Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 26

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 25 June 27 June >

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamora

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

non-notable, unreferenced poor quality article Little Professor (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible keep - One of the most notable of its genre (coffee liqueurs). Let's work together to make this the best possible encyclopedia, improving this article rather than deleting it, since it does meet our notability criteria. Badagnani (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD doesn't appear to be listed correctly and isn't showing up on the article. Also, while there are other returns for Kamora, I am finding numerous related to the coffee liquer covered in this article, so it seems to be quite a notable subject. I could maybe see an argument for a merge somewhere, but it's not clear to me how deleting the subject entirely would improve Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep sounds yummy - I was musing on a merge to a page on coffee liqueur, but there is only a list of liqueurs, so there is no target for a merge. I will have a look online for sources but am veering to keep. this looks promising but wading through commercial websites on google searches is frustrating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have finished listing this article properly as well as tagging the article itself. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Loads of reliable sources available from books and new articles Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily sourced. This AfD is not a proper forum to debate the quality of articles. The nominator should have brought his concerns up on the talk page. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - minimal effort indicated notability. Yes the article is in DIRE need of improvement, but it does not belong at AFD. Being a stub is not a deletable criterion. Manning (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bit of a tough call here, but the argument that this simply fails the notability standards of WP:ORG is fairly convincing and not really refuted by the keep comments. The idea of a merge makes sense, but we don't seem to have the Dakota equivalent of Wisconsin breweries (even that article is basically just a list), and I don't think it's appropriate to simply merge this text into a new article on North Dakota breweries or History of breweries in North Dakota, simply because I'm not sure anyone would work on it and we could be left with this article under another name. If someone does want to work on such an article please let me know and I can retrieve the content from this article for incorporation into a broader, statewide brewery article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Malting and Brewing Company

edit
Dakota Malting and Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't explain notability. A brewery which failed soon after starting up. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. SilkTork *YES! 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No relation. Dakota Malting and Brewing Company was in Bismark, and operated from 1961 to 1965. Dakota Brewing Company was in Grand Forks and operated from 1990 to 2002. The Cold Spring Brewery in Cold Spring, Minnesota took over the brewing of the main brand of the Grand Forks company, RoughRider. I'm not sure if it is still made. There was another Dakota Brewing Company based in Huron, South Dakota, which was around in the 1930s. These breweries are not notable enough for standalone articles, but are worth mentioning in an article on the history of beer and breweries in Dakota. I don't think they are notable enough for a mention in Beer in the United States because there are hundreds of breweries that have come and gone, and to mention these trivial local failed breweries in that article would overload it. SilkTork *YES! 09:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The company was apparently the subject of a radio broadcast, according to the references. The transcript of the broadcast cites two other reliable sources, a book, History of the City of Bismarck, ND: The First 100 Years, 1872-1972, and an article in Beer Cans and Brewery Collectibles The article itself lists Beer Can Collectors of America, Newsletter, September, 1976 as a reference. I think that notability has been established. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not questioning if the brewery existed, it is questioning if the brewery is notable enough under Wikipedia criteria to have a standalone article. The relevant criteria for an organisation such as a brewery is WP:Org and the Beer WikiProject guideline WP:Breweries. This reference is to a library stating they hold the records of the company. That simply proves the company once existed. The records themselves will be useful for providing detail, but under our guidelines such primary sources are not used for consideration for notability. This ref is more interesting. The source, Prairie Public Radio, is good, and it deals with the topic in some detail. However, it is a local radio station, and the topic would be of interest to local people. I don't see how it establishes notability beyond local interest. See WP:Org - "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." As I suggested above - I feel the best place for this material is in an article on beer and breweries in Dakota. SilkTork *YES! 09:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I see no reason yet to think it notable in the Wikipedia sense. I suggest following Silk Torq's advice and merging into a state article. if there is none yet, this can be the start. DGG (talk) 03:59, 27 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 Euchre_variations#Making_trump. MBisanz talk 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck the dealer

edit
Fuck the dealer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I failed to see any reputable source to confirm the notability of the game. Google mostly shows various blogs and wikis and wikipedia mirrors. No evidence it is actually played. It llook to me more a parody that a real game: if the dealer is easily fucked, why would anyone play this game anyway? Twri (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While it does sound like mild fun, its notability has not been confirmed by any reputable source that I could find. It is, however, mentioned by several blogs, meaning that if a reliable source is found confirming its existence as a prominent drinking game, I will change my !vote to "keep". The DominatorTalkEdits 17:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like it's entirely made up due to ample references to it in blogs, but, no it doesn't have any reliable sources. The DominatorTalkEdits 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 27 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. MBisanz talk 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Activeion

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

Altough well written, this is IMO, a completely non-notable company. Article is little more than a vanity page, although not entirely. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd like to note that if you do an actual Google news search there are 4 other hits in June. The "archive" search does only return one item, because it does not seem to include the current month? I know that it's not print, but the product has made the rounds in the blogsphere (just do a regular Google search). 65.215.26.189 (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a sentence noting that Bill Nye has joined the company as a spokesman and has produced a nine minute video explaining and advertising the product. I think Bill Nye's notability & his video contributes to the notability of this company, I apologize for not including it in the original draft of the article. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So, we're supposed to have an article based on the fact that the company hired a minor celebrity for an advertisement? Let's get real. To be included in Wikipedia we need to have evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not paid-for "celebrity" endorsements. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I was apologizing for leaving out a fact which significantly contributes to the notability of the product, but I carefully did not state whether or not I thought this meant the article was "notable enough for Wikipedia". Please be more respectful in Wikipedia discussions: we are trying to establish a consensus, not have a one-upsmanship contest. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict with Whpq)I apologise if my comments came across as impolite, and I'm certainly not trying to get involved in one-upmanship, but, to keep to the subject in hand, the hiring of anyone, however notable, whether Bill Nye or Joseph Ratzinger or The Dear Leader himself, to front an advertisement doesn't contribute in any way to notability, and certainly not significantly, without coverage in reliable sources. Pointing out what I think to be fallacies in others' arguments is not disrepectful: it's the whole point of these discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - having Bill Nye as a spokesman doesn't establish notability. The provided referencing is to another press release. What is needed is coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 29 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. MBisanz talk 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formulatrix

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

Concerns of notability. I'm not hellbent on deletion, however. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:53, 26 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. +Angr 10:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going akka

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

Unsourced article about an alleged WP:NEOLOGISM. From the dismal Google hits for this phrase I'd almost wonder if this isn't some hoax an individual thought up and is trying to create by posting it here and there. If it's not a hoax it fails notability standards by a very wide margin. DreamGuy (talk) 23:34, 26 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 G12 copyvio Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Fire Department

edit
Vista Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article with absolutely no argument even attempted for notability. Was prodded by another user and deprodded with the claim that all fire departments are inherently notable. Don't see that in the actual notability standards. DreamGuy (talk) 23:28, 26 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 by nominator. Non-admin closure.--Talain (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Wolff AG

edit
Otto Wolff AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. No independent sources, claim of notability based on having been the 18th largest company in germany decades ago. Talain (talk) 23:17, 26 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. AngelOfSadness talk 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show wx

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

Product (unreleased) placement/ad/etc. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:58, 26 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 Interstate Highway System#Primary routes . MBisanz talk 22:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 50

edit
Interstate 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We don't have articles about stuff that doesn't exist. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's nothing to merge or redirect to be honest. I could think of billions of combination of numbers to stick in front of the word "Interstate". "Interstate 12,656 does not exist." "Interstate 12,657 does not exist"... –Juliancolton | Talk 02:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you declare something to be incorrect in this way, you should back it up with verifiable cited material rather than opinion and unsupported statement. You wrote "the original numbering plan said that all multiples of 5 from Interstate 5 to Interstate 95 would be MAJOR routes with the exception of Interstate 50, which would not be used". What is the original numbering plan? Do you mean the "Yellow Book" of 1955, mentioned in passing at the FHWA here? Is there a page in that book you can cite? Does it read "all multiples of 5 from Interstate 5 to Interstate 95 would be MAJOR routes with the exception of Interstate 50"? Why doesn't it mention Interstate 60, also unused? Are you sure that Juliancolton's honest statement of opinion is really something that can be found incorrect? This title is not about anything that exists, real or imaginary, period. It is something that may deserve mentioning in a sentence or two, but the only US Government website mention yet found relating to "Interstate 50" is http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question19, which is an FAQ, assumedly a list of arbitrary answers to emails the highway administration gets. No article or redirected title should exist for a non-existent subject that is mentioned one place in an informal list of frequently asked questions. Or maybe I am "incorrect" in holding that opinion. Sswonk (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for not providing an in-line citation to back up my statement. The reference is Federal Highway Administration. "FHWA Route Log and Finder List". Retrieved July 1, 2009. Quote: AASHTO developed the procedure for numbering the Interstate routes, with Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) concurrence, in 1957 This reference goes on to describe the numbering system in detail. It does not allow for any interstate to have more than three digits. Could you please provide a reliable reference that says it is even remotely possible to have an Interstate 12,656? I ask because reliable references have been given that document the purposeful decision not to create either Interstate 50 or Interstate 60. This fact cannot be disputed. This fact is of value to have within Wikipedia. The establishment of a redirect from Interstate 50 to wherever this information is merged to is within Wikipedia quidelines. Please see WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The value of the information is not the subject of this discussion, which relates to the creation of an article title which solely concerns it. The editor's use of Interstate 12,656 was an obvious exaggeration meant to illustrate the point that unneeded, pointless, trivial redirects in all fields of knowledge might be created if the arguments for a redirect of "Interstate 50" had weight. I appreciate that you provided the link, but you use it to support your red herring argument against the exaggerated "Interstate 12,656" illustration. It doesn't answer my questions, which relate to the statement you made about "the exception of Interstate 50", and the text of the linked page does not contain mention of "Interstate 50". Since the information has already been merged into the Interstate Highway System article, where it can be worked on and updated in the future, a pertinent Wikipedia guideline here is WP:Merge and delete. That discusses GFDL problems relating to attribution history which may be complicated. This article has a single fact and six edits, all of which can be handled easily if there are GFDL concerns, which I honestly don't see. I do however find that the title falls under the category of "confusing or objectionable" mentioned at WP:MAD. This is the crux of the problem: the title is about something that doesn't exist. Please see my Comment section near the bottom of this discussion. It would be objectionable to have a redirect from, for example, Penguins of the Northern Hemisphere. Merely maintaining such a title is "confusing or objectionable" because it supports the possible existence of such creatures in a potential reader's mind. Having a list of search results appear after searching a term immediately alerts the reader to the fact that the title doesn't exist. Any redirects with titles of things or concepts that don't exist is wrong. Sswonk (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:WAX. Sswonk (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But... but... there was an I-50! --NE2 02:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to US-50. I found lots of sources that use the term "Interstate 50" mistakenly to refer to US-50. Others mentioning I-50 are fiction, and the mention in them is trivial. Sebwite (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list, using presnt content as a footnote or in intro. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, anyone can edit the encyclopedia, but if it ain't encyclopedic, it should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to US-50 and to Interstate Highway System#Primary routes, where this information would be useful additions. And, contra the nom, we have plenty of articles about things that don't exist: unicorn (as noted above), dragons, and other pseudofauna, Captain Kirk, Sherlock Holmes, and other fictitious characters, various paranormal phenomena, and (in some people's opinions) the moon-landing, the death of Elvis, and even most religion-related articles, including God. If it generates sufficient WP:V or WP:N even if it doesn't exist in real life, it can exist at WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention we have an article on God! Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Juliancolton answered this very succinctly at the top of the page: "Unicorns are real mythical creatures, though..". You spent some time listing things that exist but you are confusing "exist" with "are real". Of course God, Kirk, unicorns all have articles, just like Winston Smith. That is not the point of this deletion discussion: we don't need articles about subjects that could exist but don't like: "The planet Beta Carlossuarez46 was thought of as a good name for a planet but no one has discovered and named such a planet yet." Countless articles and redirects exist in abstentia in this manner, i.e. novels and movie sequels that could have been produced, relations between defunct countries before air travel or long-distance communication whereby representatives of the now long-gone nations never communicated, and titles like this one about roads that never existed and won't. Repeat: there is no reason for a stub or a redirect about this or any such ethereal, made-up topic. Sswonk (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nom's rationale: "We don't have articles about stuff that doesn't exist." There are some cases when there can be an article about something that does not exist, if the lack of existence is notable, example Phaeton (hypothetical planet).
  • Comment - The Interstate Highway System article already mentions that there is no I-50. That is all that needs to be said. A redirect for I-50 is unnessecary since it is a nonexistient road. Wikipedia does not have articles or redirects on things that do not exist. For example, there are no articles on Maryland Route 9 or Middlesex County, Delaware because both these items do not exist. Dough4872 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Expanding on the comment by Dough4872, several of the statements in this discussion supporting creation of a redirect for the term "Interstate 50" contain arguments that might be summed up as "people might wonder why there is no Interstate 50". This line of thinking could also support inclusion of redirects for countless other titles, when a search engine and a bit of reading will nearly always produce the correct answer. Examples of similar non-existent titles are Atlas IV (a rocket in the Atlas series with that name does not exist, though Atlas III and Atlas V do), Ford Model D (and others between Model C and Model T which never existed), and Area code 621 (along with dozens of other unassigned codes). The problem is not that it is possible that a reader might think there is a topic called this and we are not responding, it is that if this redirect is created then by the logic used in its support redirects should be created for all conceivable search terms. Someone might search for Penguins of the Northern Hemisphere (evolution includes no such birds). This is what search engines are for. Otherwise, there would be a redirect for every possible three-digit U.S. telephone area code that has yet to be assigned, every state highway number in every state that has skipped those numbers, and on and on ad infinitum. The arguments in support of a redirect make assumptions and contain possibly true but nevertheless unsupported statements like "The fact that there is no I-50, despite the fact that one would logically exist, is directly related to the numbering system of the Interstate Highways" (how?) and "I found lots of sources that use the term 'Interstate 50' mistakenly" (where?). Again, search engines serve this purpose and the subtitle of this site is not "The free encyclopedia that has titles on every conceivable search term so you will always be directed to what you are looking for instantly based on the vast intuitive powers of its editors". Sswonk (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Interstate Highway System#Primary routes as a plausible search term. --NE2 07:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. AngelOfSadness talk 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warlords: Call to Arms

edit
Warlords: Call to Arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was deleted via expired PROD (see log) in January and was recreated last month. I still cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can provide any verifability nor establish any notability. The only stuff I can find are trivial mentions or the same basic description on mirrors that host this game.

I am also nominating the following related article for deletion for the exact same reason as above:

Warlords: Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuZemike 22:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost the entire article reads like a Game Guide, and the article itself questions the significance of the game. In addition, the two see-also links are infact referral links, thus I believe that this article may have been created with the intention to drum up extra 'clicks' to that user's area on another site. I will remove those links now, but even so, the article still fails WP:N and WP:GAMEGUIDE --Taelus (talk) 08:02, 27 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 Rolo Tomassi. MBisanz talk 22:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 Track Cassette Tape

edit
4 Track Cassette Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album with no assertion of notability, and probably no notability either Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:37, 26 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. Insufficient information is currently available to write a reasonable article about this prospective future album. No prejudice towards recreation when that changes. ~ mazca talk 07:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inert Momentum

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

Album with no assertion of notability Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:34, 26 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) 00:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. default to keep and rename to List of Avril Lavigne tours Black Kite 10:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne Tours

edit
Avril Lavigne Tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All tours were previously listed. Reasons for deletion: fails WP:NN. Darth NormaN (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, each Tour was listed before failing notability and for consisting of a setlist and a tour dates table only, thus the tours are now mentioned in the appropriate album article making this article redundant. --Darth NormaN (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not the first time that people is posting this, Avril Lavigne should defenetly have this info and actually she is a true artist with worldwide tours the references are all there coming from notable sources such as MTV and Billboard everything is perfect, I also think that every single tour should have their own page because is unfair I can see other irrelevant artist with club tours like Lady Gaga or Katy Perry Emmanuel_Rocks (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This level of detail and an entire separate page might be appropriate for other artists, but as mentioned above each is covered in an album article and I just don't see why Wikipedia should host a list like this.--Gloriamarie (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is, I think it doesn't deserve to have a page for tour but a whole page with all her tours defenetly yes just seeing the arenas she performs during all tours for obvious reasons it means that her tours have been relevants she's not performing at clubs or making small tours also I can see that she's one of the few artist that has tour around world. Esteban_Hallo (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information into Avril Lavigne and/or the albums' articles. Tours are not notable unless they receive substantial coverage from independent sources. Setlists and tour dates don't merit an entire article. — Σxplicit 22:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, actually, after looking around, the article can be formatted like this. — Σxplicit 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, per G11, early admin close of AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Itsumo Tuna

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

Product placement/vanity page/non-notable. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:30, 26 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burkely Duffield

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

Non-notable child actor with a few very minor roles to his credit. One of several created by an editor who has no reliable sources for these BLPs. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:30, 26 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Herr

edit
Jordan Herr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neoaztlan

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

I decline a CSD because journals don't fall under A7. However, it does not assert notability, and all I could find on Google were the Neoaztlan homepage, Twitter, Myspace, etc., but no reliable sources, so delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, A7 and A9 should be merged to simply cover any subject that does not assert some shred of importance/notability. The fact that we have to discuss this article because it is about a journal instead of a person or a song is a waste of time. Anyway, a dirty Google search turns up nothing but their own website, blog entries, Twitter/MySpace garbage and the like. Obvious delete. I admit I am very inclined to IAR speedy this anyway, but since it's been declined I'll forbear. Shereth 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it should be expanded. But every time it's brought up at CSD talk, the proposal gets rejected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I barely find anything on this, just a (completely tangential) mention here: [6]. Cazort (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteno library seems to know of it. The reason for not doing these by speedy is that it often turns out that some book or the like is in fact notable, though the first two people to look haven;t heard of it. A9 works because in that particular field, there's a safe criterion. . I've seen nationally known nominating prize winning children's books nominated for speedy, and similar. It takes time to let more people see the article. DGG (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability found. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability concerns. Matt Deres (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AngelOfSadness talk 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Aranton

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

No sources and marginal notability. Barely outside speedy criteria. PROD tag previously removed by sole author The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:20, 26 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 Valley Zoo. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy (elephant)

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

Hopelessly biased; although it's a long article, cleaning out the POV-pushing would reduce it to a stub consisting essentially of the first two sentences of the lead. Normally something like this would be cleaned up, but in its current state this would effectively mean wiping it and starting again – and I'm not convinced there's anything particularly notable about this elephant as opposed to any other zoo animal.  – iridescent 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. "I'm not convinced there's anything particularly notable about this elephant as opposed to any other zoo animal." The article states that she is one of very few elephants in zoos who is kept completely alone and that Bob Barker and Margaret Atwood, among many others, have written to the zoo asking for her release. Most zoo animals don't get that much attention by a mile. The article could use some work but is certainly not as POV as it's made out to be in the above comments. The zoo's arguments that she is fine could be given more space and maybe quoted, but they are mentioned. There are apparently not celebrities and nonprofits calling for her to remain in the zoo, so it would be difficult to write the article without mentioning that so many have called for her to be removed from the zoo. It sounds like it is a significant ongoing controversy in Canada among animal welfare groups and zoo advocates and merits an article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Valley Zoo, per DGG. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequately sourced, notable event. Needs further cleanup to remove POV —G716 <T·C> 14:23, 30 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 per WP:SNOW. No valid reason for deletion was cited, and the keep arguments are overwhelming in both strength of argument and weight of numbers. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microgrant

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

Improper use of the term; "Microgrants" is trademarked to the non-profit Microgrants (see http://www.microgrants.net/index.html). Common law trademark rights are established through first use in commerce on 10/26/07. Verity50 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although improper use of a trademark is not explicitly listed in the deletion policy, Wikipedia should not allow improper use of a trademark; additionally, this reason for deletion is analogous to copyright infringement, which is a valid reason for deletion. Verity50 (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote by the nominator was disregarded in closing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I unPRODded this with the rationale that this is a regular word/concept in extensive use and not trademark (the reason provided by the AfD nominator during PROD nomination) and also added one ref. The nomination appears to be Pointy as the noms only edits ever have been to delete this particular article. Also, if you check the USPTO application status, you'll find out that no final decision has been made on the trademark (and I checked before unPRODding). That said, as I mentioned in my unPROD rationale, this can also be merged to Microcredit, but that's not for this AfD as I don't believe it's in good faith. And by the way, the article is Microgrant, while the trademark application is for Microgrants. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The USPTO has currently refused the application for Trademark (subject to reconsideration), per this note on the letter mailed out with the app (doc available at link above) - The applicant seeks to register MICROGRANTS for “Providing Monetary Donations to Low-Income Individuals.” However, “microgrants” (or “micro grants” or “micro-grants”) is a common term used to identify small donations made for charitable purposes. - SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as information is verifiably not copyvio.--Talain (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed Keep. Well-documented in reliable sources: [7] shows that the use of the term went back WELL before 10/26/07. I doubt that trademark would hold up in court...and that's irrelevant to this discussion anyway, as the term was widely used before the trademark even came into being. Cazort (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, aside from anything else, we have articles on trademarked topics. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep as nominated without any basis on policy whatsoever, and, for that matter, with assertions that seem to be contrary to the actual facts. The article needs watching to make sure that any claim for trademark status is presented in the context of it being only a disallowed claim. DGG (talk) 08:26, 27 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. This argument essentially follows the same lines as the other AfD beneath this in the log. Existing is not sufficient for an article, and we have no policies or guidelines to support an exemption in the case of geographical entities Fritzpoll (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common End, Colkirk

edit
Common End, Colkirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The place to which this article relates is not a village, as the article asserts, but a small place within a village. It is not shown on many online mapping services, and only appears on Ordnance Survey maps at the same significance as farms and woods or common land. It has no specific notability in its own right because of any events or notable people. ClickRick (talk) 20:27, 26 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. Very weak arguments for retention amounting to an WP:ITEXISTS argument. The five pillars argument fails to emphasis the word "incorporating" in the quotation, which is not a term meaning that Wikipedia should have all of everything. Lacking a policy argument, the consensus here is to delete - a merge would be, as several commentators indicate, pointless as there is nothing to merge from this article Fritzpoll (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common End, Fulmodeston

edit
Common End, Fulmodeston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The place to which this article relates is not a village, as the article asserts, but a small place within a village. It is not shown on many online mapping services, and only appears on Ordnance Survey maps at the same significance as farms and woods or common land. It has no specific notability in its own right because of any events or notable people. ClickRick (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; article is trivially short, no references, no evidence of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fulmodeston. This looks likely to be a deserted village, possibly the original ___location of Fulmodeston, judging by the landscape and ruined church. There isn't anything to merge at the moment, but the redirect will allow a section to be created when information is found and ultimately to become a full article if it ever warrants it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Ordnance Survey has it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I said at the outset that it appeared on the OS map. My point is that "Common End" is written in the same size text—i.e. is written with the same significance—as woodland or a farm, and smaller than the writing for a village. ClickRick (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: How does deleting this adhere to Wikipedia's Five Pillars, particularly the first: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (emphasis mine). If the OS gazetteer has this and WP determines not to have it that decision seems to be at odds with the first pillar - perhaps WP doesn't want to be what it says it is. Sad, really. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I hear your argument. But at that level of "settlement" I'm unconvinced that OS maps provide the detail required to determine if it's a placename in actual use. Does anyone know this place as Common End? Is that name used in any way in day to day useage? Is it even used on postal addresses? Knowing the way the OS uses place names I'd argue that this isn't necessarily so - it's entirely possible that the place name marked on the map is referring to an individual dwelling for example, such as Lower Clipstone, about 2km south-west of Common End. I think I'd want to see some other use of the name to suggest notability. Sorry - I get your general point entirely. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to have no hope of expansion. Unless this locality has a distinct culture/history from a containing entity, we don't need a separate article. Mention it as part of a list in the parish article. --Polaron | Talk 03:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge, only because it would be impractical for Wikipedia to have an article on every cluster of houses outside of another settlement. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: what's to merge? If there were something notable enough about Common End that was worth merging into Fulmodeston I'd not have raised the AfD discussion. As it is, all we have is "there's a place that's named on one map". ClickRick (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention the place name in the main article. Unless something important happened there then it's too small already. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - though there is little to merge - with the village whose parish it is in - presumably Fulmodeston. My guess is that Common End is or was a squatter settlement on the edge of a common, hecne no more than a hamlet - but I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (redirect) as appropriate. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:17, 29 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. MBisanz talk 22:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Lane and Nevaeh

edit
Ashley Lane and Nevaeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Teamed together approximately 9 or 10 times in Shimmer. All the relevant information is already located in the articles for the individual members. One Shimmer Tag Team Championship reign is not enough to create notability for the team outside of the individual members' articles. Nikki♥311 20:18, 26 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 iCarly#Characters. MBisanz talk 22:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Pearson

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

Unsourced BLP. Actor's most notable role seems to be Jeremy on iCarly, which is not significant. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources neither provided nor found. SummerPhD (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; actor has held no notable roles and is not the subject of any independent coverage. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:35, 26 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) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now to iCarly#Characters; this will preserve the history. Borderline notability at best now and on the wrong side of the border, but plausible search term and the history will be there if he ever makes it big. Redirects are cheap. JJL (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete at the moment (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ches-Mont League

edit
Ches-Mont League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; contested on the grounds that similar articles on other leagues in the area exist. I see no notability for either this league, nor the other ones used to back up including this, so am nominating the set; there are literally thousands, and likely hundreds of thousands, of similar leagues worldwide.

Also nominating

Philadelphia Catholic League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philadelphia Public League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pioneer Athletic Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)  – iridescent 19:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:High_school_sports_conferences_and_leagues_in_the_United_States

Are you proposing that all high school sports conferences and leagues in the US have their pages deleted on this basis? I imagine very few of them match up to your definition of "notability," if that's the basis you're wiping the Philadelphia area leagues out on. - The Amendment (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless there's evidence of notability. I support the inclusion of schools, generally, as they tend to have substantial impacts on the wider community they serve; the same isn't the case for minor athletic leagues. I entirely support the extension of the existing Football notability guidelines to other sporting leagues. (All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable; All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable; All other leagues are assumed non-notable unless they can be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.) – iridescent 20:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing football notability guidelines to high school athletics conferences is impossible, for starters. It's not the same structure. And media coverage exists for high school athletics conferences which allow them to meet the primary criteria for notability. High school conference leagues aren't the same as a league of 5-a-side teams. For one, the usually span all sports, which make trying to judge them based on one sports' guidelines entirely unfair. matt91486 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have many such articles (Missota_Conference is another). The existence and membership of these leagues is well documented, with reliable sources including newspapers particularly. The subject is of interest to people in the relatively large geographic areas they serve, as well as surrounding areas. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get that it's not about a person or team. Apparently you don't get my point. I know I'm a minority, but I don't believe that local coverage establishes notability. Local papers have to cover local events. That's their job. They have to fill space, especially in a market where there are competing papers. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local papers do not simply cover them. Major papers of record in states cover them. The difference between being covered by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the local weekly free drop-off paper is significant. The circulations of the major papers covering these subjects indicates that they are notable. matt91486 (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there isn't a difference. If you live in Minneapolis, the Star-Tribune is the local paper. Their mandate is to cover local news, along with other news. I'm cerain that in every single issue of the Star-Tribune, you can find coverage of local events that we can all agree aren't notable. Just looking at the Star Tribunes website, I see an article on local bass fishing and one on staying afloat in the houseboat business (totally local interest). I bet if I had the hard copy in front of me, I'd see little league scores and local bowling leagues too. Local papers, regardless of their size, must cover local events. If all they covered were national/international ones, people would just get USA Today. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 29 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 Toys in the Attic. AngelOfSadness talk 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Salty

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

Unreferenced, and possibly non-notable, non-single that lacks charts, awards, or covers. Only featured in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, besides the album Toys in the Attic. DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 19:02, 26 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 A7 (by Closedmouth) (NAC) - 2 ... says you, says me 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Island Scene

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

Contested speedy, so here we are. Reads like PR material and completely unsourced, I wasn't able to verify any of the award winning claims - google turns up their website, and gnews brings up a report of an award that a company who advertised in Island Scene won and not much else. - 2 ... says you, says me 18:54, 26 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Magee

edit
Brandon Magee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AngelOfSadness talk 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial conflict

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

Non-notable game. Online text-based games are countless, and I can find no significant coverage of this one. No news coverage, and I tried to find a review of the game in a reliable source without success. The article creator opposed a proposed deletion and offered reasons to keep the article at the talk page. -- Atamachat 18:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two game of the month awards are enough to say that the game is notable. Imsome (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - If you look at the references to third-party sites, they are only listings for the games and barely describe them. They don't come anywhere near significant coverage from reliable sources. -- Atamachat 07:11, 27 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. The subject passes WP:ATHLETE, that means we keep the article. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donatas Navikas

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

A fairly nonnotable Lithuanian soccer middlefielder. Nobody knows him and looks like nobody wants him. - Altenmann >t 18:19, 26 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 G3 as a blatant hoax. NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 African Cup of Nations

edit
2009 African Cup of Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. The African Cup of Nations is held every two years in even numbered years. The 2009 Cup doesn't exist -- qualification matches for next year's Cup are being held this year, but the article seems to be referring to a tournament that doesn't and never existed. ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:19, 26 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond The Milky Way

edit
Beyond The Milky Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The information presented is already dealt with in galaxy and other related articles. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree for this deletion. There will ofcourse be information about what i say here in galaxy. because beyond the milky way are galaxies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ob9889 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 28 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. 16:44, 26 June 2009 UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) deleted "Glurple" ‎ (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glurple

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

Dictdef, at best. Looks like hoax. Outside scope. DurovaCharge! 18:15, 26 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. MBisanz talk 22:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiago Rodrigues Reis de Queirós

edit
Hiago Rodrigues Reis de Queirós (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable writer per WP:AUTHOR. No independent reliable sources prove notability. It's a case of cross-wiki spam (see comments below). Algébrico (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete It is a clear case of cross-wiki vanity/spam. All his books were self published, and almost all (if not all) were published by Clube dos Autores, where anyone can publish a book without any fee or reviewing. The author hasn't been convered by RS: no results at google books or Scielo. The article does not present any RS, only pages created by Hiago himself and a link to web 2.0 site where anyone can post reviews about any book. As Algébrico explained, the article has been deleted several times on wiki.pt per lack of notability and has only been kept this time because the discussion was influenced by sockpuppetry and strong canvassing. Lechatjaune (talk) 18:23, 26 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 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WiFi GRID

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

unreferenced how-to guide Beach drifter (talk) 17:53, 26 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Rayne

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

Non-notable pornographic actress. See WP:PORNBIO. Guidelines have changed since last afd nomination. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 26 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dellin Betances

edit
Dellin Betances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 as a copyvio, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of glass

edit
Strength of glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

copyright violation; unlinked, loquacious, absurdly overcharged with references nobody can check in reasonable time, part of User:Logger9's private article empire Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the copyright violations, see e.g. http://www.globalspec.com/reference/39540/203279/Chapter-24-Mechanical-Strength-and-Reliability-of-Glass-Fibers and http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15264137.

For the context, see "what links here": only other borderline articles used by User:Logger9 as his almost private playground. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are some problems here beyond the issue of the copyright status of the text in this article. I see two self proclaimed experts in a highly technical field in prolonged edit wars in glass articles, followed by this nomination full of sniping and personal attack. Someone seeking anonymity but proclaiming they are a college professor like Logger9, or otherwise an expert like the apparently pseudonymous "Paula Pilcher" and relying on the authority of that claim to empower their decisions smacks of the Essjay fiasco. Paula Pilcher, please be civil and avoid personal attacks in the future. Discuss the article and not the perceived failings of the editor. Please do not delete all comments on your talk page, as you did, requiring that all discussions be on article talk pages. As for the topic "Strength of glass" it appears to be an important and notable subject,since a Google book search for "strength of materials' glass yields much scholarly coverage for over a hundred years [15]. If the specific phrasing of this article is a copyright violation, we should probably have a different article covering the same subject, or this one could be stubbed. We definitely do not delete an article because it has so many references it would be bothersome and time consuming to check them. If an article is "loquacious and unlinked" that is an editing problem and not grounds for deletion. Edison (talk) 18:42, 26 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. Cleanup issue - refer back to me if there are still problems in a couple of months Fritzpoll (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fondul Proprietatea

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

Attack page. My own speedy was declined. Guy0307 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Calling it an attack page is a bit much. The slant is obvious however, so why not just remove the pov section? Beach drifter (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, it's certainly a disaster, and should be stubbed. Deleted, no. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello,
    I would like to understand why you propose delete this article for deletion. Did you read the discussion page of the article? I saw no reaction or response... I paste it again here:
    This article is fair and gives facts regarding a Romanian institution that has failed. The jurisprudence of the ECHR is very clear. Unfortunately it is not available in English and it is not really a good idea to translate judgements. If it were available, I would obviously include the English version. But if you can read it in French, the judgements are very clear and fair: the fund is not efficient and is not able to deliver any compensation.
    This fact cannot be contested since there are a lot of court decisions by the Europen Court Of Human Rights. This situation is now a fact, a real statement.
    What would not be fair is to let believe anyone that Romania is effectively compensating people whose goods (properties and lands) have been confiscated abusively between 1945 and 1989. This is false.
    The aim of Wikipedia is to show an accurate and fair information on any subject. If the situation regarding this fund changes toward a better efficiency, the article will be changed accordingly.
    --Cbrajon (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)--Cbrajon (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added much information to the article and changed the presentation of some parts. I have also translated all court judgement extracts. So now the contestation part is less imposing in the article. If you still find something not acceptable, I thank you to be so kind to explain to me what and why...

--Cbrajon (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC) -Cbrajon (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • response to user:Guy0307
    I do not understand why you wiped out the "Contestation" paragraph. It is full of accurate and verifiable information. Court decisions are final and irrevocable. Why do you consider this should not be included in this article? Without this part, the article is incomplete and misleading. Better to scrap it entirely! The fact that Proprietatea is not working for the beneficiaries it had been craated for is a fact, not a journalist suspicion and is an essential statement. Nobody contests that. Do you know what mean ECHR decisions? Are you aware of The European Union concerns about this? Would you find fair an article about the Communism wihout the Goulag part or the Moscow trials or even more striking an article on the Nazi party without the Nuremberg trial? Certainly not.

--Cbrajon (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at user's talk page. Guy0307 (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very problematic article, needing to be rewritten from a NPOV. First of all, based on the financial statement in the article, it is not an independent fund, or created by a popular movement, or a joint stock company in the usual sense, but an agency owned almost entirely by the Ministry of Economy and Finances. To say as the article does "it does not get any finance from the state budget" when the ministry owns 80% of the shares seems a little contradictory. The actual operation of the "fund" needs to be elucidated from neutral sources.I trust neither the defense nor the attack here as being objective, and the combination in the article is unclear. The article needs to be rewritten by someone who understands the issues involved, and can express them in comprehensible English. But AfD is not cleanup. Or maybe it is--it does seem an effective way of getting attention to articles like this.DGG (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your remark is accurate. This fund has been managed directly by the state from the beginning and a been a complete failure. So recently the government of Romania decided to put the management into private hands. All the financial information regarding the fund comes directly from the website of the fund itself. It may be very difficult to find a neutral source of information since the subject is very disputed and the fund is constantly changed by the authorities. On one side you have Romania and its ex-communists dignitaries who live in the stolen houses and are often senators or deputy, on the other side, you have around 150.000 plaintiffs all around the words (family of real owners...). However I have just been informed that the European Parliament has very recently decided to finance a survey on the situation regarding the restitution of properties in ex-communist countries. The part of the study that deals with Romania and Bulgaria will be done by the Societatea Academica Romana. The latter already done a survey (I mention it in the article). Anyway it may take quite a long time before this survey is available.

--Cbrajon (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are being POV. Guy0307 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Guy0307 - POV? Two many acronyms kill meaning. Anyway because of you personal socialist 'etiquette', you seem to be proud of, I do not trust you to judge this article in which you personal political point of view may interfere with your judgment. In deed it is a socialist regime that lead to this painful situation.
  • For others: I have complete the Management paragraph and the text is now clearer:Until the appointment of a selected administration, the Property has been managed provisionally by the Ministry of Public Finance through the Board of Supervisors. After selecting through an international public tender, a management company will take over the powers of the administrator of the Fund property.Following a tender selection process, a Selection Commission has recently designed on June 9th, 2009 Franklin Templeton Investment Management Ltd as the manager of the fund.
    I have also added more sections.
    It is true that this theme is complex because the governments of Romania changed frequently the law regarding this fund and also because it has been challenged in internal juridiction, ever before being challenge at the ECHR. So you will find tons of comments and opinions on this fund (unfortunately generally in Romanian).
    My position is that it seems fair enough to tell about ECHR judgements because it gives an unbiased light on the efficiency of the fund. I do not believe it would be fair to let think readers that this fund is a panacea to the property abuses in Romania. Moreover, It is not only about one single judgement but dozens if not more. I only selected the very last ones. A succession of juridical decisions, all in the same way, has a true significance that must not be ignored.
    Endly, on what basis would Wikipedia scrap all information about trial and court judgements? Would you for instance ignore the Madoff trial because it is subject to controversy?
    I understand your concern and your will to avoid article which show biased opinions or which are closer to a political forum that an encyclopedia, but it shall not blind you on relevant information. Moreover since the information you are wary of are (final) court judgements, there is absolutely no risk of lawsuits from anybody. Should you wish to have these judgement presented another way, tell me:)
    I will travel in Romania the next days and will unfortunately not be able to connect myself to internet easily. So you may get no more answer or information from me that will not mean I have nothing to add. I hope this article will still be alive and not amputated when I come back :))

--Cbrajon (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC) <br\ >[reply]

Wooooooow. Slow down buddy. Yes, I do consider myself a socialist, however to be honest, I don't really give a damn what's going on in Romania (no racism meant of course), nor do I know what regime currently controls there (or in other words, who won the last elections). My ultimate goal is to make Wikipedia perfect. According to our current WP:NPOV policy, articles must be neutral. What that section did is attack the organisation, and only that. You see I don't say any of the statements in that section are false. What I'm saying is that it does not attempt to be neutral. Anyone who would read that section would think that whoever wrote it was against that organisation. And one final thing, thank you for looking through my user-boxes. Guy0307 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again Guy0307. Sorry to be a bit harsh but what I saw in Romania either national heritage destruction or organized fraud and corruption (communism results) made me very touchy of this matter. Moreover my family suffered particularly from communism.
    Anyway, I think we can agree on an objective: to have clear and accurate article, as objective as possible. Thus, to include events directly related to the subject of the article and having a direct effect on it is not something negative or biased. It enriches it. For instance, it would be very relevant to add a new section on the article regarding the American Reserve and its failure to prevent to financial crisis. Same remark for the SEC.
    So, when true and precise information exists on the fact that Fundul Proprietatea does not work as design exist, I see no reason to discard it. Finally the article is now very developed and the ECHR part is only a section of it, not the main part as it was when I started to write this text.

--Cbrajon (talk) 18:12, 27 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 00:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WiFi GRID

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

unreferenced article that is a how-to guide Beach drifter (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
article has reference; informative/descriptive 12:47, 26 June 2009 (CST)

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Oneal Warren

edit
Christopher Oneal Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP sourced entirely to the subjects own page (no independent sources). No apparent significant roles. Creator says he has significant role in upcoming Always and Forever (film). Unsourced article for same lists 8 actors, but not Warren. IMDb lists cast alphabetically (no help). All TV roles are one episode. Strange Fruit (2004 film) role is the last role listed by IMDb for the film, under "rest of cast" (after 42 members of principle cast, including "Hospital Janitor"). All other roles are non-notable productions. SummerPhD (talk) 16:59, 26 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Salvadorian Thriller

edit
El Salvadorian Thriller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD (tag removed by the creator without reason) about a non-notable card game. It may even violate WP:MADEUP, as I can't find anything on Google about it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references are added. Beach drifter (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references and seems to be written like a guide. Irunongames • play 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of widespread play or publication of rules by a notable source. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:03, 26 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lavarnway

edit
Ryan Lavarnway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Capital Cities of the european union

edit
List of Capital Cities of the european union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable intersection point to where I really don't see any use to the list for non-trivial purposes. Being a member of the European union has nothing to do with the country's capital city. If someone wanted to know the capital city of a European country, they can just type in the name of the country and the answer would be in the infobox. Tavix |  Talk  16:08, 26 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kubach

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

Not notable. All minor roles, no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources provided or found. SummerPhD (talk) 16:07, 26 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 (article improved, nom withdrawn); nac. JJL (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Jones

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

No claim to notability, currently an A7 candidate. The history reveals older, longer versions which appear to have been cut down for BLP or POV problems; at any rate, those that I looked at did not clearly establish notability either.  Sandstein  16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn following Andrew's rewrite, thanks!  Sandstein  05:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC) - PS: She also meets WP:MUSIC for having released a charted album/singles. I've done some research and expanded the article based on several sources. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:41, 29 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) 00:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Oops!... I Did It Again. Notify me if this becomes problematic - thisredirect is in lieu of deletion, and should not be overridden Fritzpoll (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girl in the Mirror

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

Unsourced single, previously deleted and non-notable song ♫Smanu!

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix |  Talk  16:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to album article. It's a plausible search/link term. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:MUSIC; individual songs are notable only in exceptional cases. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per WP:RS and WP:NOTE. Article is implausible and dubios – nothing whatsoever to back up this song as notable or a single. The only source I've found so far that mentions anything at all regarding Girl In The Mirror as a single is the article on here itself; the same article that was not only improperly and blatantly falsely sourced for nearly 3 months, but was actually claiming the song to be a "Top 5" hit in Asia, when that clearly is not the case, and with no proof at all to back up the claim. There's people out there who think this song IS a single because of a Wikipedia article they read – possibly only to find out the opposite, and that totally damages this site's credibility. The fact of the matter is if it's not a single, if it's not going to be a single and if it's not a notable song off of a soundtrack, it should be removed (not redirected) from Wikipedia completely. Additionally, this article directly interferes with another; Britney Spears' singles template. Several times (four, to be exact) over the past two weeks this song has been added to the template, as seen here: [16] [17] [18] [19]
It's quite disruptive to the article and annoying to the editors who have to continuously remove this. With this article deleted, people will finally get it that this is not a single, and will refrain from adding it to the template. If it's redirected, they'll still add it (it'll just redirect to the album page), and those viewing the template within her main article will see that it's a single, when it really is not, once again hurting Wiki's credibility.
The only way I would choose a redirect in this case is if this song was part of a current album, thus possibly becoming a single or noteworthy. For example, Kill the Lights, Shattered Glass, Unusual You and Lace And Leather are all songs from Britney's current album "Circus" that are not singles, but could potentially become singles in the near future, and so therefore have been redirect, not deleted. "Girl In The Mirror" is a song (a bonus track, to be exact) from an "album" that was released 9 years ago. There's little to no chance at all that this song will ever become worthy of its own article almost 10 years later, and therefore may as well be deleted entirely. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 13:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline here clearly says to redirect. If it keeps getting recreated, the redirect can be fully protected. People could recreate just as easily if the page were deleted entirely. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:40, 27 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 Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players. MBisanz talk 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Black

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

Recently drafted player, does not meet WP:ATHLETE criteria ... recreation of article speedy deleted yesterday. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails on WP:ATH, this article should be recreated only when the subject attains professional level, or gains remarkable success. Hitro 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I reiterate that this article should not have been speedy deleted. While it's true that the article has jumped the gun relative to WP:ATHLETE—although the subject has signed a professional contract and been assigned to a professional minor league team, he hasn't yet appeared in a professional game (presumably that will happen in the next couple of weeks)—the criteria for speedy deletion are stricter than this. Criterion A7 says the article "does not indicate why the subject is important or significant...The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance." The lead paragraph, which says that Black was selected by the Pittsburgh Pirates in the first round of the draft, is certainly an indication that the subject is important or significant. Considering the attention that is given by the media to players selected in the first round of professional drafts, any player selected in the first round may have a case for notability under WP:GNG. The existence of coverage from reliable sources can easily be confirmed by a couple of Gnews searches [20] [21]. WP:CSD says, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete articles except in the most obvious cases." Although I don't support keeping this article, it's far from an obvious case and should never have been speedied. BRMo (talk) 17:11, 28 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. 17:13, 26 June 2009 UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) deleted "Brain to height ratio curve" ‎ (Blatant hoax) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain to height ratio curve

edit
Brain to height ratio curve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google is silent about Ruben Von Gritz. No medical study needs 500,000 participants. The curve is exceedingly suspicious. Etc. I suggest hoax. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:10, 26 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Liu (Canadian police officer)

edit
Kai Liu (Canadian police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A police chief. That's it. No attempt to explain any argument for why he should have an encyclopedia article, and he is apparently not noteworthy for any controversies or accomplishments of any sort. Only coverage is strictly local and merely proves that he exists. DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very small town with a very small police force. Beach drifter (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy candidate, no assertion of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:15, 26 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 Gananoque, Ontario . Fritzpoll (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gananoque Police Service

edit
Gananoque Police Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a police service that can be confirmed to exist, but no notability is even really argued for in the article, and the article is completely lacking in independent sources, let alone the multiple reliable nontrivial coverage establishing noteworthiness for an article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand Notability is stated (one of the few small town rural forces that still exist, and have not been contracted to OPP). As well, protection from crime due to local casino. Yes, this article needs a lot of work, but I just found it today. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above reasoning for notability doesn't make much sense to me. The article only claims it is one of the few small town forces in the immediate Ontario area that still exist, and this is not sourced. This doesn't make it any more notable than the police force of any other small town. I'm not well versed on deletion criteria for this type of organization, at one point I assumed that any police department was inherently notable enough for inclusion. However going strictly by wp:org this one fails. Beach drifter (talk) 17:28, 26 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 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASIO File

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

There is already an article about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and this article just serves as a coatrack for weakly related conspiracy theories, speculation, synthesised conclusions and original research. I suggest merge, delete and redirect to the main ASIO article. Papa November (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, any controversy about agency practices belongs in the ASIO article, not in an article called "ASIO file". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 27 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 WP:Snowball delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson

edit
Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary fork to Michael Jackson. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article due to the high number of significant figures who are commenting upon the story, the internet reaction that cannot be summarised in a short section in Michael Jackson's article. This is gaining coverage in reputable sources. Things such as the Jackson, Michael, MJ etc. being the most popular tags on Twitter need to be expanded. World leaders are commenting upon his death, and I feel it is necessary to stop the main article becoming too long. I want people to start adding information and we can create a useful page. 03md 14:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what you are basically saying is that the reaction to MJs death has not been the subject of coverage by multiple third party sources? Amazing. Unbelievable even. I think I have honestly stepped into an Afd timewarp, where all the normal arguments are turned upside down. MickMacNee (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The death of Michael Jackson is notable. The reaction to the death of Michael Jackson - the subject of the article in question - is not notable. It makes sense to report on the event, not on the people reacting to the event, unless they react in some notable way. - Brian Kendig (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected. As this shotgun Afd has succesfully made this article a stillbirth, and nobody is apparently now willing to work on it, given its current poor state (a lede and empty sections), I'm redirecting it to Michael Jackson#Death until such time as people either come to their senses, and realise from the talk pages and from the old media, that wikipedia is currently way behind the curve here, or it gets deleted. If it is deleted, it would be helpful if the closing admin userfies the article history to a link to the main article talk page (choose any number of the current threads requesting a fork of the expanding reaction material), because I don't think anyone else is that bothered in making sure the information already added isn't lost. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I believe that is probably the right outcome in the end, this discussion is still ongoing (indeed it has only been open for a few hours) so I've reverted your edit as premature. I suggest letting the discussion run, at least for a few days, and then taking the appropriate action when the discussion is closed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is currently crap, orphaned, is not being added to, and now it gets to sit there for all on Google to see for the next 5 days or more as a shining example of Wikipedia not being able to collect and present timely information that the rest of the world is seeing 24/7. Seriously, if this topic cannot be created into an article on Wikipedia, we might as well make it policy that there can exist no Reaction to ... articles at all where there is a parent article, because you aren't going to get more reliable sources than for reactions to this. Except maybe Reactions to World War III. But then its pretty much moot. MickMacNee (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would have been possible before the Afd, but not during it. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a ridiculous example of WP:NOTNEWS. If a few years later, this topic seems notable in and of itself then maybe, maybe I could consider a split/fork...but as it is this page is absurd and a crazy waste of effort. Cazort (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, per your reasoning, we have to wait two years, then wait for someone famous to die, and then wait to see if a source mentions any part of this reaction in comparison to that one, and then we can write this article? You honestly cannot conceive of the reactions being historically notable from watching the global coverage right now? This coverage all seems normal does it? The death section is already longer than the section on the last year of his life, and that's after a day, with a massive amount of material missing. MickMacNee (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section will be trimmed back, forking it out solves nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed back? Which 'newsy' part are you going to trim exactly? The minutes silence in Congress? The condolences from Barack Obama etc. The crashing of Google? MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my God; will you calm down? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:28, 27 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 and redirect to Mark_Sanford#Extramarital_affair. Those favouring deletion cite a key policy that those favouring retention counter with arguments consisting of claims to possible future notability, the false notion that a burst of media coverage is sufficient for notability, or the fact that other apparently similar biographies exist. The strength of argument thus favours deletion. Following deletion, a redirect is likely to be necessary for search purposes, as identified in the debate, which I will instate. The choice of redirect target is not binding, and is subject to usual editorial process. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Belen Shapur

edit
Maria Belen Shapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Person only notable for having an affair with a politician. Gage (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be improved because there is information about the woman's company and her life that could be used. An article shouldn't be deleted if poorly written, just improved. User F203 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly-written has nothing to do with it. She's not notable except for this affair with the governor. Maybe there should be an article on the Governor's mishaps, instead of a just a section in his article. That would be consistent with covering the event, not the individual whose notability derives solely from it. On the two examples you cite, I would support Kathleen Willey being merged into Paula Jones or Troopergate (Bill Clinton). On the face of it, Rielle Hunter appears to be more than just a one-event article; there's stuff about horse murders, being the basis for a fictional character and an acting career. Those might just be fig leaves for an article on her just because of the Edwards fling, and if that's the case, I would likewise support moving it into John Edwards extramarital affair. TJRC (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a classic WP:BLP1E. She is notable for one thing and one thing only, something which happens to not be particularly flattering in most cultures. Unless her notability changes for some reason, there is no way we should have an article about this woman just to say that she had an affair with a well known politician—that goes to the core of our BLP policy. If there's a strong consensus to delete I think a speedy deletion is completely appropriate - we don't need to let this sit around for a week if it's an obvious delete. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? An extramarital affair is not the same thing as dating. Especially when the affair destroys a prominent politician's career. — Red XIV (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the merits of merge: I am still not taking a stance on delete versus keep. However, google lists near 50,000 hits in 2 days for the 2 spellings of the name, Maria Belen Shapur/Chapur. So there are more merits to a merge than a delete. User F203 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a former TV journalist. Other more obscure TV reporters have articles, such as Gene Sherman (sportscaster). The article should not be picked on because she is a woman or because she is an embarrassment to a popular American politician whom many supporters would love to get rid of in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Amthernandez (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not currently assert that she was well-known in Argentina before the Sanford affair. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she is more well known as a journalist alone than 50% of the journalists currently on wikipedia . Just because she is from Argentina and not from a small station in Kansas (where there are examples kept on wikipedia) does not make here obscure.— Mr48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Redirect to Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair, per WP:BLP1E. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 13:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the US she might be known only for this one event, but Wikipedia is NOT a US encyclopedia. She's well known in Argentina, and this article does a good job of showing that. She is also more notable than many other newscaster articles which are not being nominated for deletion. The focus of the article is neutral and verifiable, it has references, it doesn't focus on this single event. For the poster who wanted a delete because she is famous for something "which happens to not be particularly flattering in most cultures", this is completely beside the point. Wikipedia is not a site set up to flatter people and an argument that information is unflattering is not a good reason for it to be removed. Of course, with living persons, the information needs to be verifiable and non-libelous, and this article meets those criteria. Interlingua 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm having a hard time seeing how the article "does a good job of showing" that she was well known in Argentina before the Sanford story broke -- unless being a brunette and exercising regularly automatically make one famous in that country. The article, as it currently stands, doesn't even claim that she was well known, and certainly has no citation to that effect that antedates the Sanford affair. Unless such claims and citations are added to the article, it should be deleted. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She was previously so unknown in her own country that the reporters camped out in the lobby of her building had no idea which woman going in or out might be her, and a bar owner claimed she was a blond. Several women were put forward by the media as the possible "Maria Belen" or "Maria Shapur" in question. Edison (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E all the way. Those claiming her notability as a journalist should take note that nobody cared to write the article before she was found in the affair and that when the article was written, the authors own edit summary was: "is a woman from Argentina, who had an extramarital affair with South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford.". Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
interesting comment! An article creator writing an edit summary of "notable Argentine woman" would not necessarily qualify as an article to keep. Nearly all of the murderer articles are the same way (remain unwritten until a flurry of news stories) even though some obscure murderer articles do pass AFD. Note: I am still officially neutral regarding this AFD. User F203 (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When it becomes a sufficiently major story with extensive highly respectable national coverage because of the political importance, the person becomes notable. At this point everything can be sourced well enough to comply with the requirements. As for her notability as a journalist, this would need to be further investigated. At any event, this would be a redirect, not a delete, since she is appropriately significantly mentioned in the article on the governor. DGG (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair. This is a classic example of WP:BLP1E, and we shouldn't have articles on people when, as in this case, they say hardly anything more than the article about the event does. I'm not convinced that Maria Belen Shapur is notable as a reporter separately from this event; therefore, this should be a redirect. That way, the article can always be recreated if independent notability can subsequently be demonstrated. Can't seem to find the tilde button on this computer... Hopefully Sinebot will sign this post.
  • Delete. If you want to keep this article, then you should also want to keep this one, since they both have the same notability: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcus_Solis.Jarhed (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is an example of WP:WAX, and is therefore WP:AADD.--Xoloki (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just trying to add data to the discussion.Jarhed (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At this time, I do not believe she merits her own article or has established notability outside of an apparent affair. As of yet, that Sanford had an affair is the important issue in most news coverage, not who it was with.--Gloriamarie (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Due to the extreme level of interest in this case, this page will become more and more popular. Once photos of this woman are released, she will become even more of a focus of tabloids and media (especially if she is attractive -- just being realistic). And if her relationship with the governor continues, then it will not be a one-time event. Give it 2 weeks and then decide. laurap414 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please not that WP:ONEEVENT doesn't specify a "one time event" per se. Further, the "extreme level of interest" in this case is because of Sanford, his position and his erratic behavior, not because of her. Any woman could have been his mistress and had he done the same thing, the sotry would have generated the same interest. That's how I can say she is notable only because of the event. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Better to merge the information into Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair now. If in two weeks she becomes notable the article can be recreated. Predicted future notability is not relevant to current deletion discussion: see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL.Grover cleveland (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does not establish notability under WP:CREATIVE. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Sanford affair article and then: delete. Recentism. We will have to wait somr time whether she desreves her own article. At present, certainly not.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History Merge Required — assuming it survives, of course. See here and here. History is now split between Maria Belen Shapur and María Belén Chapur. Isn't it great that *anyone* can edit? No prerequisites at all. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Monica Lewinsky , comes closer to WP:BLP1E than Ms. Chapur. Lewinsky, after all, has no notability that's not directly derived from her affair with Bill Clinton. Yet no serious user would suggest deleting her article. Chapur, on the other hand, was a reporter in Argentina long before the affair even started, let alone became known to the public. The only reason she didn't already have an article is regional bias toward the United State. Which is in no way a policy, it's just an result of most users of the English version of Wikipedia being from the US. Also, WP:BLP1E specifically says "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." Both of those exceptions to BLP1E clearly apply here. The affair has most likely ended the political career of a man who was, just a week and a half ago, one of the rising stars of the Republican Party and a likely Presidential candidate, and as the woman he was having the affair with she's obviously central to the event. — Red XIV (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comparison between the two is inapt. Lewinsky inserted herself into the incident by saving evidence, and was in the news cycle for a couple of years, not a couple of days. Further, the relative fame of Clinton and Sanford is extremely different.Jarhed (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong request to those who assert Shapur is notable outside the Sanford affair. PLEASE supply some evidence for this and add it to the article! So far, there is no claim that she was notable pre-affair in the article. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. She's interesting. This woman is interesting in her own right for having this important relationship. It may contribute to other historical events, and we'll wish we kept this original material on her life? — Newgreatyear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    note: I posted the above for the redlink account who posted it here. It's Newgreatyear's only edit. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    She's interesting? Not a valid argument. She may contribute to other historical events? That could be true of anyone. The material that is valuable will remain, merged into the Sanford-related articles. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • article keeps changing, which can affect delete/keep/merge opinions The article keeps changing. This may affect the delete/keep/merge opinions. At first, the article was a 1-2 sentence stub and poorly written. This encouraged the delete votes. Then it was greatly improved. This resulted in more keep votes. Then some editors, some of which voted, took away parts of it. This resulted in more delete or merge votes. I fear that manipulation, even unintentional manipulation, affects the votes (even though AFD is not a vote, individuals DO vote). The biggest change is that several photos have been removed. Various reasons were given but the fact that the vote is changing with a correlation between deletionists taking things out to make the article smaller and non-photogenic resulting in more delete/merge votes (and more keep votes when the article is larger and more photogenic) is troubling because the deciding administrator is unlikely to see the version of the article present at the time each vote was made.
Again, I state no opinion, but am keep coming back to this article because of recent interest as per google (no hits before, now many) User F203 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete A clear WP:BLP1E, about as clear as you can get. ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least at this time, she is notable for her role in a significant political event that is still unfolding, and we have been told (albeit without enough corroboration at this time) that she is a significant Argentine journalist. Assuming we can get some increased information on her journalistic career, the fact that her notability takes place primarily outside of America does not diminish it. If supplemental biographical details including career details can't be produced, we can reconsider notability, but right now this smacks of American Ethnocentrism.--Eric Burns (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just as notable as Rielle Hunter, Fawn Hall, and Donna Rice. Dems on the move (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • no basis for delete? I have carefully considered this without voting to keep or delete. Because of the great interest in more than one country as evidenced by internet searches, merging/redirect is far better than delete. Whether it should be merge/redirect or keep, I will take that under advisement. User F203 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only is she a former TV journalist (many of whom, differing in prominence, have articles of their own), but she also is involved in a major American political scandal that has been featured and exhaustively discussed by every major news outlet. If Wikipedia is to be the supposed "sum" or "resource" totalling the knowledge of the world, and if it is to be regarded as current, then articles such as this should remain. Miketanton (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some care must be made to respect this lady's privacy, and WP:BLP must be followed at all times, but as a central figure in something plastering the news in the US right now, she is a very notable person. We have enough WP:RS-worthy material describing her and her life which goes beyond just the current media attention on her. Samboy (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media Take Out

edit
Media Take Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Anyone who takes a solid look at MTO knows that it's a liars' website. They lack basic English grammatical skills, lie about several stories, and demand instant credit (bordering on racketeering) for their stories. I kept re-inserting that criticism section because it's THE TRUTH, but these admins (well-meaning, but misguided) kept deleting it because of "no source". JUST LOOK AT THE SITE LIKE I AM FORCED TO DO AS A JOURNALIST, and you'll see why it should not be dignified with an article (in short, the site doesn't come close to being notable). Tom Danson (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Combined concerns about inaccuracy, triviality and copyright violation lead to a definite consensus. ~ mazca talk 10:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SLAM Magazine's Top 75 Players of All-Time (NBA)

edit
SLAM Magazine's Top 75 Players of All-Time (NBA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another Wikipedian listed this as a speedy, citing the fact that it has no sources other than forum posts. While I agree that it should be deleted, I think a fuller discussion here would be appropriate first. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick FYI: An updated ranking (June 2009) with reliable sources has been added to Wikipedia. See SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA). Zodiiak (talk) 01:01, 26 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) 00:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - regardless of whether the list is a copyvio, most lists of "Top Ten" or "Top 50" or "Top (fill in the blank with your favorite number)" are trivia and do not constitute encyclopedic content. Most every magazine puts out a "Top (number)" list at some point in its publication; these lists are not notable. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list itself is not a notable list, as can be seen from the fact that the only independent sources provided are message board posts (which are not reliable sources). The list is also possibly a copyright violation. Furthermore, the list is sourced to "a special issue released a few years back"; generally I prefer citations to magazine articles to be to specific issues, not to relative eras. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will happily restore/userfy awaiting evidence that the film has a title, per the consensus here Fritzpoll (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Nancy Meyers Project

edit
Untitled Nancy Meyers Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a film so early in the production process that it has no title. Only source is IMDB, which isn't reliable for these kind of things in general, as all sorts of bizarre rumors get in there. Per WP:CRYSTAL, it should be deleted until such time as there's something encyclopedic to say about it and multiple independent reliable sources talk about it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The film has already completed filming and was called Something Good. Within a few weeks, the title will be permanent as advertising is scheduled to start in early August in anticipation of it's Christmas release. If it's deleted, it will only be redone in a few weeks. Donmike10 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I'm trying to figure out what the rush is to delete the article. This is a major Hollywood film only 6 months away and the name will be given in a matter of weeks with advertising around the corner. The director is the biggest female director (Nancy Meyers) of all time and the producer (Scott Rudin for No Country for Old Men) won the Academy Award last year.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmike10 (talk • contribs) [reply]
This editor voted twice, once without signing his name. I have removed one of the votes and combined the two. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that a reason to keep? DreamGuy (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and note the nominator's lack of quite easy WP:BEFORE. He states "Article about a film so early in the production process that it has no title.". Well, the lack of title to the film is something that will remedy itself within weeks as producers agree on just what to call it. More to the point, an easy search under "Untitled Nancy Meyers project" shows that THAT particular article title is suitable for this easily sourcable an encyclopedic article as THAT is specifically how it is (currently) referred in multiple reliable sources. The teaser trailer was put together in May 2008[26], casting had been proceding for months [27], and last members joined in May 2009 [28], [29], and filming began in April 2009 [30], [31], [32], and is still underway in Brooklyn [33]. It may not have a title (yet), but it already has a release date [34]. Considering the stars in the film, more will definitely follow. The film sure ain't WP:CRYSTAL and IS being discussed under that temporary non-name in-depth and in multiple reliable sources. An article name change will be a simple matter once it has been officially announced. WP:NFF applies, and no, the nice essay about probable music albums does not.. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It never ceases to amaze me how you can come up with a Leep vote for even the most obvious Deletes. When there's something to tal abot we'll have an article until then it's pointless. DreamGuy (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That something called the "Untitled Nancy Meyers Project" IS being discussed in-depth AND in reliable sources is plain. The amazment is mine at your attack on my reasoning, rationale, and efforts to improve the project through use of guideline and available sources. Please cease. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:33, 27 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incrediball

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

WP:ONEDAY \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the references on the page can you show me how to reference properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkms99 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I-meet

edit
I-meet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is yet another niche-specific social networking site with no evidence of notability, created by SPAs as an advertisement for a startup which was launched late last year. Originally claimed to be the first of its kind but that's now been removed, so why is this article here? Very few relevant Google hits and nothing other than the usual PR material. No references other than PR, either. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is my first time using this wikpedia and i'm new to navigating it. I didn't know posting article like this would piss so many people off. Our company would like to introduce i-Meet to the world, which is making waves in our meeting industry and has many unique features that are specific only for our industry. We have over 9000 members now in a short 6 months and the largest organization in this industry space is Meeting Planner international with around 30k.

Regarding notablity, how do i make my article more notable, Our PR releases contains quotes from large companies in our industry space, such as Starcite and influential people in the industry such as Rod Marymor and even featured in the Philadelphia inquirer, one of the largest newspaper in philadelphia.

I will edit the references to make it more notable and the article to tone down the tone and i hope everyone will take a second look at it Killrek (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)— Killrek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


You cannot make an article more notable. Notability refers to the subject of the article and is explained clearly in WP:N. I'm also very concerned that this is yet another account that you're using to edit this article - four so far - why do you keep changing your identity? andy (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over your recent edits to the article, I don't see that you're establishing notability. They all seem to be write-ups based on press releases, mostly dating from the launch of the site. Some of the references are very thin - e.g. one says only that "In my next column, I’ll write about the latest entry to the social networking melee, www.i-Meet.com" and nothing more - and others are completely unacceptable, for example one is a link to a Twitter page. andy (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As andy says, the issue is not the notability of the article, but of the company. Either the company meets the notability requirements or it does not. At the simplest, you need to provide multiple reliable, independent, non-trivial references to establish your company's notability. Each of those three bolded words is critical. If a reliable news organization did an independent, non-trivial write-up about the company, then that would go a long way towards showing that the company is notable. However, if a reference fails any of the three, then it is worthless for showing notability. Press releases, and any direct reporting of such, are not "independent". Nor are your company's own web pages. Blogs would not be considered "reliable". A brief mention in an article where the company is not the real subject would be a "trivial" mention. If no coverage exists that meets these requirements, then you are likely fighting a losing battle here, as your company most likely just does not meet Wikipedia's required levels of notability.
On a related subject, you mention wanting to introduce your company to the world. Wikipedia is expressly not supposed to be used for such purposes. Wikipedia's purpose is to document things/people who are already notable, not to be used for reaching notability in the first place. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the notablity criteria on a company, can you make it more specific? If our company works with major tourist boards and major players in our industry and is reported in the magazines related to our industry, will it meet the notability criteria? If it is the largest social network in our industry which indicate that a lot of people in our industry are interested and supporting it, is it notable? Our company founder was interviewed in a mainstream press by the philadelphia inquirer, does that contribute to the notablity criteria? Btw, this will be the final account i will be using because i just took over my colleague, who updated the previous entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killrek (talk • contribs)

Read WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and WP:NOTE. The notability criteria for companies, web sites, and anything in general are spelled out there. If you meet one of the listed criteria, and can show that you meet it, then your company is notable. If the company does not meet any of the criteria, then it simply is not notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article was intended to "introduce i-Meet to the world", which is not at all what Wikipedia is about. Basically, an attempt to promote the company to make it more notable, while a company shouldn't have an article until it's already notable. -- Atamachat 18:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. promotional, POV, and unreferenced DGG (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DC Drive

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

Content fork from DC motor, written in promotional style by a user whose name suggests a Conflict of interest, as the company of the same name is a supplier of DC motors. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • LOL- what does this mean?

"DC drives do not rely on mathematical models to enhance their performance a" Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:24, 26 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) 00:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Swift

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

This article appears to be a prima facie case of WP:BLP1E], and does not meet our usual notability criteria Ohconfucius (talk) 09:31, 26 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. Nja247 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg-Reuter

edit
Habsburg-Reuter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a hoax. After the opening sentence, the first half of the article is a straight description of the House of Habsburg, and is indeed copied from House of Habsburg. The second half, about the "House of Habsburg-Reuter" is, as far as I can discover, fiction. There is nothing in Scholar or Books, all the Google results seem to be Wikipedia mirrors, and "Reuter" does not appear in this list. A few more searches are listed on the article talk page.

The article as first input by SPA Marzoet (talk · contribs) cited no sources. However a month later, like the thirteenth stroke of a clock, an IP added the last two lines about James Crittenden-Cavendish, a name familiar to connoisseurs of CAT:HOAX for an article claiming for him an incredible list of grand titles which was deleted at AfD in January. The deletion debate has been courtesy-blanked, but can be read in the history; it was over-written in April by IP 138.251.95.1 with a complaint that it was slanderous. That IP, which is registered to the University of St Andrews, also edited this article the day after it was input; the IP which added the two lines about James C-C is also registered to the University, where, according to his previous article, he is a student.

There is an impressive-looking reference to "the Almanach de Gotha on-line". However, our Almanach de Gotha article says that the old Almanach ceased publication in 1944, another publisher produced a few editions up to 2004 but "in mid-2006 the website for the London publication (www.almanachdegotha.com) ceased to function." So what is "almanachdegotha.org" and is it a reliable source?

WHOIS does not disclose the owner, but there is a sister site www.imperialcollegeofprincesandcounts.com - same layout, same type-face, they both play the Emperor waltz - which also lists James C-C as Graf and Freiherr von Reuter, and WHOIS for that one shows its owner as His Imperial and Royal Highness Prince Karl Fredericke of Germany, Royal Mail Post Office 276, Teddington, Middlesex. To complete the picture, this website, at the foot of the page, quotes this ad from TIME, 30 December 2002:

"NOBLE TITLES OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE Certain Noble Titles, Styles, and Appellations etc, will be, formally Created and Conferred by The Sovereign Act of Letters Patent in exchange for a Financial Stipend by Private Treaty The Noble Titles of PRINCE, DUKE, MARQUIS, COUNT, VISCOUNT, BARON, LORD and KNIGHT, with the associated Appellation Styles of HIGHNESS, SERENE HIGHNESS and EXCELLENCY, accordingly. Title Particulars £10.00 (UK) $20.00 (US) For further information please contact The Private Office of HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE KARL FREDERICKE VON DEUTSCHLAND, PO BOX 276, TEDDINGTON, MIDDLESEX, ENGLAND"

Conclusion: this is a known hoaxer, the source cited is not reliable, searches find no confirmation. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • LOL: What site is absent from Whois? I did the one you mention and the admin contacts are on hotmail and msn. Quite nice to see royalty using free US based eemail accounts for web contact points. tracert has them somewhere behind register-1.border1.nyj001.pnap.net. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "almanachdegotha.org", the one cited in the article, all WHOIS gives is an address in Funchal, Madeira and contact via "Domain Discreet". It needed finding "imperialcollegeofprincesandcounts.com", which is an obvious sister site and also lists J C-C as Graf von Reuter, to establish the connection with HI&RH Prince Karl who confers titles for a "financial stipend", and suggest an answer to the question how come J C-C is listed in this official-looking site. The Prince also has "almanachdeholyromanempire.org" and no doubt others. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • they seem to be behind the same pnap.net machine...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:37, 26 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 recreation per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown Eyes (Lady Gaga Song).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Eyes (Gaga Song)

edit
Brown Eyes (Gaga Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A completely unsourced fancruft. The creater has done this thing previously also, creating the same article and was blocked. This should be speedy delete. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browy - this song is an album on lady aga's album and legolas knows that and how can it be unsourced if the song is on i tunes, interscope on the fame album peview etc.... i did NOT claim this song as a Fancruft single and it has not violated any terms with wikipedia policy's. Their is nothing wrong with this article and it does not need to be deleated or redircted like he did with the other songs from her album. Also he has no right to say what i can say and can't do on wikipeida.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 3 deletes, but appears work has been done to address intial concerns thus the latter !votes rank equal as they require valid consideration. Nja247 08:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Parsons

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

Article previously deleted in AfD, no new info to assert broader notability, and no sources in this restored version either — TAnthonyTalk 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of the old article here, as I was working on it during the 1st AfD. As you can see, it had many references (more than this version) but was still deleted.— TAnthonyTalk 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for the link. In your previous work on the article, you were able to show him easily meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. Yet the opinions at the previous AfD centered on WP:ENT as a reason to exclude rather than noting the easy passing of both the GNG and the Basic Criteria of WP:BIO. The closer made no opinion of the discussion. Just "result was delete". The improvements made by yourself were exemplary, and his closure felt like he was doing a head-count. No need to rehash the drama, but I was surprised it was not taken to DRV, as all issues discusses at the previous AfD had been addressed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I previously improved/defended the article in good faith with no personal attachments, accepting its deletion per policy/consensus and obviously nominating it again here upon its inappropriate resurrection. Since you seem to suggest above that the deletion may have been premature or discussed elsewhere, for the sake of this "new" AFD I've restored the article to its pre-deletion and most defendable form.— TAnthonyTalk 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep to the article as it has now been improved since the start of the AfD. With respects to the nominator, and being able to compare the earlier version that was deleted to the stub that was sent to AfD, I saw that the article might indeed be improved through WP:CLEANUP to address the earlier concerns and show notability though meeting the WP:GNG. Parsons has indeed received the sigificant covrage required by guideline. So I just completed giving the article a complete overhaul and re-structuring to show the subject as meeting the inclusion requirements of WP:GNG. Sure wish User:Dimera12 had done as much before bringing it back... but with the nom sharing his sandbox, all became possible. I now rescind my earlier ivote. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep New character on General Hospital with a significant character and plot line, and gaining notability in the soap opera world and daytime television. BioDetective2508 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2009
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Hammond

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

Fails WP:N. Article seems to focus more on the daughter, and simply being her mother does not warrant Carolyn an article. Google search on all her works listed in the article turned up nothing. Several portions a direct C&P of info from MySpace page link. SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:22, 26 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 g5, article (and this AFD) created by same banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cruisin' Gang

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

Not notable enough for article failing notable guidelines for music. Bored of the world (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe put it up for CSD?  Cargoking  talk  08:45, 26 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. 3 each way and nothing overly convincing to sway. Nja247 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triumphant Institute of Management Education

edit
Triumphant Institute of Management Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable Cybercobra (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Cybercobra! Thanx for your message.

Can you explain exactly why you are interested in deleting this article (other than the less-than-meagre references)? As far as I can see, it is a well written article, requiring a lot of editing. I do know that references play a major role, but consider it again. I have no problems if the article gets deleted after an intensive debate.

Thanks.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has Notability criteria that articles are required to meet. I have searched for sources myself and the lack thereof suggests this topic is not notable. IMHO, keeping a non-notable article on a corporation serves as a vanity page / advertisement for the business, which is not what Wikipedia is for. If there are indeed good sources that I somehow missed (which is entirely possible since I don't speak Hindi), please add them to the article as they would invalidate the rationale for this AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that it is possible the All India Mock CAT may be notable in its own right (and thus merit an article) even if TIME is not notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the company is a premiere testing company in India. Of course most coverage is about the tests they administer / the results they produce, rather than the company itself, but in these case the two can't be separated - the company is its tests/test training. That said sources to establish notability include: *The Hindu story mentioned above
  • this coverage was establishes that the company had 90 learning centers in 59 cities as of 2005 (they now have 186 in 92 cities)
  • this The Hindu story
  • This story is about a training exhibition they hosted
  • Story about a quiz they sponsored
  • Story about another quiz contest they hosted
  • Add in the 100+ times they are quoted as a quizzing authority by Indian papers and it is pretty clear this is a notable company.

Additionally, there are presumably lots of non-English language sources as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI doubt that you will find any non-English sources, no matter how hard you try. Grad and post-Graduate education is in English in India(with the exception of MA courses in local languages)--Deepak D'Souza 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Even if they are famous and boast of large enrollments,the fact is they are just a coaching institute and hence not admissible at wikipedia.Too insignificant.--Shashankgupta (talk) 18:31, 30 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} 06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzaku

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

This article has no content or context and trying to look up details for this "populated place" online has been fruitless. I'm not sure if this is a town, a village, a homestead or what, and the "reference" leads me nowhere. This map leads to what looks like a barren field with perhaps a few huts. I understand our inclusion guidelines are rather lax for populated places, but unless a figure can be listed on how many people live in a place, I think this would violate WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. ThemFromSpace 06:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, real place as shown by the GEOnet names database - the detailed ref now added. It's in Kosovo, not in the part of Serbia that isn't Kosovo - I'll leave it to others to worry about whether Kosovo is or isn't in Serbia, but suffice to say the place exists is verified and is notable, which could have been found out by the nom WP:BEFORE - it also clearly has content and context. Not pretty, but stubs often aren't and unpretty is no reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That information isn't anything more than I found before nominating this. Not all real places should have an article; my backyard is a real place yet is clearly isn't notable enough for an article. If this were shown to be a small settlement that would be one thing, but currently there is no information on this other than it is an "inhabited place", which to me isn't the amount of context required even for a stub. ThemFromSpace 18:52, 30 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. Nja247 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA)

edit
AfDs for this article:
SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is yet another "X's List of Top X" type article. It has the same problem they all do, which is that there is no reliable sourcing here. It's basically a list made up by some editors of a magazine. It's non-notable fancruft type stuff. As I've said before, if it's Billboard magazine, it's different because they have a reliable, secure basis for their charts. These articles are basically a bunch of editors in a room deciding who is fantastic without any criteria. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 05:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they have a ton of criteria. The article has the sources and each person listed has a detailed explaination on why they are ranked in such order, i.e. impact, statistical output, championships, team chemistry, era, coaching effects, etc. I added the article to replace the old list because the top 75 list was sourced via a forum and was 6 years out dated. This however, is sourced from the magazine and was just recently released. Most of the stuff on Wikipedia is sourced from "some editors in a magazine" or newspaper. From the NYTimes to Reuters, etc. it's all from various editors. Zodiiak (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not for reasons listed: copyright concerns here, for the same thing discussed with regards to the Rolling Stones 500s lists (The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time) - those lists are clearly notable, but at one point were a reproduction of the entire list. This was discussed and considered to be a copyvio in the US (various links to discussions on the subject coming up: 1, 2, 3). Additionally, if you wished to cull it to show only an excerpt, this page would be left with little left.
Even besides all of that, I'm not even remotely convinced that it's notable: Rolling Stone (as much as they may be disagreeable) is an incredibly notable magazine, and its lists there are oft used as benchmarks for later "greatest music" lists; I fail to see any similar historical relevance for this list. A list on its own, even in a notable magazine, does not inherently infer notability. No coverage in third party sources = delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:10, 26 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) 00:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nja247 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Heckendorn

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Article is an unsourced biography of a living person. Bkellihan (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article [37] is one of many examples of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The notability strikes me as being a slam dunk. I have no idea why this is at AfD other than that the article needs quite a bit of work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found that exact article in my initial search, but that single article plus the few others I was able to find don't constitute significant coverage. You can't prove notability by citing a single source and stating there are many. Can you provide substantial verifiable sources to back up notability? In my searches I've come across a few articles here and there, but the bulk of what's out there are blog posting and articles written by the subject. I just can't find enough verifiable sources to reasonably substantiate general notability. Bkellihan (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? He wasn't using Google as a reference. He was linking you to Google books showing that Heckendorn has been published. He has written his own books, and those books have been reviewed. I love WP deletion-mongers. They've already made up their mind before read the discussion. Thehondaboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 28 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 King David's Warriors#The Three. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josheb-Basshebeth

edit
Josheb-Basshebeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I prodded it, but I believe it should be deleted (Do not want to CSD) It has no sources, it's hardly encyclopedic, and has little content. (I used a prod, because I was unsure if the author would improve it.) SparksBoy (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, I guess I wasn't clear, I said might be a good option, I didn't recommend it as the best course of action, because, quite honestly I have no clue about Biblical characters/aspects etc. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:15, 26 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 Mian Tufail Mohammad, nominator wanted redirect, not deletion. (Non admin closure) -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Tufail Mohammed

edit
Mian Tufail Mohammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Already exist at Mian Tufail Mohammad so it should be merged and deleted. yousaf465 04:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What will happen this article ? Do it then.yousaf465
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberjacks: The Musical

edit
Lumberjacks: The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable high school musical. No coverage from third-party sources. No claim to notability. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:41, 26 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fraize

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

Not enough reliable sources found to verify notability. Was tagged for CSD:G12 due to confirmed COPYVIO. I cleaned up the COPYVIO, however my research on subject's notability was inconclusive. I did find several articles[38] on the subject, however they are all PPV, so I am unable to determine just how much of the articles are about the subject. —  X  S  G  04:05, 26 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 00:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Kanpur

edit
List of shopping malls in Kanpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Could you imagine an article such as "List of shopping malls in New York City"? RunningOnBrains(talk page) 03:39, 26 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 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cummings

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

Only one claim to fame: co-cartoonist for Blondie. No sources found to verify anything else than that. Only cite in article is a 404. Doesn't seem worthy of a redirect, as I have found other possibly-notable people with the same name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:35, 26 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 G3 Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor Garden (Philippine TV series)

edit
Meteor Garden (Philippine TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax article. No reliable sources found for this article. The presented reference in the article is just rumor. Bluemask (talk) 03:25, 26 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 read a fairly strong consensus for deletion here. The argument that this is not up to snuff in terms of WP:N is valid and mentioned by several in the delete camp, whereas DGG is really the only editor who articulates a keep rationale, and it is not particularly persuasive or rooted in policy but rather more akin to personal opinion (it's not necessarily a bad point though). DGG is obviously right that AfD can be quite erratic (particularly when it comes to this kind of fictional universe stuff), but that's the process we have and the consensus on this article seems to be to delete. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jak & Daxter vehicles

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

I propose this article be deleted because:

  • The assertion of notability is not stated
  • There are no sources
  • It's too much in-universe cruft
  • It's listed like a game guide

Magiciandude (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it should be deleted, DGG just said keep it because "there are better things to do for Wikipedia than AfD for harmless articles" and that is NOT a valid reason to keep an article. The next two just referred to DGG's illogical comments. Drawn Some (talk) 03:22, 26 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, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay History Project

edit
Gay History Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Notability asserted but not backed by reliable sources. Google search of "Gay Project" and "Clevesy" returns nothng. Other similarly named projects exist, but are not affiliated with this one. Seems to be designed to promote an iPhone app. Wperdue (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I google searched him another site came up showing his app. It did only just come out and it is the first and only of its kind and is spreading the word on gay rights. I say leave the article up. If you do search gay history on the app store his is the only one truly spreading awareness and not social networking or photos of half naked men. Also, you have to know how to use google properly if you are looking something up that is brand new and hasn't been out long enough for crawlers to pick it up. For example searching "gay history project john clevesy" instead of each on their own does bring up a few websites. The website i found first was at: http://www.apptism.com/apps/lgbt-history-project which is neither of the sources the writer provided but still seems like a reliable source. And another at http://148apps.com/app/318764084. Another at http://appshopper.com/education/lgbt-history-project and so on... It appears that the project was originally called LGBT History Project which may have also put a snag in your searching... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.220.246 (talk • contribs)

  • Leave it on Wikipedia Searching Gay History in the app store verifies its notability as it is the only Gay History app in there -out of over a million apps on there this is the only one of its kind making it notable- which is largely what this article discusses. All you need to do to verify that is search the iTunes store and see it for yourself. Also googling Gay History App returns no additional apps on the subject. The iTunes store search result has been added as a source since a first hand experience is the most reliable resource you can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.220.246 (talk • contribs)
You should read WP:VERIFY, WP:NN and finally WP:OR. Until you can provide reliable, verifiable third party sources that speak to the notability of this application, the article can't be kept. That's our rules. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Sorry but looking on the itunes store with your own eyes and seeing that there is only one Gay History App on there is not an original thought, or any other violation of the WP:OR. Because any user can go see these search results for themselves when clicking the provided link to the iTunes store, they can see that it is literally the ONLY app focused on gay history. Since when is Apple not creditable with their information and why is a (poorly executed) google search permissible as research to take down the article but actual raw data (showing any and all apps that come up in a search for gay history) which verifies what the article says is not enough evidence to leave the article up? Also, some of the information is coming from the App itself; it is a published non-fictional work and therefore serves as additional, reliable, unoriginal thought straight from the creator of the app himself. NO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH is needed outside of the links provided as sources to this article therefore it should remain on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.220.246 (talk • contribs)
Firstly, I've indented your comment because it made it look as if you !voted twice. Secondly, you have still not provided any reliable and verifiable third-party sources for why this application is notable. Until you do, the article will be deleted. Also, when you post comments here or anywhere else, please place ~~~~ at the end of your comment so that it will automatically sign your comment. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genia Stevens (Host of online lesbian and gay radio show SistersTalk Radio. Founder of social network GayWallet.com.) has written about and confirmed the Gay History Project as the first of its kind. Her article from SiterTalk has been used as a source.

The source that you added is a blog and, therefore, not a reliable source. Please read the linked section for what constitutes a good source. I would not like to see you spending time and energy finding unreliable sources if others that are better exist. I hope this was helpful. Wperdue (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was . Nom withdrawn. Yes I !voted, but this is procedural close. StarM 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Historic Fleet, Core Collection

edit
National Historic Fleet, Core Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Arbitrary and capricious list with no verifiability of its assertions ("Core Collection"? Sez who?) Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Says the National Historic Ships Committee apparently. The 'Core' collection database is here and runs for four more pages thereafter. This verifies the information in the list article, and does appear to be the result of a notable body qualified to advise on such matters (a 'non-departmental public body reporting to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport with a specific remit to advise the Secretary of State and other public bodies on ship preservation and funding priorities.') from here. This appears to be the British maritime equivalent of English Heritage's directory of Listed buildings, or the American equivalent, the National Register of Historic Places, and I would suggest is therefore both notable, verifiable, and encyclopaedic. Benea (talk) 02:00, 26 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant City

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

Non-notable web app Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not when the article is trivial. Or the source isn't that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, please review the notability guidelines. It needs significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. It can't just be trivial coverage or coverage in unreliable sources or reprints of press releases, etc. The sources you point out don't even make a borderline case for notability. Drawn Some (talk) 14:49, 26 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 Ron Paul. MBisanz talk 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Sovereignty Restoration Act

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

Second nomination; still non-notable legislation, now stale as well - sources tend to be Ideological extremist sites. Bill never passed, never had a snowball's chance of passing; it only survived the prior AfD because of the Ron Paul worshippers admirers (some of whom are nice people) taking it much more seriously than it deserved. Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sorry Mike. It was reintroduced 2/24/09 per Ron Paul bills, is even still HR 1146, and is just as notable as last time round. Fully valid spinoff of Leave the UN. More if needed. JJB 05:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't matter to me who introduced it, which of the small number of co-sponsors there are or that I personally hold the UN in low esteem, we all know it is going to sit with no action and never pass. If the Congress can't find it notable enough to even push it through the committee's and to a vote, I sure don't see the notability in it. I could be wrong, but that's my take on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A fairly notable bill. Whether it will eventually pass isn't the question, it's whether it's notable. The article could be sourced better, I suppose, but it meets all of the criteria at WP:N. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As before, non-notable bill that should be a redirect to Leave the UN. All the sources are trivial mention and/or aligned with Paul. Last AFD, John spammed the page with every article from Google news no matter how trivial, which, consequently, has resulted in several of the links rotting away. The only sources that even mention when the bill was submitted and what its current status is are from the World Net Daily, which is heavily biased when it comes to Ron Paul. If this bill was notable, there would be neutral sources or even sources that opposed the bill. However, every single secondary source that has any discussion of the bill, supports it, because the only people talking about this bill are its supporters. Burzmali (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you claim is not correct. Gigs (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A blog, a google books search and Thomas's? Huh? A blog is not a reliable source, a search is ... well ... a search and Thomas's is a primary source. Almost every book in that search either simply reproduces the text of HR 1146 or mentions it in a footnote, the few that talk about it are opinion pieces. Actually, that kind of exemplifies my point, this bill is little more than a footnote, even to those that oppose the UN. Burzmali (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ron Paul. This is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia. Can you say Systemic Bias? If I tried to write an article on an equivalent piece of Indian or Chinese legislation, it'd be gone inside a New York minute.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge. It's utterly unremarkable: yet another failed bill that fell into the pond and made not a ripple. --Calton | Talk 18:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If and when it clears the House and Senate and gets the much needed John Hancock, it can get an article. Until then, it's business of the House, that the House doesn't seem to be awfully keen on and that isn't notable enough for an encyclopaedia. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, do not merge. Ron Paul's Wikipedia entry is a featured article and is lengthy enough that there is no real room to include descriptions of his bills like that included in this article. Perhaps the article can be improved, as all articles can be, but I think it is worthy of inclusion- I never saw it before today but thought it was an informative article on an interesting bill, just the type of article that Wikipedia does well.--Gloriamarie (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is extremely well cited to multiple independent 3rd party sources. (Yale Law review, U.S. Newswire, etc.) This coverage is significant and the subject matter easily meets notability and verifiability requirements. (The fact that the nominator dismisses the supporters of a political candidate as "worshipers" also raises bias issues).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Claiming a footnote in the Yale Law review is satisfies WP:N is exactly why the more ardent supporters of Ron Paul have earned that reputation. As with the first AFD, find one article that actually discusses the bill in a non-aligned source and this AFD goes away. Burzmali (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-aligned? Everything is "aligned" somehow. The New York Times is aligned. That doesn't make it an invalid source. The National Review which was sited above is a significant source (I don't know if they supported Ron Paul's presidential run but I highly doubt it). The Yale Law Journal is a significant source with regard to legal expertise, even in a footnote. There are numerous other sources. Your attempt to say that my vote should be disregarded because I support Ron Paul (which I do not) is a strawman argument.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the sources if you don't believe me. When I say aligned, I mean the sources actively support Ron Paul as the one last hope for humanity. The rest of the sources are trivial mention. Find one that doesn't stump for Ron Paul and gives the bill more than a paragraph. Last AFD, John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) put every single hit from Google news, no matter how trivial, in the article. Burzmali (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Alphabet Bodor Cristian

edit

The result was Speedily deleted. I just noticed that this user has a long history of creating pages like this and using WP as a personal webhost, so this is a clear case. Sorry about the false alarm. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet Bodor Cristian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable alphabet made up by someone; the author of the article is Cristian Bodor himself, so the article is self-promotion and the author is in a conflict of interest. No references to show that this alphabet is significant or that anyone in the world uses it. This is actually borderline speedy-able, but I figured it is borderline enough that I want to make it clear there is strong consensus to delete it, and don't want to see it being re-created on Wikipedia. And as a side note, as a linguist, I can say confidently that this alphabet is very poorly designed and would make English learning far more difficult than it already is; but that is neither here nor there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:11, 26 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, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Clockwork in the Stars

edit
A Clockwork in the Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. Only reference is where to buy it on Amazon. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:09, 26 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Shankar

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

BLP about an actress that has only had one minor part (nonstarring role in a Canadian production in only the most recent of seasons - buried way at the bottom of the 'list of insignificant characters in this show' article) and a rumored part (announced through Twitter) in a YTV sitcom that's not out yet. That's it. Does not rise to the level of significance required by WP:ACTOR at this time. DreamGuy (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't find anything at WP:ACTOR, but WP:ENT says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." She is in the eighth season of Degrassi: The Next Generation, and is a top-billed cast member - not a minor part. Additionally, what does the fact that it's a Canadian production have to do with anything? Are Canadian productions somehow less notable than American ones? Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It all goes toward "significant" roles -- but then they need multiple significant roles, and she doesn't have that even if we generously extend significance to that role. DreamGuy (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a top billing cast member as said above. I even watch Degrassi and see her credited on the opening credits. And she has also appeared in multiple films, stage performances and other productions, (as said above) She will even play the lead role in an upcoming show How to Be Indie. She is a notable actress. RIPMichaelJackson (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user's block-evading sock. Invalid !vote per WP:BAN. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant roles, unsourced BLP. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete First role on a show that has 161 episodes in which she appeared 8 times but appears to have top billing for her current series. In addition to researching current series, it appears the show is catered to her (based on her heritage) though there is no publication that I have found that states length of series or success of series. However, I'm not Canadian so I cannot vertify publicity, notability for her role, media coverage and impact. BioDetective2508 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2009
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that her notability, while possibly marginal, is sufficiently well-covered to produce a verifiable article. I would strongly encourage that the sources found by ThaddeusB be incorporated into the article, as it's currently bordering on an unsourced BLP. ~ mazca talk 15:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Greene

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

Another recently prodded/deprodded article. As far as I can tell, these ebook/print publishers her work is through are essentially vanity presses. No reliable sources given. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Not a very notable writer, but appears to be just notable enough for inclusion. Much of her work has been reviewed by Romance specific organizations that at least have some standards (i.e. don't review every book they receive), have editorial control, and certainly are independent of the subject. A small representative sample: [40][41][42][43][44][45]. Also has been interviewed by similar level of quality sources: [46][47][48]. She won an award for best BDSM novel of 2008 from Romance Studio: [49] --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong Info Initially Noted by DreamGuy - Not entirely sure how this process works, but must clarify that publishers Ellora's Cave, Phaze Publishing [imprint of Mundania Press], Samhain Publishing, Tease Publishing, and Whiskey Creek Press Torrid are far from being "vanity presses". No fees were paid in publication by the author, each work went through a structured and noted submission to editorial process, and each are paying royalties based on individual contracts on a monthly or quarterly basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.245.183 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-22 18:48:27
  • Keep - Enough notable according to references. Vanity press is a discussable concept. Rirunmot (talk) 00:41, 26 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) 00:22, 26 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, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lexico

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

Another article with no reliable sources or any indications that such exist that was prodded, deprodded for no reason and listed here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:08, 19 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) 00:20, 26 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gui4Cli

edit
Gui4Cli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously prodded by another user with "No evidence of notability" as reason, deprodded by someone with no rationale given. There are no reliable sources given, it's freeware software and basically just advertising/self-promotion. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 19 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) 00:20, 26 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. لennavecia 16:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Edge

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

Previously prodded by another user with reasoning "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 26 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." and I agree. Prod removed by yet another serial deprodding account for no reason. Quick look at article shows no reliable sources at all (just IMDB listing) and nothing like an argument that would demonstrate notability (shows have lots of writers, they need something more to be worth mentioning). DreamGuy (talk) 14:27, 19 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) 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources do not establish notability; there is a lack of significant content. There is even a lack of a credible claim of significance or importance, "provided material for a significant/notable show", is akin to saying a person worked as an employee for a notable company, this is borderline CSD A7 material. --Mysidia (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find anything to indicate notability. Looks like a 'oh look, I've got my own wikipedia' page. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page with no particular claim to notability given. Gigs (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, and per the complete lack of hits in Google News--certainly a notable person famous for a post-stone age show would appear at least once. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 26 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, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twittersphere

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

I deprodded to put on AfD. I'm putting this on afd because while the term gets thrown around occasionally and it requires consensus, although I don't believe it's notable (despite its use in mass media).

The original version of the page suggested it had been created today; that part has been removed Shadowjams (talk) 00:18, 26 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Shapiro (programmer)

edit
Jonathan Shapiro (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not appear to meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at those hits shows many references belonging to other people with the same name; in the case of the Google Books, a couple of essays co-authored by the subject were simply reprinted in multiple publications. A Google News search only turned up a very brief mention in eWeek. Pastor Theo (talk) 15:15, 19 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) 00:17, 26 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hapka

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

BLP of a young actor with yet no significant roles in the industry. Closest has been an ongoing role in one of those online-online productions that take place side by side with the plot of an actual TV show but is not the show, and an alleged starring role in a still in-production project with next to know information on IMDB - clearly not attached to any major studio. Fails WP:ACTOR and there's nothing in the article to suggest he'd be notable in any other way, and certainly no independent, reliable sources to that effect. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user's block-evading sock. Invalid !vote per WP:BAN. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll say it: his role on Days of Our Lives is not significant. Mere returning characters are not significant. We're looking for starring roles, not individual appearances you can call "guest star" spots and from then on refer to as "starring roles." If the future lead projects pan out as actual, notable prouctions instead of the web-only amateur films you've been promoting on articles, then a Wikipedia article would be justified. That's not now. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being in 60 episodes (so far) on one of the most notable daytime soaps is definitely significant, as not exactly a walk-on or a guest spot. Time for a little perspective. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "miss" the actual TV series, it's just a minor appearance (not a starring role) that fails WP:ACTOR. And, frankly, your idea of "not helpful" is pretty bizarre. How exactly is it not helpful to know that the only starring role is in an unreleased indie film by nobody important? DreamGuy (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you term a minor appearance has itself received in-depth coverage in reliable sources. So it must be that their reasons for covering his inclusion in the series were not because they felt it "minor". And please, why do you keep linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers rather than to the applicable notability guideline? Also, why does your nomination stress "clearly not attached to any major studio", when nowhere in guideline or policy does it mandate that an actor must be attached to a major studio to be conseidered notable? His notability is through significant coverage in reliable sources, and I will trust a closing admin to make a determination based upon the article and guideline, and not weight of numbers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article, of course, tells us that it's a "lead recurring role", whatever that might be. Incidentally, The Danny McKay Project is supposedly notable because Hapka is in it. No one else in it is, it's an upcoming film and there are no reliable sources that so much as mention it. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is so much as mentioned in the in-depth article on Hapka in Back Stage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. The otherwise completely unknown film is mentioned in passing. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's lucky then that the AfD is not about a film, but a person... and luckier still that the person in question has been the subject of more-than-trivia coverage in reliable sources, so as to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG and the basic inclusion criteria of WP:BIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this actor has been the subject of multiple reliable sources, as indicated by the sources found by MichaelQSchmidt. Also, a starring guest role should be considered a lead role, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been in notable projects, not just episodes for various shows. And being in 16 episodes of a notable television series, makes you notable in itself. Dream Focus 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Being in notable projects does not make one notable. Yes, 16 episodes of a notable television series would likely do it, but "Ghost Whisperer: The Other Side" is not a TV series, notable or otherwise. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ahhh... but Ghost Whisperer: The Other Side does not have to be a television show. Per WP:ENT: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (my emphasis). I am already sold on the subject meeting WP:GNG, but it might seem that the (as yet) unwritten article on Ghost Whisperer: The Other Side will have no difficulty in showing itself as notable [55]. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Oberon

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

Article is regularly proposed for deletion, so might be an idea to discuss here and get it settled one way or the other. The main issue is notability - The game has not been the subject of significant, reliable, third-party coverage. The closest thing seems to be this short writeup in CHIP magazine. Marasmusine (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable software. It's still under heavy development - it may be a nice game, but doesn't even have a single player mode, and no servers setup on the internet for multiplayer use! The only references to it are a (very brief) German magazine article, which is pretty old, an entry on a WWW site listing all open source games for Linux ever created - and what appear to be 3 spam references portable menu systems for USB drives... Which only repackage an already portable program, and don't even include it in their suites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.54.10.162 (talk) 11:16, 20 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) 00:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More like WP:DEADLINE#View two. --AuthorityTam (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ghits aren't notability. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks the multiple reliable secondary sources to satisfy notability. The only secondary source in the article worth a damn is the Chip listing, which is a couple of sentences culminating in "However, you should (not yet) expect too much. The units are not yet fully animated, and the control is still a bit complicated, especially in higher resolutions. Also, the enemy intelligence very immature, so that it is only worthwhile to stand against human players." It's of precious little use. Though I'd normally be very happy to see IndieGames used as a source, this one is a cross-posting from a backwater site. The review is also poorly written, the opening sentence: "Dark Oberon is a solid programmed RTS-game with unique grafics." I like to argue the reliability case for the more usable sites dealing with indie gaming in general, but I wouldn't touch this one with a bargepole. Someoneanother 11:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ridgwell

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

No verifiable evidence that this zine writer meets notability. He wrote a number of blog posts for the UK Guardian newspaper in 2007, but in Google News, Books, and Scholar I can find no evidence of significant coverage of him. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:02, 19 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) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly either an A7 or G11 speedy deletion. No evidence of notability presented, written in a very promotional and unencyclopedic way, likely heavy conflict of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goat (musician)

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

Artists seems to fail WP:BAND. This persons only real claim to fame is having appeared on a movie soundtrack, and a compilation album. magnius (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 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. لennavecia 15:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kealin Ireland

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

Non notable local politician, who served on a local authority for 3 years from 2004-2007. Did notable during term of office or since. Fails WP:Politician Snappy (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting but only verifies the individual exists, which I am not disputing. Has she any political achievments to her credit apart from resigning? None of the sources met notability criteria, still fails WP:Politician and no evidence of notability in any other area, and that includes bird watching. Snappy (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 26 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tab Mix Plus

edit
Tab Mix Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was nominated for deletion but reverted citing additional links for notability which is debatable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varun21 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not additional notability, simply two more refs which do nothing more than give the personal opinion of two internet writers. "Top 10 must-have Firefox extensions" and "Best Firefox extensions" are not notable achievements but columnists making lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varun21 (talk • contribs) 19 June 2009

Please back this statement up with policy. The general notability guideline specifically cites "published peer recognition" as one criteria to establish notability. Some subject-specific policies cite awards as evidence of notability. I don't think you have any basis to dismiss this categorization in notable publications. --Karnesky (talk) 12:47, 26 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) 00:11, 26 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.

Eve Laurence

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

The result was delete. wL<speak·check> 05:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO. One nomination in 2007 and that's it for this retired actress. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and random editors keep inserting BLP sensitive information without the support of reliable sources (because they probably don't exist). Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She's retired? Is there somewhere public where this is mentioned? Tabercil (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consistently read from people claiming to be Laurence that she is still in the industry, but I have not seen any new films with her in them.
  • Weak keep This is based on interpretation of policy. She barely passes the first criteria of WP:PORNBIO, by her AVN win, but could possibly fail the Biographies of living persons policy for being known for one event. Most porn stars (other than ones who are of High importance to WP:P*) do not get coverage outside industry news sources, so it is difficult to find significant coverage. If she passes BLP1E and is found notable, policy states that notability is not temporary.
Comment Just wanted to note that she was nominated for an award but did not win it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Couldn't find a way to comment on this issue however I thought it may be more viable to edit the page and add a 'comment'? I've had business dealings with Eve Laurence [ redacted ] in the past and I know that she hasn't retired (can be confirmed on her official myspace page (www.myspace.com/evelaurence). In relation to the other section about evelaurence.com and this new evelaurence.biz update by user angelfallsent, it can be confirmed by viewing her official myspace. One again, having dealings with her, I was the first css coder for her myspace layout until personal circumstances forced me to drop the project. That started back in 2005 in which I had access to a heap of unreleased content, mainly 'personal photoshoots' IE. non-nude as [ redacted ], and video journals (as Eve Laurence). I obtained the journals as originally I was asked to code her official site (originally evelaurence.com) but declined because I didn't have backend coding experience at the time. Hopefully this information may help with this issue of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.199.241 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteChecking her two main names: AVN [58], [59]; Xbiz [60]. Envi on XBIZ keeps returning hits for "environment", searched as keyword [61]. Nothing on fleshbot. I don't see anything vaguely resembling significant coverage. Since she didn't win the award, fails Crit 1. Nothing even suggesting she hits or approaches any of the other additionals. Horrorshowj (talk) 01:33, 22 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, 26 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. لennavecia 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentaphobe

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

fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSIC. very little third party coverage [62], [63], Google search mainly shows directory and mirror sites. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Has an Allmusic entry, includes discography of two albums.
  2. Has an IMDb entry indicating at least three roles on Australian TV including on-going character of Miles on Raw FM.
Appears to pass WP:MusicBio criteria #1, #5 & #10.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:12, 21 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) 00:10, 26 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 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian Linux User Group

edit
Peruvian Linux User Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG miserably. unreferenced. very little coverage in Spanish and English. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 19 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) 00:09, 26 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Davenport (Drummer)

edit
James Davenport (Drummer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod declined by IP without changes or comments. I'll repeat my prod comments: Not notable. No independent sources given. Warpath have no wiki page and no label, neither do the other bands cited. Also, the "controversy" section has absolutely no controversy in it. Hairhorn (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per nom, no label, no independent sources The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:03, 19 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) 00:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's been expanded, but there's still no sign of notability; I don't even see any commercially available releases, just demos and Myspace content. His bands don't even have wiki pages.Hairhorn (talk) 02:32, 27 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

edit
AfDs for this article:
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Principal Photography haven't started yet Kikkokalabud (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep with prejudice against renomination. Is this a joke? This is a major motion picture, part of a highly successful notable series of films based on a highly successful notable series of books. Per [[Category:Upcoming_films]][64], this certainly qualifies within the "Category for films that are not released as of yet, but are factually planned to be filmed/released in the near future".--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At WP:NFF, it says, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." So, lawyerly adherence to that would delete this article. However...
That threshold will be met in weeks rather than months, and millions have already been spent. We're not lawyers here. Furthermore, considering the contracts, monies and effort already expended... even if the project fails at this point, the project is still article-worthy (WP:NFF also says, "films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable" [emph added]).--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:39, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_26&oldid=1142644369"