fashion, I wouldn't care. However, the "relations" articles are core encyclopedic content and articles such as this (even if expanded with the information mentioned above) will only ever be a synthesis of factoids with no "so what" exposition. There are some significant issues in some of the articles mentioned above; those issues should be part of articles about the events. None of the sources mentioned claim that Kenya is important to Israel, or that Israel is important to Kenya. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You provide a link to: "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" (my emphasis added). Can you tell me what position is being advanced that isn't in the original material? Are we creating an imaginary relationship where none exists, by taking random articles that have the word "Kenya" and "Israel" in them and advancing the position that some relationship exists? I would say that when Israel has a webpage on its relationship to Kenya, we can assume that this is a real relationship. And it certainly doesn't make sense to add duplicate material to both country pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG an encyclopedic article should be on a notable topic. The synthesis comes from listing the disparate facts (embassy, visit, rescue, etc) and claiming that therefore the topic is notable. The "History" section has a valuable clue: the first item is for 1903, and the second is for 1963 (the whole article is just a listing of Google hits). Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What rules says all the facts have to come from one source? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—the topic is inherently encyclopedic, therefore the arguments of synthesis are irrelevant. There are many POVFORKs on Wikipedia that are created by linking tons of unrelated sources to create an imaginary topic or concept that does not exist. This, however, does not fit into that category and Israel–Kenya relations is, again, an inherently encyclopedic one. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without taking any look at the article or discussion. I remember the relations are important because of (1) Kenya's assistance in the Entebbe raid; and (2) the missile fired from Kenya at a plane containing Israeli passengers in (I think) 2002 or '03. Chutznik (talk) 19:22, 14 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran

Notability in question. I personally am not sure if Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran is a notable person merely because they are the chief medical examiner at the LA Coroners office. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the chief medical examiner of LA is probably notable, just as in similarly large cities; btw, how do we pronounce your username? DGG (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an article for the Head of the Sanitation Dept too? Sometimes I think certain articles go a little far. Other than doing an autopsy on Michael Jackson what else is Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran notable for? Its pronounced ASPENSTI —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Sathyavagiswaran is the chief medical examiner of one of the largest coroner's offices in the world. He testified in the Phil Spector and O. J. Simpson murder cases as well as performed autopsies on River Phoenix, Michael Jackson, and other celebrities. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability asserted. Clearly a public figure. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 8 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 strongly on the side of deletion here, and there is a general agreement that the topic does not meet notability requirements. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya–Romania relations

lack of significant coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly multilateral. [56], yes there's that water memorandum, but memorandums are much weaker than actual agreements. current article has citations on the usual "we want to cooperate more type" statements like every country that has diplomatic relations, there is little evidence of actual and notable trade. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete better handled as Foreign Relations of X articles. JJL (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if the foreign ministers are talking about trade treaties, the trade relations are notable DGG (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if multiple independent sources deal with "Kenya–Romania relations", then we have an actual phenomenon worth writing about. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per there being enough relevent hits to support real bilateral relations between the two nations. here's a scholarly paper on bilateral tourism promotion between the two countries. Here is a 2005 reference to contact between the two governments. one from 2003 and a different one on a different issue from 2003 and one from 1983. Here's one from 2007. Google News turns up some other stuff from time to time as well, once you cull out all of the unrelated sports stuff. I will admit its not the most vibrant relationship, but unlike many of these "X-Y relationship" articles, this one does seem to cross the notability Mendoza line. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of your links have nothing to do with "Kenya–Romania relations": the scholarly paper discusses tourism promotion in Kenya and tourism promotion in Romania as two entirely separate topics; it says not a word about relations between the two. The 1983 story is about Romania-Somalia relations, not Romania-Kenya ones. Now that that's clear, let's address the others. "Kenya, Romania seek to strengthen trade ties" - well, ok, nice, but hardly something we'd pick up on outside this series of nonsense articles. "President Kibaki receives eight new envoys" - yes, Romania has an ambassador in Nairobi (the very definition of "relations"), but we already know that from List of diplomatic missions of Romania. I couldn't access the allafrica.com links, but if all they tell us is that the two governments have contact, we already know that from the fact they have embassies with each other. (Diplomats don't get paid to do nothing.) What is missing here, as often, is multiple, independent, in-depth coverage of the Kenya-Romania relationship as such. News stories about friendly handshakes and pieces of paper signed can't compensate for that gaping hole. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Talking about trade and having a real and reasonably notable agreement are different things. Tourism promotion? Pretty much all govts promote tourism. They don't discriminate between countries they have good relationships with or not. Cuba hates the US, but wants our tourism money. This one is close, but I still don't see the notability. It all looks rather mundane to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reply to Jayron32; no one has actually cared to document the phenomenon of "Kenya–Romania relations", at least beyond the trivial level, and neither should we. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of links that (at least those presented do not) address the topic. Normally one expects multiple in-depth sources, or at least one, or at least it should exist in theory. No evidence that somebody wrote a book about this, published a scholarly paper or anything of the kind. ([57] should go to Tourism in Kenya. The paper in fact talks about the LACK of sufficient relations.) IMHO, does not pass WP:Notability. While large trade is deffinitevely notable, there is no evidence that it existed other than in theory. Dc76\^talk 21:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete. This article exists only by an apparent error: it was PRODDED on March 25, and that tag wasn't removed until April 6[58], well in excess of of 7 days. So this article should've been deleted on April 1; it's only because an error that we find ourselves going thru the motions of the this AfD. (But if you need a non-procedural argument for deletion, how about the original argument I made when PRODDing: "pointless article; no sources available on this topic; fails WP:N.") ~~Yilloslime ^T_C 21:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Good point. And consider this: if it had been deleted by prod, would anyone have ever noticed its absence? I think both sides know the answer to that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Checking the deletion log, I see that the page was indeed deleted, but then restored per request of User:WilyD. But I still stand by my original rationale for PRODDing. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topics of articles included in Wikipedia must be notable and the subject of this one fails WP:NOTE. An article about a small part of something does not make the greater whole notable because notability is not inherited in that manner. (This is a basic principle of notability here at Wikipedia.) Some of the editors appear to be confusing notability of a topic with verifiabilty of facts in an article. Just because some of the facts are verifiable does not mean that the topic is notable. No one has presented any reliable sources actually discussing relations between these two countries as relations between the two countries. Drawn Some (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ooooh, look, an embassy! And a list of "references" not actually referenced. Well, what's the significance? Why these two over any other two? --BlueSquadronRaven 05:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. The references in the article and mentioned above do not support these "relations" as notable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 13 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Even though the AfD expired there has not been any closing admin action on it. Seeing as the nominator has since withdrawn the nomination I am inclined to mark it as such. That being said, since the album now has a name and this article redirects to it, I don't think it would be controversial to delete the redirect after a certain point, though I'm not sure if it should be done now as some might legitimately type in this article title at this point. Valley2city^‽ 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mika's second studio album

This album is not yet confirmed by the artist, fails WP:HAMMER and no sources found. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) unsourced but still future album. JJL (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move back to Mika's second studio album as no title has been confirmed. However, the album has been covered in multiple reliable sources—I've added several citations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The title, introduced with this edit, might be vandalism, actually, bordering on a BLP violation. Maybe the article should be moved ASAP. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that it's problematic to move an article while an AfD is already underway, but I am sufficiently concerned about this unsourced title that I have gone ahead and moved it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate when the album is released. Gosox5555 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as mentioned by Gosox5555 --Mpdelbuono (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album's release date is reported in reliable sources (BBC for one), so this does not appear to be a WP:CRYSTAL problem. Per the basic principle of eventualism, deleting and recreating an article in a few months, especially where relaible, in-depth sources exist now, seems to be a poor way to handle things, seems to be about jumping thru hoops just to jump thru them. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm in agreement with Jayron32. Even since his message, more reliable sources have been added including interviews with Mika himself discussing the record. Plus, myself and Freshpop have made the article look more presentable. Dark Horse King (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated previously by Jayron32, it would be a confounded decision to delete this article for it only to be recreated with the same information in a month’s time. This is especially considering the respectable amount of reliable sources referenced. Freshpop (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NALBUMS says that "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." What's here is well-referenced, no contest there, but since the track list is incomplete and the title is yet to be known, a merge into the artist's article pending the title and complete track list seems appropriate to me. Cliff smith ^talk 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the album, We Are Golden, has been announced on Mika's official site. [59] Dark Horse King (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as right now, the official title of Mika's second studio album is now announced. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:54, 15 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 01:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Harrison (political aide)

I found this article whilst patrolling the new pages and can not see how the subject is of note. I suggest he fails WP:NOTE at this time, and can not find any secondary reference works specifically about him that would suggest otherwise. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything this guy is associated with is unquestionably notable - except himself. Three trivial sources are not enough. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He does his job. Not enough for notability. J L G 3 9 2 6 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No question here. Ground Zero | t 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. No significant coverage appears to be available. Nuttah (talk) 09:04, 11 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction inspired by Dune

I was about to remove the original research (and the single fact cited to an unreliable source) from this article when I realized this would leave only the "see also". This has been tagged as unreferenced for over two years. While a decent article on this subject might someday exist, that article would neither begin nor end with anything even close to this one. A Wikipedia article needs to be verified to reliable, third party sources, and I see no evidence this one will ever do that by following its current course. Mintrick (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - ouch, some of that is painfully written and does look like OR. However, there are some clear sourceable bits such as Star Wars etc. which can be sourced. I suspect it can all fit nicely in the Cultural influence of Dune section of the Dune (novel), or even the Dune universe page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck what an OR farm! I'm going to see if I can source any of that and modify my !vote accordingly, but I don't really see much to merge anywhere: things that were influenced by Dune can say so in their own articles. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've found a couple, but still... not enough to really justify a standalone article. I took out some of the minor ones that are themselves only marginally notable and unlikely to be sourced, and there's a couple of assertions of sourcing (DVD commentary, book commentary) that I can't source online, so those could be merged per above. Jclemens (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication topic is notable for stand alone article and content is largely comprised of original research. Sourced influences can be mentioned in the main article or perhaps a Dune in popular culture article which is always a big hit on Wikipedia. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CoM, who, for once, got it right. Yeah! Drmies (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. I think all of this can be. Unfortunately, I don't have time. But I see no indication at all that the nom has even thought of trying. DGG (talk) 06:05, 13 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. Valley2city^‽ 01:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people banned from Saturday Night Live

Unnotable topic sourced from IMDB trivia sections, TV.com summaries (user submitted, and non-RS), and fansite containing illegal copyright violating online episode transcripts (massive WP:COPYRIGHT violation). Much of the rest appears to be purely WP:OR (or badly footnoted to the three non-reliable sources) Suffice to say, with these low quality of sources, this article is also a serious WP:BLP violation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the concept of banned guests certainly has some appeal to it. The article's problems probably trump that, though. J L G 3 9 2 6 01:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost WP:FREAKY, I'm sure the show's producers have banned many in their own internal discussions. this list would be hard to verify, let alone get reliable sources for. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current dependency on unreliable sources. If the article is revised to cite the bans to reliable sources instead, I may reconsider. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly trivial article based off of unreliable sources. Tavix | Talk 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm all for an article on this topic existing, but if one stripped away the unreliable sources, there wouldn't be much left. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Questionable as the sources are, in many instances they say only that someone did a poor job and never appeared on the show again. Not the same thing as being banned. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:38, 8 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Rollins Jr

Non-notable, fails WP:ATHLETE. Was proded by an editor and removed by creator who appears to be the subject of the article, which brings up vanity and WP:COI. -WarthogDemon 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't come close to passing WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:08, 2 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 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely fails WP:ATHLETE. Even speedy delete per creator's note here[60] and his subsequent attempt to delete. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:31, 8 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barrier Islands Gazette

Non-notable local paper. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 1 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) 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very small town, very localized paper that appears to have won no awards, and received no notice from any one beyond local websites. Fails WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article about a local newspaper with small circulation. Could not find any secondary sources. -- œ ^™ 01:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newspapers and magazines are rarely covered by other newspapers and magazines. This is a reliable source for the region it covers. It makes the encyclopedia more complete and it should be included. If a stand-alone article isn't warranted then it should be merged somewhere and listed with other Florida periodicals. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be merged to the area it covers: Treasure Island, Florida or a barrier islands article if one exists as it seems to cover other areas as well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional entry for free newspaper. Audit Bureau of Circulations has no record of publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorseditor (talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Dawn Johnson

Unreferenced BLP. Substantial parts of the article read like self-promotion. I haven't found any non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Being interviewed about something doesn't make the person being interviewed notable. So, delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could there be any more redlinks in that piece? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:07, 2 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) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 8 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 Star Tours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Tours II

Lacks reliable sources, largely based on rumors and blogs. RadioFan (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Star Tours. That is where this information belongs until the new ride is officially named "Star Tours II". Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete - merge with Star Tours, and the name being "Star Tours II" is highly unlikely to even be searched on for a redirect, let alone be an actual ride name (hence the deletion recommenation of this page). SpikeJones (talk) 13:23, 14 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. No-one has disputed that the subject fails WP:PORNBIO, so deleting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Thompson

Another gay pornstar with no notability Corpx (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:12, 2 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) 00:24, 8 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 01:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Cubic Player

No references. Not notable. No claim to be notable. Miami33139 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced. No Google News/Books/Scholar results. No apparent WP:RS results on Google Web^[61][62]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:36, 5 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) 00:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably and independently sourced; I wasn't able to find anything either. —Korath (Talk) 14:30, 10 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Gypsies

Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC and no sources found. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Failed to find any other sources other than the website itself really. (Full disclosure; I had tagged this as a speedy.) -WarthogDemon 19:09, 5 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) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a fun band. But insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC Orderinchaos 11:56, 8 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. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, regardless of its future potential. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob Pinball

Procedural, declined speedy. WP:CRYSTAL. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N, not to mention it talks more about toy story than spongebob. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for reason of WP:CRYSTAL and the aforementioned fact that it makes more unsourced claims about Toy Story than it does for the supposed subject of the page. magnius (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any mention of this on Google. --LjL (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and maybe WP:MADEUP/WP:HOAX. The Junk Police (reports|works) 03:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict warning)[reply]
Delete as an inadequately-sourced coatrack for the Toy Story series. Alexius08 (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on, it's a SpongeBob game, and will be very popular in the 2011 cause Nick is very good at advertising and can spend like a million dollars for every ad. When it does become popular, there will be no page, and people will think Wikipedia lacks pages. Jeremjay24 (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
WP:CRYSTAL It's not popular at the moment.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:51, 8 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haley Alexis Pullos

Non-notable teen actress — TAnthony^Talk 06:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hangon rationale moved from article: This is a biography of a living actress. THere is no point in deleting it. Originally posted at Haley Alexis Pullos by Leslie Roak (talk) at 15:01, 6 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) 00:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can see, only minor roles, and no significant coverage (except for an interview here) that would warrant inclusion. Maybe in a few years, or even months, but not now. decltype (talk) 12:52, 8 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. No consensus reached despite being open for several weeks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave International New Media Arts Festival

spam like article that lacks wide coverage [63] LibStar (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Enki H. (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems just about notable, given much coverage will no doubt be in Chinese. Government-supported & relatively well-established for this area, according to the article. More refs needed. Seems no more obscure than hundreds of American or British events that have articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 28 June 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) 00:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless the event is ongoing (2006-2008 are listed) I'm not sure it's useful or notable. Sabiona (talk) 15:46, 6 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} 00:14, 8 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 13:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TrAce Online Writing Centre

fails WP:ORG, very limited third party coverage [64] LibStar (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 24 June 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) 00:29, 1 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} 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Third party coverage is almost nil. Reads like an ad throughout, complete with meaningless hyperbole ("trAce contributors generated an unequalled body of innovative creative work"). I say "weak" delete, because I could imagine it coming back later in a more acceptable form. J L G 3 9 2 6 01:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: at a quick glance, the article is turning into a directory. Also, being written by Sue Thomas, the founder of that organization, it cannot maintain a neutral point of view. Alexius08 (talk) 05:32, 8 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) 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Forms (band)

Non-notable band with less than a passing mention in a blip on a website. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Icarus (album), which would qualify for a speedy if the band page is deleted. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple piddling claims, but nothing to pass WP:BAND. Apparently somebody won't let me tag anything for speedy deletion anymore. I feel unloved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me, honest, but I would have declined the speedy as well, because this is not an uncontroversial deletion—not just because of the Steve Albini production connection, but more so because a glance at a Google News search suggests that some research is required to determine the band's notability. Is anyone interested in helping me out in adding some sources? Spread the love around. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, so I've added six citations, just some of the many sources that have written about this band: The New York Observer, the Omaha World-Herald, The Morning Call, Pitchfork Media, PopMatters, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. (The band gained attention for having had Steve Albini produce their albums, but also for the glowing reviews from music critics.) The subject meets the general notability guideline, or criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While there don't seem to be any big names in those sources, the number and geographical distribution seem to bring the article up to inclusion. Well found. As I don't feel too strongly either way at this point, I'll just switch to Neutral. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:44, 6 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) 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for the ref's P.E. added. Here's am Allmusic one too [65]. I gotta ask, does anyone actually search for sources before nomination or commenting???? The Pitchfork and Allmusic ones took all of 30 sec to find. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 05:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to wonder if anyone who refers to WP:MUSIC#C1 has actually read it before commenting HARHARHAR. Blogs don't fall under it, internet-only media is specifically excluded. Print and TV count. While they might count as RS (maybe), they don't establish notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic is not a blog, and it has often been used to help to build a case for notability for articles about musicians. And Pitchfork Music is an Internet magazine "with the clout of Rolling Stone or Spin". (Time, Canadian edition, April 4, 2005. Vol. 165, Iss. 14; p. 50). WP:MUSIC#C1 deliberately says "This criterion includes published works in all forms." Sources are not discounted automatically in notability discussions just because they are published on the Internet. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly sufficient coverage for notability.--Michig (talk) 17:48, 9 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderworld

AfDs for this article:

Was previously AFD'd, which resulted in a Keep that more information and notability would come. That has been more than 4 years ago and I can't find any real establishment of notability. Seems to fall short of WP:MUSIC. -WarthogDemon 16:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. The band has one self-released album, and one EP. And by its own admission from its website, "So people liked the first album, loved the unreleased tracks, and so far ignored last month's EP." which essentially adds up to even the fans don't seem to have paid any attention. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 7 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 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I had a look at the first AFD. It's interesting looking at the keep !votes. One keep is from User:JamesBurns who is banned for sockpuppetry. The other keep was from User:Voskat who uploaded File:SpiderworldMirror.jpg identifying as the copyright holder and crediting the picture to Jim Reijers, a member of the band. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 8 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eidos Institute

Non-notable think tank. Although the universities may be notable, a collaboration is not inherently so. While they certainly make an effort to put their names out there (including this page and a Facebook profile), there are few if any reliable secondary sources offering any significant coverage. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Unreferenced. Google News, Google Scholar and Google Books show no relevant results.^[66][67][68] — Rankiri (talk) 17:40, 1 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) 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm with Rankiri 100% on this. I see a few google news hits but I don't think they're enough. If I saw something else though notable I could be persuaded though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't an official collaboration of those universities, it doesn't have for instance an office or a street address. Hence it should be judged only as an organisation in its own right, and in that sense it fails notability on all the grounds indicated (mainly a lack of sources). Orderinchaos 11:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It looks more like a glorified consultancy business to universities and government than a think tank (although maybe that is what a think tank is!). It does have a street address in inner city Brisbane and one at Griffith University as mentioned on its website: [69]. It has put out some large policy commentary documents[www.eidos.org.au/news/items/2006/12/119393-upload-00001.pdf], but I don't think this makes it notable in itself. Jenafalt (talk) 14:27, 8 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. I think the nominator has been thoroughly refuted here. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redbus.in

nn website Gotttor (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand this nomination. Six credible and reliable sources are referenced in the article, providing the substantial coverage to pass the general notability guideline that the nominator didn't even have to do a search to see notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as the first online booking system in India for busses(Dont know about the rest of the world). Worth a keep; needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic form. --Deepak D'Souza 05:58, 1 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) 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is well-demonstrated by the sources in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:48, 8 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 01:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Man's Party (Six Flags Great Adventure)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dead Man's Party (Six Flags Great Adventure)

I speedied this a few days ago per db-org, then DGG kindly pointed out that it's not an organization, it's a show in an amusement park; I was confusing this article with a traveling show. But what I said in the deletion summary is relevant here at AfD: no independent sources, no suggestion that they exist, and no significant hits at google.com/archivesearch (on "Dead Man's Party" "Six Flags Great Adventure"). - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Note there's a disambig page at Dead Man's Party, and you may want to vote for a redirect, but that wouldn't be my call. For one thing, "Dead Man's Party (Six Flags Great Adventure)" seems like an R3 (unlikely redirect) to me. For another thing, I'm not a fan of having a redirect from every named attraction at an amusement park to the main article for the park; that encourages spam. But exceptions are fine, and this might be an exception. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something can be found to show that this particular attraction is notable. DGG (talk) 05:20, 25 June 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, 1 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} 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no good reason to have an article on a nonnotable little attraction. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 9 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. two deletes and a merge over two extensions is not a solid consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 08:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Competition 10

Promotional material for a minor contest. Sure, it has an official site, a Twitter page, a blog, the requisite press releases - but independent coverage in reliable sources appears wholly lacking. Dumitru Popescu may also merit deletion. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of references

This is a list of articles in the media about Competition 10:

http://zoom.jurnalul.ro/stire-stiri/info-zoom-318820.html

http://www.calificativ.ro/Competitia_Zece___10_000_Euro_pentru_un_avion_de_hartie-a21837.html

http://www.stiri.descopera.org/arca-lanseaza-competitia-zece/

Dragos muresan (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The second link is to a press release hosted at an educational forum - not an independent source; the third is to a self-published site with no editorial control over content. The first link is a paragraph in an actual newspaper, but a) it's in one of those non-news, low-content "lifestyle supplement" sections; b) it's more or less a puff piece drawing on their press release and linking to their official site, forum and blog; c) we really don't yet have the "multiple independent sources" indicated by WP:GNG, nor are we likely to. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain something to me

Biruitorul, I have here a small list of articles that do not have any references at all and also do not appear in any independent newspaper.

I belive you created these articles. Do they meet the criteria proposed by WP:GNG ? Why don't you delete those as well?

Dragos muresan (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popa's biography is sourced to his résumé. The others are indeed unreferenced (I wrote them long ago), but their notability is immediately apparent - two archbishops and two big-city mayors. And, were I to improve those articles, I'm certain I could find copious references in newspapers and history books. No comparison to a competition that has, in fact, garnered precious little attention in reliable independent sources, despite its occurring in 2009, when everything that is something is easily accessed through Google. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing

Biruitorul, I don't understand why you are so upset against this article. First you tagged it for quick deletion, and now this. Sure, you are correct, it is a minor competition, it hasn't appeared on the BBC, it's not the XPrize, but on the other hand it doesn't want to be. It's aimed at children. It is public, it appeared on several sites, televisions will come at the event. Sure, it has little content, but as things progress and it gains more publicity, content will be added.

Dragos muresan (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "upset" by the article - I merely want it deleted for failing to conform to policy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per Biruitorul's analysis of given sources. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an acceptable Keep argument. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 6 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} 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [[[ARCASPACE]]. Insufficient notability for independent article, but can be mentioned in the main space agency article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:52, 8 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Servis

Lack of notability: His only work is the NSC-Engine, which was delete a couple of days ago. Non of his work was cited within the scientific community. Blunt. (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources means that notability is not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

1. Article is about Croatian scientist, and same article is written on hr.wiki
2. His work is known to comunity of machine engineers, both Croatians and Swiss, where he is known.
3. If you want to check and find out who he is, you can ask admins on hr.wiki, we will be glad to respond.
4. As this is article about scientist from one country, and he has established page there, why article is nominated for deletion?

Regards --Lasta 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)(hr.wiki admin)[reply]

Do you have any prove, that his work was even referenced once without him being a co-autohr of the paper? His work on the NCS-ENgine wasn't picked up at all and further work is neither claimed in the article nor here. Its basically irrelevant wether there is an article on hr.wiki or not. On de.wiki he was delete three times [70]. Now, before you bring out the nationlism card again like in the AfD-discussion for the engine, could you be so kind to provide links that show some kind of notability? --Blunt. (talk) 23:03, 7 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} 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Do patents count? He has numerous patents and appears to be an inventor of some significance. I realize that people have patented preposterous things, but his appear substantive. J L G 3 9 2 6 01:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14 search results is not that impressive. The 3 patents listed in the article are only request for patents. --Blunt. (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Patenting something is not notable. If the patent was notable itself then it'd receive coverage in WP:RS, but patenting is a lot like self-publishing, so no, a vast number of patents isn't inherently notable (unless perhaps the article was about the man who'd patented the most things in the world, but at that point it'd be WP:OR). Shadowjams (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROF. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remain - In a country where he is coming from, he is regarded as scientist. Nobody disputed that fact, so article stays. --78.3.69.78 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did dispute that, because its not proofed. --Blunt. (talk) 15:50, 13 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a "keep" consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatport Music Awards

Non notable award from a single store. No indepentent sources or claims of notability. No non promotional sources found. Nothng suggests it is more than spam Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:23, 25 June 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) 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this definitely won't be spam because Beatport is a huge store for legal downloads of dance music. Moving onto the award, I'm not entirely sure it's notable as a standalone award, yet Beatport are a notable site - In their strand of music, it'd be akin to an Amazon Book Awards - And this gives the awards significant credibility in dance music, I'm just not 100% sure that translates to credibility beyond that. So I will say weak keep. I would not oppose deletion, because there isn't too much in the way of assertion of notability within the article, it is just worth noting that Beatport certainly aren't small time at all. Esteffect (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a huge store does not stop spam from being spam. This afd is not about Beatport. It is about their music awards. Any notability of Beatport is not inherited by anything Beatport might do. The example you mention of Amazon Book Awards is only notable if it satisfies by itself a notability criterea such as has recieved significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Being related to Amazon is not good enough. Being related to Beatport is not good enough. As it stands there is no independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 22:21, 3 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 00:05, 8 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. Paul Erik's cleanup work seems to address the concerns raised. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Cotton

No sources found, nobody has been arsed to find any since 10/07. Only found one small review in Google or Google News. Suggest deletion and moving High Cotton (song) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:19, 24 June 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, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was inclined to agree with the Hammer, but the collection does meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and seems especially notable to fans of the prolific Joe R. Lansdale. Entries on short fiction collections are tricky because they often appear to inherit notability (by individual award-winning stories), but I don't see how this entry violates precedence of including such collections. Page needs much work, though. Perhaps disambig for "high cotton" --Junius49 (talk) 00:53, 7 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 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines and the content isn't encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This was one of those cases where it was helpful to go beyond just web searches to look for sources. The book was well reviewed around the time it came out: I have added five sources just now. There is enough coverage for the general notability guideline, or criterion #1 of WP:BK. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to switch my vote as someone clean up the text. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clean up the text if you'll switch your vote. Ha, just kidding. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:32, 10 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual ethnic group

Can't find any evidence that this term is widely used. Article looks like original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:20, 2 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, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am a linguist and have never heard this used as a serious term; my field is not anthropological linguistics or sociolinguistics, but I can check with people who do specialize in that. Furthermore, this article seems to be just a random collection of whatever the creator could think of, and it's missing some pretty huge and obvious members—for example, Han people, who make up 90% of the population of China and speak 7 different languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, Gan, Min, Hakka, and another one I can't think of off the top of my head). Then there's the issue of ethnic groups in diasporas, where they may all speak different languages depending on where they are (for example, most Uyghurs speak Uyghur, but pretty much all other than the oldest generation also speaks Mandarin, Uzbek, Kazakh, Russian, or something else, depending on which country they live in). The idea that there is a one-to-one correspondence between languages and ethnic groups is more or less a myth (albeit a very widely believed one in places like, say, Japan), but really we should not be surprised that many ethnic groups speak multiple languages, and thus there is nothing inherently special about a "multilingual ethnic group". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits in a comprehensive collection of academic databases. No hits in Google scholar. J L G 3 9 2 6 02:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rjanag's reasoning is pretty convincing. Otherwise it seems kind of fun and interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, and probably will never be sourced. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to me like original research. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 8 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. no sufficient consesus has come from this already extended listing. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Merry Thoughts

Very little references. Page remains practically unchanged since it was moved userspace to mainspace. Band last played in 2000. No Google search results for anyone in the band after 2000. Recommending deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are sufficient references on this page, certainly compared to many other articles pertaining to musical groups. Also, deleting a band because it has been defunct since 2000 hardly constitutes adequate reason. We should probably delete the Beatles if one follows this ludicrous logic. One problem that appears to be recurring here is that certain wikipedia 'authorities' without any evident knowledge of the subject have assumed that the lack of current references invalidates this article. This is simply not the case. As evidence of the continued relevance of this particular musical group within a specific genre please follow the link to the very latest DJ playlist from June 2009 at London's top goth club, Invocation, where you will see that this band's music continues to figure at major club nights almost ten years after their demise. http://www.invocation-night.net/setlists.html?032 ChiRed (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user is the creator of the article in this AfD. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: And that is relevant why? You have marked a legitimate article for deletion and the only response to my objection above is this assertion which is deliberately loaded, presumably to imply a lack of objectivity on my part? May I suggest that this article is taken off the AfD list and instead is added to the Gothic Rock Talk page where people with a sincere and unbiased critical perspective may debate whether it meets Wikipedia criteria. Thank you. ChiRed (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the AfD process will work itself out. Right now no one has voted, so it will be up to the closing admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin ChiRed (talk · contribs) has been canvassing. Ndenison ^talk 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another faux pas. As a newbie I had no idea inviting admins to participate in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of an article was prohibited. The individual who persists in pushing this article for deletion advised above that no-one has yet discussed the article, despite my recommendation that it be moved to a more objective venue for discussion. I thought it worthwhile to request the intervention of editors who have previously contributed to related articles. If this constitutes canvassing then it was done to avoid the deletion of this article without due consideration by informed persons. ChiRed (talk) 17:48, 7 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, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know nothing about the genre or the band. But, firstly I can see that having this article here means one less red-link in Whitby Gothic Weekend. Thus this topic is already integrated into the Wikipedia article tree, albeit tenuously at the moment. Other bands comparable with this one are found via the above article. Whilst this band may not be notable to you or I, clearly I can see that it is notable to fans of the Gothic Rock genre, based on a multitude of Google search results and mention on various unofficial websites. It may have the potential for further references out there somewhere. However, by its very nature of being a non-mainstream genre, it is likely to suffer a dearth of references in "mainstream" journalistic outlets, compared to say pop or classical music. Does this make it any less encyclopedic than those genres? Perhaps not, so I'd err on the side of allowing this article to exist in the hope that authors familiar with the genre are able to dig out some more supporting references eventually. Benkid77 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We could "hope" that all authors familiar with a page come along and work on them eventually, but if we did that, we would have a crapload of pages that aren't going anywhere laying about with little to no references, a small growing linkfarm for external links and no new information about a band since 2000. It should, at best, be sent back to userspace until more information and references can be found or at worst, deleted outright. "Hope" and waiting isn't an option. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whilst I have no vested interest in whether the article gets kept or not, I do think that taking out an article which already links in with similar articles and contains useful information is a little hasty in this case. The records listed and other info can be verfied, although I readily admit that the article is lacking in "authorative" sources. I certainly accept your point about "hope", but I think there'll be far less hope that the article will be improved if moved into userspace than if it is left in the encyclopedia where multiple users can view it and potentially work on it further. Why be so quick to remove it when there is no time limit for the article's improvement? It is more useful to have it available than not IMHO. Benkid77 (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If, as you incorrectly state, the standard for inclusion is new information, then why has this article not been deleted (or most of the articles on the project for that matter). Ndenison ^talk 19:54, 11 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 00:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HealthyLife Radio Network

No assertion of notability, no reliable source links (and none I can find in Google News), reads like an ad. —Chowbok ☠ 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:19, 2 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, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single reference is a 404 link, but it was a press release anyway. I looked through a few pages of ghits but did not find anything independent and non-trivial. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:49, 8 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niall McDarby

A cricketer who has played under-19 level cricket but hasn't played at a professional level, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. PROD contested. Jpeeling (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:19, 2 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, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands he doesn't pass WP:Athlete/WP:CRIN, and I haven't found anything to show that he'll pass WP:GNG either. An article can be created if/when he competes at the professional/national level. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate if and when he plays a first class match. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:33, 8 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a "keep" consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DC Rollergirls

Appears to be non-notable sports team. PROD tag previously removed without comment. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:18, 2 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, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adequately notable. JJL (talk) 00:14, 8 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Temmingh

Unsourced BLP, no CC-BY-SA permission ViperSnake151 Talk 22:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Oscarthecat (talk) 09:03, 5 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, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's kind of unsuitable for Wikipedia. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 12:00, 8 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Girls Training (MGT)

This article is an advertisement for a class on how to be a proper Muslim woman. The article attempts to achieve notability by comparing itself to an identically named class (which isn't notable in its own right) founded by Wallace Fard Muhammad. Google search results in this wikipage and several forums, as well as the website that this page is an ad for. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this article several months ago so I'm disappointed to hear that it reads like an endorsement or advertisement. Muslim Girls Training and General Civilization Classes (MGT) have been an institution within the Nation of Islam since 1933. With dozens of temples across the U.S. and abroad, the largest of which are more than 70 years old, MGT has had many thousands of students/trainees (though there are no numbers and NOI does not release accurate membership details). The article does not endorse the classes or even direct the reader toward classes. There is no other article about this institution elsewhere on Wikipedia's NOI-related pages, so it is not comparing itself to another article in seeking relevance. As MGT is the womens' counterpart to the all-male Fruit of Islam, it should be represented in Wikipedia if the FOI is. Finally, while the sourcing isn't as specific as it should be, I did use two mainstream sources not aligned with NOI in writing the piece. This article can be improved and made more relevant, but I disagree with its characterization as an advertisement. I hope this is helpful in making a decision regarding deletion!Njsamizdat (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - don't despair; it doesn't read as an advert to me. I think you did a pretty good job. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Organization has been notable for decades. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:28, 7 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, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is an example of a subject whose notability will be difficult to establish per "secondary" source searches, yet it seems to have significance as an important institutional component of a very notable organization. My only concern is with regard to the Nom's apparent claim that it's a sham because it "attempts to achieve notability by comparing itself to an identically named class (which isn't notable in its own right) founded by Wallace Fard Muhammad." Either this is an institutional component of the Nation of Islam, or it's not. Somebody please enlighten us. J L G 3 9 2 6 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jlg3926, inherits the entirety of it's notability from the parent topic, with no independant recognition; i.e. isn't well known in it's own right. Unless the article had actually gained recognition because of the Nation of Islam, then there are no grounds for inclusion. Admittance that subject's notability is "difficult to establish" confirms a lack of sources for this article as a unique topic, and I'm no certain Ism Schism's assertion that it has "been notable for decades" is a verifiable reference. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sometimes I despair of AfDs. Did anyone bother to see if this group had any references establishing its notability. I can find five with as many minutes searching: Islam in Black America (p 72), Black nationalism in American politics and thought (p 120), Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America‎ (p. 613), Black education: a transformative research and action agenda for the new century (270) and Black Muslim religion in the Nation of Islam, 1960-1975 (p. 146). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Passing mentions in books on higher order subjects hardly constitutes "Significant coverage". Can you name a single veriifiable source that are actually dedicated to the topic? As I said in my own delete comment, inheritance of notability, and mentions only in terms of the greater subject do not provide substantial enough coverage for inclusion. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why must it have a whole book dedicated to the topic? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional newsprint sources (please note the second is inflammatory and I include it only for purposes of notability): Muslim Girls Training has fashion show: Modesty is theme of annual, The Philadelphia Tribune September 16, 1994; Islam Cult Seeks To Kill Whites, Milwaukee Sentinel Feb 26, 1961. Both are non-trivial mentions. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:56, 14 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 00:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wheatley Brown

This article's subject has no notability beyond being one Indiana county's oldest surviving Civil War veteran. The article appears to be written as a genealogical record and information about his regiment is already provided by another article. It has been suggested that the information in this article be merged with 51st Regiment Indiana Infantry; however, because the article's subject has no particular notability beyond longevity, I do not believe that this information should be merged. Spacini (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously no notability. We could easily and reasonably add a note to the regimental article that one of its soldiers was the county's longest-lived veteran, but there's no need to redirect him to the regiment. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with your idea, but there is nothing to indicate that this man was the last surviving member of the regiment, nor was he among the last of the Civil War's veterans. Spacini (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass any notability guideline I've read. Appears to have been created by someone under the name User:Thomasbrown51 and includes the spoken word of a relative as a citation, seems a possible COI issue. I'd like my great-great grandparents immortalized too, but most folks of the era are just non-notable. BusterD (talk) 11:21, 10 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.