Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 10

< 9 June	11 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep Cheers. I'^mperator 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motörhead extended discography

This is unnecessary - all relevant material can be combined into the main article and track listings are on the articles about individual albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hastily, redundant to existing articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion of the archive releases in the main discography would be a size issue. Track listings cannot be included on the majority of the individual albums as many of the discs listed there don't have articles. Do we have a policy or guideline on this as we generally don't have individual articles on archive releases not approved by bands? - I'm not aware of any.--Alf ^melmac 06:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
futher comment Could be expanded to include the more notorious bootlegs as well.--Alf ^melmac 09:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll re-post the reasons originally stated on Talk:Motörhead discography for the article's creation from here: "The reason for having separated the two [discography and extended discography] in the first place is that the main discog page is dedicated to, for want of a better word, 'proper' releases, ie those intended for release by the group - the releases detailed on the extended discog page, although perfectly legitimate, have purposefully been over-looked by the contributing editors of the main discog page because they were not instigated or approved of by the group. The format of the extended discog page intentionally differs from the main discog page because each listed item on the latter has its own page, whereas on the former the details are all self-contained. Remember, the ext discog page is only a first cut and we can debate the relative merits of its format, and it may well be better to merge it into a list on the main discog page and create separate pages for each of the listed entries here." – Drwhawkfan (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – for the reasons stipulated by Drwhawkfan above. Motorhead's discography is a long and tangled affair after 33 years and this article covers the most notable of the non-official releases. And there are plenty more out there. – B.hotep •talk• 12:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I must also take issue with the above comment stating that it must be deleted "hastily" – why must it be done hastily when there is a discussion to be had? – B.hotep •talk• 12:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into discography article. Why not accommodate the two together. I don't see why this would necessitate a fork. Shadowjams (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider renaming to "Semi-official releases" on something like that. Since there are so many Motorhead albums, both official and unofficial, it seems reasonable to separate them this way. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Dane Owens

No real assertion of notability. The song he is known for gained a respectable number of Youtube views (and I like it, incidentally), but it's not charted anywhere and gained little mainstream coverage, and as such he's not notable at this time. Was nominated a while back but for whatever reason the nominator reverted their nomination. Esteffect (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also nominated the song's article, Shine on Me. Esteffect (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The AfD template is not on the article. Also, there's an interview with him in Rolling Stone,[1] and one on the LA Times news blog. I doubt this demonstrates notability, but it's worth mentioning. Fences and windows (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; article cleanup necessary Shii (tock) 03:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E Bukura e Dheut and other Encyclopedia Mythica-sourced articles

There are a lot of stray mythology stubs sourced solely to Encyclopedia Mythica. I noticed several years ago that these articles look like hoaxes but neglected to delete them. A lot are copyvio as well. Please help me find these stubs and delete them. Shii (tock) 22:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Keep all. "Horagalles" can be definitively sourced [2] and so is not a hoax. ditto for Luot-chozjik: [3]. Also, "E Bukura e Dheut" seems also to be real -- [4]-- The sources here are in Albanian, which i can not read, but I can decipher enough to see that there is such a folktale. Probably the others similarly. The others are fairly common words and much harder to check quickly, but it seems that whoever did them did in fact have a good source. This was a good case where WP:BEFORE would have helped avoid the need for AfD. DGG (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrold L. Patz

Claims of importance in article are enough to cause me to decline a speedy request, but gsearch (both with and without middle initial) don't turn up any notability. The external link in the article is to an article that doesn't show notability. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nomination. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search came up blank. He doesn't seem to have had any articles written about him, barely has any Google hits, and while revamping the Massachusetts computer system was useful, it doesn't seem very notable. Fences and windows (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, nothing to verify the claims made about him. andy (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds like a great guy to hire for IT consulting, but there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salem, Oregon#Neighborhood associations. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Gateway, Salem, Oregon

No assertion of notability. roux 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As compared to the fictional "Cytaria" (another article for deletion), this place does exist and can be expanded to include some incidents or notable people around there. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does exist, but that fact alone isn't enough to write an article about. I can't find any sources that discuss it on news, scholar or books. The only sources are the city's page on the neighborhood,[5] which gives almost no info, and the neighborhood association page.[6] If nobody else can find some reliable sources, there's nothing to write about. Fences and windows (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete lacks significant coverage [7] LibStar (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fences and windows. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information on designated neighborhoods should be merged with the appropriate city article riffic (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salem, Oregon#Neighborhood associations until something notable happens there. Katr67 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Backslash Forwardslash at 09:13, 11 June 2009 as a blatant hoax. Non-admin closure. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cytaria

I came across this one while working on Cyprus geo stubs and orginally stumbled over the wrong transliteration. Turns out that the village doesn't exist at all. Google gives no results for Συταροιά and the given source for the population doesn't have it either (look under Ammochostos which is Greek for Famagusta). Nor does my detailed map of Cyprus list it. In theory it could be a very gross misspelling of Sotira, Famagusta, but then both the Latin and Greek spelling would be wrong - very unlikely. Passportguy (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax Nice catch. Shii (tock) 22:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This place is definitely fictional and nonexistent (at least on Earth). This can even be counted as vandalism. Although the page creator does have a wild imagination. Unless he/she can create a popular video game or something to include this name, this would only be a waste to Wikipedia's server. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note: one of the reasons that inhabited and formerly inhabited places are inherently notable is that we presume the availability of the reliable sources to demonstrate notability, which sources seem to have been adduced by those claiming "keep" here and there has been no counterpoint to those sources - i.e., showing that they are bogus. In order to avoid disruption I think the issuance of a strong caution against nominating articles about inhabited or formerly inhabited places is in order. If they cannot be verified, that's one thing, but generally speaking, if the place exists or existed as shown by one reliable source, other sources will likely be found - perhaps paper ones, which are no less valid - if given sufficient time. Ideally, a source should be in every such article, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and nominators should look for sources before nominating such articles, because when the sources are found these nominations reflect poorly on those who cause others to run around to find them under short deadlines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theba, Arizona

Contested prod. It is my assertion that the mere existence of an entry in the USGS GNIS database - which is in many cases over 30 years old - is not enough to establish the notability of a purported "populated place", let alone its existence. Sure, there is an entry in the database calling Theba a "populated place" [8] - but then again, there is an entry for the Citrus Grove Trailer Park [9]. I do not believe that, without additional information to show that a "populated place" is notable, the GNIS is enough to warrant an article. There simply exists no information about this "community" beyond what the old GNIS entry tells us, and to me that does not establish any kind of notability. Shereth 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom There has to be something you can say more about the place aside from "it exists". So unless someone can show that there is something more, this article should be deleted. At most, its existence can be mentioned in the county article. --Polaron | Talk 22:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Longstanding consensus is that all populated places are notable. Communities always can be counted on to have local history bits about them: can you assure us that, to the best of your knowledge, there are no printed sources about this place? I don't ask you to say that there are no such sources, but only that you have worked to establish that there aren't. Moreover, if you have established that this place doesn't currently exist (which seems rather doubtful, given the Google satellite view of the site), are you certain that it's not a ghost town? See this deletion debate: ghost towns can be notable, even if the community doesn't exist anymore. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, Polaron, there's more on here than "it exists". If there weren't anything else, I couldn't have given you the satellite link. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no serious problem with the notion that populated places can be notable, but where do we draw the line? From the perspective of the USGS, a "populated place" can include everything from a city of 8 million down to a trailer park of 8. Ghost towns can be notable becuase we have reliable sources that say so; a GNIS entry does little more than tell us that someone marked the spot "Theba" at some point in the past - it proves nothing beyond that point. I made a good-faith effort to dredge up information about this "community" last night (I have a vested interest in Arizona places) and came up empty-handed. If someone can demonstrate any tidbits of community history - or, frankly, anything other than the fact there was a dot on a map called "Theba", I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Shereth 22:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nyttend, why does this require a separate article if this is all that can be said about it? Can't you include this information in the county article? Or you might even think about making a "List of unincorporated communities in Maricopa County, Arizona" and make a table with all your geographic information there. Can any one say why we need a separate article for this locality? --Polaron | Talk 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - this isn't notable. It completely fails not only the GNG, but the spirit of the guideline as well. There notion that all populated places are notable is also contested.陣内 _Jinnai 23:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as there is no "longstanding consensus is that all populated places are notable" - this argument is just another slant on WP:IKNOWIT. Notability requires verifiable evidence; without it, the article will only fail Wikipedia's content policies. In any case, you can't write an encylopedic article on thin air - you need coverage from reliable secondary sources. This stub has no coverage, other than thin air (which must be thin at 728 feet above sea level). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may be a ghost town now, but there are plenty of sources available to verfify it once had people and businesses, as recently as 1978. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Towns, whether currently existing or historical, are inherently notable. As Bearian pointed out, sources exist demonstrating this was a population center. --Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to come across as being a little tendentious here, but has anyone actually looked at/reviewed these sources? One of them refers to the Theba Arizona USGS Quad - the name of a topographic map, not a place. Two of them are merely mentions in captions. Two are Google Books snippets that are impossible to determine what they actually say (and to be honest their use on the article is a little disingenuous unless someone has actual access to the books, and not just the snippet). One of the sources is even a website that essentially says "I can't find any information about Theba". One of them is even referencing a Theba in Yuma county, quite removed from the purported ___location discussed here. How this collection of stray mentions amounts to anything substantive feels like an extreme stretch to me. Shereth 03:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basis for the consensus that all populated places are notable is that--as this article shows--there always are sources if you look--even if we don't start looking for print. A map is a perfectly good secondary source. The GNIS database is just a start, but it's a good way to start. The practical reason for always keeping them as separate articles rather than merging is uniformity and the avoidance of these unnecessary debates. DGG (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a travel guide. A map is not a secondary source, it is the graphic equivalent of a travel guide or a telephone directory. If maps were reliable souces, every detail on them would be notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, there does not appear to be a consensus for the principle of "all places are notable and merit a stand-alone article" is not part of any guideline. It is only articulated in several essays and in WP:OUTCOMES, which is only a natural result of the fact that it only takes one person to create an article and a consensus to delete. So the fact that there is no consensus either way means that these articles tend to be kept. If there truly is a consensus for this inherent notability of places, its proponents should formalize it in a guideline proposal and see if it indeed has consensus. --Polaron | Talk 11:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are already several other sources and references on the article about this place. It may be notable for it's previous status as a mining town, and as a ghost town by now it would also be notable. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous consensus has repeatedly been that real places are inherently notable. In addition, this article is very well sourced for its size. Claims that the USGS map is not a secondary source are irrelevant, since it is a reliable source. Articles regularly use government compiled data (Census information is only one example) and are considered to be reliable sources. Finally, a place no longer being populated no more ends its notability than a person becomes non-notable if they died. Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since it is obvious that no one is bothering to actually check the references and happily assuming that a bunch of links = well referenced, I'm just going to withdraw my nomination under protest. Nothing in the "references" given states that Theba is or was a mining town, that it is or was populated, or that it is or was ever considered a "community" in any sense of the word. Apparently there is a (misguided) consensus that real places are inherently notable - a patently silly idea - but if it is consensus then I must concede that point. Still, I find it extremely disappointing that people are readily willing to accept the existence of links on an article as proof of facts that are not supported by the information in the links themselves, hence my withdrawal is made under protest. Cheers, Shereth 14:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Real places" are not per se notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reston, Florida ended with a deletion. But that place was a housing development rather than a recognized settlement, and it wasn't even on Google Maps. This place has some government recognition (USGS). I am calling to keep verifiable places like that since settlements are the kind of subjects which a comprehensive encyclopedia traditionally covers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a comprehensive travel guide that traditionally covers every settlement, such as Wikitravel. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikitravel only covers places worth travelling to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this were anything else, WP:V wouldn't be enough as they'd have to show notability. TBH nothing here shows notability. If anything it confirms the lack of it. Furthermore as there is no SNG on populated places, it is subject to the WP:GNG. Wikipedia isn't travel guide or listing of trivial information.陣内 _Jinnai 17:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is another case where we forget that WP:GNG is simply a section of a guideline, not a "law" or "policy" and the heading of that guideline stipulates that it is "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Population centers have long been considered an obvious exception even without hyperlinks to New York Times articles about a towns that ceased to exist before Al Gore invented the internet.--Oakshade (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Pacific Company had a railroad station there, served by Wells Fargo: [10] --NE2 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not claim that all places are inherently notable, and in fact, I have my own standards. I think that Theba, AZ meets my own criteria. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am somewhat curious - what leads you to believe that Theba meets point #3 of your criteria? Shereth 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, the census block that encompasses the ___location (block 3110 in tract 7233.02) reports a population of 2 in the 2000 census. --Polaron | Talk 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You should try and propose that as a formal subject-specific notability guideline. Without a subject-specific guideline, places will be subject to the general notability guideline. You have a reasonable set of criteria and it would be great to formalize it. See Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) for previouse proposals. --Polaron | Talk 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all currently or formally populated places that are/were officially recognized are inherently notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be a community now, even if has population of only 2 in the last census. It would be okay even if current population is 0, as it is a valid former community then. Another reference to it is as the nearest community to a NRHP-listed place, which I just added to the article. doncram (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created article Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona) which is a valid article about the NRHP-listed place. Would Administrators present please help stop administrator Shereth from edit warring in moving that article and even deleting redirect from the NRHP name for the place, and deleting mention of the official name of the National Register for the place. At this moment, the article is located at Painted Rocks (Arizona) but it should be moved to "Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona)". I requested nicely enough at Shereth's talk page that he/she open a wp:RM if he/she wishes for it to be moved from that article name. I would appreciate if another administrator would move it back to that name as the default, and tell Shereth not to edit war. doncram (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RM discussion open at the article talk page, please continue it there. Shereth 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, there is discussion now at Talk:Painted Rocks (Arizona). I appreciate somewhat that after edit warring to get his way, Shereth has acceded to my reasonable request to open a contested move discussion there. However, not part of the article name issue necessarily, is Shereth's further edit warring within the article to remove mention of Theba, Arizona from its contents as well as from its title. This seems wp:POINTY to me, that Shereth is edit warring as if to win the present AfD discussion about Theba, Arizona at all costs, in that way. It is a fact that the National Register of Historic Places lists this petroglyph site as being in or near Theba. It is appropriate for the NRHP infobox in the article to show that, per the default NRHP infobox output which I used in creating the article. doncram (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit a whopping single time, and you have managed to use the phrase "edit warring" three times in a single paragraph. Have you ever read WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL? I do not appreciate your scurrilous insinuations over a single revert and request that you knock it off and stop flinging mud - I have made good on my end to try and discuss this issue in a reasoned manner and it is now time for you to do the same. Shereth 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: previous consensus hasn't always been simply that populated places are inherently notable. For instance, this AFD decided that so long as a place has a name, and that name has appeared in print, that ___location is notable forever after. No people, no buildings, no census data, no info? No problem. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Book Encyclopedia 1970 lists Theba as having a population of 200 persons. That is why I started the article; 200 people is enough to be a legit community even if it is a ghost town today. Burningview (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really, really don't want to come across as snarky here but .. the bulk of this discussion would have been avoided if you would have included that as a reference in the article to begin with! Do you have any other references (remember, paper references are every bit as valid as online sources) at your disposal that you could help shore up the article with and stave off further concerns? Shereth 15:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I will include them. The reason that I did not put the reference on there at the time was I wanted a second opinion first. 1970 World Book has Theba on a map in Arizona, and includes the population of 200 also, but there was no article on theba; (of course because its not significant). I wanted help thats all. Sorry if I stirred you up like that. My apologies. Burningview (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I realize that I can come across strongly at times and for that I apologize as well; it's just that I am frequently misunderstood and sometimes get defensive about it. In spite of appearances I do not have a vendetta against Theba (or any article for that matter) - I have a vendetta against unsourced information. For what it is worth, I am satisfied with the level of attention being devoted to this article (and I would close this discussion, except that other editors have standing arguments to delete) and hope to see it improved; I intend to hit up the library this weekend to see if I can find any info, and possibly drive out there to see if any useful pictures can be taken (I'd like to hit up Painted Rocks and snap some pictures and it is on the way). Shereth 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and you plan on doing all of that? Thats impressive. You sure work hard for wikipedia.Burningview (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - I live nearby so it's no big deal. There are some other sites in the area that are in need of pictures (such as the Gillespie Dam) that I would like to stop by, too, so it's no big deal. But thank you again. Shereth 16:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current and former populated places that can be verified to exist/have existed as independent settlements are (imo, and per consensus) notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons as others. It is a populated place, which has things about it mentioned in other sources. Anyone who wanted to visit Painted Rocks would want to know where the nearest town was. If its a popular tourist attraction, then surely the nearest town would have businesses catering to tourists. Dream Focus 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of those sources provide evidence of notability. If there is no evidence that a town is notable, then it fails Wikipedia is not a directory of random stuff. I don't see how a directory listing can impart notability on article that is itself little more than a directory listing. I mean, are topics about human settlements exempt from the requirement WP:V for coverage from reliable secondary sources because they are about settlements or about humans? Why stop at human settlements, and exempt humans from WP:V as well? Then we could list every person in Wikipedia, just based on telephone directory listings and credit ratings. If human settlements are exempt from Wikipedia content policies, then what is the point of having such polices at all? Anyone could dream up an exemption for anything. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the ol' slippery slope prediction. Don't worry. In Wikipedia's eight-plus year history of consensus finding population centers as a common sense exception to WP:N (which, by the way, stipulates in its heading that "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.") has not lead to articles about every person in Wikipedia based on telephone directory listings and credit ratings. --Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't have to imagine what the slippery slope looks like, because Wikipedia has content policies which tell us where it leads to and what the pitfalls are - POV pushing and advert spam, to name but two. It seems to me that in eight-plus year history of consensus finding, the common sense inclusion criteria is WP:V and its requirement for reliable, third-party sources to act as a check on these sort of problems is the common sense solution. There has been the trend for schools to write their own article without evidence of notability for quite some time, but if you were to argue that they are inherently notable, you still have the problem of what to do with coatrack articles and promotion of fee paying schools. Without reliable, third-party sources, stubs on settlements will become a battle to "get on the map" for every town with an ice-cream stand or grocery store looking for business. Promoting exemptions from notability is a fundamentally flawed. We have been down that road before, and it leads to infingements of Wikipedia's content policies, and acts as a magnet for original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When dealing with historic entities, online searches often don't pull up much, so you must use books. There's a population entry for the community in my 1961 World Book Encyclopedia (estimated population of 200), which I've added to the article, with in-line cite. I can't find much on-line (possibly this), ~~but a NewspaperArchive search might pull up tons of stuff.~~ Kudos to the people working on these former communities (and kudos to Shereth on offering to get some images of the area). Firsfron of Ronchester 01:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a Newspaper Archive search, but it didn't pull up much of anything useful: just that the rail line at Theba was still operating in 1931, there were some auctions in Theba in the 1960s, and there was a sexual discrimination case in 1977 at a school in Arizona named Theba Elementary (which isn't necessarily in the same place). I'll check another newspaper archiving site later this week. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I realize that consensus has generally been that currently and formerly populated places are inherently notable, but consensus can change, and in this case I hope it does. 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 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. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Thomas (political activist)

Non notable campaigner trivial mentions in the sources provided, basically started a petition to save a pub fails WP:BIO BigDunc^Talk 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically using a non-notable bio as a coatrack to gain publicity for saving a bar. What next. Drawn Some (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The bio isn't neccesarry but maybe the Pub deserves an article? There seem to be an awful lot of stories relating to the pub (not just the campaign to save it) by doign a quick google search? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.121 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails on notability. RashersTierney (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Vartanza (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion G3. There were just too many contradictory claims in the article (moving for privacy but doing a reality show) and claims that didn't hold water (alleged Hollywood records contract). —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina & Samantha Banks

Article about a pair of 16-year-old "singer/songwriters" whose claim to fame is that having "entered the Junior Eurovision Songcontest and Idols they ended as the last 200." Then they are "best known as songwriters at You're Tune Space and Yourstagespace.com." but those sites don't seem to be operating yet: [11] [12]. Sources provided are a search on Dutch Google which only turns up one Samantha Banks, who seems to be a drummer; Sabrina's Twitter and Myspace; and what looks like their website but is a dead-link. I have done more searching and found nothing. Sabrina is already Twittering about "being on Wikipedia" so we may get SPAs turning up in support. Delete as absolutely non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 So much hoaxery it's not funny. They're not listed on Hollywood Records at all, nor are any of the assertations of notability true. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole Rhodes

I can't find any secondary sources for this person. Her name pops up in things like General Motors press releases as being a contact, but I am unable to find any sources that would aid her in passing WP:BIO. Sixtysixstar (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought BLPs required at least one secondary source otherwise they are speedied, or have I picked that up wrong? Quantpole (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't need any sources at all as long there is some assertion of notability (but I think what you said is a really neat idea). This article was tagged db-A7 three minutes after it was created. The speedy was declined as there are lots of assertions, but, as far as I can tell, none of them are significant enough to generate secondary commentary. Sixtysixstar (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Copyright violation, most of text of the Career section along with the photo is copied from http://www.therhodesglobalgroup.com/The_Rhodes_Global_Group/Nichole_Rhodes__.html Not-notable, can not find any reliable sources to verify the claims of notability in the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio and having unsourcable assertions, thus violating WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Sixtysixsatr--I can't find any independent, secondary sources either. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Gooch

No indication of notability in reliable sources. Only one news story mentions this author (link} and reviews of his books seem limited to forums and self-publishing websites. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ugh. Vanity too. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable fringe theorist. There's a lot of hits at Gbooks [13] and once you get past the first page and a half, most appear to be other authors referring to Gooch and his theories. Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. Which sources do you think establish notability? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this source looks a good reliable source by a reputable publisher that discusses Gooch specifically. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For starters being published by Duke University .[14] He's also referenced in this book originally from Indiana university. [15] Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I almost nominated this for deletion myself, but he does have a lot of hits on Google Books aside from his own work. I don't know how many of them count as reliable sources. As it is full of more kookery than I can bear to write about, I'm going to call in the assistance of the ARS. We might be able to salvage a stub out of the sources at Google Books, but I'll argue for deletion if we can't source it adequately. Fences and windows (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what are the primary sources for his books? I would support the above EM consciousness page, but here the paranormal thing should have some value beyond fiction or fantasy to present it as science. I don't know what notability criteria there are for pop fiction writers but if the article makes statements about this as being science the primary sources he uses would seem to be important. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But clean-up. These at Google scholar, 30 book attributions showing he has authored them. For rewriting maybe start with [16]these 35+ searchable online books refercing him]. -- Banjeboi 12:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was clear and obvious keep for now; there is no sense in a pileon at the time being. Please pay attention to the suggestions that this be revisited in a week or so to determine whether or not it should be merged into United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Shereth 22:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting

Wikipedia is not the news. People are, believe it or not, shot every day in the USA. I'm aware of the relevance of the ___location, but this really is a news story, and sadly, people won't be thinking of it as notable in a year's time. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.- Gilliam (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the shooter is notable by being involved in previous incidents against the federal government, as well the holocaust memorial museum is a notable place, also according to media reports white press secretary Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama was "obviously saddened by what has happened.", a white house press release adds to the notability Thisglad (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has received significant international coverage by multiple reliable sources. So, notable. --Elliskev 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC
Redirect to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, single incident, no long-term significance. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop. If it becomes just news and the shooter disappears from notability, then merge it into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum article as it will be part of it's history. rkmlai (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this plan. Revisit this issue later. Joey the Mango (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Xtreambar (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the shooting took place at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the motivations of the attacker make it noteworthy. Furthermore, if this article is deleted under the logic suggested by stifle, I request that the Assassination of George Tiller article be also deleted. After all, people are shot every day, right? KarshSM(talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- WP:NOTNEWS refers to "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." as things that should nto be covered here. This incident is far beyond routine, and as such, deserving of its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this isn't just a shooting. There are significant undertones to this case. If it doesn't develop in some time, then perhaps it can be merged. Not now. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though it the news has only just broken, this is already a significant terrorist event. Giant Snowman 21:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - the increased attention this shooting has received makes it more notable than the average shooting incident. The article is worth keeping at least for the time being, as the story develops. If the event turns out to be only of passing importance, then WP:NOTNEWS would come into play and a merge may be appropriate, but we can't judge that just yet. Robofish (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. White supremacism and Anti-Semitism are notable phenomenon in the United States today - to our shame as a nation. An ideologically-motivated attack with intent to kill whether made on individuals or institutions is notable by definition..Historicist (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User:AlbertHerring sums up my rationale. It might be wise to merge the content into the museum's article, but not at this point. Also, I find it strange that the person who wouldn't protect the article at WP:RFPP is the same person who nominated it for deletion. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for something that gets massive news coverage, the day of the incident is not an appropriate time to decide notability. There's no harm in keeping the article around for a month or two until things cool down, then deciding when all the facts are in. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable.radek (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. ThreeE (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The museum does not deserve to be sullied by having space (beyond a link and a sentence) devoted to this incident. That would be unfair unbalancing of the page of an important museum.Historicist (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Historicist (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is is necessary to keep both this version and the (sister project) WikiNews version??? Couldn't they be merged at Wikinews??? Just asking. CaribDigita (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikinews provides a different sort of coverage than Wikipedia... Wikipedia will have one unified encyclopedia-style article on this incident, with broad coverage, where Wikinews will write several seperate news articles over time on specific developments. The question here is only whether an encyclopedia article is proper for this topic. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events." This is dramatic and will no doubt get a lot of short-term news cover, but that does not make it historically notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be historic to you but for survivors of the Holocaust this is indeed a historic event. This event will change many things, and not just security details. If your not familiar with how difficult and scary it is for survivors to even go the museum you may not understand how much this is going to impact many people. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High profile right wing violence is part of a larger story that is historic making it encyclopedic. As well, this is the Holocaust Museum, it will impact many people, it goes beyond the normal shooting incident and has the flavor of a historic event. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And really an admin could snow-close this at some point if we continue on in this vein. Sorry but this isn't even close, and the notion that "shootings happen every day in the U.S." is a relevant fact for this situation is a bit bizarre. A semi-well known white supremacist/holocaust denier shot up the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. It's the absolute dominant news story of the day in the U.S., and will certainly be remembered for many years—at the least among Jewish folks, but many others as well I'm sure. There will be hundreds of editorials about tomorrow (WP:CRYSTAL, I know, but just watch) These insta-AfDs of obviously notable news events do get tiresome—particularly when there is no effort whatsoever to make an argument for deletion based on our actual notability standards ("people won't be thinking of it as notable in a year's time" is, of course, irrelevant since notability is not temporary). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we should snow-close this now. The tag on the page merely makes Wikipedia look like an absurdly argumentative place.Historicist (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the nom on their talk page to consider withdrawing this so we'll see what comes of that, but I'd also support a snow-close for the same reason you suggest, in addition to the obvious fact that there will be no consensus for deletion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To say it's not going to be historic is pretty silly. YOU CANNOT SEE INTO THE FUTURE! I say keep it around until history disproves it. Xmzx (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KarshSM's rationale (what sets this apart from other murders) and the other keep rationales. A redirect is possible if the story never grows beyond a few paragraphs but to delete this article now would make future efforts at incorporating it into the museum article much more difficult. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why does this need its own article? It's hard to argue that it doesn't need to be located on the main page of the museum. Pr0me7heu2 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The museum does not deserve to be sullied by having space (beyond a link and a sentence) devoted to this incident. That would be unfair unbalancing of the page of an important museum.Historicist (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If "Wikipedia is not the news" then why is there an "In the News" section on the homepage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.129.44 (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the second shooting at the Memorial in less than 30 years. How is that not notable? Evening Scribe (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Slakr under WP:CSD#G3. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Jackson

Article is unverifiable and suspected hoax. [17] Previous version had alot of BLP problems, like a hoax vulgar "quote" from U2's Bono and claimed affair w/ notable singer, crazy unverified quotes, it is obvious hoax. Subject's parents, history, recordings, colaborations, gigs, awards, it is all unverified, i can't find any thing on internet about it or the subject. Only source was myspace, it is not RS. RetroS1mone talk 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guy does seem to exist (at least, there is a teacher of this name at New College Telford), so the page isn't intrinsically hoax. However, much of the material was possibly hoaxy, (IMO) likely to be defamatory and definitely unsourced or poorly sourced. I've been trying to get the page content improved for several weeks, without much success. As I've said on the article's talk page, I've mailed Jackson today to let him know that the page exists and is problematic, so he may come back to me with comments or get it fixed himself. Kay Dekker (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MultiAV

Non notable proprietary connector with no reliable source. The first 2 reference link to a freely editable wiki. the 3rd and 4th reference to the official website. Paid Editing (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. Task mgr (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~ google for multiav doesn't really found any thing abt this connector. Salvtied (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect or merge~~ to nintendo if this can be properly sourced, else delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breast stroke (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Nintendo video game consoles. there will probably be a small number of users searching for the term. Lsy90 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paid Editing. Nominator and other !voters were all blocked as socks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've therefore struck all the puppets' !votes. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 21:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anyway despite blatant sockpuppetry, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should discuss AV Multi (Sony) as well, then. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We are now, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AV Multi. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of real-world context and therefore notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Notwithstanding the clear sockpuppetry above, there is nothing here that is reliable that could possibly establish any notability. MuZemike 16:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just want to mention that I came across this page today and found the information useful. The pinout for the connector was valuable, although I guess the source cited might be considered unreliable? The table of which consoles support which output formats was also useful to me. And4e (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely being of interest doesn't justify inclusion on Wikipedia; all articles have to show notability via the citation of secondary sources, which this currently fails to do. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: weakly-sourced. Had same observations as nominator. Alexius08 (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Around the World Submerged

Doesn't seem to be a notable book. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of third-party sources; I also couldn't find any significant coverage in a google news or google book source. I came across this article at DYK and I am the one who tagged it with {{primary sources}} and {{notability}}; I think the only thing that would convince me of its notability would be to see it cited by other works and see them claiming that it is as groundbreaking as this article claims it to be. From what I can tell, even if it was the first book to report some things (as this article says), I can't tell if they're really notable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure on this one. While Rjanag's argument is persuasive, it is from 1962 and was (presumably) not a best-seller. It's hard to find stuff on books from that long ago; heck, (for example), it's hard enough to find stuff on the novel that is credited with the revitalization of the fantasy genre, The Sword of Shannara. What I mean by all that is the no significant coverage in Google News or Books doesn't worry me, because I would have expected nothing from News. Books is a little worrisome, but modern books (what GB has a lot of) would probably cite modern research, not a 46-year old book. (did all that make sense?) Perhaps someone knows an old navy guy who would have seen coverage back in '62? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me the opportunity to expand on this article. If need be, tag it as a stub. The book did have at least a second printing, and it was published as a paperback by Dell. Also, I recall reading that it was on the New York Times best-seller list, just as Captain Beach's first noovel, Run Silent, Run Deep. Finally, if anyone was going to look into the Triton circumnavigation, this book would be the principal source for this voyage.

Marcd30319 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Being published more than once doesn't make a book notable, and even being on the bestseller list doesn't necessarily do so (assuming you get a source for that). The only criterion here that this article has even an outside shot at is #5, and I don't believe that is met either; while Beach is notable, he doesn't appear to be that much of a giant in his field. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edward L. Beach, Jr. for the moment, surely. I accept that this is not a notable book, but it is a plausible search term.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Thunder

I'm not particularly familiar with US sports teams but from what I can see this is a minor club which doesn't appear to meet WP:CLUB; my attention was drawn to the article because there is a clear WP:COI from its creator, who states he is the club owner. I42 (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-professional is very minor level, indeed. But with any organization, what matters is whether there are third party sources with meaningful coverage to cite... I didn't expect to find any, but lo and behold, [18] in the San Diego Union-Tribune. As far as I can tell that's the only article with coverage of this team. Unless more can be found, I'm going to have to say Delete. There have been other, apparently unrelated, teams by this name... one in the 1980s for example: [19] --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing

2005 San Diego Thunder season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 San Diego Thunder season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 San Diego Thunder season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 San Diego Thunder season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 San Diego Thunder season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: obvious conflict of interest seen at page creator. Alexius08 (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a reason to delete though... deletion isn't punishment. Deletion should occur when an article is on an unencyclopedic topic... who is editing it doesn't determine whether the topic is encyclopedic or not. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. If, in the early days of Wikipedia, we would have found an article on Microsoft with User:Bill Gates as the main editor, the article would have been tagged for cleanup, that's for sure, but deletion, no. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per WP:CLUB, team is only semi-pro.--Giants27 (t|c) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janos Boros

Likely fails WP:POLITICIAN. He was deputy mayor, not mayor, and while he was a city councillor, did not receive significant press coverage. 3 passing mentions in Evenimentul Zilei, 4 in Cotidianul, 5 in Adevărul, 2 from Mediafax, 0 in Jurnalul Naţional, 0 in Ziua, and 1 in Clujeanul - a newspaper from his own city. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was the only politician to have served 2 consecutive and successful terms as the vice mayor since Democracy dawned upon Romania.The romanian press has been good sometimes, lukewarm, and mostly bad to him - it is quite obvious as he is from a Hungarian minority. His popularity should not be guaged by the anti-hungarian romanian news media but the Hungarian media. He has not just 12 media mentions as claimed.To understand his popularity and the coverage he got, we should look at the popular hungarian press, Innumerable mentions in "Szabadság", More numerous mention in another Hungarian daily "Krónika", Even more in "umsz" and "Hungarian Human Rights Foundation" citing the effort Janos Boros has made towards upliftment of the Hungarian community in Romania, are but a few. These prove that while it is true that Janos Boros was held in high esteem by the Hungarians and the Hungarian media in Romania as their representative in politics(and hence passes the WP:POLITICIAN muster) and was given significant exposure, the Romanian media ignored and concentrated more on the Romanian politicians. Janos Boros is a noted figure among Hungarians and definitely deserves mention. Thus the attempt to delete his page holds no logic.(Hangakiran^talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The only two-term Vice Mayor of Cluj, or in all of Romania? And in any case, is there a source indicating that might be notable? (Also, Romania was a democracy prior to 1938...)
2. Do you have anything to support your claim that the Romanian media is anti-Hungarian? After all, if we search Romanian newspapers for other ethnic Hungarian politicians, for László Tőkés we get 542 hits in Jurnalul Naţional, 306 hits in Adevărul, 1910 hits in Ziua, and so on. Béla Markó gets 210 in Jurnalul Naţional, 1740 in Adevărul and 6240 in Ziua. Even more obscure politicians like Jenő Szász get 67 mentions in Jurnalul Naţional, 116 in Adevărul and 98 in Ziua. So it's absurd to say that just because a politician is a Magyar, the Romanian press chooses not to cover him. Other Hungarian politicians get ample coverage.
3. Of course, mere mention in a paper is not enough to show notability - coverage must, per WP:GNG, "address the subject directly in detail". If you can actually translate and adapt that coverage into a legitimate article, great.
4. I'm not claiming Boros is irrelevant, but Tőkés, Markó and Szász (and Borbély, and Zsolt Nagy, and Winkler, and Asztalos) are far more the "representative in politics" of Hungarians in Romania than Boros is. Let's not inflate his importance beyond Cluj. Naturally, the Romanian media focused more on Romanians, who are 90% of the population as opposed to 6%. Again, it may be that notability is to be found in Szabadság, Krónika and so on, but the burden of proof is on you to do that, and so far, if we are to judge simply on the article as it stands and what political offices he has held, notability is not yet demonstrated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Janos Boros satisfy WP:GNG:

1. Significant coverage has been indicated in the Hungarian and Romanian media sources above. As a noted politicians, the coverage is in terms of direct relevance to Janos Boros in his interviews, his point of view and activities noted and published by the press. This is as directly relevant as it can get. WP:GNG also states: Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Janos Boros as the vice mayor was bound to be mentioned in most of the news alongside other political entities, as administration and politics is not a one person game. So he got coverage which was definitely more than trivial and sometimes less than exclusive. If you read the the coverage links in the Hungarian media above and even many of the Romanian media given below of Janos Boros, you would see this to be true. Hence WP:GNG is perfectly satisfied.
2. Then the WP:GNG continues to mention, notability in Wikipedia indicates verifiability and Substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject constitutes verifiable evidence of notability. The Hungarian media coverage is both independent and verifiable and hence their reporting on Janos Boros makes him notable.
3. Whether the Romanian media is anti-Hungarian or not is a matter of perspective and not the point in question here. The actual question is whether Janos Boros got "Significant Coverage" as per the WP:GNG which he did through the Hungarian media, which is independent and verifiable.
4. Whether Janos Boros is more relevant or not than another politician is also not the question here. "Significant coverage" and "Notability" which are proven beyond doubt determine acceptance. As to the aspect of finding mention in Romanian media, 61 mentions in Evenimentul Zilei, 37 mentions in Adevărul, 41 mentions in Ziua, 200 mentions in Clujeanul - a newspaper from his own city, 128 mentions in hotnews.ro are significant.
5. So, last but not the least, Romanian media being unfavourable to Janos Boros is only in comparison to the Hungarian Media. If you look at the Romanian media coverage he has got, that by itself would be enough to satisfy the norms of the WP:GNG. But if you factor in the coverage in the independent Hungarian press as well, it becomes not just significant but conclusive.

This IS "Significant" and "Notable" enough to put this debate to rest. (Hangakiran^talk) 06:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this passes either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage that he got in the press is, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively owed to a local corruption scandal which implicated him (an incident which, tellingly, is not even covered by the article). The news is of marginal interest even locally (in Cluj County, that is), and the text, which is most likely promotional, is horribly written - beginning with the title. This is a quick way to make oneself look important, not an encyclopedic topic. Dahn (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dahn said it far better than I can. At most, maybe an article on these scandals and a redirect, but even that pushes the bounds of notability considerably - Vartanza (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep, I'm not familiar with Romanian politics, but this Boros is mentioned several times on quite significant websites, and not only about the scandal, but in articles about local politics, Hungarian minority, etc. (Look for him in Google using the Hungarian name order "Boros János" and add his city's Hungarian name "Kolozsvár" since his name is not that rare; you will see how often is he mentioned.) – Alensha ^talk 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I moved the article to the correct capitalization of a proper name and adjusted all links as such. Content should not be recreated at the BOROS version. Syrthiss (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep. He seem to pass notability criteria, at least google see plenty of hits[20][21], and I have found more references in Hungarian media than I had the time to read (and not about any scandal but usual political agendas). I think it's not the topic whether Romanian newspapers do or don't like to talk about politicians of whatever nationality but whether the person has been mentioned by independent media, be it national or international. All notability related comments above seem to be based on Romanian language local media only, which is of course just one side of the story. --grin ✎ 15:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed the content with updated references to comply with both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The references in Hungarian media if read properly is proof enough of his Notability and is a noted Politician in Transilvania. Determining the Notability of a minority Hungarian politician based exclusively on Romanian media presentation will definitely lead to a biased view. [[In addition to this, searched for other Romanian(Listed below) Vice Mayors and politicians to see if they have pages on Wikipedia, they do. Most of them have not served amount of tenure Janos Boros has. If they are considered Notable and qualify to be WP:POLITICIAN, then so should Janos Boros. The list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mioara_Mantale - A Subprefect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Rene_Yankwich - A US federal judge of Romanian origin
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea-Anton_Silva%C5%9F - Was a Vice mayor of the Forest Filipestii
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovidiu_Tudorici - Vice Mayor of Câmpulung Moldovenesc.
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberiu_Dekany - Vice Mayor of Arad
Hangakiran (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure I agree with Dahn's assessment that this fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Under Politician we have: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." So he's a member of the citywide government of a major metropolitan city (third largest in Romania). He's received significant press coverage, as others have found. How is that not meeting the criteria? The argument here seems to stem from the question "What is significant?". Note that the WP policy says "more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." The fact that the articles Dahn is talking about doesn't give exclusive attention to Boros is not a reason to delete the Wikipedia article. The only criteria the "significant press coverage" has to meet is that it gives details directly about Boros. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. in between a lot of hundreds piliticians there are only 14-15 hungarians, so they are downrepresented in this category of EN WP. See Category:Romanian_politicians. On the other hand we get a few tousand results in the google for the following searches: "Boros János" Kolozsvár (3 420), "Boros János" alpolgármester (2 190), "Boros Janos" Cluj (2 940), "Boros Janos" viceprimar (803), "Boros János" RMDSZ (3 050), "Boros Janos" UDMR (1530).

Against for it there are a lot of existing Romanian politicians in EN WP with more smaller number of results. For ex. "Gheorghe Taşcă" (286), "Gheorghe Mironescu" (724), "Emil Haţieganu" (1230), "Ştefan Voitec" (1300), "Maria Antonescu" (1770). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakmaros (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7, deleted by Jéské Couriano. The article was tagged as A7 before the AFD opened. Two other users tried to remove the speedy without realizing that the speedy was there first. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooger Fooger

Looks like the article doesn't meet the criteria for musicians and ensembles. LouriePieterse (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:MUSIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails general notability requirements and more liberal WP:MUSIC. BigDunc^Talk 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was tagged as A7 before AFD opened. Why not just A7 it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Mason

Canadian actress with three minor (extra) film roles. No independent sources other than myspace, no verifiable assertion of notability, possible conflict of interest. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:ARTIST no major roles, no independent sources, no new techniques, no notability. Bonewah (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. {{nn-bio}} — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only sources presented are from MySpace and the person shows no notability. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article creator has been blocked for promotion and COI issues. Says a great deal about this article's place on Wikipedia. Violates WP:VAIN. TaintedZebra (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is tagged for speedy, custom tag - I guess it would be a combination of A7, G11 and possibly G5. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an A7 for claims of importance/significance are enough; it's not unambiguously promoting, thus not G11; and G5 requires that the creation was in violation of a ban, thus does not apply if the the user was blocked afterwards only. Let the AFD run, one more day will not hurt, will it? Regards So Why 08:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I misunderstood G5. I thought if a user was banned/ blocked indefinitely any article that was created by the banned user with no significant edits by others was subject to deletion. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no notability. Only links to MySpace. Suspected Creator (new ID of User:Tara Mason 2009)still deleting AfD templates without explanation. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW; merge discussion (if any) should take place on talk page (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) 18:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KISN (Portland)

LouriePieterse (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that the nominator provide a deletion rationale. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in current stub vesrion. Original version was a huge copyvio, and licensed radio stations are considered notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the copyvio from, by the way? I couldn't find it with a (brief) search on Google. --Closeapple (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the request because the layout is poor and none of the facts are cited. LouriePieterse (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the first problem, and the second should be easy to fix. I don't know much about radio articles though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This is purely site owner's discretion but what about licensed radio

amateurs or licensed real estate professionals who are well known in their communities? If you just want to make a directory that is fine but this makes notability a bit irrelevant. It was notable as a kid that I could listen to radio Moscow on short wave and you could argue that AM stations may have automatic national interest but even those that do internet broadcasts may not have more than local appeal. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Ten Pound Hammer. ---kilbad (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep in light of nominator providing requested rationale for deletion. "Cleanup"/"unreferenced" is not grounds for deletion. TenPoundHammer has satisfactorily cleaned up the article by stubbing it. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary, consensus states licensed broadcast, yadda yadda riffic (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prior practice has been to keep all articles about FCC licensed commercial broadcasting stations which ever transmitted over the air and which originated some of their own programming. I added some refs. The station was top rated in its market in the late 1950's and was in national news because of alleged political partisanship before the license was lost, so would clearly be notable in any event. (Note: We have no article about the Salt Lake City station which used those call letters between the loss of license by the Portland station and the present license in Montana.) Edison (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There will be no trouble expanding the article with pre-1970 sources. —EncMstr (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per standard radio station notability. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The nom has not provided valid reasons for deleting. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to current licensee, KTRO (AM), and merge details in this article with that one. I know I'm going against the grain, but the KTRO article is extremely thin on history and it could use the KISN history within its body. Nate • (chatter) 05:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different station than KTRO. Different ownership, management, format. Just because the current licensee KTRO inherited the physical apparatus of KISN doesn't mean they're the same. KMET (defunct) (now KTWV) is another example. "Thin on history" is only a blind assumption. A quick g-archives search alone brings up many secondary sources.[22] --Oakshade (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to KTRO (AM): since Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington are next to each other, it appears that the FCC intended KTRO to be successor to that 910 kHz allocation. Usually new licenses on a dead frequency are treated as successors on Wikipedia even if they didn't transfer the license, right? If it stays unmerged, it should at least be KISN (Portland, Oregon).
Keep Radio stations are generally notable. Sebwite (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as years of consensus holds that all FCC licensed broadcast radio stations are notable and notability is not temporary. In any case, I'd also make a motion for a procedural keep since the deletion rationale is insufficient: AfD is not cleanup. - Dravecky (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially after Dravecky's cleanup with great sources. tedder (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires in new york (book)

The major rationale for deletion is lack of notability. The article presents no independent sources; in fact, since the article's author appears to be the book's author, the issues of conflict of interest and original research are also in play. If this were an album, I would have already deleted it under speedy criterion A9, but since that's not possible for books, consider this nomination as bearing a strong delete recommendation for lack of notability and verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the somewhat unusual step of adding the author of the book to this AfD, as they were created more or less as a pair and they pretty much cover the same thing. Frank | talk 19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...And Vampires Invincible, which the creator of the first two also created. I note that two opinions below already lump Vampires Invincible in. Frank | talk 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say verifibility is the major problem here, I'm not sure evidence for this book's publication even exists. Google turns up plenty of matches for "New York Vampire" (which is a completely separate series), but absolutely zero matches for this. Delete - 2 ... says you, says me 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

go to this website to find out where i got the information from:www.davidevans.yolasite.com the reason you cannot find the site on google is that not many people know the site and not many people have visited it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidevans123 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would exactly define why these two articles are not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia at this time. Frank | talk 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher that Davidevans123 put down is "lulu company" which is a vanity press Lulu (company). Even if the book does get published, it probably wouldn't deserve an article. I don't think there's much to discuss here. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Book that will be self-published at some point in the future by non-notable author. I'd also include Vampires_Invincible in the same category. Rnb (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete along with Vampires Invincible and David Andrew Evans. Some 18 year kid advertising his own unfinished books and not really making a secret that its him. Obviously completely fail WP:BK as well as being nothing but self promotion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete both as pure spam, as well as being WP:MADEUP and unverifiable much less notable. His age even keeps fluctuating between 18 and 14. What next.Drawn Some (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already speedy deleted the author's page, as criterion A7 encompasses people. I've struck it from the nomination above. It does not encompass books, though, and the articles are not written so promotionally as to be blatant spam. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, it completely fails WP:BK (if it is even real) -- Austin512 (talk • contribs 03:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok fine i give up on these pages. but the writer is 14 and not 18 and it is NOT me i just go to school with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidevans123 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both books per nom and article author Davidevans123 above. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Times Ten Cellars

This winey fails to establish notability as per WP:N and articles reads like an advert BodegasAmbite (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google returned lots of touristy links, but nothing to establish notability. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@This flag was once red: A simple Google search is not a test for notability. Please read WP:NN for a detailed explanation of the topic.

Jesteban78 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with WP:N, thanks. I based my !vote on (a) the article doesn't (didn't? However, I looked again just now and the references all seem to be local) assert notability (the subject is a wine bar and winery serving a neighbourhood of a city; it has won city awards, but so far as I can see nothing outside the city), and (b) I couldn't find any sources that suggested notability outside the local area - I found plenty of sources suggesting that the wine bar had been favourably received locally, but again nothing outside the city.

To put this is context, I !voted weak keep (and it still looks like the article will be deleted...) for an Australian vineyard on the basis that the vineyard pioneered production of a grape variety in Australia; I'm not seeing anything comparable in this article. I'd like to see at least regional importance - "this local winery is selling well in the South-Central US", pioneering activity, or something equally notable.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your nomination. This winery is one of only five in the city of Dallas, and the only one in the historic neighborhood of Lakewood. It is notable because it was established as a result of Texas loosening its restrictions on wine production, and is on track to become a regional brand with its second ___location in Fort Worth. HEB/Central Market have begun carrying Times Ten Cellars wine, along with over a dozen Dallas restaurants. It has received awards from Citysearch and The Dallas Morning News Wine Competition, an internationally renowned wine competition.

Your Google search may have returned "touristy" links because it is a very popular destination within the neighborhood (its tasting room looks much like a bar and is reviewed as such). All of the article's sources can be found online. Cheers,

Jesteban78 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read WP:N. There is nothing notable about being one of only five wineries in Dallas, nor being the only one in Lakewood. Neither does its being established as a result of Texas loosening its restrictions on wine production confer any notability on it. Secondly, being on track to achieve anything is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. The achievement must come first, then comes possible inclusion. If you read the notability article (WP:N), you will see how being carried by local restaurants, winning awards and being mentioned in newspapers also doesn't automatically confer notability. You should also read WP:CORP for issues related to advertising and self-promotion and WP:COI if you are connected to or have a relation with Ten Times Cellars. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:N, and it seems like we have a disagreement over what constitutes notability. I have provided secondary, verifiable sources to back up my claims. Even you seem open to the notion that winning awards MAY confer notability, but you do not explain why you think it may not. I am open to suggestions on improving the article, but you don't seem interested in that.

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

No original research is needed to extract the data from my sources, so the article passes the "significant coverage" test.

My sources include newspapers, business journals and magazines that reach hundreds of thousands of readers and are peer-reviewed, so the sources are "reliable" and "independent of the subject." I can't stress enough that this article satisfies all of the criteria for a stand-alone article.

I have also read WP:CORP and can assure you that while I know the owners, I do not own or work for this company, so it does not constitute self-promotion. If you think the article is not written from a neutral point of view, please identify the section(s) that you find are biased. Again, I am looking for suggestions on improving the article. Jesteban78 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources are reliable and independent (even if they are all local), but that's not the issue here. The issue is Notability, and as I said above, the winery has done nothing notable. So it doesn't really matter if you provide good references, if there is nothing notable in the first place.

The reason I mentioned WP:CORP and WP:COI was that the article is just like an advertising write up.

It's not that I'm not interested in helping; it's that I have lots of other things to do (both in WP and in RL). But here's a thought: I see you've added text saying that x10 grows grapes in Texas. That might be notable if it's the only winery that does it or if it was the first who did it or something like that. And if you can find a reliable independent reference to back up the claim. The point here is Notability and references. As it stands the article is just an advert for for the winery.

With regard to awards, just winning an award doesn't automatically confer notability. There are literally thousands of wine fairs giving out vast numbers of awards and medals. There are very few that are considered to be notable. Also, winery articles in WP don't usually have an awards section for that very reason, and if they appear, they usually get deleted.

I hope this has helped. If you are keen to keep this article, you really must find something notable about the winery and back it up with good refs. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing "notability" with "importance". Wikipedia's article about notability states that it is "not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." If only the first winery to grow grapes in Texas is worthy of an article, then why write an article about Pixar? It wasn't the first animation studio or even the first to use 3D animation in films. It is notable because people care about it and want to know more.

It seems to me like your issue is more about the tone of the writing than anything else. I agree that it needs work, that parts of it do sound like self-promotion, but Wikipedia's Deletion Policy states that if a page can be improved, it should be edited and not deleted. You can also use the tag npov for bias.

Jesteban78 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 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 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. The Dallas Morning News Wine Competition appears to be a large enough contest that winning medals there would provide at least a small claim to notability. The article needs to be completely rewritten, however. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dallas Morning News Wine Competition would not be notable enough to merit an article on its own and at most would be a brief blurb in the main Dallas Morning News article. There are literally thousands of non-notable wine competitions across the globe giving out hundreds of thousands of awards and medals. Winning an award from these non-notable competitions doesn't infer notability any more than a high school football coach taking his team to the state championship. That's a far cry from winning the Super Bowl. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the article's creator is missing a key point about Wikipedia and our notability policies. First and foremost Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide but rather an encyclopedia. Additionally we are encyclopedia with an international scope and audience. Wikipedia was not meant to be a catalog of all the local mom & pop restaurants, business or wineries but rather an encyclopedic reservoir for those topics that go beyond just the local to a national or international level. Hence your comparison of Pixar with this local wine bar/winery is not very valid. The single act of making wine alone is not any more notable than the local Lakewood Pizzeria for making pizzas. As a member of the Wine Project, I could definitely be swayed to support keeping this article if something can be demonstrated with independent, reliable sources that this local winery has accomplished something of significance to the world of wine or even the Texas wine industry. Winning awards from non-notable wine competitions is not significant. Otherwise my roommate with her dozen plus medals from home winemaking competitions and numerous state fairs would qualify for an article as well as every blogger than wins a "bloggie" or band that wins a local battle of the bands, etc. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna go with a delete despite my love of the tipple. They may have gotten awards, but my accolades from friends about my mead does not make me very notable. Let's get some more reliable sources here and we can possibly make it work. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agropedia

Written like an advertisement, creator was User:Agropedia so there's a conflict of interest here. Was prodded with:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2009 June 10 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Sandor Clegane (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. The pieces from Indian Express and SciDev show some notability, the collaboration partners and the funding agencies are all individually notable (and while probably not relevant to notability, the concept is an innovation in a country with such a large agri-economy). Send to WP:CLEANUP. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece on Down to Earth and the SciDev article was also featured on the UN CAPSA flash, and then there's a one page reference about how scientists are using social media to improve farming in Content Nation: Surviving and Thriving as Social Media Technology Changes Our Lives and Our Future, by John Blossom, ISBN 0470379219, Page 67.

The SciDev piece was also co-published by The Guardian UK, SeedQuest, Environmental News Network and also a few universities in the US and Europe. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, "written like an advertisement" is not a reason to delete an article. It's a reason to rewrite from a neutral point of view. Second, a COI is not a reason to delete an article. If Barack Obama had written the article on himself, he would still be notable. Third, Spaceman Spiff has shown this article is marginally notable.
Note: If the consensus is to keep, this article should be added to the List of online encyclopedias.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except notable people usually aren't the ones to write articles about themselves or their affiliations. If something was truly notable, then an unrelated third party would eventually get around to making an article for it, wouldn't they? Barack Obama wouldn't be writing an article about himself for obvious reasons--he's notable so he wouldn't have to. That being said, the COI was hardly the reason for deletion, I just thought it was worth noting.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just found out that the person who removed the prod was in fact User:Useragropedia after User:Agropedia was banned. I wonder if there's a connection between the two?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user was banned because of their username, not any other vio, and probably came back under a similar username. This can just as well be an honest error due to not knowing the rules (I didn't know about user name vios until now). As far as removing PRODs, anyone including the creator can do it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nom: What are the links above to Google news meant to mean? The parameters you have set are:"2009 June 10" source:"-newswire" source:"-wire" source:"-presswire" source:"-PR" source:"-press" source:"-release". Nowhere in this do I see Agropedia. Same for Google books and Google scholar. Given that the references above were all in the article and searchable on Google, I'm inclined to think that this qualifies for a Speedy Keep. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what you mean, but I'm not the one who did the prod--I was just reiterating it (although I don't see the problem with it). That being said, I just did a Google news search for Agropedia for ALL dates with no further restrictions and I still only got five results [23].--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I downgraded from speedy to prod, and those are the links that come with every {{prod-nn}}. They are intended to subtract out some of the promotional urls, although often there's little or no difference in the number of hits you get searching on the subject itself. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, you've linked the GNews, Gbooks in the nomination statement to the page title, so if you view this on the main log page, it searches for the date, not the name of the article. It searches for the article only if you open the Afd page directly. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of Course Keep: It is Government of India nation wide project and sponsored by the World Bank, and involves over seven premier institutions of India, and has created a buzz in the scientist and agriculture community, even mentioned a UN related websites UNCASAPA, see references.--Ekabhishek (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, but is definitely verified to be notable. A project related to the Indian government, World Bank, UN, etc. Steven Walling (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to establish notability and nice work by User:Ekabhishek in essentially rewriting it and adding referencing. Abecedare (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Voice Cast

falls under WP:GAMECRUFT --Teancum (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Super Smash Bros.SPNic (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SD#A7. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but to their character pages, not to the game pages. In many cases on the list this has already been done anyway. --Taelus (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We have to remember that this is still gamecruft and that it isn't following Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines anyways. A merge is just moving the problem elsewhere. I could maybe see it being listed as part of a character bio for any notable characters, but that's about it. Having a cast list in a video game where the cast isn't notable isn't encyclopedic, it's something that turns Wikipedia into GameFaqs. A notable case might be any movie game where the actors reprise their roles, or a game like Brutal Legend, but even then a table of actors seems to cruft-y. Such things should be merged into the development section of an article if necessary. I still vote for Speedy and Strong Delete per my nomination, Haipa Doragon's notes, and my comments above. --Teancum (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, as a list is has no place on Wikipedia. However, as a single line, or an entry in the info box on relevant character pages, as is already existant in the majority of characters in that list, it fits into Wikipedia. Therefore I stand by my view of merging the information to the pages which do not already contain it. However I do support the deletion of this as a standalone page, or a list on a gamepage. --Taelus (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be happy with a merge to Super Smash Bros. (series) or each individual character's Wikipedia entry such as Pit from Kid Icarus, but it should be put into an infobox, or into the prose of the article. --Teancum (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Super Smash Bros. (series). Information relevant to a notable game per rationales given above. - 2 ... says you, says me 18:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed above. Looks pretty clear cut to me.
Speedy Delete under A7 (unremarkable group of people that doesn't assert the importance or significance). These people were involved in important topics, but are themselves non-notable. I see no reason why we'd want any of this material in the video games - not notable and what's more, there are no sources provided whatsoever. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge to the game articles per point 10 of WP:GAMETRIVIA (I can't see how this voice cast would be particularly notable). Go ahead and merge individual entries to the character articles if any of them don't have them though. BryanG (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't really know who voices who in Brawl. --Trogga 12:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Voiced by such-and-such in Super Smash Bros."? In my opinion, that is also unnecessary. We had similar discussions regarding such lists from the Mega Man and Metal Gear series. Delete. MuZemike 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls outside WP:VGSCOPE. Marasmusine (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StarChamp

Keep no reason given to delete. The nominator seems to be a WP:SPA in opposition to Starchamp. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article gives no independent sources and doesn't even say what "StarChamp" is. If anyone knows anything about it please fix the article so we can have a decent discussion. A Google search finds a lot of "StarChamp" but it's difficult to tell if it's related. Drawn Some (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appear to be more informative versions in the history. I gather this is some kind of talent competition organized by a music school in Singapore. No opinion at present as to the notability of this program. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That helps, but I'm still not sure if it is a record label, a school, a school program, a talent agency, etc. It is in some odd categories such as "Living people". Drawn Some (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the technicality of not giving a deletion reason, I have to go with a speedy delete on this one. It's clearly spam to me, but it doesn't really say what they advertise themselves as, other than to promote and encourage talent. Maybe it's a talent agency.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, blatant spam. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm calling WP:SNOW per IAR. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-girlfriend fist

Per WP:MADEUP. No sources, seems like the author has just made it up for fun. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a non-notable neologism that appears to have been made up one day. TN X Man 15:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another attempt to invent a term and use Wikipedia to make it find its way into mainstream English. The creator got it backwards, as usual: popularize the neologism first and when it becomes popular then create the Wikipedia article. See WP:SCRABBLE. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF. Cunard (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 15:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMade up.--Abce2|AccessDenied 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing relevant on google news, books, scholar, etc. Nothing relevant on a regular google search; only disgusting looking porn and rather unintelligible results. Recommend earlier closure per WP:SNOW. Cool3 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Called for speedy delete on account of a prediction of very cold weather in June here in Seattle. Tagged accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the speedy since precedent is now that the discussion should be live for at least three days before a snowball delete can take place, butdelete per everybody above. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete- per WP:MADEUP, and as per Cool3, google with care. Paulbrock (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R. Peter Ubtrent

Does not pass WP:AUTHOR A few published books does not make one notable. Bonewah (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)^{User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. A Google News Archive search returns no related results. Searches on Google Scholar and Google Books also return results that do not establish this author's notability. Cunard (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Cunard. Edward321 (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Traub

Subject's notability is debatable, and the page appears to have been created as a spinoff from Marc Stuart Dreier - see Talk:Marc Stuart Dreier. Despite some attempts to rescue the page by uninvolved contributors, BLP concerns remain, and I think notability needs to be established. Disembrangler (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)^{User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Notability is not inherited; although he appears to be associated with high-profile bankruptcy cases, he does not appear to have generated any notability for himself. Frank | talk 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return him to where he rightfully belongs: a subsection of Marc Dreier. When an edit war erupted on June 5, 2009, a few dissenters felt the resolution was to create his own page. i disagreed, but that was the consensus. please synthesize a small part of this page with a section within the Dreier page. (See Revision history of Marc Stuart Dreier [24] before overnight deletions on june 5, 2009 for section placement. Furtive admirer (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no extensive coverage about the man anywhere. I also urge other editors to keep on eye on Furtive, whose grasp on BLP policy is shaky.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep central attorney in a few high profile bankruptcy cases makes for notability. The sources are sufficient for that. DGG (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. The sources are generally not about Traub, they mention him in passing. It's fairly clear from the content that this was a content fork from the Dreier scandal, and I'm not sure enough sources exist to balance that for a full bio. Disembrangler (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GET INVOLVED in Fact specifics - a page on Traub, eToys, Dreier and Petters are all national issues. ---- These items are akin to Madoff and Markopolous ---- the facts are overwhelming and profuse that manifest injustice is transpiring on a National scale. If you Care to make a difference simply have several editors block the page(s) and put up only sourced items the achieves a majority vote - The TRUTH shall Set this discussion FREE Laserhaas (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Laserhaas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

At least I sign my name to all comments as an author of this veiled inuendo — Laserhaas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. you miss the point - One is either a reporter/Pedia of Facts or one has an agenda

Clearly you have an agenda. I don't much care what it is. No veiled innuendo; you are demonstrably a single purpose account.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete DGG makes a good point but the sourcing isn't extensive at all and this seems almost like an attempt to smear Traub. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse what you may - the statement by me is that Editors research the FACTS and report what is public - the WSJ reported on the Story - the OPINION by the Court and Corresponding Order of Oct 4 2005 stipulated that the parties Confessed to supplication of false affidavits and deceiving the Court -- Deliberately - It is a FACT that Martha went to jail for a lot less.

Why does his own resume on the new law firm website not mention anything about eToys, Stage Stores, Jumbo Sports etc

Why are you and those here trying SO HARD to bury the information? As you can see - I am not the one that originated the Traub or Dreier pages and the overwhelming and abundant proofs are Public Court Documents and the Wall Street Journal article of July 25, 2005 (front page mention)

Attacking me personally - inferring that I have a veiled agenda - when all I request is that Editors gather together, research and report the facts - is Most Certainly an AGENDA!

Laserhaas (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

collapse soapboxing

Single purpose - To halt Fraud and Ponzi schemes from harming others - that appears to be against your grain. Traub, eToys, KB, Dreier, Petters and DOJ Breach of Fiduciary duties, fraud, cronyism, corruption, organized crime a/k/a Bankruptcy Ring and counsels who have CONFESSED to supplication of False Affidavits to Deliberately Deceive a Federal Court as Officers of the Court. So strong a premise that the US Supreme Court stipulates in the case of In re Hazel Atlass Glass - that there is NO statute of limitation thereof.

While you fail to follow your own rules to sign your name and on the other hand I have placed affidavits out on the web accusing DOJ personal of engaging in corruption!

The problem with those who swore an oath to protect; is that they are assisting in Covering up these crimes against innocent stock holders, creditors by Assaulting the Constitution of the United States as they and those who engage in haughtier (such as you) - is that when it comes to a conscience;

No one seems to have One!

Report the facts or Do NOT - the choice - simply - is Yours!

69.232.152.53 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for eToys, Dreier, Petters, Traub one would be hard pressed to find a more fact intensive person than this one

Regardless - I have accepted the integrity of this system as pure and yield any agenda to the quest for truth However - such a quest should NOT be tilted toward an effort to Cover Up the information - specifically because one is a novice

It is our case ````But is the American system of Justice at risk here Stand up for what is right in America or Let it Go! Laserhaas (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DGG is correct: Plenty of sourced material see: *Zoom Info] There is something to be said when a paid PR agency has to protect what is written on Wikipedia....something is amiss here... when only his new office address is retained on Marc Dreier. He deserves more resourceful research into other bankruptcy conflicts and his business issues with Tom Petters. Both Dreier and Petters are of like mind...not coincidential. let's dig deeper, ok?

Furtive admirer (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While their are many sources about the cases, there appears to be a lack of sources about the actual subject. I doubt a proper article could be written and it seems that he'd be more appropriately mentioned in the articles of the companies when discussing their bankruptcy cases. There seems to be an awful lot of questing for truth going on here and its been a challenge to keep the article from becoming a coatrack for some supposed wrongs; I believe a lot of this is due to the lack of coverage for the subject outside of the courtroom. Shell ^babelfish 08:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on some of his pages associations. notability The WSJ refers to him as "one of the biggest names in bankruptcy law" see: WSJ and Full WSJ article for free Basically of note it says, the Trustee said his deception was intentional; given his experience, he should have known better than withold paid personnel relationships. Ergo, he is quite notable, whether infamous in his field or not.

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you realize, but this is a discussion not a vote; you can add further thoughts to your original comments instead of adding several "keep" notes. You've also been asked quite a bit not to violate the BLP policy in regards to this subject and your continued need to state your opinion is becoming seriously problematic. Shell ^babelfish 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Items of NOTE

As a "discussion" it would seem to all newcomers, etc., that a realm - seeking to expand its horizon - would be cordial and diplomatic - with sound ethical protocols.

I would rather not be here - being snide upon - by those that do not have compassion - this place is click minded - however, because other parties are putting in a good faith effort - for the greater good - I am obligated to spend time; we would all waste last of it - in banter - if the resulting consensus was to just report/pedia the issues at hand.

Fact 1 eToys went public in 1999 for nearly $8 billion and bankrupt a year later

2 - one of the 1st Orders was the approval of DESTRUCTION of Books n Records

3 The US Trustee testified in a Motion to Disgorge TBF that the acts of false affidavits and planting of a paid associate of TBF (creditors attorney) within the Debtor as CEO was deliberate, with affidavits being Deliberately left knowing they were false.

4 The US Trustee also testified that he did forewarn the parties not to do the very violation of replacing key personnel with people connected to the retained professionals

http://petters-fraud.com/DisgorgeMotion_TBF_1_6_Million.pdf

5 After confessing to supplication of more than 17 false affidavits the DOJ Trial Attorney (who also noted Traub as counsel for Kmart shareholders) then gave Traub implied, blanket, immunity and the promise of willful blindness by the DOJ US Trustee's office in the future

http://petters-fraud.com/US_Trustee_Motion_Feb24_2005_2giveTBF_immunity.pdf

6 After receiving that promise of impunity, Traub became partners with Dreier and Petters

7 The NY Supreme Court docket of case 601805/2002 - nearly half thereof - is Under SEAL

(because Traub knows that he was originally "caught" red-handed by a mistake in the docket record of the case of In re Bonus Sales (a vanity letter-head stated that he and Gold were co-principals; thereby making all the Affidavits stipulating NO conflict of interest were FALSE)

8 A TBF associate threatened me to back off or else and my own attorney emailed such

9 The OR else has come true

This day June 14 2009 - the TV show 60 minutes will have Markopolous of Madoff - on how all were notified and yet harm kept getting bigger

It is indisputable that Fraud and Perjury transpired in eToys - they confessed to the acts and would like everyone to just rename it minor bad faith - However, it was a public company with 290,000,000 shares of stock that went from $78 to ZERO in a year and a half's time and the Chief Justice, having testimony by the US Trustee (the POLICE of the Bankruptcy Court) stating that he forewarned them not to do- the very felony violations they Conspired to accomplish by Deliberately deceiving the Court - as the Judge says No Wrong has been done and she cannot see that any perjury transpired (yet if you go to the 11th Circuit decision of Walker v Walden - Judge Kravitch stipulated lying under oath is Lying Under Oath (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=walker+v+walden+lying+under+oath&aq=f&oq=&aqi= )

BECAUSE the Courts are chosing to hide the public documents under a paid system - editors here would argue that such therefore makes all reports Moot. That would be the same as saying that Woodward and Bernstein were not Noteworthy because Nixon said on public TV "I am not a crook"

Please be aware - if you help bury this information - you are assisting the desired effort to Cover Up the Facts - it does not matter that you can twist the protocol, editorial banter to justify your position - others will be harmed if the Truth is made dark.

ANY good faith party would simply restrict what is placed on the articles to being fact specific and let the readers draw their own conclusions!

Laserhaas (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Laserhaas (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overwhelming consensus despite convention Xavexgoem (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia

An event of no extraordinary importance elevated by sensationalist media. The percentage of attacks on Indians against the total number of attacks is inline with the percentage of Indians with in the total population showing that assaults/robberies are not against just Indians. But equal with the rest of the population. Just because the Indian media has been over stating the situation doesn't mean an article is required. Unless, wikipedia now wants entries for every attack against a minority group in every country. Bojach (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment"percentage of attacks on Indians against the total number of attacks is inline with ..." Anything to back up that claim? Even if such were the case, since the unfortunate episode casts a shadow on the relations between the two countries it does wholly warrant its own article to catalogue racism and xenophobia as an issue between nations. "An event of no extraordinary importance ..." Time magazine, BBC, CNN and others differ from your view and secondly it is not for wikipedians to judge about the "real worth" of notable items. We must only record as best as possible. - Varun (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: I have renamed this article to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia and rewritten the introduction to focus on the protests rather than the pattern of attacks. This change has been discussed on the talk page and no opposition was raised. I decided to rename the article while the AFD was still open because I felt the problems should be fixed sooner rather than later because it is linked from the main page. - Borofkin (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, Please don't move the article during an AFD discussion to avoid confusions among the users. Feel free to edit the article based on RS and NPOV. I have moved the article back to the orginal title 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia. Let the outcome of the AFD decide the rename/keep/deletion of the article. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What confusion will be caused by an entirely appropriate move that has been widely discussed? Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion says that if the page is moved it should be noted on the deletion page, which was done. The AFD process will take days, and a name that is bad and wrong should not have to stay that way when the article has such a high profile. - Borofkin (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is no consensus as of now to rename and keep the title. Let the closing admin take care of this -- Tinu Cherian - 07:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the article talk page there have only been comments supportive of the rename. This page is for discussion of the deletion. If you want to discuss the name of the article do it on the article talk page. - Borofkin (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see here a consensus here or at the talk page for the rename of "2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia" to "2009 protests by Indian students in Australia". Let the article say how it happened and please dont try to push a POV tone. Things doesnt change if you change an article in wikipedia, but I request it to keep the article NPOV based on reliable sources. There is no "chicken or egg first " issue here. It is blatently evident that attacks came first and protests later. Whether there is any racial element to the attacks is not yet proved and till then it should stay allegedly racist attacks only -- Tinu Cherian - 09:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not proven that attacks have increased or that Indians are over-represented in crime statistics. To say so (as your editing seems to support) is non-factual. It is not a question of POV, rather one of accuracy. While there may or may not have been consensus, there is nothing to say a page cannot be moved during an AFD process. If there is, then please let me know where. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no policy page cannot be moved. but in the present situation where significant disagreement exists among interested editors would it not be better to wait for a consensus instead of having the page moved back and forth and edit warring. CheersWikireader41 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At this stage I'm neutral over whether or not to delete this page. I agree it's being sensationalised, but isn't the event being covered by both Australian and international media enough reason to justify the events notability? Possibly not notable enough for it's own article, but perhaps a mention on Australia–India relations will suffice? Frvernchanezzz (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subsequent reactions and commentary are the main parts being covered by the media. It wasn't even initially reported in Australia until the Indian media picked up the story and blew it up. So yeah, I agree it doesn't deserve it's own article but a mention on Australia–India relations page seems more appropriate considering it has had quite and effect. --Bojach (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article lacks notability compared to other issues based on limited anecdotal claims. The title itself lacks neutrality given the way the issue has turned into a Lebanese/Indian racial clash. A better article would be one focused on those clashes, which at least have been confirmed by credible local media. Harley (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —--Like I Care 14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Like I Care 14:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PRC has expressed concern and New Zealand has reacted too. With governments from the world's two most populous nations reacting, I fail to see how this is just news or speculation. The facts here seem to state that this has caught the imaginations of people in several (rather large) countries. I wonder would this be deleted if it were only affecting the US... --can dle •wicke 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Tea Party protests is one such example of what is considered important in the US versus the rest of the world... I was not aware of this before it was pointed out to me in relation to a different, yet connected matter... I am, however, perfectly aware of the protests being discussed here... --can dle •wicke 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have added that I'm in a neutral enough position geographically - not in Australia, India, China, the US, New Zealand, Asia, North America or any of the countries or continents I have mentioned... --can dle •wicke 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps rename. Even if the attacks have been exaggerated by some media outlets, the protests are real, which provoked official government complaints and have been covered by media in many countries in almost all the continents, therefore notable. If you are concerned about POV perhaps you could rename it to something like, 2009 protests of Indian students in Australia. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"An event of no extraordinary importance elevated by sensationalist media."
That's precisely why the article needs to be kept. The over-reaction by media makes the events notable. Notability by reliable sources, not socio-political/economic/cultural importance, is the criteria for keeping an article. However, it should be renamed to Protests against 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia.This reflects the notability arises from protests against the attacks, not the attacks themselves.VR _talk 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - By no stretch of the imagination could you consider this not notable. For those who claim that "Wikipedia isn't the news", this article isn't about an event that happened, it's about a number of assaults in Australia that span months, if not years (it discusses assaults starting at least in 2007) and the reactions to those assaults. It's true that the media is currently playing this up due to public protests being made (hence the current event tag) but if anything that makes it more notable, not less; a good indication of notability is how much attention something receives among reliable sources. The article does need some work to be neutral but that's never a reason for deleting an article, it's a reason to fix an article. The article also needs to be renamed to be less accusatory. -- Atama ^chat 15:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The protests involved no more than a few hundred people. Hardly a major event! The entry is pointless. It's mainly about the 'reactions' of people/groups than the actual events, because the actual events are so unnoteworthy as to warrant more than a few sentances. This particular event is being pushed by some users. Should wikipedia also have an entry for the over-reaction of the media over Miley Cyrus's revealing Myspace photos? I think not. If you think sensationalism by the media is important, perhaps add it to a relevant page. But the '2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia' does not deserve its own page. Australia–India relations is a suitable place for it. --Bojach (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are based on Argument from ignorance, Argumentum ad populum and personal bias. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is notable enough to be featured on the main page.SPNic (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under current title. This is a significant set of incidents that is playing out over several days. There is no question that this will eventually show-up in books under similar titles. Eventually, not that dissimilar to 2005 Cronulla riots. It isn't just in Indian media. The Australian and Indian Prime Ministers have both gotten involved (e.g. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a2jnr0N6o_Hk), the Indian and Chinese governments have gotten involved. Multiple people have ended-up being stabbed over several days, and it seems to be gelling into an Indian vs Lebanese confrontation. The article itself needs cleaning for sure to better present what is actually happening. Makes no sense to delete. --Hunnjazal (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt minor incidents like this will even be mentioned in any history books (except MAYBE a book dedicated to relations of India and Australia). TJ Spyke 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Petrol bombing someone sitting at home reading a book is a minor incident in Australia? I don't think so. It is already being covered in international non-Indian media under very similar titles - Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903038,00.html), Indian Students Grow Wary of Australia Following Attacks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124392779289775971.html). The pattern is clear: some sections of the Australian media are trying to give a business as usual spin to it. The world disagrees. --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I believe this page should be kept. This (series of events) has had massive media coverage in their respective countries and around the world too. I live in England, and am commenting here to keep this article. I am sure events will develop further and this page will evolve, and potentially mark this event as a turning point in the life of Australian/Indian students. Nobody can deny that these events have happened. So, we are not discussing that possibility! If something has happened, there is no reason why there should not be a page. --Nazrani (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Nazrani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath ^talk 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Above comment was added by 161.12.7.4, but he/she signed as User:Nazrani. —Amplitude101 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Thanks Amplitude101! I have signed in to validate my above comment. --Nazrani (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutely! There's lots of reliable sources. --AW (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has so much reliable sources. Also no matter what it is, it gives a precious information and has a huge amount of effort, it deserves to keep. --♪♫Berkay^0652|message 19:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the above.--Judo112 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has reached a level of media coverage that makes it very difficult to claim it is not a notable topic. The title needs to be changed as these attacks predate 2009 by a looong way. While I have my doubts about the whole racism angle (I grew up in the western suburbs of Melbourne in the 1980s and it was a dangerous place to be at night by yourself even then) clearly the topic has reached head-of-government level now. POV is an issue but it needs to be dealt with through the editing process. Better use of Australian sources would help rather than sources reporting third hand from outside the country. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not that notable and Wikipedia is not a news site. A brief mention in the Australia-India relations page is more than enough. TJ Spyke 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though newsworthy due to disproportionate numbers, the article is more suited to a history book than an encyclopedia. This event is out of context aside entries about people, places, etc. --scochran4 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There definitely is a problem going on, not just media hype, it does have a racist angle to it, NZ, PRC have also responded/voiced concerns at an official level. Lilaac (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Delete~~-I don't think anyone is disputing a "problem" or denying the high level of media attention. But the article is written as if these incidents of assaults are a part of a systematic/central problem. Editors have simply cherry-picked references that report x assault on foreign exchange students and then wrote an article combining all notable 2009 incidents. This is totally against the laws of wikipedia and encyclopedias in general. If the assaults revolved around an event, say...a terrorist attack by Hindus or something that would generate a systematic response then I could see the logic in writing an article, but this is a joke. This is an acceptable article: Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War, 2009 attack on Indian students Australia is not. We might as well write an article titled 2009 attack on African Americans in the United States or 2009 attack on homosexuals in Egypt. If and when the issue is clearly systematic and continues as a result of laxed laws in the government/politicians, SOME of the info could be absorbed in Human rights in Australia but that's a maybe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' - and only when a systematic/central problem exists can we have a wiki article. which wikipedia policy are you referring to may I ask ?? it would help if you did not come up with your own set of guideleines on what should be included and what should notWikireader41 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article summarizes cited and notable sources regarding to the attacks. The main page of Wikipedia also mentioned the protests involving this article. Furthermore, this series of incidents happened at a fixed period of time and is commonly related to several reasons. The attacks had gained media attention, and various governments around the world also respond to these incidents as well. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the thesis of the article is inconsistent. What are these attacks about? What is the motivation? So there is a surge in racially-motivated attacks against Indians and this has prompted a response from their native governments. That's the article in 1 sentence. This is not notable, the article is over-stating a problem that isn't there. In terms of actual content - most of the stats are 2007-2008. There is a short section with a few examples of assaults but nothing truly revealing. Just because something has garnered attention by reliable sources does not mean an article is inherited. This should go in a blog. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this article is about an unusual, notable event which can be verified. it is not for wikipedians to decide whether this has been over or under sensationalized. if it gets sufficient press (rightly of wrongly) it belongs. can any of the editors arguing for a delete tells me why this article needs to be deleted and Natalee Holloway can stay. whats so notable about a teenager who did some alcohol, sex and likely overdosed o some illicit drugs. happens all the time. except that this one was a pretty white American in a foreign country and made for some juicy press Wikireader41 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia or similar. There have been protests in Melbourne and four days of protests in Sydney. The protests should be the focus of the article and the stuff about assaults should be in a Background section, or as claims attributed to protestors. - Borofkin (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would accept this as a very poor second option to deleting it - "attacks" is needlessly NPOV as it suggests that Indian students in Australia are being attacked in a distinct manner rather than just a collection of individual (likely opportunistic) attacks which are on a range of people, some of whom happen to be of Indian ethnicity. Some of the reportage indicates that other overseas students are also being attacked and that many of the attackers are other overseas students. Orderinchaos 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. While wikipedia may not be a "news site". It is an encyclopedia, therefore it includes notable news items. I agree with the above re: 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia rename. This is a notable even, covered by several news agencies. Just because this might not be getting much coverage in the US, doesn't mean it's a trivial news event. Icemotoboy (talk)
CommentI do not understand your logic. What constitutes a "notable news item?" BLPs like Natalie Holloway are not comparable articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why ? substantial news coverage by media in several countries. A write up in TIME discussion of these incidents in Australian parliament. what is your reason to believe this is an ordinary non notable event. what makes Natalee more notable may I ask ? it is clearly verifiable and fairly NPOV.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Natalie is an explicit and focused BLP, this article is not a BLP and thus cannot be compared. Your comparison follows under Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You are confusing notability with relevance, not to mention your use of the word "event" is inaccurate. This article isn't about an "event" or an "issue." The article has been written with an OR mentality and screams SYNTH. Half the article is background, mostly crunched and irrelevant mention of 2007-2008 crime, and then a short paragraph on a select examples of "events" in 2009. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with your comments Wikifan12345. However, they do not apply to the proposed renaming of the article and refocus on the protests. The protests are notable and an article about the protests will not be synthesis or OR. - Borofkin (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TIME did a story specifically on this subject. clearly that suggests its not OR or SYNTH. even BLPs have to establish notability otherwise we would have 5 billion BLPs. it would help if you point out specific wikipedia policy this article does not satisfy. it is clearly not OR and meets notablity, verifiabilty and NPOV guidelines. Clearly improvements need to be ade and I am sure they will be. before you comment that editors not agreeing with you dont know wikipolicy you might want to read these yourself especially WP:AGFWikireader41 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (keep) I agree on Icemotoboy's opinion. As I said before in this article's talk page, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or else the recent Air France Flight 447 crash in Atlantic Ocean wouldn't be featured in Wikipedia at all. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those are incomparable articles. Clearly this call for Keep is being rationalized through false logic and an awful misunderstanding of wiki policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can you explain that a bit better? In terms of what is a notable news item, Wikipedia uses the news to help recognize what is a notable event. We recognize that when an event/person/place/show/song etc... receives substantial coverage in the media, theres a prima facie case for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Theres notable, verifiable, references. The Australian Prime minister commented on the situation, the New Zealand Government have been directly referencing the events and discussing them. I agree the article needs work, and I believe it needs to be renamed. But just because there is a problem with the content, doesn't mean the whole thing goes. And I don't think that "clearly" can be used at all to describe your views, they're your views - but many others here have differing views. Let us have those views, and you have yours, and lets discuss it without talking down to people.Icemotoboy (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. just because an article is not FA quality doesnt mean it needs to be deleted. WP has very specific guidelines when an article may be deleted. WP:UGLY is NOT a reason to deleteWikireader41 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A plane crash that killed over two hundred people is vastly different to everday common assault/robberies that have only gained notability due to sensationalist media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.147.107 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should be in the Australia-India relations page, not as a standalone article. Citizen D (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the Indians involved will stay in Australia and become Australians. This is primarily a domestic issue, and so doesn't belong in an Australia-India relations page. - Borofkin (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will they? Of course some will but they are on student visas and I personally know quite a few who have only been able to stay the duration of their degree, or who have never intended to stay longer (i.e. parents or company are paying for the degree and expect them to return at the end) and then return to their home country (or go elsewhere) to get a career in it. Orderinchaos 03:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be endorsing the musings of activist groups and tabloid media - a lot of students get attacked, including those of Chinese or Overseas Chinese, Malaysian and Singaporean derivation here in Perth (which was making the media 2 years ago especially in the grounds of Curtin University), and we're not going to have an article on all of them. I agree that some mention (and I emphasise *mention*) should be maintained in Australia-India relations. Additionally there has been some suggestion in Australian media (and elsewhere) that the attacks are not racially motivated as many of the attackers are also overseas students rather than white Australians. Also not convinced that the number of cases (the Indian Govt estimated 100 in 12 months) is particularly notable - that'd be a quiet year in Adelaide, a smaller city, and most likely more Indian students get attacked in Malaysia and on a more systematic basis than in Australia (as one commentator pointed out). Like anyone I find anyone being attacked in my home country appalling - I lend my support to an organisation called "Fight Dem Back" which tries to combat organised/"nationalist" racism in Australia and New Zealand. Bit concerned about some of the voting patterns further up in this AfD too - may be worth investigating. Orderinchaos 03:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the question of what WP should or should not be doing is not being discussed here. the question really is that does this article satisfy the current WP policy of deleting articles or not Wikireader41 (talk)03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a very pertinent question. I'm not sure if you realised I've been around a while and participated in hundreds of these things over time. :P It comes up again and again in deletion debates and it is indeed a relevant question - WP:NOT has the status of policy. See "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" in particular. Orderinchaos 12:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is a pertinent question ( what WP should or should not be?) . but this is not the place to discuss that issue. And I am not questioning your experience. it would help if you could specify what specific policy this article violates. WP:IDL is clearly not a reason to delete. if a specific policy is being violated in your opinion then please point it out and lets debate it. as far as I can see this is not OR , clearly Notable ( which ordinary crime is discussed in the parliament of 2 of the biggest democracies in the world and gets a write up in the press over multiple continents?), fairly NPOV and easily Verifiable and so meets WP criteria for inclusionWikireader41 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with its name intact. This is no run of the mill anti-minority thuggery. Foreign ministers and heads of states of both nations have been drawn into it, and so have been many student groups. These incidents might unfortunately lead to more nasty incidents (as they are already starting to show with the rise of vigilante groups). We have already seen rioting in Melbourne and Sydney. The press has been after it, and there are plenty of editorials trying to analyze what could have gone wrong. The demand to delete this is like asking to delete the air france disaster article, just because minor air accidents keep happening around the world. The entire episode is sadly but definitely a part of the history of racism and xenophobia and demands a record for those who want to know. - Varun (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unfortunately notable. That they are unfortunate does not make them the less notable,DGG (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's unfortunate how things are happening. But, definitely it is notable and is getting international coverage. I live in Germany, far from India and far far away from Australia, but saw the TV news coverage yesterday evening in CNN news telecast from UK. Srimanta.Bhuyan (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the new title is better, and it is getting sufficient coverage to view it as notable. Unfortunately. - Bilby (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very notable series of incidents ( Yea, unfortunately) which is very much in news. Rename back to 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia ! If there are 50 attacks and 5 protests, Why is the name as "protest by" ? Ridiculous and POV ! The attacks happened first and protests later. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Yes the attacks came first. but the protests are what is attracting the media attention. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It is a very notable topic with great interest to the public.The issue has also garnered international and domestic reaction.Certainly something to be covered by Wikipedia.--Princeaditya (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comments at the start of the AFD discussion. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more than a single event. It's notable. It has lots of reliable references. It has far more information than can be squeezed into a general article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under certain conditions I endorse the name change as it is far more reflective of the content in the article. The vast majority of reliable media is covering the reactions and staged protests, very little has been dedicated to actually examining systematic attacks...mainly because there aren't any. There is no justification for "2009 attacks on Indian students..." that's an absurd title. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

glad you have changed your view somewhat. maybe you should also complain to TIME about the absurd title they gave to their story Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in AustraliaWikireader41 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am surprised the article has been nominated for deletion. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Highly notable, well covered in Australian media in the past few weeks. Inconsistencies can be gradually fixed. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 08:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: merge and/or rename may apply, but these are separate issues. In the meantime, the best way to address concerns of disproportionality is to edit the article with reliable sources. If all Australian media say one thing and all Indian media say another, the article can cite both and readers will be able to make up their own mind. This is a better way to protect readers from bias and sensationalism than suppressing the whole story. jnestorius^(talk) 09:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not some trivial news story, the reaction to these events have been extremely noteworthy with coverage across the international media. Pahari Sahib 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and No name change. It is unfortunate that Austalia is in news for a wrong reason, but it is not a one-off incident. Did anyone notice that the nominator made edits almost a year back before hitting this article and nominating for Afd?--GDibyendu (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ^^^^Irrelevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets WP:N and is out of scope of WP:NOT#NEWS given the extent and duration of international and domestic Australian coverage. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was reported on the BBC last night, so coverage is reaching the rest of the world. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets enough policies and guidlines of Wikipedia, and it is notable enough to keep and I also doubt disbalancing of NPOV by Bojach as the above user mentioned and also noticed that Bojach hasn't made any change from last 1 year and all of a sudden comes back with deletion of an article!!!????? and if Wikipedia is not a news website and if this article is like a news then there would be a huge no. of articles like this article which will need speedy deletion on Wikipedia. Lets keep this article--Shekhartagra (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhartagra (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So the article is based on current events...Wikipedia frequently has articles that fall into this category. Perhaps needs to be retitled and/or reworded, but the article itself shuold stay. -Sparky (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles notability is obvious given the third party coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.237.40 (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename The attacks are real (any objections?). The protests are facts. Australian press may have under reported the attacks, but I had assumed Indian media reports also counted. What about TIME. Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia and "Rory Callinan" doesnt sound like an Indian name. The current title is factual, backed by reliable sources. It does not say who attacked the students (Australians or other nationals in Australia) and neither does it hint anything at the motivation (racial or just increase in street crimes on supposedly "soft targets"). I do not see any POV in the title, whereas 2009 racial attacks on Indians in Australia would have been a POV title and I am not arguing for that. Conversely, I personally think 2009 protests by Indians students in Australia is actually the POV title as it seems to be an attempt to whitewash the original attacks which evoked the protests in the first place. We can remove the year 2009 (as I had argued before) and name it Attacks on Indians in Australia to account for the attacks had happened before. I am all for improving the article and I like User:Borofkin's new lead idea. --Like I Care 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to its very significant coverage, not just a 1 or 2 day event newsfiller. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Victoria's police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland has admitted that some of the attacks on Indian students were "clearly racist in motivation", and the amount of coverage reflects that there has been an increase in crime and assaults. I think sections on the response to the attacks by the authorities. Australian Matt (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Iam shocked to see such an article is nominated for deletion. The event is clearly notable and there is a huge International reaction. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and keep "attacks" in the title. These incidents have been reported all across the world and fit in with current history of Australia. Philwalker87 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do they "fit in with current history of Australia"? Orderinchaos 20:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course the attacks are real, they are just not notable. The only thing that makes the attacks notable is that they were followed by protests. That is why the focus of the article should be on the notable protests, rather than the non-notable attacks. - Borofkin (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how (through what media) you look at the issue. If you were one of those who follows Indian media everyday, the attacks are exceedingly notable, but, apparently, Australian media started covering the issue only after the protests. Guess User:Wikireader41 gave this example of Natalee Holloway, an ordinary teenager killed in Mexico, the only reason for her to have her article is due to the the coverage it received in the United States, it eventually didnt matter whether the issue was covered in North Korea or Tonga. It didnt also matter whether the issue was worth such extraordinary coverage which is still debatable. --Like I Care 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, why don't the people who consider the attacks to be notable edit the article so that it is obvious to all? Why don't they add sourced information about how the Indian government was talking about these attacks prior to protests occuring in Australia? I can't stress this point enough: edit the article with specific, detailed and sourced information, including names, dates, and locations. Who was attacked? When were they attacked? Where were they attacked? Who criticised the attacks? What did they say? When did they say it? Edit the article! Add sourced facts! It's fun! - Borofkin (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the protests would not have happened without the attacks. that the attacks led to widespread protests makes them notable. most non notable attacks are not followed by protests. do you know of any similar protests without the attacks? plenty of Indian students in USA have been mugged, killed and beaten up. nobody has brought up the question of racism there. also have to keep in mind the hidden agenda everywhere to push such issues under the rug. I am sure these attacks are embarrassing to many people and some of them would want these attacks to be quickly forgotten.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable event. We don't have articles because others organisations have reported it as news. Statistics prove the attacks are not significant, just part of a broader increase in crime. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is clearly a very controversial topic with international reaction and government response. Exactly the sort of thing that should appear on Wikipedia as an article and be subjected to editorial debate on it's contents. 69.230.61.245 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these Keeps continue to ignore the argument for delete. Read the article guys - very little to dedicated to the actual attacks, because there aren't any. This isn't even comparable to the annual attacks on Jews in Europe, or the attacks against homosexuals in the Middle East, or the treatment of Muslims in Hindu-areas of India. There is nothing that suggests this article carries lasting notability, so if you want an article it must revolve around the reactions from these countries because that is the only thing that is keeping it from being speedy deleted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nothing is stopping you from writing those articles. and how are you predicting that this articles doesnt have 'lasting notability'. lasting 1 year, 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years. does the article on Australia have 'lasting notability'?? are the editors voting for keep ignoring arguments or the editors for delete ??Wikireader41 (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (keep) I disagree on Wikifan12345's opinion. I can see there are quite some supporters to keep this article by now, and they made many good points about keeping the article. Many of them did not ignore the arguments for deleting the article and they respond with some great reasons to keep it. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There have been attacks but there is nothing particularly notable about them, except perhaps the petrol bomb, and even with that I haven't seen any evidence that it is anything more than an isolated incident. - Borofkin (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this article in TIME is about the attacks and only cursorily mentions the protests Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in AustraliaWikireader41 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the information related to attacks were earlier removed from the article for reasons that they were not written in an NPOV way. Some of the attacks which received widespread coverage in Indian media are listed in the article talk page here. I hope someone will take the time to expand on this, I honestly dont have the time right now considering the time it will take to write in an NPOV manner. Notability is not something we sit here and arbitralily decide, each of these attacks were repeated on TVs across India several times. --Like I Care 00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (keep) I believe an expand and correction to the article can easily be done when dealing with issues regarding to POV. But for now we have to keep this article in order to improve it, not delete it. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable per wikipedia definition of the term with a few thousand secondary reliable sources, protracted coverage of continuing developments in news media, involvement of prime-ministers the two nations etc. Abecedare (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Liquidluck (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is clearly ongoing. From today: "India's tourism minister has called off a visit to Australia following attacks on Indian students in the country." --can dle •wicke 01:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep covered in numerous reliable sources as demonstrated above, so it easily passes WP:V and WP:N. Perhaps it could be renamed to a less awkward name. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as the event is ongoing. Of course it needs improvement. I agree with a renaming so as all sides should be covered , e.g. 2009 racial student violence in Australia, or something like that. --Lemur12 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep currently it has issues WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#NEWS apply, theres an asumption being made that the initial attack was racially based(one side referencing), subsequent events were born out protests by and actions of the Indian "Students" its for this reason the article is returning to bias prose. I would suggest "Harris Park Protest" or "2009 Indian Student Protests" though I'm less inclined to use the label "student" as it specifies a single demographic thats not supported by the sourcing. Gnan garra 02:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event, has gained international media coverage. --Deepak D'Souza 04:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009 (UTC)

Keep: International coverage: BBC [25], CNN [26] as well as Indian and Australian media.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree, vast coverage especially in Indian media. Plus when shall it be notable enough, does it require for a death to happen?! Instead of hiding or using euphemism, lets' face who we have become and becoming! --Ekabhishek (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say either delete it, or make it a more balanced discussion. Fact: the media has blown this out of proportion. Fact: the attcks were motivated by greed; thugs (and there are thugs all over the world) who picked easy targets at night carrying cash or expensive items. Fact: the Indian community in Australia is outraged by the way the media and Indian students have blown this out of proportion. This is not a noteworthy article in its current form. I'm disappointed that it is still on the Main Page of Wikipedia.--Just James ^T/C 07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still on the main page of wikipedia because the attacks continue to happen [27]. Additionaly that very fact confirms the notability of this article. - Varun (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If attackers seek easy targets at night and they were so called "THUG" then why Chinese students or local(australian) people were not attacked??? and what about the incident of petrol bomb ??? Was that for Greed?? and to all those who say India media has imbalanced proportion please Read this Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia. This is not India media.--Shekhartagra (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC) This article has got enough notability to keep.[reply]

Strong Delete or at the very least Strong Rename for the simple fact that there is absolutely no evidence that there were any racially motivated attacks. The views of politicians and community leaders, and the perception of a racial motivation in the attacks, do not mean that the attacks themselves were in fact racially motivated. And even if some of the attacks were indeed racially motivated (which a few most likely were) there is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than what is experienced by other community groups. The greatest argument for the deletion/renaming of the article can be found in the article itself, which cites a few meaningless statistics and a few case studies which by themselves do not prove any form of racial targetting, before spending a majority of its length discussing a number of protests and responses to a perceived threat. Given the denial of any racial element by the authorities, and the absence of any independent review, it is clear that there is absolutely no evidence at this time of any attacks against Indians beyond what is experienced by the normal community. Given this the article should be deleted or (and I say this with great hesitation, given Wikipedia is not a news source) renamed to a more appropriate name. Guycalledryan (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The views of politicians and community leaders, and the perception of a racial motivation in the attacks, do not mean that the attacks themselves were in fact racially motivated. The police chief of Victoria confirms that they (or atleast some) are racial in Nature. The victims themselves allege that the attackers heaped racial slurs on them. With these facts at hand, it would take reliable ciations to show that the attacks dont have the racial angle to them. I agree when you say that the article is not particularly well written, but I'm sure we can fix that. -Varun (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Indian victims have said that the attacks were not racially motivated. The article contains very few sourced facts about racism. Many people have claimed that the attacks are racist, but these are claims rather than facts. - Borofkin (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whether the attacks were racially motivated or not is immaterial to the argument here . wikipedia is not in WP:TRUTH business. that allegations of racism were made adds to the notability of these attacks.Wikireader41 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused about what you are saying, you seem to be suggesting that unconnected attacks become notable in themselves as soon as an allegation of racism is made. All racial groups in Australia have been the victims of racism, and all racial groups in Australia have suffered incidents of racial violence. But this does not mean that an article is required for every single group in every single year. There is nothing but weak anecdotal evidence to support the hypothesis of a series of attacks against Indian students in 2009 (as currently presented by the article). Yes, the reaction to the perception of racial violence may be notable, which is why I am in favour of renaming the article, but unless you can provide strong evidence of a series of attacks against Indian students (whether connected or not) then there is no validity keeping the article under its current name. Guycalledryan (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to be confused about. even a series of unconnected attacks which for whatever reasons generate this much response become notable. even if these attacks are eventually proven to be hoaxes does NOT diminish their notability. whether these attacks are connected or not is also immaterial to the argument. it is the response of world media ( rightly or wrongly) which makes them notableWikireader41 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BUT if the notability is due to their response, then the article should be on the response, not on the attacks themselves. Guycalledryan (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—These events attracted widespread attention, see Google news. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Strong Rename The notability is the media reaction and public demonstrations. The articles name should indicate this to some extent. The facts given do not support that there is an epidemic of racial attacks specifically on Indians. The overal assault/robbery crime rate in Australia is 4.8% while that for violence specifically against Indians in Victoria is 3% (the 1,500 attacks quoted). That ages 15-19 comprise more than 40% of all cases reported in Australia means students will be over represented. While it is undisputed that racism is involved in some attacks there is no evidence given that the incidence is any higher than for any other ethnic group. If statistical evidence exists supporting the claims being made it should be in the article to support the anecdotal evidence currently presented. Wayne (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled neither Increased attacks on in Indians in Australia nor Racial attacks on Indians in Australia nor Australians attack Indians in Australia nor whatever. The title has 100s of reliable references in support. you might disagree with them. --Like I Care 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I Care, you are correct, but so is WLRoss who is trying to explain that this article quickly skips over a number of facts - indeed, the whole issue seems to skip over them with media and politicians yelling as loudly as they can while ignoring some fundamentals. While the figures WLRoss appear to stand to testing, there is admittedly a degree of WP:SYNTH (albeit very credible synthesis!) and is the only reason I haven't promoted this point more in the article - as soon as there is a reliable source supporting it, then I believe it should be made a prominent point in the article - unless someone can show me I'm wrong. --Merbabu (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem in adding this statistics to the article with support of reliable sources and put things in perspective (but no original research) for readers. we might even include a sentence in the introduction. --Like I Care 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Strong Rename The focus of the article needs to be changed. I will admit I am not an unbiased commenter, being Australian and offended by the calls of Racism, but the I believe that the current response, from Indian media and personalities to the attacks is more notable than the attacks, which the sources are very sketchy about, what with figures bandied back and forth, increasing with each go around. I just read that there were 1440 attacks in the last twelve months, a figure which seems to be close to be a misrepresenation of the 2007-2008 figures (of almost 1500), which follows 2006 claims of a whopping 24 cases in 3 months! Also, I feel that many of the proponents of both the Keep and the Delete camps have agendas which are not conducive to either good wikipedia articles, or indeed harmonious editing. I feel with a refocus that this article can be much better, while still appealing to both indian and australian racist editors. WookMuff (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. the naming issue can and should be discussed and sorted out on the article talk page. a bad name is not a reason to push for deletion. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NPOV needs to be looked into and the article needs to be structured better, but there can be no doubt about the notability of this topic.Krishnalokam (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Don't rename Regarding the title, whatever complaints people have about the media and how they are covering this, that's essentially how they are covering this issue. The coverage (read the headlines on Google news, using the neutral search terms Indian + Australia[28]) is focusing on the attacks and not the Indian students protests. These are the same reliable sources that are used for every other article, thus 'keep and don't rename'. Note: the title is actually exceedingly neutral - it doesn't say that they are race-based attacks. Priyanath ^talk 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The abundance of reliable secondary sources and the longevity of the issue make it an obviously notable topic and suitable for an encylcopedia. The naming issue is more controversial but this isn't really the best place to discuss that. To be honest, I imagine that the article will discuss both the attacks (allegedly racist) and the reaction (protests, political diplomacy, etc.) so having the title that mention both of these aspects may not be such a bad idea. The racial element to the documented attacks is not clear though, so I would refrain from adding any such description in the title, and perhaps very early in the article (unless it is made clear that the Indian community claims this). Gizza^Discuss ^© 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Don't rename These attacks are as much an event in Australian history as the <<Stolen Generations>> are. Hence, I strongly suggest that this article may not be deleted. It would be more benificial for Australians to stop events like these happening than coming on Wikipedia and stopping an article on this being published. Hence, please keep Wikipedia's credibility and keep the article in its current form. Atayal ^talk

— Atayal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath ^talk 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha - these events are equal to the Stolen Generation episode? Ie, the forced removal of 10's of thousands of children from their parents. Are you kidding? Further, please don't personalise this AFD or get on your WP:SOAPBOX by commenting on voting of Australian editors. You should note that Australians are voting to keep this article as they are voting to delete (and I haven't voted one way or the other). Note, that no-one has commented on Indian votes here. Yours was not a helpful post. regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no colleralation bewteen these events and wouldnt even rate a mention had it not been for the beat-up and outrageous claims from the Indian media that they were part of some greater bias it is this that makes it notable. Atayal your comments are in very poor faith and while I take offense at you lack of GOOD FAITH I still think that the article meets the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY Gnan garra 13:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP and Don't Rename The page describes and represents an important event which resulted in wide international media coverage, national debate in Australia, direct telephone conversation regarding the event between Australian Prime Minister and Indian Prime Minister, discussion of the event and the issue in the parliament of Australia and India, change in Australian government policy in terms of new task force, change in the Australian law with Attorney General asking Judges to consider hate motives in relation to crime in sentencing, change of Australian High Commisionner to India, and has caused a strain in the diplomatic strain between Australia and India. If all of this doesn't justify this article then I don't know what does. Aditionally, as a precedent, there is already an article on 2005 Cronulla riots which is similar to this event. Scarish

— Scarish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath ^talk 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least here in India, the attacks are very notable and on the front page of every newspaper. If we were to go by the media claims, the attacks are definitely notable. Seems Australian media has a totally different viewpoint about it. Regardless of the naming debate, we should keep the article and look towards some unbiased reliable sources (perhaps non Australian/ non Indian) for the naming decision (outside of this debate). — Lost^(talk) 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. coverage is also notable, and focused on the attacks (not the protests). The article needs some work to be more neutral, though. There are positive responses from all sides that aren't being covered in the article, including from the Australian government. Priyanath ^talk 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Rename and keep adding more details This is a fair article. Renaming the article to Protests by Indian Students does not justify the incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almightyvegeta (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For one simple reason. I have not seen a single person post a wiki rule that blocks this article. What am I missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booster4324 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment time to WP:SNOW this discussion, it obvious that the article will be kept either as is or with no-consensus and this discussion remaining open is only attracting flyby-night/spa editor opinions, who dont either understand WP:AGF or are chosing to ignore it, leave the renaming for a separate fresh discussion. Gnan garra 01:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not one of the best AFD's I've seen. Indeed, time to wrap it up. --Merbabu (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (keep) I agree, it should be time to wrap the discussion up. I can see there is definitely a consensus emerging of keeping the article. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not consensus. It's a vote which is not what wikipedia is about. --Merbabu (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is definitely not about pushing POV. the surprise here is not that the article WILL be KEPT. it is that it was nominated for deletion in the first place.Wikireader41 (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a clear vote (as opposed to consensus) to keep and a clear vote for a certain POV. --Merbabu (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldly merged into Bulbasaur. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur evolutionary line

Entirely redundant to List of Pokémon (1–20) and Bulbasaur. Content mostly copied without attribution from Bulbasaur. I'm not seeing any kind of consensus for this change in coverage style, and the previous method (of lists, with articles for the more notable Pokémon) seems far more logical. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long discussion about this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon (starting at "User:Permethius/Sandbox3"). TheLeft orium 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shit, didn't realise that was there. Nonetheless, this article has serious attribution issues, and remains redundant. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Bulbasaur article is now a redirect to this article, so an "un-merger" discussion is probably better than an AfD. TheLeft orium 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I've undone that. I feel this article should be deleted, covering Bulbasaur seems much more logical than covering Bulbasaur, Ivysaur and Venusaur. I guess a section in article could deal with the other two, but they obviously are not nearly as significant as the original. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge - I completely agree with J Milburn. Both Ivysaur and Venusaur fail WP:NOTABILITY. TheLeft orium 14:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my vote to merge because I think it would be a good idea to include the basic information about Ivysaur and Venusaur in an "Evolution" section in the Bulbasaur article.TheLeft orium 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read Zarrep's comments, lists dont always have the same references. This is name Bulbasaur evolutionary line because it is center around Bulba but has info on the other, with references. Come on J, bring this up at WT:PCP, more supporters than opposers, as Left is against anything I do anymore.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^{Hit Me!}_{Sign Here!} 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've brought this up here because I feel it should be deleted, and accusations of bad faith are not going to get you very far. Theleftorium is an excellent user for whom I (and many others) have a lot of respect. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bulbasaur. I agree with Theleftorium that there is probally not enough notability to cover each different character with its own article. With the new WP:Fiction proposal underway seperate article's might get removed if the proposal is accepted as policy. Similary covering three different subjects with the same weight in an article is uncommon, and probally not a good idea; Since bulbasaur is clearly the most notable of the trio, why not merge the different evolution forms into that article? the different forms are clearly important on the subject Bulbasaur, even if they are not notable enough to warrant an individual (or even group) article. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is basically Bulbasaur with some info on the other pokemon of his evo line. If Ivysaur was the most notable, it would be Ivysaur Evo line,--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^{Hit Me!}_{Sign Here!} 15:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Merge into Bulbasaur. This article was never intended to co-exist with a Bulbasaur article; it was meant to replace it as a more thorough article on the subject. Per Excirial's comment, I think that Ivysaur and Venusaur are relevant if you're talking about Bulbasaur. I see this as increasingly true with Ivysaur's inclusion in SSB:B. Extraneaous information should be trimmed when merging, but I think it is a disservice to the topic of Bulbasaur to ignore its evolutionary path. The actual name of the article is a minor details compared to what is expected to be included (or excluded) from the article. I understand if people have Pokéfear, but this is a good faith attempt to expand coverage on a Pokémon previously deemed notable (if only by being #001). —Ost (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to Bulbasaur seems like the best option here; this may also provide a way to have slightly larger segmented on the evolved forms that can be used for redirect targets while providing a comprehensive overview. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bulbasaur per above. Furthermore, there seems to be little info directly relating to the evolutionary line, and more on just the individual Pokémon. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Ivysaur and Venusaur aren't notable enough to warrant significant coverage in their own article, and as stated all over the place, there's nothing particularly significant about the evolutionary line itself. Bulbasaur is what people will be searching for, and a little info on the later forms is warranted as part of that discussion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a lot of the info in the article proposed for deletion fails notability tests, and should be done away with. The remaining skeleton should be merged. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The skeleton came from Bulbasaur anyway. If you think any of it should be kept, go for it, slip it in. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bulbasaur per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Merge per above. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article was non-admin closed. I have reverted that closure because the closer had participated in the debate. It was a procedural reversion, and I would not object to an uninvolved party closing this per WP:SNOW.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Superstars

Contested prod - prod tag was deleted by User:Prowrestlingsuperstars without comment and without any improvements to the article. (I was the original "prodder".) No evidence of notability, no evidence that this is even real. Even the "official" sites listed by the article's creator do not mention "Pro Wrestling Superstars". A search of the Fox Sports site found no mentions of this, and a Google search for "pro wrestling superstars" and "fox sports" had only 10 hits, none of which confirm that this is real. "Pro Wrestling Superstars" on its own got a lot of hits, because it is the real name of some past events (i.e., Pro Wrestling Superstars '86), but "NJPW Pro Wrestling Superstars", used by the author in the article, got none. At best, this is crystal balling based on information not publicly available, at worst, it is an outright hoax, either way, it should be deleted. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't we just do this one? Gigs (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that there was anything under the exact title Pro Wrestling Superstars, or under Pro wrestling superstars - could the same article have already been through an AFD under a different title? Dawn Bard (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Dawn Bard (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I do see that someone else nominated for speedy on the grounds that it had already been AfD, rejected though because admin couldn't find the AfD. Oh well. Gigs (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is obvious promotion of a non-notable organization. Gigs (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not real. Also Gigs, New Japan Pro wrestling is certainly notable. NJPW is the top wrestling promotion in Japan and one of the most famous wrestling promotions in the world. Has a rich history and known for some amazing things. So if this was real it would be notable and NJPW is as well just for you to know.--WillC 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had assumed superstars was real and just had no coverage since we couldn't find anything. I was not making a statement on the notability of NJPW. Thanks for the information. Gigs (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE. Get my point. And the user should be banned too for vandalism of several sites to promote this page as well as removing tags from it. --DanteAgusta (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Afkatk (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly a hoax TaintedZebra (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A hoax and I also agree with Dante about banning the user Rick Doodle (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Lebanon relations

Fails WP:NOTE as there are no sources on the topic of the article, "Croatia-Lebanon relations". There aren't even embassies so that rules out even non-independent references on that front. No redirect is needed as it is not a plausible search term. Non-notable. Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible connection - should go into new single country article. Collect (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Les informative than most of these, nothing to assert notability of relations themselves. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google news search only shows multilateral relations. only 1 memo of understanding and 1 minor agreement, neither of which seems subject to wide coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibStar - there's no evidence that WP:N is met. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent addition of a 3rd party source detailing the Croation Armed Forces peacekeeping mission to Lebanon in 2007. Relations exist (verified). Notability is satisfied in my opinion. Here's an article from the BBC about Croatia's concerns about the Lebanon conflict and I wasn't looking very hard.[29]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that there are no independent reliable sources providing significant in-depth coverage of the actual subject of the article, Croatia-Lebanon relations? You're also misrepresenting an article discussing an aspect of multilateral relations as representing one aspect of bilateral relations. No one is claiming that absolutely no relations exist, but that they are not notable. Here at Wikipedia the subject of articles must be notable, not only verifiable. Your opinion that your personal standards are met isn't good enough, it violates consensus and it is disruptive for you to continue to ignore notability guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided an independent reliable source that provides significant coverage. It's called the BBC. Your observation that this article is solely about "bilateral" relations is wrong. This article is called Croatia–Lebanon relations not Croatia–Lebanon bi-lateral relations. What you call my personal standard is me thinking that the BBC is a reliable, significant, 3rd party source and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that. My view the subject matter is notable is backed up by the source provided about the Croatian military sending troops to Lebanon in 2007. As far as your repeated allegations that I am being disruptive by "ignoring" the notability policy in saying these things,[30][31][32] your tone is accusatory and your allegations are false. I'll remind you of wikipedia's policy against personal attacks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source may demonstrate the notability of a UN peace-keeping mission to Lebanon, but it does not address Croatia-Lebanon relations in any way. This topic of this article is not UN peacekeeping missions or even UN peacekeeping missions to Lebanon, it is Croatia-Lebanon relations. Drawn Some (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the fact that Croatian soldiers were acting under the aegis of the UN should stop them from representing Croatia. The source makes a big deal out of the fact that they were Croatian.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my last comment. You're ignoring the fact that the article does not address Croatia-Lebanon relations. Drawn Some (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a source doesn't use the magic phrase "Croatia-Lebanon relations" doesn't mean that that is not the subject of the source. The cited article,[33] in covering the Croation military's deployment in Lebanon establishes the notability of the military "relationship". Relations does not have to refer solely to diplomatic relations. It can also refer to military interactions (war) or trade.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Their "relationship" doesn't go beyond the pedestrain, which means not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per lack of independent sources addressing this topic directly and in detail. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not trying to be offensive, but the fact is, if we were to accept this article and keep it in Wikipedia, we would probably have to keep an entire log of when, where, who and how of all diplomatic establishment between all country, which cannot all be notable enough to sustain an article. This is just one of them.Frankie goh (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no, sophistry aside, there is no coverage of "Croatia–Lebanon relations", no matter how much we may pretend it exists. Fails WP:N for that reason. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another mindless combinatorial article (if x is notable and y is notable then the intersect of x and y isn't necessarily notable).Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian A. B. Wrigley

Fails WP:BIO : Google — news — Scholar - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless, of course, all the various "Who's Who"s qualify as sources. Heck, we can print a "Who's Who on Wikipedia" and then use it as "notability" to give people their own articles? I fear some do not understand that anyone at all can print one -- Marquis has no claim to the name in general. Collect (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who directories or websites are not reliable. It's a business that relies on selling listings or directories or ads or a combination, etc. They sometimes target specific groups. The information is self-submitted. Drawn Some (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I can find nothing to establish this person's notability. Cunard (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD A7, no assertion of notability, if discovering two asteroids is supposed to be notable, the article would need to say so. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Štefan Gajdoš

Not notable. Article does not even reach stub category (It is -still- just 1 sentence="Štefan Gajdoš is a Slovak astronomer", was created before 28. june, 2004 (!)), article does not even exists on the slovak wikipedia. No information found about him on the internet, article has no reference/source. B@xter⁹ 13:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not know: but do not like AFD nominations that is not well researched and does not have any valid reasons:
- not even stub is not a reason to delete
- 1 sentence is not a reason to delete
- does not exist on slovak wikipedia is not a reason to delete
- article has no reference/source is not a reason to delete
- no information found on the internet is not a reason and is FALSE "Štefan+Gajdoš"&btnG=Search

So basically not any valid argument except not notable, so is Štefan Gajdoš Notable? He gets 8 hits on google scholar "Štefan+Gajdoš"&btnG=Search for his full name and 18 for Š Gajdoš "Š+Gajdoš"&btnG=Search, how many of those that is his I do not know. Is that enough for WP:PROF? I do not think so, but my slovakian language skills is not really good enough to say what those papers say. --Stefan ^talk 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry! I am not very familiar with wiki deletion guide (this is my first "nomination"), I saw this "article" and I thought 1 sentence is not worth enough to have a dedicated article (It could be merged into article Slovakia, part "science"). Also, I searched for him on the google, but I only found facebook accounts and other not reliable webpages... Gajdos has 53 100 hits (not sure that all of them is this person) while "hjhjhj" has 107 000 (even a youtube video:). The other stubs, like Peter Kolény and Leonard Kornoš could be merged into one article==>Slovak astronomers, not?

Yes correct, the page should probably be merged, but before nominating for deletion you should have read WP:DEL#REASON. You should have found WP:PROF and you should have argued from them. IF you thought the page should have been merged, why did you nominate for deletion?? Anyone can merge! You should also read WP:ATD before you nominate the next time. Sorry no offence, I just do not like drive-by-AFD's, when you nominate, do your homework. Finding a one line article and do a check on google is not enough. --Stefan ^talk 00:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not merge them, because I found those articles after I made this nomination.B@xter⁹ 06:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Google News Archive search returns a number of results that may allow Štefan Gajdoš to pass WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those sources are Slovak sources. All of them.(I am not saying that English sources are better than the Slovak websites)B@xter⁹ 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Had it existed back in 2004, the author should've read WP:PUTEFFORT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I want to say keep here. BTW, to the unsigned person ranting, since there are articles showing notability, you can always fix it and change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article borders on the line of being an A1 speedy candidate. "Foo was an astronomer." Big deal. There are thousands of people who think they are astronomers. Apparently he helped discover two asteroids. Ok. Is that notable? Dunno. If not, delete, if so, hopefully someone will care enough to make this into a useful article. Resolute 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, Reso, I was twitching for an A1 myself, but there's the assertion of notability in that he ostensibly discovered two asteroids. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this gets deleted (which I guess it will) someone should have a look at Category:Slovak astronomers, a few more of the same type created by the same user can be found there, most one or two liners with no references or notability claims. --Stefan ^talk 07:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —--Stefan ^talk 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article needs additional references, but its subject's notability is firmly established. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Bush (musician)

Contested prod. un poorly referenced for over a year, this musician has been a member of notable bands, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO himself RadioFan (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep If that criteria for deletion has merit then 90% of all "member of a famous band" articles should be AfD'd for the same reason. In this case the subject is a member of 2 famous bands (including being the founder of one of them). Also... the above claims that the article is unreferenced... which it isn't. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't sufficient here. The article makes no claim of notability other than membership in these bands. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, the only reference is to a brief concert announcement.--RadioFan (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that page could be referenced better and should be re-written, but don't see how this qualifies it for deletion. The page is viewed about 45 times per day which is significant. Plus this direct quote from Wikipedia:Notability (music) following "Criteria for musicians and ensembles": Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. The notability of his two bands admitted by the nominator. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- NOTE The article was missing an entire section that had been blanked some time ago by an IP. I have restored the section and found a reference relating to the subject turning down an invitation to join Metallica as a lead singer/frontman. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Bush was an important figure of the Los Angeles metal scene during the 80s and did enormous work to keep Anthrax alive in the 90s. His unique voice is also remarkable. --Aranyos (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- You. Have got. To be. Kidding me. (Longer more profane post redacted due to WP:CIVIL). Notability more than established as the lead singer of two notable bands. WP:BEFORE exists for a reason, and its a bit obvious that it wasn't followed here. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -- not only is he notable, there is no other logical place to put all of the useful information on this page. It would be silly to list his bio in both the Anthrax and Armored Saint pages. Luminifer (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Too many !votes from SPAs to establish consensus. No prejudice against a speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariqueen Maandig

Reason Msmiserie (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) — Msmiserie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, this was the first place I came to get information about her when I found out Trent Reznor is enaged. Please, she has her own career that makes her interesting as well. gag01001 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009
Delete, lacks notability. This page was only created due to the Trent Reznor engagement, and aside from that engagement, the woman is unknown. The page was created by Kiwipat, who is one of the few people supporting that the page should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.36.193 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC) — 67.70.36.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, Playboy model, singer in group with Wikipedia article, and, oh yeah, engaged to Trent Reznor. 31,000 Google hits. Joey the Mango (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's a leading member of a group with its own article.--Kiwipat (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on the grounds that the nominator has not provided a reason for deletion. Will redact if valid reason provided. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This person lacks notability.--Msmiserie (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Msmiserie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Redacted my above comment as promised; nominator provided a reason for deletion (albeit one that is contained in the opinion essay WP:ATA). KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:29, 4 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) 12:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article subject lacks notability. Article subject is not a Playboy Playmate. She is the singer of a virtually unknown band, for which no other members have a Wikipedia page because they are not notable either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.149.111 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC) — 99.238.149.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 by Dank, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan Patterson

No independent secondary sources found on this individual. Fails notability criteria. Promotional and full of factual errors. Enki H. (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. freshacconci talktalk 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 12:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Enki H. (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page also contains original research and the extensive quotation is likely a copyvio of the source. Enki H. (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. The creator requested deletion, and there were no significant edits by other editors. As always when I speedy during an AfD, I'd appreciate it if someone else would do the paperwork and close. I'll restore the article if anyone wants to see it for purposes of this AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High school / college STEM alignment

This is a personal essay or some type of high school class project. It does not fit with Wikipedia's no original research policy. It was speedy deleted once, recreated, nominated for proposed deletion, and then the prod tag was removed. Deli nk (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prod'der. Unencyclopedic original research. --Finngall ^talk 13:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Cunard (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, delete. The article is original research via WP:Synthesis. Rather than giving an encyclopedic overview of third-party sources, the piece discusses problems facing science and technology education, and recommends solutions. This is a worthy topic, but not one that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Club Kalamaria

Club is not notable, his web is dead, 0 ghits (in both English and Greek). Only creator is banned for creating hoaxes and possibly this is another hoax. Yopie 11:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only claim to notability is its "celebrities" side. No independent sources supplied, and I can find none - assuming that this is not Apollon Kalamarias F.C. which already has an article. To be fair to the author, he is blocked for two weeks, not banned, and with a bit of WP:AGF it may be that what he is doing is not deliberate hoaxing but dressing up, in neatly-presented articles, things that exist but are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article (though the dead-link web addresses presented in the first version of this and in the recent "micronation" of Michalia don't look good). If he would read and apply WP:V and WP:N he could be a useful editor. MetroStar - while you are blocked you can still edit your talk page: if you want to contribute to this debate, post there and I will copy it across. JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent some time trying to find some kind of corroborating source for this material and pretty well failed at it - in my mind the article falls somewhere between "hoax" and "plainly not notable", and I don't think it matters for the immediate discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 . Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surrism manifesto

There's no speedy delete category (at least that I could figure out) for this, so I've brought it here. This is original research and completely unsourced. Google hits basically go to blogs and sites linked to these artists. There's no independent, third-party sources. freshacconci talktalk 11:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G12). Before anything else its a copyvio of this myspace page, the rest can wait in case the speedy G12 I just placed gets declined. G12 was declined, and copyvio material removed. Enki H. (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't click on the myspace page. Hopefully, that will make short work of this. freshacconci talktalk 12:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete per above, Nothing worth keeping...Modernist (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, original research, hoax ("proretroarticularrist", "trransparentoformatological") and most importantly: searches turn up no independent secondary sources to indicate that this is a notable topic that would merit an article even if the existing problems were fixed. Enki H. (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a hoax. Sadly, they're serious. Neologisms such as "proretroarticularrist" are attempts at absurdist wordplay. That's fine for a personal website, blog, myspace and so on, but until someone actually writes about this (I'll be holding my breath) this is original research. freshacconci talktalk 13:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the wordplay, but IMO the way the words are used in the article as an adjective without further qualification is deceptive in its implication that the words have a definition that meaningfully characterizes the verb. Ergo hoax. Enki H. (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from. freshacconci talktalk 16:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. The creator requested deletion, and there were no significant edits by other editors. As always when I speedy during an AfD, I'd appreciate it if someone else would do the close. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical postevolution

This was nominated for deletion in January but closed as speedy keep, unjustifiably in my opinion. Most of the follow-up questions made by the nominator were ignored, and the notability argument, particularly regarding independent sources, was not fully considered. There are only four articles on Google Scholar that use this term (and not on the title, but maybe just in passing). All the articles are very recent and all by the same set of authors. This strongly indicates that this is a neologism that is promoted and used by a very small group of people, which is the antithesis of notability. The fact that the term is used in conferences (and especially in Gordon Conferences, which expressly forbid their use as references) is certainly not enough for notability yet. Maybe in a few years "chemical postevolution" will become an established term. Then we can have an article about it. (My opinion of the term is that it is just a fancy buzzword, and that well-established terms such as lead optimization are preferable, but what matters for the purpose of AfD is current, proven, independent notability. I just add this parenthetical note in case possible redirects or merges are suggested.) Itub (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I said weak keep at the first afd, but unless there are more articles, it does seem to be not really established as a term & I don't see why it should, as it does not really mean anything more than "laboratory modification of natural products" DGG (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am not sure that speedy keep was the best interpretation of the previous discussion. There has been no significant change in the last four and one half months in the article, and the term still appears not to be in common use. Merge to drug discovery or total synthesis or somewhere might work. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, used in two papers by the same authors on PubMed (PMID 16881035 and PMID 18246567) but no indication that anybody else uses this term. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Vishweshwara Dikshith

Google pulls up less than 40 hits, none of which actually include the last two names together. Ergo, whatever this person has done, there appears to be no coverage of it anywhere in any form. Tyrenon (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggestion to nom: Be patient, the article is a historical stub, created less than an hour before the AfD nomination. It's about someone who lived in India pre-Independence, unlikely to have much English language references, and any references that are available will be in the form of books in the local language - Kannada. Mark the articles for references, or for an expert to look at it. An AfD should be the last resort, read WP:Before. Participate in other AfD nominations by voting, and reduce your focus on creating new ones until you get well acquainted and comfortable with the process. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Look, I'd agree if there were a snippet somewhere out there, but when all I'm getting is a bunch of links to electoral rolls and a link to the article, there's a real notability issue. Yes, one could expect most info to be in the native language, but I would also expect at least one English-based source. Otherwise, I'd have to offer a strenuous objection to notability, not to mention verifiability for English-speaking users.Tyrenon (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not a matter of voting - the !votes are simply to tag one's point of view on the matter. As to references - can some be cited in Kannada? Apart from which, someone has got the information from somewhere to put it here. I would like to see at least some reference, and a little more info such as dates. There can be transliteration problems with some languages, so there may be mentions under variant spellings. The poet's last name is not uncommon (and occurs in different spellings), but I cannot see a great possibility of variance with 'Vishweshwara'. Peridon (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested participating the process to get familiar with it, before posting so many nominations. As far as this article goes, there's a claim that the subject was 'Asthana Vidhwan', this is a pretty hefty title, probably given to about 5-10 people during the reign of a king, and if true, that is a good indicator of notability (in addition to why that title was conferred). So my entire point is, if there are some such claims, why not tag the article for references and notability, than put it up for AfD within 45 minutes of creation? As far as the multiple spellings, V and W can be used interchangably except as the first letter, the H may or may not be used after each s, and there could also be a 'ya' at the end to make it Visveshwaraya. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There could be issues here. I participated in some AfDs recently where they were nominated by someone with a sudden and possibly overweening interest in deletion. When it was suggested by someone (not me) that they might be a sock or an alternative account, they 'silently vanished away'. I am not in favour of unnecessary deletion - I'd rather see an article survive in a usable form, hence my comment about the info here coming from somewhere so there must be some reference possible. Peridon (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the thing: If this article still has no sources towards the end of a week up here, then I'm firmly in favor of killing it. If sources can be found (and I do insist on one being in English, simply so the vast majority of the readerbase here can read it), then it can stay. But as it stands, the possibility of a hoax hangs over this article due to the lack of sources. If all we have is a spelling issue, that's nothing, but with that said...I do want to see before I'll believe.Tyrenon (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any resources at all on the subject of the article and the editor who created the article provided none. Without any resources at all, it is neither notable or verifiable. It doesn't feel like a hoax but for all we can tell, it could be one, we just can't say. It's already being mirrored, this sort of thing is harmful to the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried asking the author for references including any offline ones, no response; nothing at all on the Internet with many spelling variations. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried with different spelling of the subject but couldn't find even a single source. Salih (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author put a comment up on the talk page attached to the deletion debate here commenting that "It is sad that you have marked this for deletion and if that is done, this information will be lost forever." This leads me to very strongly suspect a hoax, as the underlying implication is that there are no other sources concerning this person whatsoever.Tyrenon (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to think this is a hoax, because the level of detail in it is too much for a hoax. It could very well be a POV push though, but eitherways, it's time for it to go. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Stansted Airport Car Parks

Disputed prod. Wikipedia is not a directory or travel guide. — RHaworth (Talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete car parks are not really notable and wikipedia is not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. JIP | Talk 15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADIRECTORY as this being liable to go out of date very quickly. A simplified version of this information might be appropiate on the Stansted Airport article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a directory, and car parks are not notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as specified by WP:N. Please note however that AFAIK there are no guidelines or policies saying that car parks are not notable. Paulbrock (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikitravel. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The second sentence could be merged into Stansted Airport#Roads, but nothing else is encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable for a stand-alone article. Turgan ^Talk 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UEIMS School of Medicine & Dentistry

Contested PROD article originally flagged for rescue - Pure advertising page which might be saved trough some copy editing. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - schools of medicine are always notable. Sure, this is a terrible article but AfD is not a cleanup squad; this should have been tagged for improvement. TerriersFan (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A case for cleanup, not for deletion. There can always be an article on a medical or dental school. Maybe we need to divide AfD into two tracks: one for inadequate articles that need to be called to general attention for improvement, with deletion a possibility in the background if they cannot be improved, and a second one for things that should actually be deleted. DGG (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but this may be a sign of a bigger issue. We've had a few Indian? or Middle East writers profer these poorly written bits. I wonder if it makes sense to invoke a first build it your language wiki approach? They might have already but how much energy can we put towards this? Alternatively I wonder if we have or should create a English-as-a-second-language tag directing those interested towards translating services. It's quite frustrating to fully clean these up only to have deleted because sourcing was simply not available. -- Banjeboi 12:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smart

Non-notable - being a programmer and editor for a weekly news issue of a Linux website does not make a person notable. —Amplitude101 (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frankly, I was inexperienced when I created the article. Smart is not notable to have his own article. Pmlineditor ^Talk 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G7, since the author requests deletion and no-one else has made any significant contributions. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anything significant about this person? If not then I won't think it's important to keep it since there are thousands of editors for magazines. And even the page creator suggests to delete it. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H1Z1 Virus

Little-known Internet hoax that fails to meet notability/verifiability criteria -- no independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, original hoax page no longer seems to exist. The LA Weekly article is the only mention I can find outside of the blogosphere, and that's a mention in passing in an article about something else. The Anome (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete H1Z1=hizzy, slang those crazy kids these days use to describe what is a "house". Or the Z stands for "zombie". Whatever the case, this is complete bollocks and pretty much leads to a story describing more the book Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Nate • (chatter) 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete; but not speedy. Let this stay for a week, so any idiot that can't tell the difference between a blog and a newspaper can see that Wikipedia is calling it a hoax. But this is unencyclopedic non-notable stupidity and if it were not for thousands of blog postings asking "Is this real?" I'd go for speedy delete. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. equally as many considerations both ways, and relisted twice already Nja²⁴⁷ 07:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marinello Schools of Beauty

This was PRODed but I felt it warranted discussion instead as it is not a very clear cut case. On the one hand, a 100+ year history and 35+ locations (which makes it the largest beauty school chain on the west coast) would seem indicate notability. On the other hand, while I can find RS to verify these facts, I can't find much as far as non-trivial coverage goes. Therefore I am neutral at this time. ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed that this was an odd one. I particularly enjoyed this hit in the archives:
Scope long has been considered an odd company because it recycled bakery products and operated a chain of beauty schools called Marinello Schools of Beauty. The company sold its beauty school division last month to B&H Education for roughly $8.2 million. "Our principal business is waste recycling," Laskin said. "We thought we should put our emphasis there." - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - long history, a big chain of schools and some coverage in RS just about adds up to a keep. TerriersFan (talk) 00:12, 31 May 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 00:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not big on WP:RS, but with locations all over Los Angeles, i'm inclined to ignore the rules for this one, especially with them having been around for years. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately both of the sources are not independent so even if guidelines for notability were ignored, the article is unverified except by primary sources. Drawn Some (talk) 22:32, 3 June 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} 07:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is indeed surprising that an enterprise this large and well-established is so lacking in coverage through reliable sources. I was unable to dredge up any. However, it does appear that the founder of the school, Ruth Maurer, is notable although she lacks an article. Google books has results froma filtered search. Newspapers of that time referred to her as a beauty expert. I'm sure there's more sources out there that could establish her notability. This article would make sense as a section in an article about her. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability asserted and nothing suggests this information is untrue. These schools often are refered to by a bewildering array of names including beauty college, school of cosmetology, _____'s Marinello school, etc etc. The current school's website will serve nicely to concur basic information and handily includes [34] a video about the school done by The Ellen Show and press releases which can also verify what's up. This is not the kind of business that works at creating headlines outside the hair-styling industry so miles of sources likely exist in trade publications, so strong keep per WP:CSB as well. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No convincing data that the school is notable. It may well be the case that the founder is notable, but notability is not inherited. Fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is one of the oldest in the US and arguably one of the largest chains of beauty schools as well, this would certianly satisfy WP:N under corporations. -- Banjeboi 05:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of films aired on Nickelodeon

Listcruft per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, similar article was deleted two years ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of movies broadcast by Nickelodeon) Caldorwards4 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a previous nomination for this article under another title after this was originally deleted which resulted in a keep vote. My argument then was for deletion based on the fact that theatricals were inserted in the list with the network's original films, and that issue at least has been rectified. However, I now vote delete based on the fact the entire list is unsourced and it has not been connected in any way to any article according to the list of links, as has been the problem with many of the Nickelodeon block articles. Nate • (chatter) 07:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It easily could be sourced. Essentially, this is what a list of this sort should be-- films that were specifically produced for the Nickelodeon network, along with the date that the films premiered. Generally, any cable network's original films will attract higher ratings than the regular programming, and in the case of Nickelodeon, they have a lot more advance promotion. I see this as no different than a list of films attributable to an independent production company. Kind of ironic that "Nickelodeon original movies" included films that were re-run for the umpteenth time (and thus were not original), while "List of films aired on Nickelodeon" doesn't make clear that these are films that were produced by Nick. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the sources are your only concern, you should first tag the article for giving time to other editors to fix the issue before taking last case measure of deletion. However I agree the article should contain references. Kasaalan (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, don't the wikilinks provides enough reference for dates or if they have been aired on Nickelodeon or not. You should first check and answer that question. Kasaalan (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inward links to movie articles as sources don't count at all. They must be sourced by reliable outside sources. Nate • (chatter) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read all inline links to movies to check if the inline movie articles contain reliable sources for nickelodeon airing or not before making deletion nomination, or just assuming the list article don't have references so inline movie articles too don't have reliable sources.

Also if inline articles don't have reliable references for nickelodeon airing, how info in their articles can stay. You should first deal with inline articles before deleting the list. Kasaalan (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to talk about this article, not individual articles linked to. See my argument below; if a WikiProject devoted to the network can't muster any kind of rescue effort to convince us to save it, I doubt many others who aren't network geeks will want to do so either. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a list of things that aired on particular channels, even if WP:V could be met. WP:NOTDIR applies. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major network, and an appropriate list to get the information together; should all be sourceable easily enough.. No reason given why this in inappropriate. DGG (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list, if completed, would be somewhere over 10,000 entries (though, of course, not 10,000 entries covered by any reliable source except each and every TV guide since 198x (whatever year this network went into business). Nothing generates "encyclopedic notability" for the topic films aired on Nickelodeon. It's an aspergers/train-spotting type exercise to even try.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always prefer not to read a long list if it hurts your eyes. If some users are willing to spent their time on building a 10.000 entry list, it will save all other readers of wikipedia to do any research like that when they need the info. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to invoke WP:WHOCARES here, but really going by an editor count for this article (not counting the IPs adding cruft and vandalism) and the lack of links into it, there are very few who care. This article is linked to much of nothing at all, just several redirects to possible alternate names for this article (which do have four links from movies, but it should be much more than that.) WP:NICK, the project that is supposed to be responsible for Nick articles is notorius for building articles without any kinds of sources and filled with line upon line of plot geekery the average fan really doesn't care about and is later easily winnowed out by experienced editors. They have not had a member respond to your request for comment, and nobody came forward when I asked for comment on a deletion vote on another topic, which is incredibly apathetic for even the lowest-tier Project (and because of this, another editor declared it in an inactive state days ago). Wheras articles on subjects involving Cartoon Network and Disney Channel in my experience don't have these kinds of issues (and the Disney Channel Original Movies article at least has several sources), these Nick articles are created haphazardly without organization. As for research, many other fansites can provide much better and detailed information about their movie history than seems to be provided here. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies and time. You may know, WP:WHOCARES also refers to "Delete Who cares about this stuff anyway" approach. Also I agree, a project should interested in their articles one way or another, yet some projects are active, some others not. It is also same for wiki environment project for example. But their efforts made others to reach info, without wasting time on research, and when they do it allows them to improve article even further. Also it leads a good directory categorization for similar relevant conent articles. Moreover Disney Channel Original Movies article has exact same issue, which only quotes from a single reference from his own site, rest of references are there for view counts of Highest rated Disney Channel Original Movie premieres. I added the article to disney channel article now it has 1 more link.

Do I like the channel, No except 1-2 series they publish
Do I care for article in particular, Not really much right now, but I may spend various hours of research time for improving articles that I don't care but others may care
Do I find it useful, It may be useful for some other people interested in the area, I also may care about the info in the future if I get interested, moreover I find verifiable list articles useful in general, they doesn't hurt anyone or any policy actually
Do deleting the article helps anyone on earth, Simply no.
Can the article will be improved in the future, Yes.
Can the article will be improved easier in the future if we not delete it, Certainly Yes.

If fansites has much more reliable information, we can use them as a reference. Kasaalan (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also debating with 4 people for article deletion is not helpful at all, the more views the better. Kasaalan (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article can very much be sourced. -phobia don't be afraid to drop a line! 21:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. What is so notable about this particular channel and its films? This isn't an encyclopedic list in its current state (unreferenced, no notability shown, no context) and I don't know how this could be turned encyclopedic. Even with the references in place it would need to be shown that the topic of the collection of these films means something to the encyclopedia. We aren't an indiscriminate collection of information, nor are we a directory. Them From Space 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Like many lists this needs more context of why should anyone care. Nickelodeon is seen as a gateway to young consumers - preteens and children and is considered commercially-ladened but family-friendly fodder. Ergo the lede should be expanded to explain these points as well as relevant, perhaps obvious, ideas about reaching certain subsets of consumers. How the movies were billed - world premiere, etc - and hyped in contrast to other networks or movies. Also did this change over time and how. In its current form however it is an acceptable list and certainly can be improved. -- Banjeboi 23:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Treephort. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Forest (album)

Non-notable album. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." No reason given to believe this album should be an exception. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the other hand, the paragraph just before the one you quoted reads, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Whether or not there is significant outside coverage may be the subject of debate, but just because there is an article about a band does not mean that each of that group's albums is sufficiently notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is an article on the band, the band is likely notable. Which means that any of their officially released albums may be notable. There is no reason given why this album is non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The burden is to provide evidence that a subject is notable, not that it is not notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the article on the band cites no sources, either. I'm proposing deletion of that article next. The asserted notability of the band has not yet been demonstrated. Qqqqqq (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. To the band article, it's short and there doesn't seem to be much here. -- Banjeboi 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above by Banjeboi Nja²⁴⁷ 07:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as hoax. لenna vecia 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Donahue

Autobiography with no easily-verifiable sources. Possible claim to notability is unsourced. Nothing popping up in Google but social networking sites. لenna vecia 06:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Just 50 non-wiki ghits and 4 gnews hits, none of which show a whiff of notability or back up any claim in the article. External links in the article do not mention this person.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo purports to be an individual other than that at the image page ie Paul King (musician, VJ). I initially accepted the bona fides of the initiating ed. assuming good faith. Seems I was wrong and this is an example of a hoax correctly described as vandalism. RashersTierney (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol#General Carl A. Spaatz Award. Merge/redirect: content still visible in history for merger to be carried out by interested editor Nja²⁴⁷ 07:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spaatz Association

I tried to redirect this to Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol#General Carl A. Spaatz Award, which, except for the material plagiarized from [35] (see Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations for June 9), covers the raison d'etre of this article. The level of Civil Air Patrol achievement fits nicely into that article, but as a stand-alone article this fails WP:ORG. Deor (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol#General Carl A. Spaatz Award and merge there some reasonable text which would not amout to cut and paste from external source. Rationale: the association does not seem to have notability beyond its membership. Timurite (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article's text in infringement of [36] has been refactored to remove copyvio content. MLauba (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol#General Carl A. Spaatz Award, no reliable sources supporting a verifiable and neutral article. MLauba (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money-Bargaining

A fringe theory with minimal notability. One book published in 1980, the two other books are self-published (Book Guild is a self-publisher). Minimally cited in the literature [37], except for three less than stellar book review in the American Journal of Sociology, the Industrial Relations Journal and Political Studies at the time of publication. Since then, nada. Google only finds book listings in online catalogues.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Response: Your assessment is fair enough. I had not seen the American Journal of Sociology and Industrial Relations Journal reviews of my 1984 book. You say 'less than stellar' but the AJS review is very pleasing. The reviewer concludes: 'There is an implicit thread running through these observations, but the nature of the link is never clearly explicated. Yet, one feels that Spread is onto something. I think the book is best viewed as presenting useful, sensitizing concepts and even provocative ideas about a variety of social processes well worth further explication and clarification with the goal of a more circumscribed but ultimately more useful theory.' My subsequent two books (2004, 2008) draw out the nature of the link, with full explication and clarification. It seems a pity to deprive Wikipedia readers of these ideas, but I suppose the support I have is too limited and not sufficiently respectable.

Weak delete - It's an idea that's been published. (I don't know if the two recent books are self-published, so I'm not sure if they should count.) I'm not big on deleting articles, so that makes it weak. But I still side for delete, given that the idea can't be seen to have caught on beyond the author. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the articles read like rambling personal essays, and with no additional sources to improve them I don't see how they can be made better. They give an impression of the importance of the theories which may be misleading for readers. The author of the articles seems to be the author of the cited sources (see reply below), raising WP:COI concerns. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further response:

I suggested an insertion to the 'Economics' entry, on which there have been various comments. My response there is copied below:

Thanks for all the comments.

It appears I am now permitted to edit the page directly, but the comments indicate that it would not be appropriate to make the proposed insertion. There is, in any case, a proposal to delete the main entries on 'Money-Bargaining' and 'Support-Bargaining', to which I have responded on the Money-Bargaining deletion page. I am copying this also to the Money-Bargaining deletion page, since it is relevant to the proposal for deletion.

We have to separate the questions of what is right and what is respectable. If Wikipedia is only concerned with material that is derived from respectable sources, then the queries about the sources (meaning the publisher, Book Guild), may be relevant. The question of what is right would be of no significance.

While the Book Guild is not a conventional publisher, it is not of the undiscriminating kind. It has some distinguished authors. It has published Lord (Denis) Healey, the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer. It also publishes Peter Evans, who was Home Affairs correspondent on the Times for seventeen years. [All the references have ISBN Numbers: Spread (1984) 0-333-36569-0; Spread (2004) 1-85776-860-4; Spread (2008) 978-1-84624-251-9.]

As regards what is right, the 'open edit' approach of Wikipedia suggests a commitment to a wider range of opinion than can be accommodated in formal 'establishment' encyclopaedias. This seems to suggest also acceptance of a broader range of sources. There is an implication that the establishment and its 'respectable' sources could be wrong, or at least incomplete.

In this case, there is a real probability that respectable sources are wrong. If needs and wants are situation-related (see 1 in the proposed insertion above, and 'Money-Bargaining/Situation related selection' in the Wikipedia article proposed for deletion), then economics has been wrong for over a hundred years. Money-bargaining gives a much more realistic account of monetary exchange. Democratic theory is more principles and aspirations than a theory of how government works. The people cannot possibly govern in any direct sense. Support-bargaining gives a realistic account of political, social and intellectual processes.

My entries and proposed insertions are designated 'fringe theory', which is fair enough from the viewpoint of orthodox economic and political theory. The designation makes it easy to delete them. But bear in mind that the fringe may become the mainstream when the paradigm changes. If my entries are designated 'alternative paradigm' it may not be so easy to delete them.

Furthermore, alternative paradigms will probably not be promulgated through orthodox institutions and publishers. Orthodox, or respectable, theory uses orthodox and respectable publishers. Because of the viability condition (see 2 above, and 'Money-Bargaining/Companies as money-bargaining agencies' in the article), orthodox publishers find it hard to publish unorthodox theory. Academics generally approve, buy, read and teach orthodox theory. So unorthodox theory has to use unorthodox publishers. If Wikipedia rules out the use of unorthodox sources, it may also be excluding right theory.

Papersign (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Kralizec! under A7. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Mariofan110

Speedy tag has been removed by an IP twice. Speedy delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy tags aren't supposed to removed by non-administrators, unless they're obviously wrong (e.g. A1 for an article that has context, A7 which shows notability, G3 which isn't vandalism, etc). Retagged. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, read the tag. Anyone but the page creator can remove a speedy tag. AfD tags are another matter: only the closing admin may remove those. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It says to only remove if "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." It's obvious that this page meets the CSD criteria, and almost certainly can't be fixed. As for the creator part, it's pretty safe to assume that the IP and the article creator are one and the same. How likely is it that two different users find the same newly created article on an obscure Youtube artist? Not very. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fairchild Channel F#List of games. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tic Tac Toe, Shooting Gallery, Doodle, Quadradoodle

The notability of this article's subject is in question, also the article is an orphan and a dead-end. The article also has few external links and reliable sources. -- Patchy1^(talk) 03:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It does bring up Google searches but it still doesn't seem fitting for Wikipedia.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairchild Channel F#List of games - as the very first game for the system it has a reasonable claim to notability (and probable RS coverage at the time). However, there is no actual content here yet so a change to a redirect (as placeholder) is the best option. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ThaddeusB. Further, I nominate the following similair articles as well: Spitfire (game), Video Blackjack and Desert Fox, Shooting Gallery. Guy0307 (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, although it's an unlikely search term. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The game also seems to go by 4-in-1([38], [39]) and Videocart 1 ([40]) —Ost (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Little else to say, really. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list these are just placeholders, if the list within the machine's article were fleshed out it could contain the same details (perhaps more if available) all in the same place. Someone another 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per Guy0307. Dancter (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be exstended on, so that it stands out better as a article by wikipedia's standard. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trees of lyres

Contested prod by IP. No reliable sources to indicate this is a notable band; Google News search just found two gig listings. tedder (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A google search gave some results but most of those would be unacceptable references for the article per Wikipedia guidelines.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable source coverage that I could find. I did, however, find it humorous that there is a wiki devoted solely to Salem, Oregon music. The article's creator is welcome to move their contribution there if they like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Flys (Song)

unremarkable song, fails WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't chart, no sources. Melvins does have an article so it's not an A9. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to be notable. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, heading towards a SNOW anyway. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Evans (Pro Wrestler)

The subject is a U.S. teenager who has appeared in a few non-notable professional wrestling leagues. Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Evan Evans is a legit Pro Wrestler who wrestled in TNA as Amazing Red and currently wrestled for WWE Developmental territory. Wikieditor4000 (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)— Wikieditor4000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please don't spot BS, take a look at Amazing Red. TJ Spyke 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has never wrestled for any notable promotion or done anything notable on the indy circuity. No reliable sources. Looks like this kid (WWE would not sign a 15 year old to any contract) is at best a backyard wrestler. TJ Spyke 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evan Evans wrestled as Amazing Red in a spoof match, and Evans was also trained by the Hardy Boys who got Evans a developmental deal with the WWE. Wikieditor4000 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote and you already expressed your opinion. Dressing up as a real wrestler does not mean squat (most backyard wrestlers pretend to be a real wrestler). Considering this kid is only 15 years old, I don't buy that he has been trained by anyone. Do you even have any evidence to support your claims? TJ Spyke 03:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should also be noted that Wikieditor4000 created the article, and his/her only mainspace edit is creating the article. TJ Spyke 03:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:BIO. -t'shael ^mindmeld 03:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who cares anymore. Wikieditor4000 (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article couldn't possibly be removed soon enough. 15 year old backyard "wrestler". Most likely, all that means is that he plays with his friends on a trampoline. Absolutely no notability. I believe the term "vanispamcruft" was created for situations just like this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7 since the author is now !voting delete (article so tagged). --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic – Iceland relations

a random combination with no resident embassies and a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral and diplomatic relations, of course there's multilateral and football relations. [41]. there's the first article of that search and the ousting of a spy in 1962 but needs more coverage of actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Sigh...another random pairing of nations that doesn't demonstrate notability. The countries are notable, nothing showing their relationship is. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia First Pillar says that Wikipedia contains elements of almanacs, and this is a verifiable almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that multiple reliable and independent sources have provided significant coverage of bilateral relations as such between the two countries, so fails WP:N as well as not a directory. Edison (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." It doesn't fit any of the examples given even is you stretch the definitions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to "fit any of the examples given" because it clearly says "loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to)". Do you even read the text you post before you start using it as a basis for discussion? It contradicts the point you are making. Clearly these collections of miscellaneous trivial factoids, anything mentioning two countries in the same paragraph, fall under that area of "Wikipedia articles are not:". In fact that is specfically meant to exclude this sort of bricolage. Drawn Some (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize I wasn't aware that "but not limited to" meant anything else you or anyone else reading it desires it to mean, no matter how unrelated it is to "quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." This would be an example of "mentioning two countries in the same paragraph": "Administrations have collapsed in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, and Ireland. Riots and paralyzing strikes have crippled Thailand, France, ..." However, treaties, official visits, and trade and international incidents are the definition of international relations. Go to the US State Department website and see all the information on the US and any other country to see the topics they use. Certainly if it appears on the Czech government website under "Czech Republic – Iceland relations", it is not random trivia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good reason primary sources can't be used to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source of a treaty would be the text of the treaty itself, this is a secondary source. Even then Wikipedia doesn't ban primary sources, it only cautions against original research as you interpret the text. Wikipedia says: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I normally say 'delete' for the two-country themed articles but reading the discussions, this one might be worth keeping.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could you please give a reason? LibStar (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that at least one bilateral AfD comes up every day, can't a WP:BilateralNotability be created as part of WP:BILATERAL, rather than applying the standard WP:N to everything? After all, there can be 37,636 or 38,025 such combinations to discuss. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really you need to divide those figures by two to account for Russia-Nauru and Nauru-Russia not being separat articles. Drawn Some (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's 19110 at most, but my point still holds. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable article, notable relations. Article was improved since the nomination and it can be surely improved even more. - Darwinek (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Darwinek.--Yopie 11:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete De minimis relations, though they both produce lead crystal. When a cite is given for a firm buying a firm in another country -- that shows how shallow the references are. Collect (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here to highlight relations between these two countries as being exceptional to any other two. Lists of staged state visits and common agreements are not noteworthy or notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no concept of "exceptional" that is for Guinness World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "exceptionally non-notable"? --BlueSquadronRaven 20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as is by now routine, a "rescue" effort has succeeded only in cluttering up the article with meaningless trivia we'd never pick up on outside this series of nonsense articles, not in actually finding in-depth coverage in independent sources of "Czech Republic – Iceland relations" (think about that concept for a moment and the absurdity it entails). Moreover, half the sources come from the Czech government, violating WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: It has been suggested that AFDs and other discussions on this and similar articles be suspended. Please have your say on this at Wikipedia:AN#Proposed_standstill_agreement_on_Bilateral_Relations_articles. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "rescue" is, as usual, a joke, and the matter stands that this topic has received no coverage in its own rights in outside sources. The material supporting this article, when it is not a primary source saying marginal niceties, is marginalia on various events, synthetized by the "rescuers" to look like something of substance. Dahn (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." No new position is generated beyond that a relationship exist between the two per the title. A new position would be saying that relations are "good" or "bad" based on the names of, or number of, the existing treaties. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've pasted that on other pages too, alongside other interpretations, even though these were answered in detail several times around. I hope your purpose is to exhaust the reader or to canvass the wide-eyed. Dahn (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point out the "new position" in this particular article to me now. If you are going to use the same argument, you should be expected to be challenged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one more time, silence instead of a response. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not clear from my other replies, but I won't feed your ceaseless drive to make me repeat myself. If you can't refrain from these comments and really want me to engage me more in conversation, feel free to contact me on my talk page and maybe I'll consider relying for what must be the 50th time. Dahn (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point out the "new position" in this article to me. I haven't seen your other comments, and you haven't provided links to them here, if they are valid here. I would assume instead of just invoking SYNTHESIS, you would take the time to explain exactly how it violates the rule, or could provide some quote from the SYNTH page to strengthen your interpretation of it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Richard, I don't have to do anything because you ask me to. I have done so already, so have others. You've chosen to ignore that, and took these discussions in circles. Sure, if someone asks me in good faith to explain my position here, I will consider it (they'd have to contact me on my talk page, since I'm not gonna watchlist this page as well). You asking me to do that is another attempt at obscuring the points other make in a cloud of verbosity. Dahn (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Darwinek. --DMG413 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I moved the above signature back to its rightful place after it was found languishing at the title and causing formatting problems within the day log page -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one has enough material. The SYN argument does not reasonably apply to this sort of material. If information about a treaty #1 between A and B is published in a RS, and information about a treaty #2 between them is published in another RS, we can put them in one article. Of course, if the treaty is important enough to have specific commentary about it by itself, we could make a separate article about each treaty. DGG (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Enough" by what standard? What if there had been just 7 instead of 8 visits, or 6 instead of 7 pieces of paper signed between them? Were relations notable prior to the Hamé deal? How about using the "multiple, independent, significant coverage of the topic" standard instead of the "enough material" one? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) said, its fine for an almanac entry. Dream Focus 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Almanac I've ever seen had any entries looking anything like this... Yilloslime ^T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"C 01:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Encyclopedia I've ever seen had any entries looking anything like 95% of Wikipedia, that why the others are dead, and Wikipedia is the number one reference source in the world. Wikipedia adapted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where there is a first time for everything. Dream Focus 08:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another mindless combinatorial article (if x is notable and y is notable then the intersect of x and y isn't necessarily notable).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddy1981 (talk • contribs) 23:24, June 15, 2009
Strong keep Can't believe this was actually nominated for deletion in the first place, although there has been a great improvement since it was first nominated. However, the nominator knew that an aspect of the relations of these two countries had been extensively covered by the press: a Czech spy was expelled from Iceland. Thank you to Richard Arthur Norton (1985- ) for finding the NYT source. There are a significant number of bilateral agreements and official state visits, the existence of which have been verified and the notability of which have been established by the existence of significant independent 3rd party sources. The notability and verifiability of the subject matter of this article have been conclusively established in my opinion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, he was actually a Czechoslovak spy. Second, does that have any contextual relevance? Do we, for instance, mention every instance of spy expulsions that happened during the course of Soviet Union – United States relations? Of course not. But here, since the topic isn't actually notable, we need to find trivia to fill the void and create the appearance of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 09:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a total lack of independent sources that discuss this topic directly and in detail. Sure, there are about 7 reliable, independent sources cited in the article, but none of them directly address the topic of article (bilateral relations). Yilloslime ^T_C 05:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For now at least. The volume of these articles flowing through doesn't seem to match the concern that these articles are actually doing any harm and are actually not notable. After a notability policy, or any working agreement on how to treat these subjects is reached thena civil merging process should be entertained. This is valid information that we certainly would want on some article so keep is the default. If there is a list article this would likely be too big for it. -- Banjeboi 11:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Auburn Tigers football#2010 schedule. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Auburn Tigers football team

WP:CRYSTAL. We've had this discussion before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Kansas State Wildcats football team. The planned schedule info was useful, so I merged it into Auburn Tigers football#2010 schedule. With that out of the way, I think article can go bye-bye. De FaultRyan 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Auburn Tigers football#2010 schedule. Now that you have merged the content, I think it should be kept as a redirect per WP:Merge and Delete. Regardless, I see no reason to delete this rather than making it a redirect. Calathan (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is the schedule even official? I imagine the non-conference games and dates can be verified, but has the SEC schedule really been released this early? Or is it just taking past schedules to predict future ones? If the conference schedule cannot be verified, I'd like to see the article deleted and the schedule removed from the Auburn Tigers football article. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The schedule is pulled from the team's official site, so I have to assume it's legitimate, albeit still subject to change when it's this far out. DeFaultRyan 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually I'm pretty sure college teams set their schedules like three, four years in advance, the reason I know this is because like two years ago Syracuse scheduled USC for like 2011 and 2012.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not for conference schedules though. Non-conference for sure. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 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 00:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A little too far our there recreate in two years for the 2011 season.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because the information is already available at Auburn Tigers Football. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 02:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - you can't merge content and then delete a article. A redirect must be put in place for proper GFDL licensing. (You must also follow the other instructions at WP:MERGE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rasim Delić. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rasim Delic indictment

Rasim Delic already exists, no need for a separate page. PRODUCER (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rasim Delić. His indictment is covered in detail there. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:56, 3 June 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 00:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rasim Delic per above, his article already has quite a bit about his indictment. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect: merge any information not already covered and redirect indictment article to individual's article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sawafi

Search engine project was not launched in 3 years. No notability. DonaldDuck (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vapourware "may challenge Yahoo and Google"; skip forward 3 years and it hasn't even been launched. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:49, 3 June 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 00:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and This flag. Apparently, the name of the search engine was to be changed [42], but I don't know what they decided to change it to. Without further sources to indicate the status of the project, this article should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete as above, it has been almost 19 months since it was suppose to launch by the end of the year under a new name. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godefroy Maruejouls

No evidence of passing WP:BIO. I couldn't locate any myself. Citius Altius (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not establish notability as per WP:CORP or WP:BIO. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the information I find is almost exactly the same wording as the article and none of it is from a reliable source. This appears to be spam to me. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Smallhorne

Delete: thoroughly non-notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand: This individual has but two credits per IMDb to his name, both non-notable: one for acting in a tiny indie film from 2000 (When the Sky Falls) and the other for writing and directing 2by4 (yet a second tiny indie film from 1998). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned by the New York Film Festival, "one of the most important films in the United States". (cache) --can dle •wicke 21:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This also claims he is a writer/director/actor, more than one role there... --can dle •wicke 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on filmcritic.com. --can dle •wicke 21:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has also written and directed Pushers Needed, according to this article in the UK's The Independent. For someone small from Ireland he has gotten around a bit... --can dle •wicke 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources found by other editors. Hopefully someone will improve sourcing and article to meet our high standards. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources found by candle•wicke --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Easily passes all notability criteria for WP:BIO. One of those IMDb credits was certainly notable on its own. And there is plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. There's enough there now to suggest that the nominator withdraw this Afd. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unreferenced and refers to a future date in the past tense. When it's past tense, it can be referenced and recreated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Name of Blood, Part 1

As a rule, individual episodes don't tend to merit their own pages; this episode not being unusually notable, I would suggest that it be deleted, with perhaps a blurb being added under the appropriate CSI season article. Tyrenon (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as the episode will not air until September 2009. When it does, and it gets its individual coverage, allow it back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 8 June 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 00:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Phil

AfDs for this article:

Contested PROD. Film of questionable notability. The article has been nominated for deletion twice previously, and was deleted both times - first discussion, second discussion. This is the second time it has been reposted, tagged for speedy deletion as a repost, the speedy nomination refused, and so this is now the third deletion nomination for the same subject. I would appreciate someone informing me why deletion review appears to be an optional process in this instance. Besides that this is a genuine nomination as I still do not believe that the subject is that notable. role^player 00:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character is involved in movie and radio appearances. Has had some reliable coverage. I don't see how deleting the article makes the encyclopedia better, but this certainly isn't the most notable subject in the world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As I said last time, I think he's (barely) notable enough because of his association with two well-known radio shows (in the US, anyway). He made Dr. Demento's Funny Five several times. BTW, we shouldn't expect new users to know anything about deletion review, so cut the article creator some slack. He's trying. Also, two of those sources didn't exist when the article was last brought to AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question re deletion review wasn't against the article creator, it was against the admin who refused to delete it as a repost. -- role^player 08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not a huge deal of RS coverage, but their is evidence that the character has developed a cult following. I believe it would thus qualify under WP:ENT for having "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Also to the nom: FYI, the speedy request was declined because the new content is substantially different than the content that was deleted under AfD. My understanding is that deletion review is only for cases where the admin potentially erred in their closing, not for cases where a subject might have gained notability (or had sources discovered) after the AfD happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Forrest

Non-notable - self proclaimed "art crtic, art consultant etc". Description of Mr Forrest appears to be taken verbatim from his own blog page. Most reference links are invalid to defunct web pages apart from reference to Mr Forrest's own website. No "features" in New York Times, Entrepreneur magazine, Flash Art magazine and Conde Nast Portfolio magazine as claimed are traceable and no contributions to unreferenced world's top art magazines can be found. Seems to be unknown in Australian art circles and claim to be creator of "world's most popular blog on art" entirely unsupportable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qorocuwi (talk • contribs) 2009/06/03 09:28:13 — Qorocuwi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:29, 4 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) 00:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a good indication of notability per our standards. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient independent reliable references to establish notability. Being listed in a New York Times blog is not noteworthy. WWGB (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. Doesn't meet our notability requirements. لenna vecia 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damage (The Culture)

Non notable game from a book. Malinaccier (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn; make the link to (a rd to) this page be a link to Consider Phlebas instead at the Damage dab page. JJL (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:24, 3 June 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 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. It doesn't even seem to be notable within the book, not to mention an encyclopedia. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Eaton

Non-notable graphic designer and co-author of a (probably self-published) book. Advert as well. Prod tag removed by original author without explanation. Delete DMG413 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion by nn-person. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability criteria of WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Enki H. (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The creator is also the subject.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO. South Bay (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion and no independent refs. Artypants, ^Babble 15:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ippon seoi nage

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to seoi nage. JJL (talk) 17:37, 2 June 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 00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The art is notable, but the individual technique seems to lack notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ippon seoi nage is a highly notable technique--one of the most fundamental and common throws of Judo. A Google books search on "Ippon seoi nage" returns 75 hits., and Google scholar returns 81 hits. I think it and morote seoi nage are best handled together at the seoi nage page, which is where morote seoi nage now redirects, but this is a major technique of an Olympic sport--deleting it would be like not having an article on Fastball. JJL (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep One of the best known judo throws. When I took judo years ago in college (brown belt), this was an important throw. Easily satisfies notability via multiple books with significant coverage, as shown by Google book search [43] Please do a minimal amount of research before making such a disruptive AFD nomination. See [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], and[57] , all reliable and independent sources with significant and substantial coverage of this one arm shoulder throw, a required technique in the study of judo. When you say "I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page," how is that different from "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" with respect to the sport of judo? Why did you not bother to notice that this one "IS" of particular note? Edison (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The assertion of non-notability is contrary to evidence. There are far more obscure techniques such as Ao muke gata ude hishigi, Ude hishigi kata osae tai gatame. Redirecting to seoi nage would be acceptable to me. As for deleting individual martial art moves, it would imply deleting every article under Category:Martial art techniques. Shawnc (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emon Tori

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rd to Danzan Ryu. Insufficiently notable, unsourced. JJL (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article is just a waste of space; it's not properly sourced and barely notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandza (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 June 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The art is notable, but the individual technique seems to lack notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, since it is mentioned only in one book on Danzan Ryu. Edison (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mizu Kuguri

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, this particular article (and the one listed above it) lack any sourcing. Tyrenon (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rd to Danzan Ryu. Insufficiently notable, unsourced. JJL (talk) 17:38, 2 June 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 00:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The art is notable, but the individual technique seems to lack notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akushu Kotemaki Tori

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rd to Danzan Ryu. Insufficiently notable, unsourced. JJL (talk) 17:38, 2 June 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 00:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The art is notable, but the individual technique seems to lack notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akushu Ude Tori

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rd to Danzan Ryu. Insufficiently notable, unsourced. JJL (talk) 17:38, 2 June 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 00:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The art is notable, but the individual technique seems to lack notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Te Tori

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided.

Nearly identical to this debate and therefore subsumed into this debate are the 18 or so below it:

Ryo Te Tori, Akushu Kote Tori, Akushu Ude Tori, Akushu Kotemaki Tori, Mizu Kuguri, Mae Yama Kage, Norimi, Shidare Fuji Shime, Momo Jime, Ashi Garami Jime, Daki Kubi Jime, Ichimonji Shime, Juji Gatame, Uchi Gama, Emon Tori, Katate Hazushi Ichi, Yubi Tori, Moro Yubi Tori

Tyrenon (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views)[reply]

Neutral Comment Can you at least combine these nominations into small groups for easier display on the daily log? There has to be a better way for a large AfD group like this to be displayed. Nate • (chatter) 06:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm currently trying to figure out how to combine them down. As it stands, I've got them re-ordered by what the particular complaints were; the problem is just mashing the large number of identical debates into one debate.Tyrenon (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are instructions in the page on AFDs on how to group nominate articles for deletion. Those instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. All these excess nomination pages should be closed and discussed together through this bundling method. Locke9k (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on AFD: Actually, this is not just a judo move. It is simply the Japanese martial arts term for an attack in which the attacker grabs both of the opponent's wrists, one with each hand. It isn't really a technique, just the name for an attack. Locke9k (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, most of the items in this list are not "Judo moves" but are described in the articles as being techniques in Danzan Ryu jujitsu. One possibility would be to merge them into that article, but the problem is that its not clear from any sources that these techniques exist only within that art. Its entirely possible that some of them exist in many arts and thus shouldn't be merged and redirected into one. For the ones that don't have any notability established and no references, I would say to delete. For the ones that have a reference linking them to a specific art, a merge and redirect might be appropriate. Locke9k (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment concur that there are lots of problems with this batch of nominations. The major moves of Judo, an Olympic sport, are notable and well-sourced and should be kept (much as individual terms for baseball etc. are kept); the Danzan-ryu techniques should be deleted or redirected to that art. This particular term should probably be deleted. JJL (talk) 17:36, 2 June 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 00:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The arts are notable, but the individual technique (or the term) seems to lack notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content worth preserving. Lists of techniques in judo and jujitsu seem comprehensisve already. RD to appropriate art would seem fine.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Werth

Not Notable Abe Froman (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP. I was tempted to be as succint as the nominator, but did a bit of searching instead. Werth was a producer of Dateline NBC from 1995 through 1999, and a producer for MSNBC in 2004. He is producer/director/writer for The Third Jihad. Further, a cursory search finds coverage that exceeds the WP:GNG. The nom may have simply missed this. Yes, the article needs major cleanup, but that's a matter for tagging and improvement, not for AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we included Bios for every self-produced, internet released documentary creator we could rapidly make a hash of notability. For example; Does each 9/11 truther who throws a 'documentary' up on Youtube deserve a Bio page? This individual's only claim to fame is a self-released web vid. Abe Froman (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP:WAX arguments about non-existant articles do not convince. However, coverages in reliable sources that meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO do. Further, and to use your own words, if "every self-produced, internet released documentary creator" or "each 9/11 truther who throws a 'documentary' up on Youtube" had coverage that met guideline, than they too might have articles. Lastly, the individual does not have just a single claim for notability through a "self-released web vid", as the 72 minute film is not a minimal little "web vid" and the film is only the most recent [58] of events where the sunject received coverage. Again, the article deserves WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take a look at these coverages in reliable sources. There are six Schmidt's Google link lists. Two appear to concern other "Erik Werth's' from the one under discussion. The remaining four, spread over 19 years, cover 1. an animal rights counter-protest Werth attended; 2. Men's fashion according to Werth; and 3. Two articles indicating Werth crashes holiday parties. These sources Schmidt has given us establish that Erik Werth is a well-dressed holiday party attendee who likes a steak. None of the "notable sources" listed concern "The Third Jihad." In fact, the news articles I see for "The Third Jihad,"do not mention Werth at all, except for a press release which, by itself, is an original source and does not meet notability guidelines. How exactly does Werth figure in a film that fails to mention his contribution in a notable source? How this merits a Bio page based on these desultory sources that do not mention Werth's magnum opus is beyond my ken, but give it a try using all coverages in reliable sources Schmidt mentions. I think you'll see that this is a vanity page after looking at what Google News gives back. Abe Froman (talk) 03:32, 10 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) 00:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read past the headlines. Werth is an activist as well as fimmaker... and explanations are searchable as to why, in the light of the Presidential campaign controversy, he originally kept his name seperate from his film project.

Washington Times (1990) writes of Werth being a counter-protestor

Boston Globe (1992) writes of Werth as working (then) in the Boston DA's office

Boston Globe... and yes, as assistant Suffolk district attorney he crashed a party

Boston Globe (1999) writes of film producer Werth being up for an Emmy

Philadelphia Inquirer (1998) writes of Werth as an investigative journalist

Wall Street Journal (2006) Film producer Werth quoted about fashion

Werth's finally coming clean with being producer of The Third Jihad is verified in Movie Guide, AishNY, The American Muslim. He has coverage over 29 years for various parts of his career. ----

Keep/Comment are we sure that all those news hits are the same Erik Werth? I'd say being nominated for an Emmy is pretty notable. Gigs (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noteability seems established per improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But please clean-up, I've tweaked a bit but the whole thing deserves a bit of a rewrite. -- Banjeboi 07:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. لenna vecia 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Moore

Article does not pass WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Hesitant due to the multiple interview sources but all but one of them come from self-published sources. I don't doubt the interviews' veracity (and their promotional nature) but I wish they were from more reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's made quite a lot of movies and won some industry awards, so an article should exist. 77.28.17.97 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What industry awards? I don't see any mentioned in the article? --Stormie (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:50, 7 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to warrant an article per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see any sign that she passes general WP:BIO or specific WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. --Stormie (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Patrick_Stump#Other_projects. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moustachette

Contested prod. Movie with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No notability detected. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence for notability for this short film. Coverage consists of brief mentions like this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice (perhaps even userfy) and allow return. And to the author: its format needs major cleanup and proper sourcing when/if it does return, as the mentions in blogs do not count, and the slightly more-than-trivial mentions in Hartford Courant and Electric New Paper don't quite bring it above the bar. It may well have better coverage in the near future, so do not be at all discouraged. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on. The author has been trying to expand the article, but a misbehaving abuse filter is blocking the edits. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, or allow userfication. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 9 June 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patrick_Stump#Other_projects; nn, but rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seems like a good idea to preserve history. Strong indication of future notability, so this will allow recreation upon release... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patrick Stump#Other projects per JJL and ChildofMidnight. Cunard (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian LG

No evidence given that article subject meets requirements of WP:MUSICBIO, and I can't find any reliable sourcing in Google. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heavenade (2007 album). JJL (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of now, this page has been vandalized for the past 4 weeks (Matte Kudasai (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (32.143.8.163 (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete (173.68.253.170 (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete (32.143.113.240 (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment -- those IP addresses have very few previous contributions and all geolocate to Brooklyn. Adrian LG, according to the article, is from NYC.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filmtiki

Non-notable startup company Madcoverboy (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 05:26, 3 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable start-up. Looks spammy and I sniff a copyvio. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dee

Non-notable artist. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 05:46, 3 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though Jesse Dee may fail WP:ARTIST, he passes WP:BIO. Notability is fully established by this Google News Archive search. See this article from the Patriot Ledger, this article from Vernon Morning Star, this article from Brattleboro Reformer, etc. Cunard (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ... Merged/redirected Nja²⁴⁷ 07:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parasit

While an assertion of notability (charting well in several countries) is made, there are no sources to back this up. Additionally, while the song yields a number of hits on Google (particularly with respect to downloads), GNews provides nothing on it charting. Thus I have to say that while this song clearly exists, I find it lacking in verifiable notability. Tyrenon (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 3 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) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources.. South Bay (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would just redirect and roll it into the main article with the rest of the unsourced content... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Gita Gutawa per ChildofMidnight. Cunard (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe sins

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BIO. Even by the article's admission, Mr. Sins has not yet released an album, and on top of that there are no source links on the page. This might be an editing problem, but I believe that Mr. Sins fails on notability. Additionally, a Google search yields 30 million results on account of a large number of pages likely referring to the sins of people named Joe. Tyrenon (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:05, 4 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) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (including nom) and two merges to different places. No consensus and extended once already. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aur-Vin (winery)

Notability not established as per WP:N BodegasAmbite (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:24, 3 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) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Comrat. Room there to include these bits... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Moldovan wine producers#Wine producers, which is a better target. Cunard (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and not worth merging. Ugh...the Moldovan wine article needs a lot of work and this listing of non-notable wineries is very WP:ADVERT-like. There is no benefit to the section or to merging this to there. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitflu

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of (probably quite a few) torrent clients with HTML interface and usable as a server.--Oneiros (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a honest attempt to keep the article by Otterathome: No tagging for problems. Keep and tag.--Oneiros (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job failing WP:AGF, if it's notable then you will have no problem finding third-party sources for it.--Otterathome (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing special. Not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many other actively maintained torrent clients for Unix with an HTML interface are there?--Oneiros (talk) 00:42, 6 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing much coverage. Gigs (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal love

AfDs for this article:

This article doesn't really have any specific information, mostly because the topic is too broad. Anything that might be added here would probably be better directed to more focused articles like Anthrozoology, Zoophilia, Pet or Conservation Movement. Figmentory (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and/or turn into a disambiguation page for the topics the nom mentions. This is the sort of article you can create by just combining random nouns. We'd need sources that identify and cover this as a specific topic. --Chiliad22 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with fire. All this talks about is what this could be considered. Doesn't really explain anything, it's as if it wants to be nebulous. Replace it with a disambiguation page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Especially the useless trivia section. This article contains little information. Even the little bits of information can be put into existing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.190.0.8 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swabian salute

I can find no evidence of this phrase (Swabian salute) being used to describe Leck mich im Arsch and the like. Ironholds (talk) 13:29, 3 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) 00:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can, and it took me about thirty seconds. The German Wikipedia has a good, and sourced, description of the phenomenon: de:Schwäbischer Gruß.
If kept, this article should be renamed to Schwäbischer Gruß because there are no sources for the English version. I would not strongly object to its deletion regardless of that, because Wikipedia is not a German-English dictionary and this phrase is not a loanword into English, so I shall not !vote.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. I'm not sure about the rename proposed by S&M. This is the English language Wikipedia. We'll have to duke it out on the article talk page with the losing receiving an appropriate salute in their preferred language. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some kind of evidence of notability? The notability of the german phrase is already established, and it is found in other articles. The question is essentially over whether the phrase "swabian salute" is notable. Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this article title just a translation of the german phrase? If that's notable, and I agree it is based on the sources in the German article, then why wouldn't the phrase be notable under an article title translated to English? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is notable, but the idea that it is known as the "swabian salute" isn't backed up by anything I can find. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I seem to recall a joke about Albert Einstein and his Swabian roots.... Bearian (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Dyer

Another one of these sad events, but again WP:ONEEVENT Passportguy (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep: Using your logic, the articles for Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, and other beheaded people need to also be deleted? Murgon (talk) 05:53, 4 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) 00:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to appropriate target Surely notable kidnappings and executions of this type that receive substantial media coverage are included in some sort of list? After all, some a-hole created list of bacon dishes... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP1E is one of the more frequently misunderstood policies. People are often made famous - and notable, meaning of lasting interest to informed readers - for a single thing. Events are often notable, and by definition an event happens only once. BLP1E reflects the truism that a person's connection to a notable event does not always make the person themselves notable. (disclosure: this is plagiarism). Here it is the event (not the person) and the possible repercussions that could justify inclusion. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burges Salmon

Article was originally written by someone affiliated with the company and doesn't appear to be notable. Contested prod and speedy.Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News Archive search returns a multitude of reliable sources, proving that this company passes WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. First of all, the article asserts its own lack of notability ("43rd largest law firm, by revenue, in the UK"); wikipedia is not a directory of companies. As for the Google news results, they fall into roughly three categories: (1) entries in trade publications, especially Legalweek, which establish verifiability but not necessarily notability; (2) mentions in mainstream media, as you'd expect for any law firm above a particular size, the stories are about the cases, not the firm, and (3) at least one story that is genuinely about the fim and in a mainstream publication, but is ignored by the wikipedia entry, possibly because it's not flattering. I think this last article might establish notability, but it has to be folded into the article. Hairhorn (talk) 18:26, 3 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) 00:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 43th? What is being notable?
Delete. I think notability stops at #40. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable. Sources are available for sizable and historic law firm. Size isn't the end all be all. I'd be okay with removing mention of it's ranking... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that the magic circle of British law firms have expanded into multinational organizations, this firm is very small by comparison. I am troubled that someone affiliated with the company started the article. Racepacket (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the arguments of Hairhorn, though he reasoned weak delete on same gounds. COI concerns are valid here and are best addressed with reducing article to stub, with an expectation that notability can be established. We cannot include anything but the briefest mention of the accusations put forward in Hairhorn's RS in the article, it's too biased, it might be enough just for pass for the moment. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable, one of the UK's big firms and is historical. Conflict aside the article can be fixed with some attention from independant editors. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barza Alba (winery)

This article does not establish the notability of the winery as per WP:N BodegasAmbite (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Weak keep per winning a gold medal for their "devin" in 2006. Open to changing my mind to a delete if this reference is poor, however. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Striking !vote: new !vote below to maintain thread chronology. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Winning medals at wine shows does not automatically confer notability. We have had this discussion several times over at WikiProjectWine. (the number of medals awarded at each show and the number of shows held is truly astounding!)The source provided in this case may well be reliable, but it is not notable at all, which is the issue here.

Delete - that ref was the best I could find ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--BodegasAmbite (talk) 10:26, 4 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) 00:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be nice to mention in Bălţi article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much of anything going on here to inform the reader about anything notable or encyclopedic. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McKeon

Procedural request. PROD was removed. Enough assertion of notability to pass A7, but IMDB page only indicates two things Ged UK 15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - body of work does not indicate notability. Searching for sources is problematic as teh name turns up many individuals. Various qualifiers applied to the search does not turn up any results to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 4 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) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Can anybody hear me? Is there anyone there? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. لenna vecia 15:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Loraine

Seems to be self-promotion for a chap who has written a book about something called "aerotoxic syndrome". We don't have an article for that yet but does seem to be a real thing (see for example this news article), and it has been turned into a documentary. However I'm not convinced that Mr. Loraine is quite notable enough to need an article yet. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tricky one. There is no doubting the self promotional nature of the article. Other articles worth reading include GCAQE, 31 North 62 East, Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines. Users involved in editing these articles all seem to display a conflict of interest from their usernames, such as User:FNFFSFTS (which I presume stands for "Fact not fiction films shadows from the sky"), User:GCAQE, and User:DFTEnterprises (the company of that name operates from the same address as the film company, which is also the address for GCAQE). So, there appear to be a few users all creating and editing articles associated with Tristan Loraine, and all of whom seem to have conflicts of interest. However, there does appear to be some reasonable sources of this person/organisations/films: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] etc. I don't really know what the best cause of action is. My own take is that they are promotional in nature (GCAQE claim to represent half a million airline workers, but I bet they don't know about it). There doesn't seem to have been much work done by other editors to these articles, so I wouldn't particularly object if they were all deleted and were started from scratch if someone wanted to. Quantpole (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 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) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. لenna vecia 15:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not over the threshold - Vartanza (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Toor

A second XI cricketer who is yet to play major (professional) cricket, fails WP:ATHLETE. PROD was removed as article had previously been PRODed then deleted. Jpeeling (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Jpeeling (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no note of him having played 2nd XI cricket for any of the major cricket playing counties, just for Uxbridge CC/Radlett CC's whose first XIs aren't even notable. Fails WP:ATHLETE and no indication of notability obtained from a multitude of third party sources as required per WP:N, so not notable. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 07:14, 6 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) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PRODded this article for exactly the same reasons stated above by AllynJ. His profile on Cricinfo is empty too, so no stats. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. Fails to meet notability requirements. لenna vecia 15:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord angral

Non-notable Star Wars character. Not quite a speedy, but it is cruft (which I say as a Star Wars fan). Belongs at Wookiepedia, not here. Tyrenon (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete And there's already a nice page for him over at Wookieepedia.PacificBoy 09:01, 4 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) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm also a Star Wars fan, but he's a minor character that appears only in one book. A good article on him already exists on Wookiepedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep Non-notable Stars Wars character is the biggest oxymoron I've ever heard. But seriously, isn't there somewhere we can merge this bit? It would be a pity to lose a sith lord... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sith, and make sure to add a mention. It looks like he's going to be the Big Bad of Star Wars: The Old Republic, but there's nothing here to merge yet. Powers ^T 12:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability asserted. Mere appearance in one series does not automatically mean notability. JIP | Talk 15:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow (quotation). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow (short story)

A longtime stub with no citations. -- A ^talk/_contribs 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and ~~merge to List of works by Kurt Vonnegut~~ to Welcome to the Monkey House, where it appears. JJL (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow (quotation) where it also belongs, and more so than where that other guy said. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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