Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 5

< 4 June	6 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justus Weiner

Delete There is nothing notable about this public official other than he once wrote a critical article about Edward Said a decade ago. A number of people considered his article to be unfair, including Christopher Hitchens, who said so publically. A brief exchanged followed. Then nothing for ten years. Simply not enough to warrant his having an entry in Wikipedia. Dynablaster (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just don't see the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only notability is as someone who once tried to discredit a well-known scholar and failed. csloat (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Merge with the Edward Said article~~. Looking over his bio he has enough material to justify an article. Mashkin (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss or Merge. I'm only reacting to comments here but generating

a non-frivolous controversy, without regard to being right or wrong, would be a good start on notable and may even be part of a bigger discussion. For example, many people reasonably came out against relativity or in support of cold fusion. Understanding the people and reasoning may be interesting and instructive. Not sure about BLP issues with "came out against relativity" or some other thing that would seem stupid today but that is what science is all about, as with many things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 12:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree if his article alleging that Said was a liar were his only claim to fame, it might not be enough, but he's done other things, if the article we have right now is correct. I think he's easily within WP parameters of notability. IronDuke 05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Check the references for false and misleading statements e.g. he has written for "law journals" (He hasn't and the citations do NOT say he has.) The lede claims he is international human rights lawyer. He is not and the citations do not say he is. As Israeli official for 12 years, he fought Amnesty International on human rights issues. That he was an Israeli official has been deleted from this article in the last week. This article should be deleted because it is a prop to attack Edward Said and contains a string of false statements about the subject, Weiner. His "accomplishments" have been puffed up by his fans. He does not meet WP parameters for notability. This article is an ideological hatchet job.Skywriter (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete altogether. Whatever happens please don't merge this propagandist's fringe claims with the Said article which does not need to give space to claims in an article turned down by The New Republic because the author refused to look at the galley proofs of Said's forthcoming autobiography to see how the article's subject actually described his childhood [1]. Treating this material as legitimate for inclusion in the Said article would violate WP:Undue weight and WP:Coatrack. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Google news shows over 50 articles which mention Weiner spread over a decade. Although some material is bloggish, a lot is mainstream out--Peter cohen (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)lets. There's coverage of his writings on Christians in[reply]

Palestine in addition to the hatchet job on Said

Comment the only outside commentary I see on his one writing about Christians is an article in Frontpage Magazine, a magazine devoted to right-wing smear campaigns that also praised his anti-Said obsession. I'm not sure that's enough to merit a separate article on this guy; it would be really nice to have third party commentary that suggests this work is important. csloat (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has a number of monographs published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs including this [2].Mashkin (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he has that self-published work, it is true, but the question is whether his published work has received any significant attention from third parties. Other than the scurrilous attacks against Said, it appears that it has not. csloat (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Obviously, our own personal opinions on him and Said are completely irrelevant. To the main topic, Weiner had no real notability in and of himself; he only received attention for his attacks on Said. While the attacks were notable, he as a person is not necessarily notable because of that. As per the question of how much weight to give his statements on the Said page (a sentence, a paragraph, whatever), that is a separate issue that does not need to be resolved here. The Squicks (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article called Justus Weiner embarrasses Wikipedia in numerous ways because it is both false and misleading. Here's one example among several. The biggest section is taken up not with a discussion of Weiner's life and contributions but with the title of an article in which Weiner accuses Edward Said of dishonesty. When the reader follows the link (at the top of the page), he is led to this: 'Scholar' Deliberately Falsified Record in Attack on Said." ( http://www.counterpunch.org/said1.html ) That's right. An analysis of Weiner's work holds that it was Weiner who lied about Said yet the thrust of Wikipedia's biographical article about Weiner claims exactly the opposite. I corrected this in previous iterations but have been reverted twice. I do not wish to engage in edit war and by pointing this out here, have done my best to make known how this article embarrasses Wikipedia. Skywriter (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Based on what I read, I agree with IronDuke; he appears to satisfy WP:BIO guidelines. PK T(alk) 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Benayer

From what I could find, someone by this name once dated a model. And that's ALL that could be found out about him. If you look at the history of the article, there were some fairly vicious attacks which claim to be sourced, but upon looking closer, the references don't actually back up what was claimed (or more often, even mention the guy). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to me to fail WP:BIO.TheRingess (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no evidence of notability can be found. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, a Google news search returns nothing. t'shael ^mindmeld 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete, nothing notable once the made-up libel is removed. The only one of the former refs that mentioned him at all was the ref confirming that he once dated a non-notable, redlinked fashion model. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the name was red-linked only because it was spelled incorrectly (see here). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Regardless, Mr. Benayer is still not notable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:36, 6 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. Sandstein 05:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enigin

Notability not established; the article just barely claims notability in the first place ("notable for several innovations").

But the article also scrupulously avoids saying exactly what products this company makes. The only product mentioned in most versions is a peripheral piece of software which may or may not be central to their business. One version of the entry says they make "EnergyMaps, PeopleMaps, Nucleus, and the Eniscope". Well, that clears everything up... Hairhorn (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's one article about the company behind a pay wall and the snippet doesn't say much and another report about the company, that's it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 8 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) 20:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SSG Darrell Griffin, Jr.

Wikipedia is NOT a memorial site. (speedy removed by an IP, only edit by this IP) Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The story here is the book, which may be notable. Delete and start over. Hairhorn (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The article is not appropriate in its current form but there seems to be lots of coverage of the sergeant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddy1981 (talk • contribs)

Knocked it back to a stub. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Subject of the article has significant news coverage by reliable news sources. However, the article is in serious need of re-write. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will continue to crop up. I noted this when I viewed the page during normal new page patrolling. Soldiers that dies in newer conflicts will garner more an more news coverage due to global coverage of these events now. We may need to work on WP:NOTE to take this into account. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article violates several guidelines or policies. It is a memorial, it promotes a book written by the article author, and it is the essence of conflict of interest. It has no references and fails notability. Edison (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur that WP:NOTE should be revised, but that isn't the reason for my vote. The article in its current form is an odd mix of an advertisement and a memorial, neither belong here. If the book becomes notable, it can be added later, and same with the subject. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Edison Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be stubbed as article is currently non-encyclopedic. But there are quite enough sources on Griffin and the book to support an article.John Z (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I respect his sacrifice and his fathers desire to finish the book, but it fails the criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix up. Notability established by existence of reliable sources with substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reliable sources listed st http://www.strykernews.com/archives/2007/03/23/sfc_darrell_r_g.html. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the moment it is difficult to tell if the subject is notable or not, based on the lack of biographical information in the ariticle. There do seem to be a number of sources (at least on the Stryker news page, however, they all seem only to relate to the subject's death (some of them also don't work, or seem more like blogs, than reliable sources). Is there anything relating to the specifics of the subject's service? For example, details of his military career: any decorations that he received, notable actions he was involved in, etc. Adding these in would certainly help in determining whether the subject was notable (in terms of Wikipedia's notability criteria). — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of links are now dead -- I would suggest US News & World Report and Washington Times stories as useful sources. The DoD report is nothing much and some are personal websites of no value for determining notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have spent the past few days since my comment above trying to find information on this subject to prove notability. I have found some information, but nothing that indicates to me that the subject meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. The staff sergeant's loss is tragic and believe me, as a soldier myself I sympathise, however based on the few sources I've found he is no more notable than the 4,000 + other Americans killed in the war so far. Perhaps the article could be userfied, and the subject's father could work on it offline for a bit. If more information could be found and added, e.g. what decorations did the subject receive, notable actions he was involved in, etc (with links to verifiable sources), then perhaps it could be added to the mainspace again some time in the future. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. PK T(alk) 19:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranormal Skeptic (talk • contribs) 12 June 2009

Children's Theater of Charlotte

Nothing notable found on Google News to support inclusion. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it's mostly a copyvio, but there's enough from Google to show it may be notable StarM 00:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a 50-year organisation, it should not be so quickly judged to be merely promotional. This reference [3] is a good start. Wikipedia should not be developed as a subset of the material findable through google news, or any other search engine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Been around for 61 years, and is seen by 320,000 a year. Notable, obviously. Dream Focus 03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources readily available like these news articles, these books and yes, these scholar Ghits. -- Banjeboi 04:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apparently, the organization is called "Children’s Theatre of Charlotte", not "Children's Theater of Charlotte". If this is true, the content needs to be moved and and the current page needs to be directed to Children’s Theatre of Charlotte. Google News seems to indicate sufficient notability[4][5][6]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-___domain

Pointless dab page, as none of the targets mention the term "proto-___domain" in their respective articles.

Prod declined on technicality (was prodded 2 years ago when this was still a "proper" article); was previously AfDed and converted to this dab page. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphan dab, no mention of "proto-___domain" on any of the linked articles Red rain in Kerala, Panspermia, Domain (biology), or Protein domains, so serves no purpose. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this dab page serves no purpose. I thought I skimmed over "disambiguation" in the AFD and assumed that this was already a dabpage before that AFD. MuZemike 22:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a pointless page. I am also nominating the following related pages because - assuming the concensus is delete, then this has to go as well: Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the redirect. Once the dab is gone, the redirect can be deleted via G8. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sambunjak

This article fails the general notability guidelines. Article was prodded with: "No sources, little indication of notability; tagged since 2007 with no improvement." but was contested by an IP. Tavix | Talk 22:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be shown that prove notability. Them From Space 06:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I supported the original deletion proposal, but with reservations. I don't know how to properly judge the notability of a surname. There has been some scholastic study done on the etymology of this name, and there are some notable people who have it, but does that satisfy WP:N? I don't know. I'm only calling for deletion because an article isn't considered notable until proven otherwise. -- Atama ^chat 16:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator has withdrawn and there is an overwhelming consensus that this article should be kept. Valid arguments for cleanup have been made and should be followed up, but per WP:SNOW it appears appropriate to close the discussion. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca ^t|c 16:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of prostitution

I bring this to AfD rather than prodding it because the article is in depth, well-sourced, etc. The problem is that almost all of the information can be found on the Prostitution page, making this particular page rather redundant. It's a good article, but I don't see the use of a fork page for content that is already well-integrated into the primary page. In light of improvements to this article and adjustments to the prostitution one, I'm withdrawing the AfD due to the solving of the redundancy issue. Tyrenon (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, redundant and unnecessary fork. JBsupreme (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the section "Legality" from the main article prostitution should be shortned and the readers sholud be directed towards this article. In time, this article can also de expanded, and more imformation surrunding the subject can be added. Anyway, the article "prostitution" is already too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.8.172 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, with conviction. This article is obviously notable, but it severely needs a rewrite, I'd suggest that we search around for an editor who is an expert on the subject, it could very easily become a biased article. ceranthor 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears to have plenty of potential and at worst needs a rewrite. AFD isn't cleanup. Vodello (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reason for the nom was not because the article is in bad shape. It is redundant to prostitution. Just about all the same information can be found there. This is an unnecessary fork. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After giving it more thought, I believe there is just about enough information for an article on this topic. The section at prostitution should be shortened and this expanded and cleaned up. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I shortened the "legality" section from the article prostitution and redirected readers here. You can discuss this on the talk page of prostitution.
Keep This is a topic that is notable on it's own. It does need a great deal of work. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OK, I understand that the reason why this article was nominated for deletion is not because it is a bad article, but because it was redundant. (Tyrenon who nominated it said that "I bring this to AfD rather than prodding it because the article is in depth, well-sourced, etc. The problem is that almost all of the information can be found on the Prostitution page, making this particular page rather redundant. It's a good article, but I don't see the use of a fork page for content that is already well-integrated into the primary page"-see the first entry). Well, now this problem has been solved, as I removed most of the paragraphs from the section legality of the main prostitution article and redirected the readers here. Also, there is no way all this imformation can be merged into the main prostitution article, which is already long enough. This article needs polishing, but it will improve in time. 123username (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Timmeh said, I didn't nominate the article for quality but for redundancy. I will say that if I had to pick a part to fork off, I would fork the history section out, but that's more a matter of editorial preference (as one could expand many of the history sections more than the legality one). I actually wouldn't be opposed to forking that off and sticking this back in; though not my initial intention, what would thoughts be on forking that off (whether or not this were to be stuck back in)?Tyrenon (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, now the redundancy problem has been solved. Yes, forking off the whole history part is a good ideea. However, I believe "Legality of prostitution" should also have its separate article. Nearly all the other sections from the prostitution article have their own main article: Male prostitution, Human trafficking, Sexual slavery, Prostitution of children, Street prostitution, Call girl, Sex tourism, Prostitution in Ancient Greece. Why should't "Legality" have one? Obviously, some of those sections are of extreme importance and clearly need their own article, but I think "Legality" also qualifies.

123username (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prostitution article is already long enough and probably in the future people will want to add new sections to it and it will become even longer.

123username (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2009

This article is much more detailed than the former "legality" section from the main prostitution article; it offers new imformation which was not present there. It is much too long (and it will grow even more in the future) to be merged back into the prostitution article.

123username (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of "Legality of..." articles on Wikipedia: Legality of cannabis, Legality of firearms, Legality of polygamy, Legality of Homeschooling .... etc. Prostitution is a subject which is notable enough to have its own "Legality of..." page.

123username (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thoroughly notable topic, enough content to merit its own article rather than just a section --Alynna (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - very useful article, especially for tourists who may wish to use prostitutes and want to know the legality or otherwise of their chosen pastime. Tris2000 (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful article for college students doing tertiary research, with many footnotes/references online. Perfectly legitimate legal article. Can be rescued easily. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 8 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.

To comply with GFDL attribution requirements, the article was restored then redirected to Bugbears. - KrakatoaKatie 03:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SNOW deleted, and content merged per Casliber's suggestion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugbears in popular culture

This is simply trivial listcruft at best. It should be noted: a merge discussion was taking place, but died out. Important notes (if there is any) should be in the main article only. Also note: the main article is small, so this article split makes no sense. The section should've been trimmed, not just moved elsewhere. Sweeping trivia to a new article isn't the answer. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom totally NN listcruft. JBsupreme (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this shouldn't even be merged, its all trivial nonsense anyway. see WP:TRIVIA. Tavix | Talk 22:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to main article, i.e. as a subject as such is not notably different from main - each examle should be judged on own merits. AfD is not for cleaning up articles, which this information needs wherever it is. Many f the individual examples are notable and should be sourced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete short cruft-list, and the items deserve no mention outside of the subjects they reference. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; Bugbear needs more content anyway. Powers ^T 14:03, 6 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) 20:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Vickers

Extensive article giving background of a portfolio manager and his upbringing. Just doesn't seem notable though. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with financial people and wikipedia? I'm not certain about notability, but the entry desperately needs an NPOV rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" Chzz ► 03:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spammy spammy spam spam about a non-notable person. Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears that he did hold a national radio show for a while. See "The Damon Vickers Show ... Vickers discusses the numbers from Wall Street as the markets open and delivers the latest business and financial news. Love him or hate him, the stock prognosticator is always ready to push your buttons." D'Alessandro, Gene (December 28, 2001). "Hear This!". The Philadelphia Inquirer. In my opinion that's good enough. He also seems to be quoted from time to time in various forms of media, forming enough of a baseline to build a neutral, verifiable article even if the current one is spammy. Sampling of his appearances:
- "It feels like we have an extinction event going on," says Damon Vickers, who runs hedge fund Nine Points Capital Partners. Elstein, Aaron (October 13, 2008). "Banks bloodied in Wall St. panic; Loss of confidence hammers leading financial institutions". Crain's New York Business. p. 1. Not much, but it does validate the claim that he runs a hedge fund.
- According to Lexis-Nexis he was also interviewed by KIRO-TV on October 6, 2008 (Email me to see a transcript if you don't have access)
- He appeared, albeit briefly, on FoxNews [7]
- "Damon Vickers, telecommunications analyst at Janssen/Meyers, said WorldCom was willing to pay a hefty price for MCI because it believes a combination would bring more revenue opportunities." [8] Again not much, but it's CNN and it allows us to confirm another detail about his biography.
- "She suggests to her client, Damon Vickers, chief equity strategist for Equigrowth Advisors, an investment company with $15 million under management, that he may find solutions in his subconscious." Strange, but yet another appearance. [9]
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs)

Keep. He regularly appears on financial news programs like CNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg, BNN, and Fox Cavuto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmoman999 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC) — Elmoman999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanispamisement. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This appears to be a legit entry. Damon Vickers has made many appearances on the major TV networks, as you can see by clicking on this link: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=damon+vickers&aq=f He deserves a page just as much as any other big money manager and/or financial media personality like Bill Miller or Suze Orman. He also had a radio program for several years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacotrucklove (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — Tacotrucklove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was snowball/speedy delete, this article has no potential for neutrality. The "heroes" title leaves much room for subjectivity, with many unverifiable "arguably the greatest in [topic]" statements. Jamie^☆S93 02:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of black historical heroes

This is an unverifiable, original research list and possibly has a non-neutral point of view. For example: It is pretty obvious why Martin Luther King, Jr. on the list, but why is James Edward Maceo West a black hero for inventing a microphone, while Willie O'Ree (broke the color barrier in the NHL) or even Rosa Parks isn't on there. I could go on, but the list seems very POVish to me... Tavix | Talk 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Very much POV, will never be neutral. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 5 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:SNOW delete. Clear POV fork (relating to a BLP), no potential with the article's current title and presentation of only two past events. Jamie^☆S93 02:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama administration controversies

Another Obama content fork. Also, the only two alleged "scandals" happened before there was any such thing as a "Barack Obama administration." Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have crossed paths. I was busy deleting sections from the article for exactly the reasons you cite. This article was speedied a few days ago and recreated. I'm not in principle opposed to "list of scandals about x" entries, but they should be titled as such; this page has a misleading title, given the content. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I saw you creating the talk page, so I checked out the article. Was the previous version under a different title? I didn't see anything in the log. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant simply that a list of Barack Obama scandals should be called that, not "Barack Obama administration controversies". It's completely misleading; the article doesn't deliver what it promises. Hairhorn (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a BLP-oriented negative content fork. MuZemike 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Inherently fails WP:NPOV and probably WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork and per above. Tavix | Talk 20:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as POV fork. Does the author edit Conservapedia by any chance? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a freeper. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- an article on a subject like this could be written, but it would need a neutral title, and a neutral point of view. This article currently has all but two of those, and I don't see it evolving past that. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:46, 5 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 00:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Anderson (disambiguation)

This is not a needed disambiguation at all. Only one person is known by that name. The other guy's name may sound similar, but has two spelling differences (note: Kurt Andersen). In addition, no pages link here whatsoever. I have added Template:Distinguish tags on both pages to bypass this disambiguation, which therefore renders the dab useless. Tavix | Talk 19:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary dab, maybe even G6. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary dab. Triplestop (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Navigational assistance properly handled with hatnotes on the two possibly-confused entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : and I do not understand this at all. Disambiguation pages cannot be prodded? Why not? (I suppose there's a better place for that question though.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Tavix | Talk 22:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly - there is no reason to waste time forcing these to AfD when a simply hat note serves the same purpose. I view PROD deletion of these as perfectly valid (and fortunately many admins do allow them to be deleted via PROD). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion seems to have ended with "if dabs use AfD, then they should be prod-able". Is that right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seemed to end that RFD should accept DABs... Perhaps dabs should be handled at MfD then? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:VfD#Disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion ended (I think) with leaving disambiguations under AfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 6 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. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen A. Kent

Finishing unfinished nom for User:Little Professor, seems Twinkle conked out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this page be deleted? Notability is borderline but I can't see any other big problems. Triplestop (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not even mentioned in the article, but he was involved in a fairly serious plagiarism case involving an article in The Independent: [10]. He is quoted by the NY Times: [11] about scientology, and ABC news: [12], in fact, he's very often quoted about scientology in news sources, including some high profile ones: [13]. Even though the number of hits here is modest, the nature of them seem to make him almost a public figure: he seems to be one of the most authoritative academics studying Scientology, from my searches. The current article is bad, but I'd like to see it improved, not deleted. Cazort (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of room for improvement. Stephen Kent seems to be a respected scientist in the field of the sociology of religion. This is not borderline of notability, this may be a good and interesting reading, useful for the readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above Triplestop (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cited in 90 books, 80 scholarly sources, as well as multiple other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not in question; the subject passes WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments against the subject's general notability seem a little 'stretched' to me; but as long as this article does not reflect the well documented allegations regarding this scholar's purported methodological biases by many of his peers, this article will continue to resemble a non-npov resume in my opinion. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Posted some possible sources for use in the article, to the AfD talk page, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephen A. Kent. (Also placed them on the article's talk page.) Cirt (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kent is respected professor of sociology and religious persuasion. He is well spoken; his work is researched and referenced. This entry appears to be a resume as much as anything else, and likely duplicates content of his professional website at the University of Alberta. However, such duplication should not be a cause to remove this entry. If someone would like to add a comment regarding a controversial issue from Kent's past, they may open such discussion. One controversy in someone's past is not enough justification to remove them from Wikipedia's list of professionals, rather such would be good reason to keep the person listed in Wikipedia with a discussion of said controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimari03 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — Gimari03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiede Herrema

BLP issues; only one reference. Being kidnapped once does not make him notable. — Jake Wartenberg 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event, reliable and notable sources. Google News Archives result, Google books result. We can't apply WP:BLP1E on it in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage over a long time-period: [14] shows articles from the 70's, when the event happened, but also shows modern coverage, showing that, even if it is one event, it was a big enough one that the event conferred notability for this person. Example: extensive 2005 BBC article: [15]. The kidnapping was evidently such a big deal that it had major economic impacts: [16]. This is a very clear-cut example of when someone notable for a single event DOES belong in wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: his kidnapping was a very notable event which I remember well at the time, making world headlines. Later he was made an honorary Irish citizen. Needs expanding and will be interesting. ww2censor (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:. As said above, his kidnapping was a headline event at the time. Moveover, the kidnapping has become an event in itself.--Damac (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many of the above points. The article at present doesn't really assert the importance and notability of the kidnapping at the time, which was a remarkably high-profile case both in and outside Ireland. I also tend to think that the subject might skip a BLP1E problem by being made an honorary Irish citizen, one of only around a dozen, which would be notable in itself. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn — Jake Wartenberg 03:19, 6 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. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Full Reality

One of those "9th studio album by band XX" articles that epitomises unrefereced crystal-ballery. There's a ref to a single website that states "New Rufio album. This year. Get excited." which isn't a lot to base an article on; there's nothing to substantiate the album title. I42 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Little is known as for the track listing or the release date" says it all. Accurizer (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL Triplestop (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --skew-t (talk) 12:20, 7 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 00:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Goodberg

Minor role actor & production assistant. Does have an imdb entry, but still seems rather non-notable Passportguy (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non notable, autobio spam. Triplestop (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable person. Doesn't meet the criteria for creative professionals. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be notable enough. keepMax Mux (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to elaborate, since you seem to be indisagreement with everyone else? ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 19:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to complete non-notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 19:04, 6 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Clark (martial artist)

Fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find enough sources to establish notability. This search: [17] yields mostly information on other "Willam Clark"s. Only two hits in association with Karate America: [18].Cazort (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I agree with the sentiment to delete (per above), I find your nomination to be incomplete and not terribly constructive or helpful. Merely asserting that a person "fails WP:BIO" is meaningless: this is something that needs to be demonstrated. I would strongly encourage editors to provide more detailed reasoning when nominating articles, demonstrating that you have "done your homework". Articles are nominated sloppily for deletion every day, and these nominations waste editors time and sometimes even delete articles that should not be deleted. If you have done the background searches to establish whether or not this person really is notable, then by all means, SHARE this information with us, show us your searches, what they come up with. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the claim of being PKA Fighter of the Year seems to hold up per gsearch, and also a minor mag. cover [19]; this is a significant claim of notability. JJL (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source is not independent--it's a self-published source, Karate America's own website, which has an obvious interest in promoting him. Do you have any independent sources? Cazort (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW many of the google hits verifying the PKA fighter of the year award are actually pulling mirrors of this wikipedia article...and still others are self-published sources. It's obviously true that he won it--but does that award alone make someone notable? I can't find any detailed coverage in anything that seems to come close to the standards of WP:RS. I would actually like to save this page (like others) but we can't rely on self-published sources. Cazort (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:49, 6 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 00:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Bauer

Local politican, no other indication of notability Passportguy (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sue Bauer doesn't meet the notability criteria for politicians. At least according to Google News And Google Search. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't really assert notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 6 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 Pennsylvania State Police per WP:MAD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Police dispatchers in Pennsylvania

This article doesn't show anything that distinguishes Pennsylvania police dispatchers from dispatchers elsewhere (at least in the United States). There is already information on the topic in Pennsylvania State Police. I propose that this article be deleted and appropriate information added to the existing Pennsylvania State Police and Dispatcher articles. SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur In fact, this one is so obvious that you should take the AFD down and simply do it.Historicist (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessarily narrow topic. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator has it right......no different than dispatchers everywhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 6 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) 00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation

Unnotable company; no evidence of significant coverage, does not meet the criteria in WP:CORP. A prod of this page was removed even though it was endorsed. Triplestop (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve It appears to be a real corporation, a large REIT. Granted, the article is woefully inadequate. However, corporations of this size are definitionally notable.Historicist (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Rasputin's penis. If we started redirecting spam articles to Rasputin's penis we would eventually see less spam. Drawn Some (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling my rewrite spam? Cunard (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:N per this Google News Archive search. See this article, this article and this article from the Los Angeles Business Journal, as well as a brief mention in the Los Angeles Times. Cunard (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And is there any significant coverage beyond a local business journal and a brief mention in a local paper? Triplestop (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with local sources? The LA Business Journal and the LA Times are both reputable publications. Cunard (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a mortgage REIT, publically traded on the NYSE with a market cap of about 0.7 billion USD. A shadow of its former self but still considered notable per WP:CORP. Plenty of references like Hoovers and BusinessWeek profiles and also coverage in news because of the financial "crisis". Triplestop, if you look at WP:CORP in the sub-sub-section "Publicly traded corporations" you'll see it meets. And the LA Times, NY Times, etc. are not considered merely "local". Drawn Some (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Did the nominator even make a good-faith attempt to confirm the alleged lack of sources? In less than two minutes, I found numerous nontrivial mentions in highly reliable publications.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20090512-907720.html?mod=wsjcrmain

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20090413-902312.html

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/03/12/afx4765443.html

http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/AccountingRisk.do?tkr=anh

http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/16/anworth-default-notice-markets-equity-cx_af_0816markets25.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS260322+03-Feb-2009+BW20090203 — Rankiri (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The listing on the NYSE alone is strong evidence of notability. I think that pretty much makes it automatic, in fact. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep NYSE listed REIT. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep The subject passes WP:CORP and the article passes WP:RS. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:05, 6 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. No consensus to merge it to the main article, but that can be discussed further on the article talk page. Sandstein 05:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rasputin's penis

Non-notable penis. Completing nom began by IP user 69.253.207.9. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Condense and merge into main Rasputin aarticle.Historicist (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The TOPIC of Rasputin's penis is notable, there are even sufficient references in the article. Should never have been AfD'd. Michele Obama's arms are notable, too, but they were denied an article anyway. 8-(Drawn Some (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete John Bobbit's penis is more notable than Rasputin's and that doesn't have its own article. Mjroots (talk)

You nominated this, so you don't have to vote. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, it was nom'd by the IP, but the correct procedure wasn't followed. I merely enabled the nom to appear here. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hadn't noticed that, sorry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of sources to establish notability and historical significance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep but don't delete. I've seen this covered on television and in serious newspapers. Hairhorn (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am the nominating IP address but Wikipedia does not allow IP addresses to nominate articles for deletion. As I stated in the talk thread, plenty of famous penises like John Wayne Bobbit and Ron Jeremy do not have their own pages, so why should Rasputin? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That there isn't an article on John Wayne Bobbit's penis isn't a reason to delete this one, it's a call to write one about John Wayne Bobbit's penis. Really, his was sewn back on so it doesn't exist independently of his body whereas Rasputin's penis was supposedly separated. See WP:OSE for what I'm talking about. Drawn Some (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Bobbit is just an example. Are there ANY Wikipedia pages devoted to a specific person's penis? If not, the argument needs to be made that Rasputin's penis is so noteable that it's essentially the most famous penis in the history of mankind, which I do not think to be the case. In any case, what's the problem with merging this information into the main Rasputin article? This article isn't even that long in the first place. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, "Rasputin's penis" only returns 375 hits on Google, many of which are copies of this article. That doesn't strike me as notable enough to deserve its own article separate from the main Rasputin page. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but (rasputin + penis) returns 60,000 hits. You're being too restrictive with your quotes. And even your restrictive search turns up over 2,000 hits by my count. Rasputin's penis is one of the most notable in history except for bits of Jesus Christ's foreskin, see Holy prepuce. Drawn Some (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "about 2,000" and "about 60,000" references are way off. If you look more carefully, you'll see 375 hits on "Rasputin's penis" and 811 of Rasputin penis without quotes. If you search on Pamela Anderson penis, it says "about 1,300,000 hits," so I suppose by your logic Pamela Anderson's penis needs its own article because it's 20+ times as notable as Rasputin's.69.253.207.9 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're using another search engine. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rasputin's%20penis http://www.google.com/search?q=rasputin%20penis Can you name a more famous penis? Drawn Some (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you new to using Google? Those "about X hits" listings are often wildly inaccurate. This reveals it's only 375 hits: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rasputin%27s+penis&hl=en&safe=off&start=370&sa=N And as I said, John Wayne Bobbit and Ron Jeremy's penises are far more famous than Rasputin's. Per Google, how else do you explain why Pamela Anderson penis has "about 1,300,000 results" listed? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You need to close your quotes, perhaps the embedded apostrophe throws the search off. With Google SafeSearch off, adding a closing quotation mark to your '375' search above, a search for

"rasputin's penis"

returns 2,130 hits. --CliffC (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to read what I wrote. Even though it displays "about 2,130 hits," there are not actually 2130 hits. There are only 375 of them. Well, actually there are now 7 new hits since I last searched, possibly because of this AfD, and it is now 382 hits. See: http://www.google.com/#q=%22rasputin%27s+penis%22&hl=en&safe=off&start=380&sa=N&fp=DkheYKZULkw 69.253.207.9 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you know G-hits have nothing to do with how notable Rasputin's penis is, right? You should do a Google news search and a Google book search and report back shamefacedly on all the in-depth coverage in reliable sources. But of course you didn't do that, you're too busy looking for Angela Anderson's penis.Drawn Some (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of this "in-depth coverage" for an article which consists of exactly 15 sentences. Why can't 15 sentences be added to the main Rasputin article? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is a small article. The content listed here could easily fit into the main Rasputin article. Joe (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rasputin's article per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote YES on keeping this article. The user who proposed it for deletion did so because he does not like User:CliffC, who has done great work at keeping this article accurate. 68.45.109.215 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but WHY do you think it should be kept? Drawn Some (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, history of the weird supported by reliable sources, the rest is clean-up via regular editing. -- Banjeboi 21:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I really think this information belongs in the article on Rasputin. The penis' notability is largely inherited from him, and most of the claims to its notability (size, shape, what he did with it) date from when it was still attached to the rest of him and to a functioning circulation. Deleting this article outright is not an option, and references to John Wayne Bobbit etc are just WP:OTHERPENISESEXIST arguments. pablo_hablo. 22:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though this is an unusual article, but we don't want this information in his main article. Triplestop (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we probably do want some mention with due weight but perhaps not the detail that this article would and could go into. -- Banjeboi 03:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject organ is notable in its own right and is mentioned and/or described in histories of the Russian Revolution and of the Romanovs. In addition, the style and content of the article make it a bad fit for a merge into the scholarly Grigori Rasputin. --CliffC (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing verifiability. "Some claim" that he was castrated, "some claim" that someone chopped his bone apart. "No definitive evidence" regarding either, per the article. This is not "Speculateopedia." Lacks reliable sources, so fails notability. Several of the refs are crappy and unreliable. Edison (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - most of the missing or crappy refs can be improved, there are plenty of better ones out there. --CliffC (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rasputin's penis is so noteable in Russian history that it's essentially the most famous penis in the history of modern world, and it's an icon like Lenin's Mummy. --200.49.211.8 (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP has been blocked as an open proxy.[20] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources, enough content to warrant separate article. Would support a brief mention in the main Rasputin article, if not just a see also link. Also, I've seen weirder topics at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. -- œ ^™ 04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "I've seen weirder topics" fall under WP:OSE 69.253.207.9 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well, I'm just saying... -- œ ^™ 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the topic warrants its own article because people who want to know about Rasputin may not necessarily want know about his penis, making it worthy of a separate page.<sarcasm> His penis seems to be very very notable, I mean everyone knows about Rasputin's penis right? Perhaps it was the penis that made Rasputing notable? </sarcasm> «l| ?romethean ™|l» (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct and merge with article on Rasputin. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally every statement in this article, despite having a source, is a matter of conjecture. "Some claim," "some believe," etc. That a rumor is sourced does not make it anything other than a rumor. If this article involved a current topic, it would surely be promptly deleted as lacking verifiability. That these rumors are historic in nature should not change anything--they are still rumors. Mikerichi (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rumours and hoaxes can still be verifiable. See Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To the article on Rasputin. The subject doesn't warrant its own article. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient independent notability to exist as a separate sub-article. I've also added another reliable source.[21] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the notability guideline for penises. Although most sources are about Rasputin himself, there are at least these two that write specifically about the penis. Also, add mention to the main Rasputin article. Jafeluv (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna know why we have a notability guideline for penises, and where exactly it is so I can read it. --BlueSquadronRaven 13:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Notability seems to be established but the only argument against including it in the main Rasputin article seems to be that people reading the Rasputin article might not want to read about his penis. But Wikipedia is uncensored and people can simply skip that section. 173.124.236.151 (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete rumours and nonsense can be notable. This one is not. Very borderline sourcing. His penis in life might or might not have been a noteworthy characteristic, but I can't see that the dead organ is. DGG (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article on this notoriously wayward anatomical part; if only Gogol had known about this before he wrote The Nose. Should enough people suggest "keep", it may be necessary to cut this off and preserve it soon. Antandrus (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone asked me to come here and place my vote, for great justice and, um, epic lulz.--69.114.165.104 (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this a valid !vote? Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a valid !joke and probably refers to the template at the top. I may be wrong though. pablo_hablo. 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge or delete. In the context of Rasputin, parts of his body may be notable. On their own, however, I just don't see it. Wikipedia may not be censored, but this just doesn't seem to be notable enough on its own. The only good argument for this article being separate is breaking off content that's not particularly wholesome from the main article...which I do feel would have more merit if the content were exceedingly objectionable, but as it isn't too over-the-top either merging or dumping makes sense.Tyrenon (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article on Rasputin. Sure, the topic meets WP:N so we could have a stand alone article on this subject, but that doesn't me we should. All of the information in this article would be better covered in the main Rasputin article. There's no need to highlight his penis in a standalone article.Yilloslime ^T_C 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. Simply doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. --92.18.187.80 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Seems relatively notable and a subject of some writings. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Unfortunately, I actually came to this article after searching "Rasputin's penis" and not via AfD. Long story. --AniMate^draw 09:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is about "alleged" remains. They're not even as averifiably his as some genuine holy relics. --BlueSquadronRaven 13:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and not Merge because sensible people (children) reading the Rasputin article might not want to read about his ~~awe~~some penis.--211.54.10.162 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a well written, well sourced article about a very notable penis. --Zaiger_talkplx 04:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DICK. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read the article, I now say keep. It has references, and is clearly a notable subject. Dream Focus 10:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll try and get some more on this, but this is notable, and it can be improved. Deletion is not the answer here, in my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the "keep" votes here are obvious jokes because the subject is a penis, or prudes who think the penis content should be removed from the main Wikipedia Rasputin page because children might read it. Wikipedia is uncensored! If you want to complain about prudish content why not mention that the anus page has a hairy asshole on it. 68.244.104.35 (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I don't want to hear how do you explain that it's ok to show some anus pics to the minors but not to keep this article as a spin-off. --211.54.10.162 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think the above user was making a joke about one of the comments on User:CliffC's talk page, one of the authors of this article, who has some comment about the Mona Lisa and a hairy asshole on the Anus page. In any case, see WP:NOTCENSORED 174.152.49.81 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article is small enough it can be easily included with the Rasputin article. 174.152.49.81 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments are comparatively weak: Something might sound notable, but there are no reliable sources to back that up. Saying that the article shows notability is vague and does not give much more insight than just a vote. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Thai

Fails WP:PORNBIO. Hardcore gossip site unreliable to establish notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to support notability Triplestop (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Morbidthoughts says, fails PORNBIO. And I would like to point out that while she has been nominated for AVN awards, it appears she was nominated only in 2005 according to my records (Best New Starlet, Best All-Girl Sex Scene – Video and Best Tease Performance) and PORNBIO requires nominations in multiple years. Tabercil (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being nominated for Best New Starlet sounds notable to me.SPNic (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article shows notability. --Maverx (talk) 03:43, 8 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. Though the majority of comments here are saying "keep", the article is unsourced, and no sources can be found for such a dish. I am convinced by the argument that Khatta merely means "sour" as that is what my research indicates. For example - Dhokla may be prepared "Khatta dhokla". When an article is brought to AFD it should only be kept if there is some evidence that it is correct. This article is speculative at best, incorrect at worse. SilkTork *^YES! 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khatta

There is no indication of notability. I have searched, and have seen no evidence of coverage giving Khatta any more status than a rather mundane dish. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a Google search does return some results, namely [22] and [23] (both recipes it appears) but these aren't exactly reliable (both free hosts, one blog and one Tripod site), so I'm not 100% convinced. Weak keep for now. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding quite a lot of ghits. The cuisine of Orissa isn't as widely known outside India as the cuisines of other areas are. Whether it is a mundane dish or otherwise, it is a dish. And while the existence of another article isn't reason to justify a subject, I would rather see an article on Khatta than on Chicken salad as it is a much less widely known dish outside its home territory. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regret now having deleted most of this article. In its original form it was an obvious delete as a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. I decided to delete all the "how to" information, which was the body of the article, and propose the rest for deletion as essentially vacuous. However, as for the article in its present state, and the arguments advanced above:

Certainly "a Google search returns some results", but even if it returned thousands of results, that would not be evidence of notability in Wikipedia's sense unless at least some of them were significant coverage by reliable independent sources. I have not found any of them which could remotely be called significant coverage. As for "while the existence of another article isn't reason to justify a subject": exactly, so why mention it? I had no idea there was a Google article on Chicken salad: now that I do know I think it is as pointless as the article on Khatta, but even if I thought it was more pointless (as Peridon does), the existence of one would not justify the existence of the other. Summary: neither Google hits nor the existence of another equally bad article constitutes notability in Wikipedia's sense, so we have yet to have a single argument in favour of keeping based on Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, but you're twisting my words. I never said that the number of Google hits establishes notability - I'm actually saying that it's the quality that counts, and that's how I judged my weak keep. Please assume good faith - your comments above are not nice! JulieSpaulding (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry if I was twisting your words, but I honestly don't see that I was. The article is proposed for deletion on the grounds of there being no evidence of notability. You say we should keep it, which presumably means you think there is evidence of notability. The only fact which you give to support this view is the existence of Google hits to pages which you say "aren't exactly reliable". I pointed out that the existence of Google hits does not establish notability unless they constitute substantial cover. How am I twisting your words? I don't see it. It is perhaps also worth pointing out that pages which aren't reliable are completely irrelevant anyway, whether substantial or not. Under Wikipedia policy "there are a few Google hits but none of them is reliable" is not an argument for keeping an article, weak or otherwise.

As for assuming good faith, I certainly did: I thought you were mistaken in your understanding of what "notability" means in Wikipedia, but I had (and still have) no reason to doubt that you were acting in good faith. I apologise if something in the way I expressed myself seemed to indicate otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you James, for explaining your views. What I meant was that I'm not saying that the number of Google hits establishes notability. I was basically just saying that I could find sources on them, but I wasn't sure whether they were reliable. Anyway, I think we should leave this for now. Happy editing! JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little confused because I thought "khatta" is just an adjective meaning tangy or savory used in the names of many different dishes. I would appreciate hearing from an expert on this. Drawn Some (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Khatta does mean sour or tangy. However, many Indian dishes can take on the taste as the primary name, this is probably the case here. I don't really have an opinion on food articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not going to vote on this, but if it is kept, the article should probably be expanded to reflect that Khatta is the taste, and then list eponymous dishes and/or dishes that have it as an adjective. I can take a basic stab at it later (likely, only if it's kept). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve We have lots of similar articles, see Mulligatawny and Paella.Historicist (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought someone who knows something about Indian cooking needs to weigh in. What is the difference from Kala khatta.Historicist (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article indicates "tangy" and here it says it literally means "sour". I've had khatta channa and khatta meetha. Drawn Some (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khatta in many Indian languages means "sour". I guess it is also used to indicate "tangy" as there is no distinct word for tangy(not that I know of ). Kala khatta is a syrupy flavouring. Mostly used in a thirst quencher called "gola"(blob) made of compressed ice shavings.Something similar to a ice pop--Deepak D'Souza 04:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is very subjective, No refs. India has many cuisines and probably a ten thousand different dishes. Unless it can be established that this dish has become popular outside its native area , like chicken tikka masala or vindaloo its best to delete it. --Deepak D'Souza 04:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If India has thousands of important dishes, we can have the necessary thousands of article-- NOT PAPER. If it is popular in India it would be enough . Madhur Jaffrey's standard cookbooks list several dishes of this sort, with khatta apparently meaning sour. "Khatta aloo (sour potatoes). This is an adaptation of a street-side snack to be found in different forms all over North India" pp.38-9 of her An Invitation to Indian Cooking. Other versions with other ingredients are in her other books. DGG (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "khatta aloo" and Khatta aren't the same. You will find the word khatta used frequently in names of Indian dishes to indicate the taste. The Khatta being discussed here is a soup not the taste. And the google hits that we get are not necessarily to this dish mentioned in the article.--Deepak D'Souza 04:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be salvageable with expansions.--Caspian blue 17:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jhoeni Darren

Declined speedy because there's a claim of importance. However, just 40 non-wiki ghits, none of which appear to show notability (although some are in languages I don't know); 0 gnews hits. Prod contested by article creator who added a source that doesn't relate to the article. Possible hoax / wishful thinking, but because of language issues I don't want to rush to a speedy deletion. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails as singer and in general. You'd think a "superstar" would have more coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Total, total hoax--and I have a feeling this article is written by Jhoeni himself. Besides, if he is such a superstar, anyone from the Philippines (including me) would have heard about him. Starczamora (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADD: Besides, what source does the creator claim? Just look at how the article is constructed...

* The film entitled "[[The]] [[Seven]] [[Last]] [[Curse]]",was such a box office hit in the [[Hollywood]] directed by John Cooper... He is planning to go in the Philippines for the promotion of his album and the film [[The Love Of Siam]] [[2]].

Need I say more? Starczamora (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since when does merely showing of one's arms (among many, many extras) count for notability? :P Definitely sounds, smells, looks and feels like a hoax; in addition, the user name of the article's creator look like he/she is up to something. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a very likely hoax per several comments above.Tyrenon (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Notability issues. (After reading the talkpage, it's an EPIC FAIL.) ax (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (There is no article on the radio station.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chris and James 5 O'Clock Showdown

Student radio show that won an in-house award. No independent WP:RS coverage to establish notability. Disputed prod. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into an article on the University radio station should someone wish to create one, many university radio stations have articles.Historicist (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan article written by a wp:SPA that doesn't demonstrate actual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Robert Dozier (basketball) has been moved to Robert Dozier, since the space is no longer taken up. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dozier

Subject not notable except for "coaching six NFL players" at the high school level. Unsourced and almost entirely OR; only "sources" are a redirect to another website, a passing mention in an alumni magazine, and a chart of high school win-loss records. Spell4yr (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move Robert Dozier (basketball) to Robert Dozier. Having a difficult time finding any sort of notability outside of local. I found two brief quotes from the Ludington Daily News and the Rome News-Tribune but hardly anything substantial. Vodello (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG: little to no significant media coverage, only mention I found on him (not bball player) was in a game recap article. Notability can not be had through association. Strikehold (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Folks.... Please read the article; read about the man. Wikipedia must include people who impacted and influenced their fellow man. Coach Robert Dozier may not be spotlighted on Google - but he has earned a spot in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckjav (talk • contribs)
- I am in no way saying he has not influenced and impacted anybody. But because he is not spotlighted on Google -- or anywhere else for that matter -- is precisely why there should not be an article on Wikipedia -- because Wikipedia needs reliable sources and there are no reliable sources about him at this time. I can tell you spent a lot of time on the article, and perhaps you should copy/save the article into your userspace, do some research and find some reliable sources, and change the tone from narrative prose to encyclopedic -- and then possibly the article will be warranted. But right now the article reads as nothing more than a fan piece, and not an encyclopedia article. Spell4yr (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into List of General Hospital characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rayner

Non-notable soap opera character, fails WP:N and guidance at Wikipedia:SOAPS#Notability standards. — TAnthony^Talk 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge if needed. Triplestop (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless someone provides sources establishing notability.Historicist (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of General Hospital characters. Minor, non-notable character. AniMate^draw 02:48, 7 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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Spainsh GP2 Race

Does not satisfy general notability guidelines, per discussion of a similar article on a motorsport series at the same approximate level of competition. --Midgrid (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete 2009 Spanish GP2 Race but delete 2009 spainish gp2 race The article called 2009 Spainish GP2 Race is useless, i accidently spelt the title wrong. Besides, the other articles are very useful, with info on both races and links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshgp2 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per User:Midgrid. Cs-wolves (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect not needed.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better throw 2009 Spanish GP2 Race, 2009 Monaco GP2 Race, 2009 Tukish GP2 Race and 2009 Turkish GP2 Race into the mix also. Cs-wolves (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this level of open-wheel racing, I think just a season overview article is all that is needed. All the race results are posted there and if anything unusual happens in a race then it can be added as a note on the season overview article. ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Redirect as it is an implausible spelling and Keep the main article. I expect that multiple reliable sources can be found for a series of this magnitude. Just because the series is not as high as Formula One in the world view doesn't mean that there aren't enough reliable sources available for it. The general notability standards should apply - as long as sufficient number of reliable sources are found. I wonder if commenters are arbitrarily picking their personal standards of notability instead of looking at WP:NOTE. WP:NOTE for organizations says "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Commenters appear to be commenting with their opinion of the series' importance. Royal broil 03:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a 2009 GP2 season article. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was cut-and-pasted to 2009 Spanish GP2 Race, then histmerged — 70.29.208.129 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009 British GP2 Race also created by the same user. Only GP2 and Autosport sources are being used, so this should result in the same decision as the WSbR articles; Redirect at very best but I stand by Delete. Cs-wolves (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 2009 German GP2 Race has also been created and falls under the remit of this AfD.--Midgrid (talk) 16:06, 7 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. The article as it stands does not prove notability. The article doesn't meet our criteria for such an article - Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Discussion below suggested that some of the things that this person had done could be accumulated to give an impression of notability, however there is nothing significant. I considered a close of No consensus; however, I feel the general trend of the discussion was "This person may be notable, but we don't yet have enough information", which is consensus for a delete. I will WP:userfy the article on request to allow someone to build up the required evidence to demonstrate notability. SilkTork *^YES! 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Brandon Snyder

Contested PROD; prod tag deleted with the note "appears to have enough publications to possibly meet WP:PROF". Original prod reason was "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: William Brandon Snyder – news, books, scholar . Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." Was PRODed a 2nd time with the note "Does not meet Wikipedia general standards for notability nor those for academics", but since it can't be PRODed again, I brought it here. I agree, the standards in WP:GNG and WP:PROF haven't been met - Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, I was the prodder. Doesn't meet standards for notability under general or WP:PROF guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep--changed because of the uncertainties of just which papers he has written. Editor of a journal, author of a significant book; I'm now looking for citations to his papers in the proper indexes. That's how we tell if someone meets the standards, not by impressions from the article. DGG (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC) DGG (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he's just co-editor of a minor quarterly journal. Drawn Some (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: The G search given above was not correct, since it included the full middle name within the name as an exact phrase, which is not normally used in scientific publications, compare [24]--one must include name variations in such searches. However, some seem to be in a different field. I have not yet checked without the middle initial, for there are even more people. DGG (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are someone else, largely a former UCSD biologist who seems to have fallen off the map. Try this instead. Hairhorn (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the book, editorship, and publications indicate enough notability. Lady

of Shalott 17:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with some guesswork about his citations on Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar, I don't see any papers with high citation numbers, and his h-index could be as low as 5 or possibly as high as 16. I checked with and without the middle initial. I disagree that one book means much. I also don't know how DGG determines that the book is significant. Joey the Mango (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I determine the book is significant on the basis of the publisher:OUP. DGG (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally reject your contention that any book published by any particular publisher, including Oxford University Press, is therefore notable, nor is the author. Notability is NOT inherited in that manner. This is a basic principle. Same for significance. Drawn Some (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right; WP:AUTHOR says nothing about the publisher. Joey the Mango (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publication by one of the world's most distinguished academic publishers is presumption of notability of the book. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

keep most wikipedia articles on academics are inadequate. This does not mean that the subjects are non-notable. Only that the articles are inadequate. As a general rule, it is the controversial academics who get detailed articles. Lots of people doing important work have very poor articles. We need more editors form the academic world.Historicist (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that we should not delete articles on academic people, so that we will get more editors from the world of academia? I suspect that these articles on assistant or associate profs are written by these profs themselves or their graduate or undergraduate students. In this case user:William.snyder created his page, and the page for the little journal he co-edits, and nothing else. It's not like he improved our coverage of his field, language acquisition. Joey the Mango (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all the people screaming "keep keep" you would think one of them might have added some independent reliable source to verify the information in the article. It could be completely false except for the name and publications. "Who's Who" is just a scam to solicit autobiographical information to compile to sell directories to the autobiographers, not at all reliable. Sure this guy is the average prof, he's co-edited a minor journal and published a book by a respected press and some of his articles about baby babble have been cited. But let's get real, he's not notable and if it weren't a conflict of interest editor the article would never have been written because nobody cares because he's not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. U of C website confirms that he is head of a small department. The final sentence of the above comment should not be here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC). On second thoughts I have removed the offending sentence according to [[WP:BLP]. 'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.' Xxanthippe (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. A Google search for 'William Snyder linguistics' gets quite a lot of results [25], but I'm not sure if there's anything there that provides clear evidence of notability - if there is, I haven't found it yet. However, the facts that he's (i) head of the linguistics department at the University of Connecticut, (ii) co-editor of a journal, and (iii) author of a book published by OUP, are significant and mean there is a plausible case for notability to be made here. If direct evidence of notability in independent reliable sources can be found, I'll change to Keep. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. Reading the full text of WP:PROF, including the examples and footnotes, shows that one must be the Editor-in-Chief of a major journal, and that one's book(s) must be shown to be widely held in libraries, using WorldCat (or be a widely read popular press book). No mention is made in WP:PROF of inherited notability from the publisher. Dr Synder's book is held at 219 libraries. By way of comparison, Alison Elliot's book Child language is held by 758 libraries, and Barbara Lust's book Child language : acquisition and growth is held by 182. Abductive (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Abductive previously edited this page under the name of Joey the Mango. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easteighteen

Fails WP:BAND as I can't find anything to convey significance or notability. A few local reviews can be found, but they don't satisfy the "multiple, nontrivial published works" needed. Them From Space 16:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Them From Space 16:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:MUSIC. By the way, if the article gets deleted, we'll need to delete In the Event that You're Right as well, per CSD A9.
Delete - as per nom (sorry it's as simple as that). Also delete their record article. --Triwbe (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gastro Emo

While a Google search does seem to return some results on the term, GNews returned nothing and "Darina Ptáčková" returns no meaningful Google or GNews results. If it's real, it neads a decent cleanup, but I think there's definite WP:N. Put this down as "severe notability issues plus possible hoax"; I am certain that at the very least there is a hoax within the article that needs excising. Tyrenon (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and non-notable, no reliable sources to support topic. Drawn Some (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term Gastro Emo seems to be invented by the local Czech band "Masturbace", 90% of Google hits refers to their web sites and videos. I can't find any evidence that "The Fraktaligos" band exists, "The Yorkies" has anything in common with the term Gastro Emo, as well as Darina Ptáčková. Major part of that article is hoax, the rest is invention of a not notable band. Btw, the Czech cuisine is quite good, but I hope I'll play with my band on the stage together with "Masturbace" - I'll gladly discuss the merits of Chardonnay (especially if they bring along a bottle of that excellent wine, of course) :D --Vejvančický (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I was getting just enough to avoid a CSD as a hoax on this article (which is what a good chunk of it), and that explains why. The band came up with a recipie to avoid speedy deletion: Add one part neologism to two parts hoax. Let sit for a few hours. Add to Wikipedia, and watch everyone stew over what to do with it.Tyrenon (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I;m still not sure it isn't a hoax, which makes me sure it's not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 6 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 Kindle. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: That target page is now Amazon Kindle, while Kindle has become a disambiguation page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Kindle Content Sources

Contested prod. This content was split from the Kindle article, but I don't feel there is enough material for it to stand on its own. Wikipedia is not a directory of services. TN X Man 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to primary article Kindle. That article is not too large and this means little out of context. One might even argue that the content is the most important thing about Kindle. Drawn Some (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links however well annotated they are. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some background: There were discussions on available content and this addressed that issue back in December 2008. Back then it was part of the article. Since then, others have added to the table content improving upon my attempt at bring this information to the article. Others still have enhanced the look and feel of the table. So there is no question that people are finding the information useful. I have also seen people discussing the information in the table on several Kindle Discussion forums. In fact much of the original information came from various threads on those discussion forums.

I really don't care whether it is part of the article or on its own separate page. I would just hate to lose the information because it is so useful. I have seen arguments that it is providing advertising. Wouldn't any mention of a commercial product be a form of advertising them? Another argued that we should be providing directory services. Maybe. But I would argue that the people we are helping are the websites listed so much as people who use Kindles and are looking for content. Further, much of the information is free! And many of the websites listed have their won pages in Wikipedia! Knipfty (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being useful is not a reason to keep the article. For instance, a directory of phone numbers is useful; that doesn't mean it's suitable in an encyclopedia. MuZemike 23:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following "Being Useful" - Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." The information answers the question of available content that is beyond any one vendor. Given the level of activity around this question here on Wikipedia and on discussion forums, and the fact that people have added to the information, it is information that is in demand. Knipfty (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the disputer of the prod, I'm (obviously?) inclined to keep the material. It is split out of Amazon Kindle mainly for WP:SIZE. When this was first added to the Kindle article, I was opposed. I'm not entirely sure why I've changed my mind. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantial cleanup is made and, particularly, something's done with all those external links and the vague "notes" column. It's currently acting as a link farm or some sort of directory, neither of which have any place on Wikipedia. I can understand the idea of wanting to fork from the main Kindle article, but the entire page currently just serves as advertising for the sources mentioned. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notes section provides information that makes each site unique. # of books available, do they need to do anything special in order to get Kindle books, etc. The links are there because the purpose is to provide a one-stop-shopping experience, so to speak. What good would it do say these sites are out there, but not provide a link to those sites? Some, but not, of the sites listed have there own pages in Wikipedia, so dropping the external links will take away a lot of the value of the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knipfty (talk • contribs) 11:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it this way: Drop the external links for proper names. Add internal links where they exist. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to be a "one-stop shop" (WP:LINKFARM), that's a service that other websites, such as Amazon itself, should provide. This article should be giving an insight into the services available, what makes them different and what would make the users want to use them. At the moment it's not approachable or useful and certainly not encyclopaedic. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a link farm and because wikipedia is not a directory service. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The linkfarm has been taken care of but the article is still essentially a directory. My !vote remains unchanged after the cleanup. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have now removed the external links from the article, eliminating its status as a linkfarm. I have invited other editors !voting delete here to reconsider their !votes too. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not a directory of services for a software/hardware platform. This could be covered in a paragraph "multiple content sources are available for the Kindle, those include..." --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup per Greg Tyler, above, and merge back to main article, which is not long enough to require a split. The content should not be deleted simply because it does not stand well on its own, and the material if cleaned up will add to the encyclopedic coverage of the main topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and merge (per SMcCandlish). ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 05:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Gremillion

BLP without any independent reliable sources. May also have COI problems. Does not meet any standards for notability. Is very un-encyclopedic in tone and links to her resume. Basically spam. Drawn Some (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly an article with problems. To play devils advocate here, could an arguement be made that her writings bring her into WP:PROF range? Not my field so I really don't know if they do or don't.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a full prof. No books. h-index is 8. Highest cited paper; 44. I suspect archeology is a low citation field, but she writes about the domestication of plant crops, which is of interest to plant biologists, yet still not very many citations. Author of article was User:MissKristenL, whose only contribution to Wikipedia is this article. You'd think she would at least have improved our coverage of North American archeology... Joey the Mango (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF and looks like COI. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep archeology is not only a very low citation field, and a field where citations are dispersed over a very wide range of publications--many of them poorly indexed altogether, and where the citations that are made take a very long time coming. I consider the use of h index in the humanities unproven, unreliable, and without any basis. it should be obvious that in all fields where publication is often in books, a citation index value based on journals--no matter how sophisticated --is worthless. WoK (as Science Citation Index) was first developed for molecular biology, and works increasingly poorly as the subject literature differs from that paradigm. I judge keep here on the same basis as otherwise in the humanities, the quality of the publications & publishers in which the publication was. I trust specialist reviews and editors more than myself--and certainly more than anyone concentrating their efforts on evaluating articles on scientists based on crude numerology. Echos at a cruder level the worst failings of academic administrators. Unencyclopedic tone and COI are fixable, as always. They should not be mentioned as reasons for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you seem to be once again arguing that we can delegate the judging of notability to publishers, that "specialist reviews and editors" determine who is notable on Wikipedia. That simply isn't the case, we have our own standards of notability. Even verifiability is at issue with this article, no independent reliable sources exist. COI and tone are indeed relevant as this could theoretically be speedied as pure spam. Please give valid references instead of throwing up a long and tangled argument without substance, no one wants to delete material but this is unreferenced BLP. Drawn Some (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems notable, seems like it needs improvement before we can see whether it is worth of deletion. needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. how about seeing whether there are verifiable secondary sources. people don't work in a field this long with this vita and not generate notability somehow. after you try to improve it and fine it completely wanting, then i might vote for a delete. --Buridan (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be admitting that the subject is not notable but proposing that if the article sits around long enough that the subject may become notable. This discussion is to determine whether or not the subject is notable, not to presume that it is and hope that it may be demonstrated at some point in the future. Drawn Some (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no what i am saying is that the subject is notable, and if the article was improved the debate would be clear, she would either be decided as notable or not, because it is a consensus of the rule, lots of people who meet or exceed the criteria have been deleted, there is no reason to expect that it won't happen again. however, now though she is notable and we should not delete her just because the article needs improvement. --19:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then would you please share how you decided that the subject of the article is notable because I would like nothing more to be presented with that evidence so I could withdraw this nomination for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you should just do your best to improve the article, then you'd know. --Buridan (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to but there was no way to verify the information because independent resources don't exist. This is a biography of a living person, the information must be verifiable. If you have any sources please share. Drawn Some (talk) 21:39, 9 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 17:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korova bar terroir

Non-Notable Bar. Appears to fail WP:NOTE and verges on advertisement. Limited GHits and no GNews hits. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hello from the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec in downtown Montreal, where I can assure you that this bar is not even that notable locally. There's a half dozen bars where you can see regular indie rock shows, and this is not even the most notable. (As for the mention in Spin, they mentioned all of them, in a piece on Montreal indie rock, and placed them all on a map filled with errors...) Hairhorn (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable local bar. Article even says bar received "mention" in sources, no in-depth coverage. I'm sure the retro-romper room decor is lovely. Drawn Some (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 5 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. Does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MamaJuana Energy

Energy drink of questionable notability. When looking for sources I found plenty of online shops selling it, some blogs mentioning it, and a press release from the company that was published in various places. I do not believe the article meets WP:N. bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been tagged for advert-like language for some time; I cleaned it up a bit before listing it for deletion. The relevant question here is notability, not spammy language, I believe. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had other articles with far more legitimacy deleted than this. This is an ad for a cheap knockoff of another beverage entirely. Cwolfsheep (talk) 03:05, 1 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 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ghits and gnews hits are all promotional, there is no coverage in reliable independent sources, therefore it fails WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable product. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:16, 6 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. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Toral

Non notable; fails WP:BIO. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no clear notability. --CliffC (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I have added some info and there appears he has some notability, probably more with more looking. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. لenna vecia 18:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability-meter didn't even twitch. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:18, 6 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. PTorg's comment is too confusing for me to follow. Sandstein 05:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grande Loja Regular de Portugal

AfDs for this article:

Notability can not be established as per WP:ORG. I can find no reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject. This is an article about one of several Masonic bodies that exist in Portugal (Portugese Freemasonry seems prone to schism). The article is primarily sourced to self-published websites (There is citation to one scholarly source, but this source does not discuss the subject Org. in any great detail. It is used in the article primarily to discuss rival groups, and furthermore indicates that the subject Org has an estimated total membership of around 100 people. in other words, it backs the idea that this org is not notable.) Please note that an article on a larger, rival body was recently deleted for the same reasons as this nom. (see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grande Loja Legal de Portugal/GLRP). Also note that there has been some discussion of merging this article into a general article on Freemasonry in Portugal (which I would agree is a more notable topic). After attempting such a merger, I am having the same difficulties with finding reliable secondary sources that we have with this article and the one already deleted, and will probably end up nominating it for deletion as well. It seems that, unlike in other countries, Freemasonry was not all that important to Portugese history, and Portugese Freemasonry was not that important in the development of the fraternity. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I attempted to work with this as well, and there's simply nothing there. It's not even a case of bias, either (as that usually becomes an argument in Grand Lodge deletion debates); there's just no way to consider an individual organization notable when it has 100 members (or even a thousand) out of a population of ten million plus, has no real visibility in society, and seems to have suffered schism after schism after schism to the point where nobody knows exactly which group is which. MSJapan (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability the great excuse to control articles and interests, sometimes dictated by one or two organized users ... no comment for this|. For the records it was interesting to see that the recognition by UGLE does not stablish notability to Grand Lodges as argument to delete the article (in stub) Grande Loja Legal de Portugal/GLRP CONGRATULATIONs !!!!. Also the "number and members" published for lodges in Portugal came from a member Initiated in Lodge Star of the Morning nº 7 and presently, Master Mason in Lodge Anderson 16th (Rite York) of the same Obedience GLRP (Legal). Citing José Manuel Anes, ibidem, pp. 34-5. (José M. Anes was Grand Master of the (Legal)). Here is the link to Jose M. Anes and his numbersAccording some information and a magazine published this week in portugal, GLRP dont reveal his members, how many or what lodges has. I don't think this is not reliable source why insist in refering that (Blueboar and MSJapan)?. There is a obscure interest in clear this information but history will reveal the serious error. I think that Grand Lodges of these users should be informed about their "work". Maybe i can help this way. Too bad for real Freemason "bros"!!! I will keep on touch. Sincerely PTorg (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PTorg (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG: no reliable third party coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure if a more thorough discussion is possible. Unless someone can come up with reliable third party sources that discuss this org., what more is there to discuss? Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but merge relevant content to Freemasonry in Portugal, given the schismatic nature of Portuguese lodges and the lack of relevant third party coverage in modern times. --Pc13 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relevant content already merged. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Caslin

Likely non-notable author. Only souce given states :

"As a Prestige and performance car enthusiast and owner as well as a resident at motoring.co.uk, John has a wealth of experience and knowledge to impart. He regularly updates his car blog with news and reviews that affect the performance and prestige car owner."

I don't see this passing notability requirements Passportguy (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources don't exist to provide in-depth coverage to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a blog, can I have an article too? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is almost content free with a very tenuous claim to notability with no independent sourcing provided nor could I find any myself. - Whpq (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE should be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL and against WP:CONSENSUS. A discussion among the people who happen to come here is inadequate. Use the talk page and give it an adequate period of time before deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Above users only edits have been to vote "Keep" on AfD's, and remove ProD's. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:42, 9 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 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UT3 Invasion

Seems to just be a mod created for Unreal Tournament. No notability, no sources, no verifiability. Would have speedied but couldn't decide on a category... Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah - it's about a mod, not a group of people. It's not inherently web content either. Anyway, Delete for reasons of notability and independence. ~ Amory (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply does not meet the notability threshold. ModDB entry shows no independent coverage. I wish speedy A7 would cover mods and homebrew games. Marasmusine (talk) 11:27, 7 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. Jamie^☆S93 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpants Publishing

Contested prod (removal of tag).

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a business. Google news searches: "greenpants publishing", "green pants publishing". Also, zero web hits for "greenpants publishing". tedder (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable, probably a hoax. Even the article insists that it's unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, likely a hoax. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails verifiability in rather spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE should be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL and against WP:CONSENSUS. A discussion among the people who happen to come here is inadequate. Use the talk page and give it an adequate period of time before deletion. Give it some time. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Above users only edits have been to vote "Keep" on AfD's, and remove ProD's. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD#G4 Cirt (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SuperView

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable software product. Prod denied (by anon IP with no edit summary). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-consumer software with no showing of importance: scalable and configurable Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) software, focused in the supervision of Modbus RTU devices in RS485 networks. I checked at BestBuy, they didn't carry it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines as I haven't found the independant coverage of the program by third-party sources needed to write a neutral article. Them From Space 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:22, 5 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Warrane Oval

The subject of the article doesn't appear notable. I can't find anything else apart from being a Council sports oval with a public toilet. Bleakcomb (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is websites referring to sporting venues in Tasmania, City of Clarence and Warrane that refer to other sporting venues in the area. e.g. Wentworth Park

The inclusion of every one in existence is notable and explanation as of who the Tenenants are.

Rugby Union is a National Sport. This is the Venue associated with that sport and this is the Highest level in this state. And it is the only Rugby Venue on the Eastern Shore.

I will include additional references to improve the notablility of this topic.

What are you looking for ? more history ?

I can quickly search for ovals listed in wikipedia with far less information on them.

Should these pages be considered for deletion also ?

It is a Licenced Clubrooms that operates up to 5 days per week.

Has the changes made, changed your opinion including articles about future development and news coverage. Mmunji1 (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warrane, Tasmania, after cutting out most of the content which is not encyclopedic. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the content is not encyclopedic ?

Do you mean the added information about proposed improvements? This I added to make it more notable and have seen as in bellerive ovals propose futur lighting systems.

Yes maybe the Warrane Article could be enhanced. I disagee that it should be merged and this be removed as it is a seperate article about a sporting ground. eg the bellerive oval is not just in bellerive Mmunji1 (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is not encyclopedic? Where do I start -

"The Rugby Club leases an area of land adjacent to the oval where they have their licenced clubrooms. (There are only 209 Licenced Clubs in the State of Tasmania.)". Most clubs have bars - it is not notable.

"The venue is available to host functions on the licensed premises". - ditto

The Street address - we are not a directory.

"Two Cricket Nets are located at one end of the Oval". Every cricket ground has nets.

"Separate change rooms including showers are available at the ground. A separate public toilet also exists." What club does not? I could go on. This article should be cut back and merged. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the responses of Bduke. Specifically, the core issue is that the article must establish the notability of the subject in a fairly obvious way. The article as it stands doesn't do that and I can't find sources that would lead me to believe that anyone could. You may have that information and if you do, add it to the article. If something important happened there (not down the road or at Bellerive) or if there is a significant and interesting history, that would be good - all backed by reference to sources. If you need more time, outline a rough plan of the information with some clues to the reliable third party sources that you would use to support the statements in the article with a priority to establish its notability and put it on the article talk page. If you do add to the article talk in relation to this nomination, please leave a brief note to that effect here as well.

A note on the references you added. The first one relates to licensed clubs in Tasmania, not the subject of the article. It doesn't directly mention the club at the oval, either. The other two references refer to sources that only mention the subject of the article in passing. Also the Council website is not quite third-party as they own the oval.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The statements regarding the future proposals for development are not prime information for inclusion in an article and certainly don't add to its notability. Also the source states that the hoped for development is adjacent to the oval, not the oval itself. Sorry (:-( Bleakcomb (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Exactly the same material was added to the Warrane, Tasmania article. I have trimmed it back and included the oval pic. I tried to find any online references for the oval (or Warrane), but I had no success. florrie 07:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - WP:N isn't met Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the notability expectations as described at Wikipedia:Notability (local interests). WWGB (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say merge but the information already seems to be at Warrane, Tasmania. Orderinchaos
Redirect to North Warrane, there is nothing worth merging, but I can see the merit in retaining a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G4 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lee (writer/humorist)

AfDs for this article:

Claims notability, however this claim is rather unlikely to be true. Likely vanity page. Passportguy (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - just realised that this had beend AfDed before. Will tag as speedy-repost. Passportguy (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Malander

Appears to be either non-notable or a hoax. Not listed on hockeydb.com or eurohockey.net. Raphie (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be a HOAX. If he had played in Mestis and Switzerland he would at the very least be listed at Eurohockey. No RS's can confirm any of the details in this article. Fails WP:N. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "currently in negotiations with..." eh? Dead giveaway that this is all made up, regardless of the fact that he doesn't appear on any databases that cover these leagues. Reso lute 16:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear on any databases. If you can't even prove his existence... --Smashville^talk 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't normally put up AfD tags and I just copied it from another page. Thanks for correcting it. Raphie (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is a hoax, this isn't the first, I recently G-3 tagged a hockey player hoax - about someone that plays for the Canadiens. Probably a good time to look through the recently created hockey player pages. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah this is something that is always happening with sports articles. Or atleast hockey articles, we regularely delete hoaxes when we find them. -Djsasso (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 6 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 is a priority, however. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed-orientation marriage

This article is clearly a neologism; when searching "Mixed-orientation marriage" on google with quotes, only 2,800 results pop up. This is not a widely used term and the tone of the article seems to play as nothing more than an "ex-gay" movement propaganda piece; especially when considering its original author; User:Joshuajohanson, who has been notorious for POV edits in similar subjects; and a self-proclaimed "ex-gay." Another major flaw with the "term" "Mixed-orientation marriage" is that it revolves completely around a heterosexual man/woman with a homosexual/bisexual man/woman; when such a term, if truly a widely-used term, would apply to same-sex couples as well; with a gay man and a bisexual man; a lesbian woman and a bisexual woman; etc. Even heterosexuals have married homosexuals in the past; such as in ancient China and certain tribes as part of a tradition.
Anyhow, I have seen such an occurrence ["a mixed-orientation marriage"] referenced in books and popular culture, though it was never referred to as a "mixed-orientation marriage;" nor does the happening have any reference in any reliable dictionary.
Such a term may belong on Urban Dictionary, but neologisms have no place on Wikipedia. Camillex555 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As noted by Camillex, the term is confusing and does appear to be used only within the "ex-gay" population (and perhaps primarily among "ex-gay" Mormons). I have significant concerns about NPOV and fringy content but am not quite persuaded that deletion is the optimal outcome. Could it be renamed and rewritten? Amid the hodgepodge of refs, a few look like they might form the basis of an acceptable article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 14:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could be renamed and severely rewritten, though since there is no well known title for such an occurrence, I feel it would be better to simply flush out the POVs and merge it into another article. Camillex555 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this was about mixed religious orientation but it turns out to be about sexual orientation. Definitely needs a rename. Drawn Some (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, lacks reliable sources, delves way too far into original research territory. Rebecca (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Original Research. Joey the Mango (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework - The article cites numerous reliable sources that discuss the concept of non-heterosexuals knowingly marrying heterosexuals, including several scholarly journal articles, clearly satisfying general notability guidelines. If the name is a neologism then come up with another name. If there's OR, remove it. If there are POV issues, resolve them on the talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs)
Keep but remove POV. Sorry, this seems to be a POV minefield biased in various ways. There are reliable sources to support this but prune out the subtle and obvious POV and it will be a much happier article. -- Banjeboi 20:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite, rename. I agree wih all the problems noted above, and the page certainly needs a severe re-write and a more descriptive title, but the concept itself seems to be notable and has sources that can be used to write a good article, so deletion seems the wrong route. A good article on this should cover ex-gay type marriages, Lavender marriage, Beard (female companion) etc, and could be a useful parent article to bring the topic togetherYob Mod 12:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YobMod. --Alynna (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; POV material in an article is not by itself a reason for deletion. Born Gay (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the reference section, there plenty of news out there about this phenomenon, even though there doesn't seem to be a set name for it. Dream Focus 01:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resounding Delete. Written in an apologetic style along with feigned tolerance, mixed-orientation marriage is a non-article article (see non-apology apology) in defence of the happy, so-called traditional (read: ostensibly heterosexual) marriage. As the article stands, it is loaded with contradictions, faulty logic, incorrect style and language, all with a heterosexist skew. Also, the red-flag combination of indicators for deletion is waving violently because of comments citing major renaming, “severe” rewriting, and “a POV minefield”. I have detailed and organised the clear-cut instances of the major shortcomings in an extensive preliminary list on the talk page. Nonetheless, I would theoretically agree to nothing more than a simple mention of the term “mixed-orientation marriage” paired with its condoning by the ex-gay movement provided that the mention occurs within in a larger, different article encompassing lavender marriage, marriage of convenience, and potentially, Hollywood marriage. Sorry if anyone should feel otherwise. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an inherently POV article, and seems to be nothing more than an effort to use Wikipedia to establish a neologism for the purposes of religious propaganda. Kaldari (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . A jargon term but it seems to be well in use and is not a neologism . See Google scholar http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Mixed-orientation+marriage%22&btnG=Search and Google books http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22Mixed-orientation+marriage%22&btnG=Search+Books . Lumos3 (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can see that this is clearly not neologism, however it's notability may not be much in terms of whether it's suitable to be on Wikipedia or not. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat O'Donnell

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pat O'Donnell

Page Created for soapboxing purposes G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 08:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, otherwise NN. JBsupreme (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if its for "soapboxing" then I suggest WP:FIXIT not delete it. What is the rationale behind deletion, is it based on notability, unreliable sources etc? I remain unconvinced because I dont hear a reason to actually delete it.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this as per advice by mediator at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-6/Corrib Gas. Ths article is being used to soapbox and is not notable G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is coverage in reliable sources but I think that this is only temporary notability and that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. If there is anything that should be included it should be merged into Shell to Sea rather than being in a separate article. Smartse (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, individual is not notable. Snappy (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borders on WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe deletion would be premature; events in north Mayo are currently taking a similar turn to last summer's. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No crystal balling, please. Snappy (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see [26]. Predictably, O'Donnell is back in the news. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And [27], [28], [29], [30]. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable. Canterbury Tail talk 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Canterbury Tail. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, I'm being bold and closing this for now, since the nominator didn't provide a delete rationale, and nobody else has come forward with one. No prejudice against re-nomination at a later time. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions from India and the Indian diaspora to Slumdog Millionaire

Reactions_from_India_and_the_Indian_diaspora_to_Slumdog_Millionaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Keep: As deletion requests normally come with an explanation, this deletion request is incomplete as only a tag was placed without a rationale for deletion. Please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Without giving a reason for deletion, there is really no logic to delete this article which complies with WP policies. It offers an important perspective to the history of the film and should be kept. Without this perspective, the main article, Slumdog Millionaire will violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 5 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. Notability is conferred by multiple, secondary, independent sources - it is not inherited from the fact that it is part of a series per WP:INHERIT, which invalidates about half the points made within this discussion. Those favouring retention have failed to adequately address the concerns of those favouring deletion. Per analysis following the deletion guidelines for administrators, I assess that consensus here is to delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Zelda Project

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Untitled Zelda Project

keep it's notable, encyclopedic, reference and worthy of a page. what are your original problems with it anyway?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly are you talking to? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Confirmed in Miyamoto interview yesterday night. The gaming press (Gamespot, IGN) have already started covering it. Marlith (Talk) 20:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The game does indeed exist, but the appearance of many primary sources and a lack of concrete information make me uneasy with the existence of this article. Marlith (Talk) 15:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The article needs work, but is a legitimately confirmed entry in a major video game series whose existance and development was explicitly revealed. The article needs to be completely rewritten, with more sources than just IGN, and possibly a rename, but I think it should stay. If this is not feasible, I propose merging into its own section at List of The Legend of Zelda games. ShadowUltra (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response However, eventually, this will need to have its own article. I would agree that the article itself needs major work to become a verifiable stub. We should consider moving this page to a more appropiate name. Marlith (Talk) 22:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the article to make it a little more presentable. ShadowUltra (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just added the official artwork of the game released by Nintendo. I'd say, at this point, we have enough information to confirm a solid existance of the title and that it deserves its own page, albeit under a different name (I propose The Legend of Zelda (Wii), as that is the title on the concept artwork, though will obviously not be the final title). ShadowUltra (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merely existing does not justify an article for a subject. Right now, we only have a paragraph or two of content, which can easily be merged to The Legend of Zelda (series). When all that is confirmed about a game is a few vague gameplay details and a release date, there is little justification to base an entire article on it. We do not keep content on the basis that content may one day turn up for it, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You've yet to provide an argument besides "it's too small," though that policy states that "An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion." While this article is twice as long as most stub video game articles, using prior notability establishment is allegedly not allowed in deletion arguments. Therefore, I advise both sides of the debate find different arguments than "it's too small" (deletion argument) or "it will be expanded in the future" (keep argument). ShadowUltra (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that "it's too small", though, inherently contradicts the general notability guideline, which states that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Right now, most of the real-world coverage is based on speculation around the teaser poster and other small details released, which doesn't really qualify as "significant". Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, by default, as no arguments for deleting the article have actually been presented. I'd merge this to The Legend of Zelda (series), though, as all that exists at this time are a few tidbits of info from Miyamoto at E3. That's hardly the basis for a separate article. Too late for that now. Delete and redirect as a plausible search term per below. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. A Merge is actually unnecessary, because this information is already covered (in three places, a bit redundantly) at The Legend of Zelda (series). I agree that this is an important title that should have its own article when it's ready, but there's so incredibly little information about it right now, and that's not likely to change until next year. There's little point in such a small stub hanging around for that long. Arrowned (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Arrowned. Thanks! Fin ©™ 13:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's clearly notable and what we have is a decent referenced stub that can only grow. I don't buy the argument that this won't change until next year; developers and publishers give out teaser information in interviews all the time as part of the normal hyping process. Then again, this could probably be located in the series page and serve the same purpose without much harm, but we'll just end up recreating this page later (possibly without the benefit of its history information). — brighterorange (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ive had this discussion under the exact same circumstances regarding Dragon Quest X initially i felt a merge into the main series article was appropriate but concensus pointed out to me that the article would be re created anyway if it were deleted shortly. The main fact of not deleting this article is that the game is confirmed and even though no additional details exist beyond that it 'exists' is seemingly enough for the internet to establish its notability. Secondary sources pick these up like crazy establishing notability basically because the topic is sought out information and popular. Which is why the page is likely to be re created anyway if it were to be deleted. Additionally Movies that are not in principal photography (WP:NFF) generally warrent deletion based on simplified wiki guidlines, however; a more popular movie will again establish notability with secondary sources. I think unless this movie guidline spreads to video games as well theres no justification to delete the article. If I am missing anything crucial here like a policy im unaware of please inform me, thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Zelda (series) until there is a title and a release date/window. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one can't build an article on press releases and speculation. Marasmusine (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What, exactly, is the rationale for deletion here? I can't find one. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no rationale for deleting the page. The game has been confirmed by Miyamoto, and official artwork has been made. Keep the page for now, when the game has been given a title, merge all relevant information into the new article. ScienceApe (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale for deleting the page is due to the lack of reliable sources; the only real-world content present at the moment to establish notability is a few news articles and some baseless speculation, all of which make this a stub and can be comfortably merged into The Legend of Zelda (series). The mere fact that the game has been confirmed doesn't necessarily justify an article for it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both Gamespot and IGN have confirmed the game from Miyamoto, creator of the Legend of Zelda series. Both are reliable sources. ScienceApe (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know that; aside from all these confirmed details about the game, though, which are all regurgitations of primary sources such as the details provided to journalists by Miyamoto, there's little independent sourcing to show real-world significance. Unless these secondary sources which are currently cited actually provide any independent insight onto the topic being covered, they show little such real-world significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gamespot and IGN are independent, and reliable. The game has been confirmed for development. That is all that is necessary for an article, the confirmed game is notable. ScienceApe (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now into a relevant sub-section of The Legend of Zelda (series). Note that this is just for the time being, and I'm sure in the near future this tentative game will have its own article. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – (edit conflict) This has already been mentioned in the Zelda series article, so merging or redirection would not make sense. Otherwise, unlike the other games announced at E3, all the sources tell us is that Nintendo is making another Zelda game and that Shigeru Miyamoto has confirmed it. The rest of the content presented is only speculative or is based on Miyamoto's speculations about the direction of the game. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once more information comes, such as a name, a more definite release date, and more concrete non-speculative details about the game, then it could be spun out of the Zelda series article. MuZemike 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Legend of Zelda (series). Currently, there's nothing in the article that isn't covered adequately in the main one. The information isn't covered to an extent or depth that warrants a new article. Merging with The Legend of Zelda (series) will allow editors to adequately update information as time goes on, eventually expanding it into its own article. Wikipedia's purpose isn't to hold an ever-increasing amount of placeholders ~ Amory (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a new Zelda game and a page for the game will be created in short order anyway. And if it's really coming in 2010, as Miyamoto has said, Nintendo will be announcing a lot more very soon. Possibly at TGS in the fall. KingJFS 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not you think it has potential for expansion in the future is irrelevant; WP:CRYSTAL, we should be dealing with what is available at present, and there's currently no indication at present that such information will come in the near future. It's coming in 2010, so the significant real-world coverage will likely come by then, at which point there will likely be a justification for an article. We don't keep article on an arbitrary basis that sources may one day turn up for them. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply in this case because the game doesn't actually have to ever come out, it just has to be confirmed, and be notable. See the articles on Super Mario 128, Starfox 2, and Duke Nukem Forever. None of these games were ever released, but they are notable regardless. If the game were canceled at this very moment, the fact that a Zelda Wii game was going to come out is interesting enough to warrant an article especially with official artwork depicting Link with a new character. I agree that there isn't a lot of information right now, but the amount of information currently available is enough for an article. ScienceApe (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's a difference between this article and those: they are all covered in significant detail by secondary sources. All we have for this article are an interview or two and a few confirmed details from E3, and there is no indication that the article will develop anywhere beyond a stub any time soon. To put it into perspective, if there's no chance, with the sources that currently exist, that the article will develop to WP:FA or WP:GA quality, Wikipedia probably shouldn't have an article on it. Certainly, with all the sources so far equating to a stub and no indication that the article can develop beyond that, there is little justification for this to be separate from the series article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, I think there's enough information for an article. There are several sources cited right now. I don't believe the argument "the article has to develop into WP:FA quality" is criteria for wikipedia to have an article on it. As I mentioned before, even if no other information is ever released, the fact that this game was going to come out, and there's artwork to prove its existence and statements made by Miyamoto, is interesting and notable enough to warrant an article. See, Van Buren (Fallout 3) which was never finished or released. There's very little information on the title other than a rather brief plot of what the game was supposed to be about. There's only one secondary source (the other source cited has no information on Van Buren really), but the source is reliable. The article is still notable since the topic is interesting and notable. ScienceApe (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As I have stated, no amount of confirmations, statements, released artwork, or other information on Nintendo's part makes a subject notable. It needs secondary sources which "rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." This article cites no such claims, and therefore fails to show notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the subject is already notable. The confirmations, statements, released artwork, and other information is what makes an article. A new Zelda game is notable regardless of your arguments. I have already pointed out the secondary sources. They are not primary sources as you seem to insist on claiming. Gamespot and IGN are independently verifiable. ScienceApe (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me cite WP:PSTS again; "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." I see absolutely no such material cited in the article in question, and only regurgitations by secondary sources of content originally provided by primary sources. As WP:PSTS says, "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident." This is exactly what the secondary sources used in this article are doing; it is the independent insight on a subject that makes secondary sources useful for sourcing an article, not their mere ability to take information provided by Nintendo, Miyamoto, etc. and write it up in their own words. In essence, Wikipedia articles shouldn't just state what their subject is but how it is significant, and this one fails to do so. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        http://wii.ign.com/articles/992/992063p1.html Verifiable secondary source. You're just paddling up against a lot of evidence and sources here. ScienceApe (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm still not seeing how this qualifies as "Significant coverage" per the WP:GNG. The presence of a bit of independent speculation in a couple of reputed, reliable sources still, as is evident by this article's size, does not constitute significant coverage. Frankly, if all the article can do to assert its subject's real-world context is cite a couple of speculative titbits from IGN and GameSpot, then it's not doing a whole lot to show its subject's significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That wasn't your argument. Your argument was, "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." The source I cited provides interpretive, analytic, and evaluative claims, and it is reliable and credible. Your argument was that you didn't see examples of such material cited in the article in question. I have just provided such examples, so the argument you have brought up has been refuted. The signficant coverage criteria was already explained to you. As has been pointed out several times, numerous sites have covered this game including, but not limited to Gamespot, IGN, Kotaku, Gamingtarget, gonintendo, and n-europe. ScienceApe (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The only real-world context this article shows is a brief sentence or two along the lines of "This has led some to speculate that the female character...". How exactly does this qualify as significant real-world coverage? If the only thing secondary sources can extract out of the subject at present is a bit of arbitrary speculation, there's little basis on which real-world context can be shown. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe there is sufficient information and coverage for an article. Numerous websites have covered this game as I have pointed out, and there is enough information for an article. Your points have been refuted, you are just jumping from argument to argument at this point. You argued on the merit of WP:CRYSTAL, and I refuted that argument. You asked for secondary sources, I pointed them out to you. You argued that, "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.", and I provided such a source. ScienceApe (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You haven't cited numerous sites, you've cited one, in which the only independent coverage and insight into the game is some vague speculation. "numerous sites have covered this game including, but not limited to Gamespot, IGN, Kotaku, Gamingtarget, gonintendo, and n-europe" does nothing to prove your case, as you have not directly cited what you are referring to. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't say I cited them, I said I pointed them out to you. Your argument was, "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." and I provided a source that addresses that issue. If you want to classify the IGN's thoughts as "vague speculation" that's your choice, but it fits the criteria you were asking for whether you like it or not. Actually, numerous videogame websites covering the game DOES justify an article as they are secondary sources. The article cites these sources where appropriate. Read the article, then check the source cited yourself. That's how you verify citations. ScienceApe (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I know quite well all of this. My entire point is that the only independent, cited coverage of the game so far that provides the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" is the IGN source with its speculation; this is the core of what constitutes notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Legend of Zelda (series), there is some important info in this article that should be kept. But I don't think we know enough about the game yet to merit it's own article. If we do keep it though I don't think this is the best title, it's not "untitled" we just don't know the title yet. Most Zelda fans call it "Zelda Wii". BUC (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no info on the game other than it exists, 1 piece of concept art, and that it MAY use Wii MotionPlus (if MotionPlus sells enough copies). TJ Spyke 21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Negative. There are ample sources cited in the article that indicates that the game very much does exist, and is in development. ScienceApe (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He didn't deny either of those things. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right. I misread. But as for the user's point, I do believe there is enough information on this game to warrant an article. The article is properly cited with reliable secondary sources. ScienceApe (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument was already covered. Please read the arguments made above.
  - I've read both arguments and I saw nothing to solidly suggest that this article isn't a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL because the game doesn't have to ever come out. If the game was canceled right now, the fact that there was going to be a new Zelda game for the Wii is notable. Super Mario 128 never came out, but it's still a notable topic that deserves an article. ScienceApe (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Super Mario 128 has significant coverage in secondary sources (to say nothing of the primary ones), something this article lacks entirely. There is no indication that the article will be expanded (via sources) any time soon. In fact, I'd dare say the subject currently fails WP:N. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really. Not anymore than this article TBH. Just brief vague statements by Miyamoto, and not much else. See, Van Buren (Fallout 3) which was never finished or released. There's very little information on the title other than a rather brief plot of what the game was supposed to be about. There's only one secondary source (the other source cited has no information on Van Buren really), but the source is reliable. The article is still notable since the topic is interesting and notable. ScienceApe (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A topic being interesting and allegedly notable does not make a given topic notable per WP:N in the least, mainly because, as others have told you a few different times already, notability is not inherited. Regardless of how few sources Super Mario 128 has, it still has enough to pass the notability guidelines, this article does not. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That wasn't your argument. Your argument was that this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, so I addressed that concern. The game is not a violation because the game never has to come out. It's already notable enough to deserve an article. Notability was established by the coverage the game has received in independent, reliable sources that are already cited in the article. So yes, this article has enough to pass notability guidelines even if the game were canceled now. ScienceApe (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I was replying to your argument (why do you keep trying to turn things around?). Notability is established by primary and secondary sources. One of the the two primary sources is nothing but conjecture and there are no secondary sources, therefore this article fails the notability guidelines (I have amended my !vote to reflect this). It fails WP:CRYSTAL due to the fact that, without being able to pass WP:N, the nature of the game is speculative at best. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you abandoned your original argument and jumped to another that has already been discussed at length. Notability has already been established by a wide variety of sources. You also missed the point where I said speculation or conjecture is allowed if it is made by a reliable source, and isn't original research by wikipedia users. "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." so yes the speculation is allowed if it is made by a reliable source like IGN. ScienceApe (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability is only exhibited by IGN so far, as all other sources present nothing other than repetition of primary-source content and therefore constitute primary sources themselves. A brief statement saying "IGN has speculated that so-and-so might be so-and-so" is far from enough to establish significant real-world coverage. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm glad you finally concede notability has been exhibited in a reliable source like IGN. The other sources are not primary sources no matter how many times you repeat it. They aren't. A primary source would be Nintendo's website or Miyamoto's website. Not Gamespot, not go nintendo, not gamingtarget, etc. ScienceApe (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've been stating all along that IGN is the only secondary source provided; all others are "very close to an event" as per WP:PSTS as they all present content such as confirmed details, etc. as provided from primary sources such as Miyamoto, and not the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" necessary to constitute secondary sources. It is not merely being on a site such as IGN, GameSpot, etc. which makes a news article constitute a secondary source, but the content it contains, and very little has been shown to exist so far that could show real-world significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Even if what you are saying is true, Jelly Soup has just said a Primary source is needed anyway. So therefore, this article contains both secondary and primary sources, both of which are necessary for an article. If you believe the amount of information present is simply insufficient, I would recommend that you change your entire argument so that your objection to this article is only on that merit, and no other since we have covered the rest, and this article is not in violation of any notability criteria other than what you perceive as insufficient information. ScienceApe (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, primary sources are necessary, but they do pretty much nothing to establish notability; when the only shown real-world significance of a topic is a bit of speculation as exhibited by IGN, that does little to satisfy the "significant coverage" criteria of the GNG. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You already said that. What I told you to do was to change your rationale for deletion since you conceded that both Primary and Secondary sources do in fact exist. If you classify the analytical points made by the secondary source as "speculation", then I must point out that you are being disingenuous to readers to wikipedia policy as speculation is indeed allowed if made by credible sources. Your only valid argument is the amount of information currently available. I recommend that you end this line of discussion and adjust your rationale for deletion. ScienceApe (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        My rationale is based around the fact that the only secondary information provided is the speculation from IGN, which is insufficient to constitute "significant coverage" as per the GNG. I'm quite aware of the existence of the primary sources, which are irrelevant to notability, and this secondary source, and it is my rationale that the speculative article by IGN alone does not show sufficient real-world significance. The amount of content is a very valid argument and relates completely to the notability guideline. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If primary sources are irrelevant to notability, why did Jelly Soup say ". Now then, if the aforementioned link is NOT a primary source, but a secondary one, they we are short one primary source and the article STILL fails WP:N". If he is mistaken on policy I would like you to clarify that. ScienceApe (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) What, is he referring to the IGN speculation? If so, then, yes, he is mistaken, as that one does constitute a secondary source. However, it's nowhere near significant enough alone to establish real-world context and therefore notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Firstly, I didn't abandon anything, I was replying to your comment which was mainly about notability and not my !vote. Secondly, please remain civil. Thirdly, "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." This article lacks those. This is beside the point that all of the primary sources are repeating the same speculative information over and over again. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you make an argument, you have to address the rebuttle, not jump to another argument that was already covered. Your second comment is without merit. Stating that you are jumping arguments is not being incivil. The article does not lack "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source". This article, http://wii.ign.com/articles/992/992063p1.html, covers that concern. And again, you are mischaracterizing the citations as primary sources when they aren't. And again, you are arguing against speculative comments when I have already pointed out that they are perfectly legitimate when they come from a credible secondary source. ScienceApe (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I did address the rebuttle, which challenged my claim of CYRSTAL with one of Notability. It is incivil and in bad faith to try to use your argument to derail the discussion (and I further request that we get off this line of discussion, as it's not helping in either direction). Now then, if the aforementioned link is NOT a primary source, but a secondary one, they we are short one primary source and the article STILL fails WP:N and, thus, WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. You changed your argument to that of notability instead of WP:CRYSTAL. No it isn't, I was pointing out a logical fallacy you were making which was derailing the discussion. If you request that, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, nor retorted. The Primary source is Miyamoto himself. If you don't buy that, I challenge you to tell me what the primary source is for Super Mario 128. ScienceApe (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability standards and seems like a dumping ground of links to sites like IGN with very little information available. It wasn't even mentioned at Nintendo's press conference. The concept art is the only major release we have on it and that should not be the basis of an encyclopedic article.Iupolisci (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The game meets notability standards because it's a new Zelda game. That's notable. "Dumping ground of links" just sounds like a pejorative way of saying, properly citing the article. That's how you write good articles, but making citations. The game was discussed during a round table meeting with Miyamoto himself. And he discussed the game and provided some information on the title. ScienceApe (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, significant, independent coverage in reliable sources makes a subject notable, not merely being a Zelda game. Notability isn't inherited. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Simply because a Wikipedia page links to external sources does not make it notable. I do not think that there is enough information available for this article to be justified.Iupolisci (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not what I said. I said it's notable because it's a new Zelda game. A new Zelda game is notable, and I think there is enough information for an article. ScienceApe (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, notability isn't inherited. Just because the Zelda series is notable doesn't mean each game which constitutes it is notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, each game that constitutes the Zelda series is indeed notable. We have an article on every Zelda game made, a new Zelda for the Wii is extremely notable. ScienceApe (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, no we simply don't. It is the presence of independent coverage in reliable sources that makes a subject notable, not being part of a series, and to justify a bit of arbitrary speculation and a few trivial primary-sourced details as constituting "extreme" notability makes absolutely no sense by any standard. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No we do. We have an article on every Zelda game ever created. You seem to be ignoring our previous discussions and repeating the same arguments over and over again. We already went over this. This game does have independent coverage in reliable sources, so why do you keep bringing up that argument? ScienceApe (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, we don't. Being a Zelda game is not a factor in whether a game should have a standalone article. And as I've already stated, there isn't enough independent coverage; most of the sources cited merely regurgitate press releases and minor confirmed details, and provide no "opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" as per WP:PSTS. It is not merely being IGN, GameSpot, etc. that constitutes a secondary source, but the content it contains, and the only source shown to contain the necessary independent insight so far is IGN with some arbitrary speculation. That alone is far from enough to constitute "significant coverage" per the GNG. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You just proved that every Zelda game has an article. Thank you for taking the time to link those articles. ScienceApe (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you were arguing that we have a separate article for every Zelda game; those are examples of where that is not the case. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I did not. Please specify where I ever said we have a separate article for every Zelda game? I in no way said "separate". ScienceApe (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If so, why keep this as a separate article when there are similar games such as those I linked to which have a similar, even higher, amount of content yet still do not constitute separate articles? If the LCD and CD-i games do not have what it takes to constitute separate articles for each game, then neither does this. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Why keep a separate article for Super Mario 128, when Mario Bros and Donkey Kong Game and Watch articles have an even higher amount of content yet still do not constitute separate articles? ScienceApe (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mario Bros. does have a separate article, and I can't even find the DK G&W article. I don't see how such games are relevant, anyway. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the Game and Watch version of Mario Bros and Donkey Kong. I think I made that pretty obvious with my previous comment. The relevance is that I was pointing out the faulty logic you were using. Super Mario 128 still exists as a separate article even though the Game and Watch versions of Mario Bros and Donkey Kong do not have separate articles. ScienceApe (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        None of this is relevant to the topic in question. This is an AfD discussion, where we discuss a specific article, not my interpretation of logic. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are now sidetracking the discussion. The issue at hand is the logic of your argument, not your "interpretation of logic". You brought up an argument that was not logical, and I brought up a counter example to prove that it was not logical. It is therefore extremely relevant to the AfD discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We're discussing this article and nothing else. The fact that other stuff exists cannot be used to make a judgement relating to the notability of this article, so whether or not there's a hole in my logic pertaining to comparing this with Mario articles is irrelevant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place Marlith (Talk) 05:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Meaning? For one, I'd definitely say there's no "almost certain"-ty here. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no certainty that the game will be released, but there is certainty that new information will be released either providing more insight into the game, or that the game has been canceled. In either case, both constitutes information, so yes there is certainty that information will be released in the future regarding the topic one way or another. And as I said before, the game never has to come out. It's still notable even if the game was canceled. ScienceApe (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see where this "certainty" is, unless it's just your apparently arbitrary opinion. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just explained why there is certainty. ScienceApe (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, "I don't see where this "certainty" is"—as far as I can tell, no sources have stated any certainty to release new information. A mere supposition on your part is meaningless. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll repeat. " but there is certainty that new information will be released either providing more insight into the game, or that the game has been canceled." Either situation counts as information whether you like it or not, so yes there is certainty that new information will be released. ScienceApe (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So there's no chance that either of those things might not happen? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "almost certain to take place" is not the same as "no chance". ScienceApe (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not what I was saying. I said that there's a possibility that information either will or will not be released in the future, and no real indication as to either way, so to say there's an "almost certain" chance of info being released in the future is completely baseless. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't know what "almost certain to take place" means then. The 2012 Presidential Election is almost certain to take place. In your words, "Is there no chance that might not happen?". We could be hit by a comet and we could all die. Or a nuclear war could break out. But it's unlikely, so it still fits the criteria of "almost certain to take place". You're trying to change what policy is, and then argue how this article doesn't fit your new non-existent policy. ScienceApe (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The US election has taken place as defined by the constitution (I think) every four years for the last two hundred or so years; that is not the case for every video game in development in terms of receiving news regarding additional information or cancellation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You missed my point. It is indeed possible that the election won't take place, as I pointed out. Your argument was, "So there's no chance that either of those things might not happen?". So using your logic, we shouldn't have an article on the 2012 presidential election. However, Wikipedia's policy is not "So there's no chance that either of those things might not happen?", it's "almost certain to take place". So your rebuttle argument which stated, "So there's no chance that either of those things might not happen?" is not valid. ScienceApe (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The difference is, the 2012 election is forecast and scheduled to happen at a specific date, and has happened consistently for the past two centuries, while absolutely no indication of future details to be revealed for this Zelda game has been given by anyone yet. Anyway, I've been arguing more on a basis relating to WP:N than WP:CRYSTAL, so this doesn't really seem relevant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We are dealing with your argument of "So there's no chance that either of those things might not happen?". Your argument was simply not valid, so yes my rebuttal is entirely relevant because it's dealing with your argument directly and pointing out that it's not a valid argument. ScienceApe (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "I've been arguing more on a basis relating to WP:N than WP:CRYSTAL". The chance of future info appearing, no matter how likely, cannot be used to show notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Legend of Zelda (series), the games section pretty much covers everything we already know. Magiciandude (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say merge, but there's nothing here that isn't in the series article already except the IGN speculation, which is interesting to my inner Zelda fanboy but ultimately runs afoul of WP:SPECULATION, even if it is from a RS. It's a tough call, because 1) this is probably as close to a sure thing as you can get in video games and 2) (caution: OR) if it does get canceled, the series is high-profile enough that the cancellation would probably be notable a la Star Fox 2 or Super Mario 128. At this point, though, all we can say about the game is that Miyamoto confirmed the project's existence, it's being developed for the Wii, and it's targeted for 2010, and that's not enough to justify a separate article. No objection to recreation when more details are available. BryanG (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speculation is indeed permitted as long as it's cited from a reliable source. ScienceApe (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps in very specific cases, but this isn't one in my opinion. Really, both refs are pretty much engaging in baseless speculation or reporting "other (unnamed, and therefore of unclear notability) people think this" on a single piece of concept art that may or may not make the final cut - I'd expect something more substantial before I'd put in in an article. Also, point 8 of WP:VGSCOPE discourages inclusion of speculation in video game articles. BryanG (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question So a preview is the best possible source for information to affirm the need of a full article on a video game, right? Whereas a developer roundtable and concept art like this dosen't provide enough information to warrant an article? Marlith (Talk) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all primary information which doesn't contribute to notability; the mere existence of details like those from Miyamoto or the concept art isn't enough to justify an article on the subject, and secondary sources which provide independent coverage on the subject should be cited to show its real-world significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Got it, thanks. I am considering changing my opinion to Merge as of now. Marlith (Talk) 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hapia failed to inform you of the secondary source which I provided that does indeed provide independent coverage on the subject, and he admitted to it. Hapia, right now you are being disingenuous to other wikipedia users, and misleading them. ScienceApe (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You might like to read WP:AGF, then, because that argument is both irrelevant and offensive. This is an AfD discussion, where we discuss articles, and arguments about other editor's editing habits are completely unwelcome. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - When you are making arguments to convince others of your viewpoints, then yes I am well within my right to point out misleading, and disingenuous statements you are making. You failed to inform Marlith of the secondary source I cited, and told him that no secondary sources exist, when you already conceded before that there was one. You made a very misleading statement, and I felt it was necessary to point it out. ScienceApe (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So Marlith can only read my arguments? He can read this AfD for himself, thank you, and certainly doesn't rely on me for information. Accusing me of deliberately trying to mislead other people when I am trying my best to stay both civil and argue my points within the policies and guidelines is nothing but bad faith. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly, I did not rely only on Haipa's response to my question, by rather by reading through the provided links and the rest of the AFD. While I did create the article, greater knowledge of the opinions and thoughts of others led me to reconsider my choice. As of now, Gamespot and IGN are both primary sources as they were the only ones present at that miyamoto roundtable. Marlith (Talk) 04:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABDUL MAJEED KHAN TORU

May well be true, but since the name is rather common I am having problems verifying this aricle, which reads like an obituary. Passportguy (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a NN local politician. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unsourced, no notability established (+other issues). American Eagle (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL Niteshift36 (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly written and no sources, I tried looking - but it seems unsalvageable. Pahari Sahib 16:46, 7 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. Sandstein 05:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Pipes

non notable writer, mentioned once in Daily Telegraph for collecting unusual cycle lanes, web master of a channel 4 tv programme's website and managing editor of a CAD magazine in the last 70's... none of which really make him notable. No doubt a talented man, but not encyclopaediatic. Festen la vida (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Whoah there, hoss! He's FRSA - a Fellow of The Royal Society of Arts and IMHO that confers notability. Also, he's notable as per WP:PROFESSOR for his textbooks. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The RSA admits anyone as a fellow who can find someone to sponsor them and can stump up £145 a year.[31] Fellowship is by no exclusive, and there are currently about 27,000 fellows. I have no opinion yet about the subject's other claims to notability but being an FRSA shouldn't provide an automatic pass. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Response. Hmmm...OK, I had thought that FRSA and FRS were equivalent for the purposes of verification under WP:PROF, but I would be prepared to concede that FRSA, as per Phil Bridger does not automatically confer notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 12:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources demonstrate his notabilty so the topic is encyclopaediatic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to elaborate further on this. How do the sources demonstrate his notability? In theory you could write "the sources demonstrate his notability" on any sourced article for deletion. I'm also not sure he passes WP:PROFESSOR - he's certainly published some works, but I'm not sure if they count as "significant impact". I'm tempted to go for Delete Greco Roman Empire (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the nominator, there is an article about this person in the Daily Telegraph which is a major newspaper. There are numerous other references to this person and his work out there. This is the essence of notability and so the nomination seems to be an oxymoron. It is a fundamental policy that we tolerate imperfect articles, allowing them to be improved. Our deletion process therefore indicates that, in cases of uncertainty, we do not delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that an article in the Daily Telegraph is enough to make someone notable? The article in question refers to essentially a piece of trivia about the individual. He is surely not notable as a "collector of short, unusual and misplaced cycle lanes"? Greco Roman Empire (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph article is a substantial one and describes him as having a cult following. His website has been covered in numerous other newspapers and so this alone is certainly enough to justify inclusion here. This comes on top of his numerous other accomplishments and so his encyclopaediaticity is clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectic tonology

WP:ESSAY, possible neologism. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being both a neologism that I can't find any sources for, and for needing a fundamental re-write. Hairhorn (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable neologism and original research. The paragraph is our friend. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider myself qualified to vote, but an article on some subject should define the the subject before anything else. Pol098 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid level indicator

I don't believe the United States Patent Office counts as a source of notability Citius Altius (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A patent with no actual products sold would have to be really interesting to merit an entry. Hairhorn (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWERING YOUR CONCERNS:

1) Citius Altius says: "I don't believe the United States Patent Office counts as a source of notability". My answer: With all due respect, your saying "i don't believe" is not really an argument because it indicates your personal preference and opinion whereas I am looking for an an objective criteria that I , to your understanding, has violated. I can in the same way say that i DO believe that the United States Patent Office counts as a source of notability. If the US administrative agency is not a source of credible information, then we should pull out all invention pages off the wiki.

2) Hairhorn says: "A patent with no actual products sold would have to be really interesting to merit an entry." Please let me know where did you obtain such data that this invention was never sold as part of the product? According to my knowledge this patent has been used on many vessels and sold by ERL Commercial Marine. With all due respect. please get your facts right before making such strong proposal for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevpak (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the facts in the article if they're so significant; the article mentions a patent only, and searching online for "liquid level indicator" doesn't help much. And it's clear to me that not all inventions are notable. I would bet the majority are not notable, by the wikipedia definition of notability (which involves, by the way, plenty of objective criteria). Hairhorn (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PRODUCT. Five of the article's six references are completely invalid. The name of the supposed product can be applied to absolutely every single piece of liquid level monitoring equipment out there[32] and a more specific search for "Liquid level indicator" ERL only produced 29 irrelevant results. I found no signs of notability whatsoever. — Rankiri (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rankiri . Also, Citius Altius is correct that just being patented does not satisfy the notability requirement of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Lots of useless and non-notable junk gets patented, and Wikipedia is not a mirror of any country's patent database. Other inventions, such as incandescent lights, airplanes, or lasers have the required multipe reliable sources, so demanding the deletion of every other article about inventions is silly. Edison (talk) 03:51, 6 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 into Dublin Bus. Many "delete" arguments are based on WP:JNN or WP:WTF without explanation. There is little support for a keep, however. So we can merge any relevant content into the main article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Bus (No. 54A)

blatantly not WP:NOTGUIDE. if anyone wants info on this bus route look at the official bus route website. there would be literally 10s if not 100s of 1000s of bus routes in the world, I certainly don't believe in creating individual entries for any of them (that's unless say it got wide coverage for regularly taking someone very famous to work or something). LibStar (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subsequently listing and not 46A which indicates some notability:

Dublin Bus (No. 17A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dublin Bus (No. 92) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dublin Bus (No. 90) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LibStar (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what's wrong with applying the general notability guideline? Citius Altius (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Of all the Dublin bus routes, only the 46A is notable. The rest are not! Snappy (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (ec) Neither this, nor any of the other routes Dublin Bus (No. 17A), Dublin Bus (No. 46A), Dublin Bus (No. 90) and Dublin Bus (No. 92), have any notability in their own right. Potentially there are around 150+ other non-notable bus route articles to be dealt with per the listing on Dublin Bus. 46A, maybe, but even that has not one reference to back it up. ww2censor (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Myles na gCopaleen, "Fortuna favet 40 Bus," so I bet an article about that one would survive. Deor (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are correct and that one can make an occasional article, but generally there are no WP:RS that show notability. ww2censor (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When my humming was smothered by the 46A, And the scream of a low flying jet." - 'Summer in Dublin' by Bagatelle. That's a famous reference! Though admittedly, it might not be enough to justify a separate article. Snappy (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to clarify that my comment above was a joke. I'm not advocating an article on any Dublin bus line. Deor (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them (a batch nom next time would be best; this is one of those cases where a batch is appropriate since any arguments for or against should be identical). The problem here is that wikipedia can not and should be a bus directory. Bus routes change all the time (as do their names and numberings) both in regards to frequency, number of stops and general routes. One looking for up to date bus information on wikipedia for dublin (or any other place) will end up being led astray. And what is the encyclopedic usefullness of any of this? Bus routes are ephemeral.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the two people just before this showed that a batch nom is not appropriate, as they found well-known references for two of them. DGG (talk)

Delete Its only a bus route G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 15:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"only a bus route" = i don't like it but i don't know why. DGG (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that:- its not a particularly notable bus route. Its NN and should be delated as per W:NOTGUIDE G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:GNG. Non-notable bus routes... Tavix | Talk 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge probably merge, after considering carefully whether there might in fact be sources. DGG (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Bus routes in major cities can be notable. A good bus route article tells about its history and how changes have impacted its riders, and this can do that. Reliable sources on Dublin buses, even specific ones, can be found here, here, and here. Sebwite (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't sources, they're just Google searches, and useless ones at that. More precise searches [33][34][35] get far fewer results, none of which appear to address the topic directly in detail. If you think we should keep, then you're the one who has to do your homework. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: also, the AFD tag has NOT been placed on any of the articles OTHER than 54A. In other words, these have been up for AfD for at least 4 days now WITHOUT being tagged on the pages as stuff to receive comment. This alone should be grounds for the other ones being kept, requiring another proposal to have them deleted. Sebwite (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and as a non-notable bus route. Them From Space 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added AFD notices to the other articles as suggested. Delete the listed articles as non-notable bus routes. Bus routes, seriously? HiDrNick! 20:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing of this AfD should be delayed by 4 days for this reason. Sebwite (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do believe there is a standard by which articles for individual bus routes, especially in major cities, can be included. An example of a good bus route article does not just say "Route X operates from [blank] to [blank] along [blank Street] at [blank] frequency." It says says things like "Route X started operating in [year](ref). In [year], it was extended to [blank](ref). This was supported because it provided new bus service to [blank](ref). It was opposed by residents of [blank] out of fear it could bring crime to their community (ref). In [year], the branch to [blank] was eliminated due to low ridership (ref)." Articles like this on Wikipedia DO exist. The city of London has the most comprehensive collection of bus route articles that are well-written and referenced. I placed the {{rescue}} tag on these in hopes that these could be improved. See WP:BUSROUTE for more info on this. Sebwite (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Dublin Bus article unless specific route history information can be found. --Polaron | Talk 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for the good reasons already stated. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non notable bus routes and wikipedia is not a travel guide to index these Corpx (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that WP:NOTGUIDE mentions tourist guides not bus or train schedules, nor can I find anything on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which explicitly deals with this type of content. The entire NOTGUIDE reads: "Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not a place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, however." This is why you should not quote acronyms. T L Miles (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transit information such as this would be suitable for a travel guide or in some kind of local directory Corpx (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all or Merge as a new article named "Dublin Bus Lines." Bus lines in a large city and capital is notable enough. However, merging into a new, organized article may be better to improve the Dublin Bus-related article. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dublin Bus. This seems like a clear-cut notability issue. I don't have a huge problem with the "Dublin Bus lines" suggestion above, but I'm not sure such an article would meet WP:N and WP:NOTGUIDE. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Scriven

AfDs for this article:

Footballer who's article is based around him playing against Liverpool for a semi-professional team, failing WP:ONEEVENT. The criteria states; "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." --Jimbo^[online] 11:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ONEEVENT as his sole claim to fame is playing in once football match against famous opposition. Giant Snowman 11:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes General Notability Guidelines - WP:N - Multiple coverage in reliable sources as linked to from the article. - fchd (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and I believe the press coverage probably falls under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NOTNEWS. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as never having played at a fully-professional level. In my opinion, fails WP:ONEEVENT, per the sentence quoted by the nominator. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all comments above. --Angelo (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

42ers Basketball Team

Fails general notebillity guideline, no Google News hits for it, not even any local paper result for it. Clearly not notable for Wikipedia. ~~Delete as nom~~. Thanks. Sk8er5000 (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, after talking to my collegues on IRC, change my reccomendation to userfy, as the creator quite clearly has spent a lot of time and effort on this article here, and for all that to just go to waste is saddening. However, I just believe that it does not qualify to be in mainspace per WP:NOTE, and my original reasoning stands. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This non-professional team doesn't meet WP:ORG. The only media references in the article are to small-circulation local newspapers and local community TV and radio stations which don't seem to be anywhere the level or kind of coverage needed. Nick-D (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm coming up with hardly anything on Google for the team and the league. Might be some local church league for all we know. Vodello (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hilarious, but not encyclopedic. Clearly taking the piss. A purely social team playing in the local suburban competition. -- Mattinbgn talk 00:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe next time try some AGF first before mockingly dismissing a new editors' efforts?
Left some comments on the talk page btw. -- œ ^™ 21:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question has been deliberately written in a humorous manner by the editors. It is not a serious attempt at an article, more like a deliberate parody of a Wikipedia article. The "sources" are invented and the idea that any article that makes a claim that "Currently the 42ers are negotiating with Latrobe City for the naming rights of the new court, with 42ers Stadium and Fort 42 the preferred options at this stage" is laughable. I repeat, this article is a parody of a Wikipedia article, and a rather well done one at that. Your failure to understand that is mind-boggling. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel pity for you and your inability to appreciate the time and effort involved in creating this article, which from all i have read is clearly true. I am in a position to know of this proposal as the venue is my place of work, and for your information, i have seen correspondence of this proposal. What i find mind-boggling is that you see it more fit to waste your time guessing the relevance of this article, in which you clearly have no idea, and putting down those who seek to support it, rather than appreciate the time and effort that the editor has put into it and the high and truthful standard that it has set. Your offensive behaviour toward OlEnglish, not his unwavering support or the articles truthful claims, is the actual laughing stock.--Moegal4 (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)— Moegal4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep else Userfy, as the creator obviously spent a lot of time and effort on this. This is on the same level of notability as someone writing an article on their highschool. Notability is definately asserted and one of the main references used "Moe and Narracan News", a local newspaper, does seem to exist. It's not that unusual that this team wouldn't show up on Google and I wouldn't use that as the sole factor in determining a subject's notability. It's a small local team which looks to be like a part of a legitimate league, plus it's not badly written. I've tagged it for maintenance for now. -- œ ^™ 09:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrespective of the time and effort in creating the article, or the standard of writing, the subject is plainly a non-notable amateur sporting club, failing WP:GROUP. Murtoa (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the argument that references aren't notable enough really stands up. While these media outlets may be small, the fact remains that they are real references, and the team is notable enough to be included in these sources, which makes the references legitimate. If deletion went along the lines of the size of the reference, so many local football teams, and many other sporting teams, schools, public facilities in local areas etc would need to be deleted. If anything, this page has a much better argument of staying than any such pages. It's been carefully written with a neutral point of view, to try to ensure it doesn't get tagged for its neutrality as many pages of similar topics are (so many school and local football pages are clearly not neutral, and are noted so). It is comprehensively referenced to real, albeit small, media sources, and most definitively it has links to external pages that clearly prove its existence. The team is well developed, with a weekly published newsletter (accessed via email from its email address) as well as an online fan club. The team is real, the page is referenced to real sources and the article is equal to or greater in notability and neutrality to countless similar subjected pages that have not seemed to cause a problem--MBAReporter (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)— Bruce01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The verifiable references provided demonstrate that the team exists. Also, I concur that it is written from a neutral point of view. And the article is mildly entertaining. However, the issue of notability focuses attention on the local newspaper coverage. My local paper also regularly covers the exploits of a handful of local sporting teams, but the regular coverage of these teams doesn't make them notable, because in most instances the match reports are provided by the teams themselves. That's often the style of local community newspapers desperate for local content. I'm assuming in good faith that all of the referenced mentions of the 42ers in the local paper are legitimate. My problem is I can't consider it credible that a basketball team in the B grade of a local competition in a town with population less than 18,000 could be considered notable. Murtoa (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhile I understand where you are coming from, I don't entirely agree. This article could be of notable interest to all of those people in the town plus many more in the local district. I probably agree that, on a global scale, the article may not be considerably notable, but this could be said of many thousands of articles on Wikipedia. I think notability can be very area dependent. An old railway line, schools, and even some towns may only be known to the people near the locality of these things, but it doesn't mean the article should be denied because it may not have been heard of or be notable enough for someone on the other side of the world. I think this is the same. A newspaper article should be taken with a bit of face value; it shouldn't matter about its size or distribution. Many of the thousands of people in the district and surrounds may read this paper, and the news it contains can mean just as much or more to the reader in that area as a different article from a much bigger newspaper halfway around the world means to that reader. A newspaper's size doesn't mean its articles are not notable to its area's people. Bruce01 (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)— Bruce01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment WP:RS states that "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." If as I suspect the content provided to the local Moe paper is actually provided by the team itself, or sources quite close to the team (possibly by the author of the article in question), then by the above definition I doubt such sources could be termed reliable. This is not meant to dismiss the local Moe paper; more a strong suggestion that the reporting of lower-level basketball games is unlikely to be performed by a paid professional reporter, and the facts therein are unlikely to be checked and scrutinised. As opposed to say local planning or crime stories on the front page. Murtoa (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on much the same grounds as Nick-D. Orderinchaos 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is ridiculous! If articles about an amateur basketball team or league is allowed, I might as well start creating articles for each of the hundreds of thousands ten-pin bowling amateur leagues across the United States. I'm seeing far too many inclusion arguments here, i.e. I see X and Y articles doing the same thing, so Z should also be allowed. If anything, this fails WP:NOT in that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a localized newspaper, nor should it serve as a web site for an entity that only serve a few thousand. groink 10:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Tunisia relations

AfDs for this article:

nominating for deletion a 2nd time, in the first AfD a lot of the keep votes were quite unconvincing. simply having a few minor agreements doesn't show notable relations. coverage seems to be only multilateral, non resident embassies as well. English search, French search which all it shows is played volleyball in 2003. and please don't tell me a 1 off sports match should be included in the article. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: WP:N isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Foreign relations of Estonia#Relations by country and Foreign relations of Tunisia#Bilateral relations. While the relations are notable, there is no need for a separate article. -- Sander Säde 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect or transfiguration into an un-needed disambiguation page. That this article was already "beefed up" at the last AfD and that notability for the bilateral relations does not exist is made very clear by the substance of the article as well as by the lack of in-depth coverage of the relationship in independent reliable sources. Note that government websites could be used to verify information but not to establish notability. The basic gist of the article, that there is an honorary consulate for the purposes of increasing tourism, should be covered in the foreign relations or tourism article for Tunisia. Drawn Some (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above -- the whole bunch should meet notability as a group <g> Collect (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is better handled at Foreign relations of Estonia#Relations by country and Foreign relations of Tunisia#Bilateral relations, per the emerged consensus on handling these pages. JJL (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Bilateral relations, even when well sourced, are not inherently notable. The only notability criteria that enjoy consensus and are applicable to this topic are the general notability criteria, and these require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (In other words, coverage on the governments' websites doesn't establish notability, nor do trivial, passing mentions in newspaper articles.) If I'm wrong, I request the closing admin to explain to me why I'm wrong. I have looked for sources that would establish notability and found none. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to satisfy WP:GNG, and for not being covered in reliable secondary sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources independent of the subject discuss this relationship, which makes it a fail of the notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any notable information to each country's respective article per the above comments. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Drawn Some and general failure to satisfy notability of the particular bilateral relationship. Edison (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another random pairing of countries that doesn't show notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said, this is a random pairing of two countries, shoving the burden of proving notability not on the creators, but on the readers. What's more, that supposed notability was proven not to exist. Dahn (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of expansion. All countries want to expand tourism (it's not notable). No sources indicate these relations are notable. Fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have notified User:Cool3 of this discussion per WP:CIVIL because he significantly contributed to this article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These countries have notable bilateral relations as evidenced by their Co-operation Agreement in the Field of Culture, Education, Research and Sports which has been verified by an independent source ~~(the Mission to Estonia from Egypt)~~here. The first discussion here made that abundantly clear, and in my opinion, should have been a keep. LibStar's subjective opinion that a bilateral treaty is "minor" in insufficient to overcome wikipedia's policy regarding the WP:Notability of subject matter. That policy is as follows:

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

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."

This source meets those criteria. I would urge a thorough reading of the definition of "significant coverage" because that's a key term and is often misused.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that source [36] "independent of the subject"? It's an Estonian gov't website! Yilloslime ^T_C 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. You're right. My bad.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What on earth is the rush to delete this? The article is neutral and verifiable, and the last AfD was only 2 months ago. No valid rationale for deletion has been presented here. At most, an argument can be made that there is insufficient content for a standalone article and that this should be merged into the appropriate locations. A merger discussion should be undertaken, if necessary, via the talk page or Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I will repeat what I said in the previous AfD; this is not the most notable relationship in history, but there are at least two notable recent events (the memorandum of understanding and the honorary consulate) and Tunisia is a major destination for Estonian tourism. There are enough reliable sources to build an article on that basis; I have no prejudice with regards to a merger, but AfD is not and should not be WP:PM. Cool3 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the valid rationale is that I did a google news search in 2 languages and found close to nothing. fails WP:N. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be merged if no independent third party source can be found to verify the notability of the topic. The fact that the source for the treaty is a government source does not make the treaty unimportant. However, notability does need to be established to merit an independent article. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find a third source concerning this treaty. Of course, I don't speak Estonian, Arabic or French, the official languages of those countries. I urge those concerned about this article to undertake a search to find an "independent" source.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a search in French and English and found close to nothing that establishes notability. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are, of course, already two independent reliable sources cited in the article. One, in Estonian, is Eesti Päevaleht, a major Estonian newspaper. Another is the Baltic News Service, a major news agency of the region (the article is available in English via LexisNexis). Neither of these has any connection with the government of Estonia or Tunisia. Thus, I'm not quite sure what people mean when they say no independent, third-party services. The treaty seems to have generated little press coverage, though if I could speak Estonian I imagine I could find some, but it is, of course, documented in the United Nations treaty series. Cool3 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is only a little bit of independent coverage but according to WP:GNG we need significant coverage, that's what these relations lack. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what's missing is a WP:RS stating that the subject of this article--the very notion of the two countries' relationship--is notable. That's easy for e.g. the U.S. and Canada, or the U.K. and France, or Japan and China, but harder in a case like this. But the main point for me is that there is an agreement on how to handle these: see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force. JJL (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The policy says that what is needed is a reliable, independent source that provides significant coverage of the relationship between the two countries. That would establish notability. The source doesn't have to point out the notability. Its existence does that. As for the source here, I don't speak Estonian either but it looks like it refers to Tunisia (Tuneesias). If someone could provide a reliable translation and it referred to a bilateral treaty, I would say that it establishes notability.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wholly unremarkable as a whole, with no third party study to claim the topic is otherwise. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cultural agreement seems quite notable. Dream Focus 18:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that's not an independent source, and I'd rather have an independent source actually covering "Estonia–Tunisia relations", as opposed to what a Wikipedian happens to tell me constitutes "Estonia–Tunisia relations" and what happens to "seem" "quite notable" to him. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't need an independent source for the content of the article, only the subject. That is what the current rules state. I asked over on the talk page of WP:OR to be certain. Dream Focus 10:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one cultural agreement alone (and a honorary consulate) is not enough to establish notable relations. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. Nothing that aspires here to establishing notability of the relationship and no substantial independent coverage. Eusebeus (talk) 18:16, 8 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. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Netherlands relations

whilst these 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of bilateral relations, all coverage seems in multilateral context or football. [37]. I note the article creator provided this link Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the relation with the Netherlands which is actually a link to the embassy in Belarus. most relations between these 2 nations is in a Georgia-EU context. I note this from the Georgian foreign ministry which seemed a nice talk between the two countries but no actual agreements signed. LibStar (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into single Netherlands article. No need for every combination and permutation. Not notable singly. Collect (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is better handled at Foreign relations of Georgia and Foreign relations of Netherlands, per the emerged consensus on handling these pages. JJL (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - true, Sandra Roelofs, the first lady of Georgia, is Dutch, but in terms of significant coverage of "Georgia–Netherlands relations", that's not to be found, so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another random pairing of countries that doesn't show notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not inherently notable, no matter how much trivia an potentially be crammed into it. Dahn (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of expansion. No sources indicate these relations are notable. Fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly trivial. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everyone above. If someone comes along and provides a keep argument, I'll think about it. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:07, 8 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. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–Netherlands relations

whilst on face value not appearing to be random with resident embassies. there is a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, of course lots of football relations. [38]. I note the first two items of this search are the tax treaties but not really a basis of notable relations. I tried to do a search with the term "trade" but again only multilateral stuff seems to come up. [39] LibStar (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above into one-country articles. Not notable singly. Collect (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is better handled at Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Netherlands, per the emerged consensus on handling these pages. JJL (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for utterly failing WP:N, with not a hint of secondary sources shown that might establish notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another random pairing of countries that doesn't show notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another one of the random ones - all data "collected" would be glaringly irrelevant in any other context but the botched "rescue" attempt (a self-feeding mechanism of nonsense), and the entire topic is unencyclopedic. In fact, the primary-source filler only goes to show was much, as is the case with many other such articles. Dahn (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of expansion. No sources indicate these relations are notable. Fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have notified the creator of this page, User:Villa88, of this discussion per WP:CIVIL.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the independent sources added since nomination detailing the existence and importance of a bilateral tax treaty between the two countries. Relations exist, and the notability of those relations has been established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete price waterhouse tax deconlficting directorys aside (the major accounting firms keep index of all relevant tax rules, for all countires) there are no reliable, secondary, independent sources that discuss this posited relationship in any depth that i can find. There are certainly none in the article. GNG not satisfied.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)q[reply]
Delete unremarkable relationship, with no study of the topic as a whole to claim otherwise. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has more text in the references in the actual article. does that say something on actual content? LibStar (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial, unnotable bilateralism. Eusebeus (talk) 18:26, 8 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 Magdalen College School, Oxford. until it can establish independent notability, there is no cause for an isolated article Fritzpoll (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingball

Prod removed, thus listed for AfD : Non-notable school game Passportguy (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE The article fulfills all criteria for inclusion and precedent is set that games played only at one school can be listed (Eton Wall Game). Floreatm (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Floreatm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep for now The article has been created as part of a major rewrite of Magdalen College School, Oxford and we should see how this pans out before deciding whether it turns out to be best to merge it back there or keep it stand alone. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For intermittent edits, a sandbox page should be used. For the article to be kept, it must demostrate that this game is notable, i.e. provide sources that demonstrate this. Passportguy (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this material is not new to Wikipedia; it has simply been split of from another page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but every subject that supposedly warrants an independant article must be notable on its own. And from the article, I see no indication that this is the case. Passportguy (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three references now added to the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this in principle, but I see no more reason why the Eton Wall Game should be permitted to remain and not this. Floreatm (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly the economist article. If something like that exists for this game, I'd strongly support keeping this. Please see WP:N. What we are looking for are reliable sources on the game that aren't quite as "in passing" as the three listed. I suspect they may exist (perhaps in book form somewhere), but we need them. I'd take old yearbooks or some book about the history of the school as the in-passing references provide a fair bit of notability in my opinion. Others might want more. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the school. It is certainly verifiable, but I'm not seeing enough detail out there to write an article about and the references are fairly trivial. If someone can turn up a reliable source (even the official school website) that has some significant coverage of the rules or history I'd change to keep. But the rules need to be verifiable too if we are to include them in any detail. Hobit (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can contact the school to see if anything can be published about the rules of kingball? Would that be OK? Floreatm (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and if it meets the requirements of WP:RS and WP:N we will likely be in good shape. I'm a big fan of keeping articles like this, but we need more than we have at the moment. Hobit (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gbooks returns noting on Kingball Magdalen, which I would expect it to do, for a game played since 19th century. Fail WP:V, which is our core policy, sorry. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gbooks seems to be missing most of the text of the main history of the school; I am trying to obtain a hard copy. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with possibility of merge. Shadowjams (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Every day there's another new "game played only at x school" entry. This game has the advantage of being much older, but that still doesn't it get it its own entry. Hairhorn (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. A merge back to the school would also be appropriate but I doubt this will ever have the notability for its own article. Them From Space 16:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Moore (An Bord Pleanála)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kevin Moore (An Bord Pleanála)

Page created purely for sopaboxing purposes G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 08:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if its for "soapboxing" then I suggest WP:FIXIT not delete it. What is the rationale behind deletion, is it based on notability, unreliable sources etc? I remain unconvinced because I dont hear a reason to actually delete it.--

Vintagekits (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again as per reasons for nominating Pat O'Donnell. Recommended by mediator atWikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-6/Corrib Gas. This article was prodded originally but article was moved and renamed to remove prod. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost entirely comprised of one extended quote from a recommendation of a stsff member to a tribunal -- which now happens to set the record for unreadability with a Gunning Fog index of 22.4 (the previous high I found was 17.08) -- a one ref article essentially which is not readable to boot. The premise is that a staffer's opinions which were not followed by a tribunal thus connect the tribunal to the subject of the report. In point of fact, amazingly, many reports by staff are not used by agencies or tribunals, and that is why the person making the report is "staff" and not part of the tribunal. The connection of the tribunal with the project it ruled on is SYN in and of itself. Collect (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Title of article is An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project at time of comments. Collect (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Article was moved and renamed to remove a Prod, made it very difficult to set up AFD correctly G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Snappy (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. This is essentially an article about one news event (the report); it belongs somewhere else. Hairhorn (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article, but I would have no objection to its deletion provided the content is merged. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, seemingly created as part of the ongoing Shell to Sea campaign being fought across Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Severino

Footer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Infobox states he played league games for Millwall and Piacenza, however no sources have been provided to prove this and I could not find any either. --Jimbo^[online] 08:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 09:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he played with Piacenza only at under-19 level [40], so information in the article is incorrect, and there is no evidence he ever played in a fully professional league. --Angelo (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to Soccerbase he was on Millwall's books for less than six weeks and played zero matches, so that info is incorrect too. other club's he played for (assuming the info is even true) don't appear to play in fully pro leagues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sky Sports Football Yearbook confirms no appearances for Piacenza or Millwall. Murtoa (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no verification of the reputed $500,000 transfer fee. Also, he didn't appear in Sliema Wanderers' UEFA Cup ties. Murtoa (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 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 16:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Nagasako

DELETE. Tons of credits. I can see that. One huge problem however, there is nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Somewhat of a WP:BLP problem but definitely a strong case for non-notability. JBsupreme (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER with several significant roles in multiple notable anime series, particularly Lewis in Blood+ and Pedro (Noooooooooooooo!) in Excel Saga. Ans since the article is almost entirely a WP:LOW, there really is no WP:BLP issues. The article simply needs more depth and detail about the voice actor. --Farix (Talk) 12:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is NO EVIDENCE OF RELIABLE, NON-TRIVIAL THIRD PARTY COVERAGE about this person, the article must be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ENTERTAINER doesn't require non-trivial third-party coverage. Meeting one of the criteria is enough to presume notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his list of roles proved by [41] is significant enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. The issue is more that we lack reliable information to make the article more than a litany of series and roles he dubbed. --KrebMarkt 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verification of quite a few of the lead roles is easy to find, some of them present in the articles on the shows -- this can be done quickly enough I wonder how much WP:BEFORE work was actually done by the nominator. Handily passes WP:ENTERTAINER = keep. If that verification is not present in the article is the gripe, that's a cleanup issue; AfDs are about the potential, not actual. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Potential? What potential. Wikipedia is not IMDb, or MobyGames, or any other site of that ilk. This article has been a single sentence stub since 2004. If there is nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage of this WP:BLP then we ought not to carry the article at all. Full stop. JBsupreme (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't aware we had a WP:DEADLINE. Out of curiosity, why are you so on fire about this particular article, as opposed to one of the thousand or so other voice actor articles...? 68.80.199.76 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Out of curiosity, why are you throwing strawman arguments around while not logged in? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid excuse for anything. JBsupreme (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment None of the people !voting keep have used WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an arguement, so why did you bring it up? Being stub is not grounds for deletion. and the article has a lot more than a single sentence. Edward321 (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And, in fact, it is policy that being a stub, even a permastub, is not grounds for deletion. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And articles are NOT about potential. See WP:CRYSTAL Niteshift36 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL has nothing to do with the potential for an article to be good. It has to do with events that haven't happened yet. In this case, the events have happened (the person has already performed in the roles listed), so WP:CRYSTAL isn't at all relevant. Calathan (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. The fact that the article is not properly sourced is an issue for improvement of the article at this point, IMHO, not a reason for deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. The nominator seems to be arguing that everything in the encyclopedia must pass WP:N, but that isn't the case. The whole point of having additional notability guidelines like WP:ENTERTAINER is to identify cases where things are notable but don't pass WP:N. Also, a quick Google search indicates that there is an interview of him included as an extra on DVD 4 of Blood+ (region 2, not the U.S. DVD volume 4), which could perhaps be used to add more information to the article. Calathan (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone. I've never seen such utter rage over a voice actor article of all things. Chill, dude. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while he may be notable, per WP:BLP, there is not a single reliable reference shown which can really support the article. Simply being a list of his works doesn't negate this requirement (and being purely a list of what he's been in is nothing but a copy of IMDB or ANN, and Wikipedia is not a mirror). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You mean asserting WP:V ? I dropped that ref in the article discussion page Takashi Nagasako seiyu official CV, Artsvision. It's a primary source but i guess that enough to pass WP:V unless people say that the CV is a big piece of BS. --KrebMarkt 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His CV alone doesn't establish notability and by itself is not enough for BLP to me. Anyone can post their CV online and be verifiable, but that doesn't make it notable. With that we can say what he's been in and what else? Not even his full birthdate is in that source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misread me. I was just trying to solve WP:V issue as IMBD & ANN encyclopedia part are hardly reliable for verifiability. For WP:N, i agree that it's another story altogether because you can not prove notability with only primary source. --KrebMarkt 19:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The massive number of notable series this voice actor has worked on, clearly makes them notable. As to the mirror comment above, I'd like to point out that no matter where you find a complete list of someone's work, it'll be identical to others who have a complete list. The first part is listed by year, the next parts listed in alphabetical order. And some of his roles have been for major characters in the series he has been in. It isn't just minor appearances. He was the voice of Donkey Kong in some of those games in that highly successful franchise! Dream Focus 15:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Above users only edits have been to vote "Keep" on AfD's, and remove ProD's. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- +1 with comment above an account created just today the 9th June for deprod + Adf-Keep action :( --KrebMarkt 19:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two more potential sources. Here is another database listing some of his voice roles [42] (you have to search for his name in the database since I couldn't figure out how to link directly to the list of his roles). That database is considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. There is also apparently a half-page article on him in a magazine about voice actors [43]. Calathan (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Most these voice actor articles will forever be stuck at stub class, but they usually meet the minimum WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. By direct order of the Supreme Grand Illuminatus himself, I am disregarding the unfortunately too insightful opinion of Tris2000. Sandstein 05:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Bilderberg Meeting

This is a pov content fork of Bilderberg Group which covers the subject in general and specifically of this meeting. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Bilderberg Meeting. A suggestion for a merge has been rejected on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is enough well-sourced material for it to stand on its own. If all meetings are brought together with the main bilderberg article, that would be too big. It also give space for expanding the especific meeting details, as a lot of information usually comes out after the meeting. Regarding the security for example, it gives further details, as the use of F-16 jets, which seems to be the first time in a bilderberg meeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Guardian had excellent (and somewhat scary) coverage for this event, although it's only referred to in the article, rather than detailed. Still, all this and more could easily go into the parent article. Hairhorn (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of this material is non-notable. Some of these participants are already mentioned in the main article. Alternatively, names of participants could be included in the List of Bilderberg participants article. The only non-trivial claim made is that 'the resort was protected by hundreds of police, coast guard, speedboats and two F-16 fighter planes,' but as this is attributed to an unnamed source it is next to worthless. The fact that a couple of journalists were detained during a security operation is sadly also non-notable. One could be detained for less on a Sunday afternoon in London nowadays. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - I would say to keep the page and expand. Answering the justifications above:
- "That the guardian article had a great coverage but was only referenced": an initial summary was done based on the article, but with a lot of space for expantion. The removal of the page won't help for the completeness of the subject.
- "That participants had been already mentioned in the main article and to use the list of participants": in the main article of the main subjets you will find a summary about the last of even all of its sub-parts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain%27s_Got_Talent#Series_three and Britain%27s_Got_Talent_%28series_3%29. About moving the names to the list of participants, that list doens't give an idea of the cronology, so you can't see easily who went in the last meeting, and finally we need to have cohesion here, why not keeping all the known and relably sourced information about this especific event all in the same page, the 2009 Bilderberg_Meeting page.

I accept that listing the 2009 participants together better indicates the chronology. This does not merit a separate article. If such detail is notable, perhaps participants could be listed together at the List of Bilderberg meetings article? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- "Regarding the security, the only non-trivial is said to be worthless because the jornalist didn't named his source." it'ś on the right of the jornalist to not reveal directly his source, that doesn't take the credibility of the information. And after all, the excessive security was confirmed accross the whole series of the Guardianś article and others.
- "That the majority of the article is not notable and the fact of the few jornalists that covered the event have been detained and followed is not notable.". What is more notable then, Susan Boyle ending up in the hospital? Or all the results of all Britain's Got Talent have its place on wikipedia? Is this more important than a secret and highly secure catching up of the 130 more important, influent and rich people in the world under a black-out of the mainstream media?
The arguments for removal of articles are getting more and more biased, not only of this article in particular. If the article is missing some information we can work on that, but it will help no one to have the whole page removed, except for keeping people away from the truth. Echofloripa (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Susan Boyle, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, see in there: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.""Echofloripa (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pov fork, conspiracy fancruft; not a likely search term; individual meetings should be presented in context within Bilderberg Group. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily keep - this article HAS to stay. The amount of monarchs and leaders who attended the meeting, enshrouded in secrecy, makes it notable in itself. I would also be EXTREMELY WARY of anyone recommending we remove this article. The Illuminati shun publicity so to remove the article from Wikipedia is therefore bowing down to their pressure. This article needs to stay here and, preferably, expanded. Tris2000 (talk) 11:54, 8 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 Earthsea. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gebbeth

This fictional creature plays a role in one novel and may be mentioned in couple of other works by Ursula K. LeGuin, but that's about it. It doesn't strike me as notable enough for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into description of creatures in the Earthsea article if Gebbeths play an important enough role. Loves Macs (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Earthsea. This topic doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone article but it fits in under the parent topic. Them From Space 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earthsea Article subject has a siginficant place within the setting. Edward321 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edrees Rahil

Non notable. Nominating for deletion along with company article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy tomorrow Estates Pvt Ltd. RobDe68 (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Niteshift36 (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to add that the article for the company this guy is claiming to be CEO of has already been speedy deleted. I'm recommending a speedy delete for this one too. The editor that created the 2 articles has already had a 48 hour ban for removing the various AfD and speedy delete notices from the articles. He's never contributed to any other articles. This is seeming more and more like a vanity thing. RobDe68 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: after his block expired, he created this unencyclopedic page. He removed the maintenance tags I placed. I hope that it would be more difficult for him to remove all tags from there, since it is laden with lots of {{fact}} tags. Due to his behavior, I'm leaning towards delete. Alexius08 (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy tomorrow Estates Pvt Ltd

Company does not appear to be notable as it isn't the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and article could be considered advertisement. RobDe68 (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ans blatant advertising: It was his complete uphill struggle and unquenchable desire that made him achieve & to become the CEO of the company. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Tagged for CSD. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as G11/db-spam. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Smolik

No evidence of notability. The statement of the article "He is a significant figure in expressionism and cubism." is totally misleading as far as 1959 born painter could not be siginficant figure in artistic movement of early XX century. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for notability; his fourth Google hit is today's deletion log. The obviously false claim about "expressionism and cubism" could easily be taken out right away. Hairhorn (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Smolik was deleted as non-notable today on ru.wikipedia.org. No evidence of notability to be found in his articles on fr and es either. Enki H. (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 6 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} 04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVD-Cloner

Non notable software, spammy, from a user and IP who only writes about DVD SW. Tags removed repeatedly. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 04:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Therefore, the article fails WP:N. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisment for non-notable product. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:42, 6 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} 04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Zheltonog

Non notable. Has never won any competitions. Nothing substantial on Google. Article appears to have been created to display flags. Klein zach 04:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only claim to notability is that he was an assistant to a notable person, but such notability isn't inherited. -- Atama ^chat 17:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR Thunder 100 and Coca-Cola 500 (Motegi) broadcasters

Contested prod. Article is an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. I have edited the main articles to include the information that these races were broadcast on TBS as that was the only information actually contained in this article. There was no logical target for a redirect, and I find it highly unlikely that anyone would ever search this term, so I am nominating it for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any info on who were the lap by lap and/or color commentators for any of these races, then it should be a separate page. Pja1981 (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no content right now so I don't see a reason to keep. I do understand why someone might link these races together, they were both non-points-paying exhibition NASCAR races held in Japan. If content is found, it should be incorporated in the articles for each of the races. Royal broil 04:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content other than a list which can be summarised in a single line. The short event has a fairly short history and broadcasting by any TV station in particular is not notable in itself. --Pc13 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 00:43, 7 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, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Chavarcode

Non-notable entrepreneur. Google searches come up empty. Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Gnews or Gnews India, nothing on Denver Post either, should have at least one hit on that if he's of any significance in the Rocky flats. Unlikely to have any significant coverage in Malayalam, given that there's nothing in the local English dailies. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SpacemanSpiff. Salih (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not as notable as they have been claimed to be.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable entertainer with diversified activities. I am adding this because he don't appear in the public or in the news media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottannair (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also seen very usefull articles written by him at EzineArticles Expert Author in the internet.--Pottannair (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notableWikireader41 (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Lunduke

Sourced almost entirely to PR releases and other self-published sources. Tagged for notability since March with no improvements. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, therefore no evidence of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:48, 6 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} 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satyrs in popular culture

Trivial list cruft/clutter at best. Notable entries (if there is any) belong in the main article only. This is an improper article split, that was done with no consensus. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge agree about split. fictional satyrs are pretty much the same as their Greek antecedents. Plenty of notable modern uses, eg. Fantasia, Mr Tumnus from Narnia books and films. etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on the list that is potentially significant enough to be in the main article is even referenced so it is nothing more than an unverified list of exiled trivia garbage from the main article. Anything important enough to be in the main article should be discussed, not listed. Drawn Some (talk)

Keep/merge This is a merge issue not a cruft issue. The parent article is quite small, send it back and let those knowledgable clean and maintain as needed. Modern examples are certainly something Wikipedia does and should do. This is a part f what seperates us from paper encyclopedias. -- Banjeboi 01:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if this material remains, it will only eventually return to blight another article. Mintrick (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What separates us from a paper encyclopedia is that we are not bound by space to include encyclopedic material. Uncited factoids of trivia that have only a tangential relation to Satyrs do not a discriminate encyclopedia make. Them From Space 01:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Total misconception of what it means to be an encyclopedia. The use of a notable theme in notable works is an encyclopedic topic. The level of what gets included in an encyclopedia is always subject to both practical considerations and quality--we have no practical size limitation,ouronly limitation is edits willing to work on material, and quality implies that we do not eliminate popular culture or any other important subject. Some people interpret it the other way, of course, but they don't seem to understand that we are a contemporary encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said elsewhere for this sort of thing, showing how a fictional creature created thousands of years ago, keeps appearing in popular culture over the years, is clearly notable. Dream Focus 02:27, 9 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. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Main (Texas State University)

I do not believe the building is notable enough for its own article. I think information regarding the building would be better placed in the "Campus" section of the Texas State University-San Marcos article. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, unreferenced and mostly copied from school website. – Zedla (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no doubt of notability as this building is on the National Register of Historic Places, which has higher inclusion standards than Wikipedia. There is certainly enough topic-specific content to warrant its own article as well as too much to be merged in the the already sizable Texas State University–San Marcos one. Just because a notable building is located within a larger complex doesn't mean that building doesn't deserve its own article. Grady Gammage Memorial Auditorium at Arizona State University, College Hall at the University of Pennsylvania and Thackeray Hall at the University of Pittsburgh are excellent similar situations. --Oakshade (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anything on the National Register has already been judged notable by an arduous and well-documented process that allows for easy verification of information regarding the physical structure and its history and significance. See also List of Old Main buildings for background information on why this would be significant even if not on the National Register. Drawn Some (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-trivial book coverage: Architecture in Texas, many other book results, many news articles seem to have been written about the building. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, since it is a listed building. TerriersFan (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Building on Nation Register, has multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National Register is close enough to an award to meet that yardstick. The best approach to this article is to expand and refine, not delete. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building is on the NRHP - it went through an extensive review and vetting process. Not every building is eligible for the Register. NRHP listing is prima facie evidence of notability. Einbierbitte (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National Register of Historic Places are inherently notable. Sebwite (talk) 19:23, 9 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} 04:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zendo Karate

Non-notable new martial art. Many arts/orgs. have similar-sounding names but a gsearch turns up little about this one in particular. JJL (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WPMA/N. There are specific guidelines for new martial arts. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's poorly sourced and not notable enough--Scandza (talk) 12:05, 6 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, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Langdell

Nominated for Prod, but the people who have been discussing notability on the talk page have shown strong COI in various directions, and I bring it to AfD for a community consensus. This is not my subject, and I have no particular opinion myself, and I urge those discussing it to do it objectively. DGG (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Certainly would fail WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this article because it is was started as obvious self promotion by someone who is not notable for the claims in the version as of last month and give a final warning to User:Cheridavis about sock puppet single purpose accounts. Glider87 (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment seems to be some notability around the intellectual property/trademark dispute. It is not covered well in the article, but i bet there is enough secondary sources to make that verifiable/notable.--Buridan (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article as it fails to meet guidelines for notability for a biography on all counts. In addition to the basic criteria, he would seem to fit under (and fail under) WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:PROF). In addition, Tim Langdell (including his trademark disputes) is not covered well (if at all) in reliable, secondary sources. I, for one, have searched for the best sources to document lawsuits he has participated in, and all I have found are the documents already included in the article, which are meager. Finally, the user who created this article, User:Cheridavis (contribs), appears to be connected to the subject in real life (perhaps his wife [44]), and her only contributions have been creating articles about Tim Langdell and adding him and his company to existing articles in an apparent attempt at promoting his brand. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to double-dip, but I just read Buridan's comment. I would suggest that any coverage of the lawsuits (if they turn out to be notable enough and verifiable enough) could be handled in the article EDGE Games, which is Langdell's company, and which is at the center of all of the legal disputes. That article, to me, seems much more noteworthy than Langdell's bio, and I would favor keeping that one and deleting this one. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, etc., as above. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BIO, article content is just going to wind up duplicating Edge Games anyway. If he has some particular personal achievements they can probably be included on Edge Games. Sockatume (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was unaware of this guy's presence on WP and anything surrounding that, as well as the courtroom goings-on out in the real world. However, I'd just like to point out that a) this article is particularly relevant (is the WP community aware of this, or am I just behind the times?) and b) that I'd be quite surprised if someone who started such a prolific software house and caused a lot of uproar in the gaming community is truly non-notable. Someone another 15:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - struggles to make notability bar. In the event that it is a Keep, there are major issues to be addressed here. Achromatic (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO doesn't meet any of the criteria for creative professionals. Speckssommer (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per current widely accepted standards WP:N. rootology (C)(T) 05:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable vanity page. I don't think there is anything notable about the trademark dispute either....its just another dispute and doesn't appear to set any precendentBoobooghost (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Perhaps mention of the trademark case can be made in the IGDA page, since it's a kind of a scandal about an IGDA board member. Rinkuhero (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - non admin closure by nominator after progress made on the article. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 04:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Shear Mixer

Unreferenced for two years, complete orphan, COI, SPAM (I don't like all the WP links to www.hielscher.com). 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 02:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator changed vote to Keep based on work done. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 04:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: my gods! it's dreadfully written. I had to read it three times to work out that it actually is talking about a device for mixing stuff together. However, there are good sources for what a high shear mixer is, and I think it could be saved.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, prune drastically. It reads as if it was written by a sales engineer, which it almost certainly was, but an aggressive copyedit and a couple of independent sources would fix it. Acroterion _(talk) 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of a hack but am going to my bed now. Anyone else who wants to have a further go is welcome. I fear most of the sources will be manufacturers, but as long as we don't favour any one in particular, I don't see what is wrong with using their technical literature as a resource.Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - I've tried to do some work on this as well now, since I respect your opinions and have never seen Acroterion wrong before. I removed some blatant copyvio from [45] and removed the spammy ELs, but the more I dug the more it looks like this whole article was started by someone promoting (or copying from) www.ikausa.com. Almost everything left on the page now (aside from what you have added) is a very, very close paraphrase of their homepage (e.g. the "colloid mill" section). It looks like multiple sections of three-words in a row copying - look at these search results [46]. I'm willing to listen to you and withdraw this and do a NAC of this AfD, but this still seems like a mess - despite an hour of my effort plus all your efforts. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 04:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your confidence, but I'm wrong on a regular basis. It is a significant, but not widely noted piece of industrial equipment that's used to make all sorts of things, but there aren't any sources that I've found outside of the trade. I removed the highly technical sections as contextless in a general encyclopedia, and some of it looked like copyvio. I think this should live on as a stub for the time being, and I'll give it another whack tomorrow and see if I can add something. Acroterion _(talk) 04:15, 5 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} 05:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baljinder

I don't really know how to classify this nomination. It's really just an article about one of a million names, it has a list of four people in it (was five, the fifth being that of a blocked user who created this page) none of whom have articles about them. And then there's a bit about the name having a number of 75, which also equals the number for "Kindly" and so on. Prod was contested, so it is here. Strong Delete recommendation. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. pablo_hablo. 09:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question - I know that there are many articles and disambig pages on names (Category:Given names contains examples), is there a general policy on these? pablo_hablo. 08:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a policy, but this doesn't serve as a disambig page (no one by the name on Wikipedia currently), but the other pages I looked at did. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not find a policy, but whether you like it or not, the articles about given names are more likely to be kept. See what happened here. Salih (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not against articles on first names, far from it. The reason I put this specific one up was because it doesn't function as a disambig page - which simply makes it a page about one of a million names. A Jane or Kumar makes sense because they can link to multiple people, but this one doesn't. As for the addition below, it happened today, and while I'm not going to research on it to do an AfD, from the page it looks like a WP:BLP1E, but maybe there's an exception. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There is yet not enough contributions of articles on Indian subjects including the personalities biographies and names. I have created a new article - Baljinder Badesha which meets all notability requirements of the wikipedia, and has linked the same to Baljinder as the AfD nominee had commented that 'no one by the name on Wikipedia currently'. We need more positive and resourceful editors to better contribute and expand the WikiProject Anthroponymy. CosmicPerspectives (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:CosmicPerspectives has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the User:E6nvikas-User:Norwe(who edited this article)-User:Norwest2-User:Ib40(who created this article) continuum. Priyanath ^talk 03:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. An article on a first name is worth keeping in two cases:

As a disambiguation page when there are several (at least more than 2) similarly named persons on wikipedia, as in Gandhi (disambiguation) or John. Baljinder fails that test since there is currently two related bios. on wikipedia, Baljinder (Himachal Pradesh cricketer) and Baljinder Badesha - neither of which are unlikely to survive an AFD.
When the name itself is notable enough to meet WP:GNG, and we have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources attesting to its etymology, history, variants, significance etc, such as in Jesus (name) or Yuan (surname). Currently there is insufficient reliably sourced information in the article to meet that test (and I didn't find any), though I'll be happy to reevaluate if sources are found.

Also see discussion at Naming conventions, even though that is a MOS rather than a notability guideline

Aside: From his editing history CosmicPerspectives (talk · contribs) is almost surely a sock account of article creator Ib40 (talk · contribs), E6nvikas (talk · contribs) etc, who have been blocked for an year for socking and COI editing related to Educare India and its project director Baljinder S Bhullar. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on User:Abecedare: - Your concerns may be valid for / against the mentioned articles or blocked users, but in my user history I have neither created nor has made any contribution either to EduCARE India or Baljinder S Bhullar, as alleged. I modified and edited the article Baljinder in response to an earlier prod. The article Baljinder Badesha was created for its relative correlation and notability. Except that there has been a positive contribution on the Volunteering. This is a discussion page with freedom to express one's opinion on the nomination of the article, however, your observations about me are personal insinuations. Please be fairly objective. I intend to create articles related to Punjab. You may keep a Watch and contribute to / object to my articles (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)CosmicPerspectives (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and not notable as a name per se, even if there are a few people with the name who are somewhat notable. Priyanath ^talk 14:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only 'keep' !vote is from a sockpuppet of the creator of the article, and another editor of the article, as pointed out above. Priyanath ^talk 03:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kick (energy drink)

Suggest a rewrite as the whole article is filled with a lot of unreferenced and unverifiable informations Dave1185 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though this is articles for deletion, not articles for rewriting, I'm not finding anything in the way of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable product, and the article is written in the style of an advertisment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:21, 8 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 List of Xanth characters. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other characters of Xanth

If we assume that the Xanth series is notable, we already have a Family of Humfrey of Xanth article, a Magicians of Xanth article, a Family of Merlin of Xanth article, a Family of Ebnez of Xanth article, and four other articles on groups of characters in Xanth. This one has no references and asserts no notability other than these characters appear somewhere in one of the books. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of these articles are referenced in a meaningful way. At best this should be one article containing all the characters, I would say merge them but there is still the problem with verification. I admittedly know nothing about this topic and don't care to investigate. Drawn Some (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Every character in this list was either a key protagonist in at least one novel, or is a recurring character that has appeared in many books. Given the prevalence of character lists such as this for a great many major series, I'm inclined to accept that this list is as notable as any other. The lack of referencing is not a reason in and of itself for deletion, but since I suspect that an overwhelming majority of book related character lists are either completely unreferenced, or badly underreferenced, it might be better to discuss the validity of such lists on a wider scale. Reso lute 02:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that other stuff exists doesn't establish notability for this stuff. Here is where this stuff is discussed. Drawn Some (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: some would have it that the lack of referencing is a crucial reason not to keep - with no consensus on WP:FICT one must fall back on general principals of notability. But others would disagree.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, except for the part where this list is not dealing with people, per se, so WP:GNP doesn't really apply. My point on this article is that it is not a list of trivial characters. Rather, it is a list of major characters of a major series that is now well over 30 books. Lack of referencing is a widespread issue when it comes to book related lists. Most of the articles at List of Middle-earth characters would serve as a good example of this. So would many, many other book series character lists I have encountered. If we want to go down that route, then I think it would behoove us to engage in a wider discussion over the validity of such lists, since they overwhelmingly can only be sourced to the novels the characters appear in. And since your argument here would put hundreds of articles under the guillotine. Reso lute 13:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately WP:GNP applies to the subject of articles not just to people, so it does apply here - and to all the other lists. But I'm focusing on this one for the time being.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNP is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so it really doesn't apply to anything, it simply expresses a viewpoint. Frankly, This essay has no more power than WP:FICT, so I don't buy it as a valid deletion rationale. Reso lute 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - too many TLA's for me. What I meant (of course) was WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This doesn't. Simples.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sure there are far too many lists of Xanth characters on Wikipedia but I don't see the point of just removing the characters that don't belong to any of the more specific lists. Citius Altius (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 34 novels in the series covering several generations of characters, there are going to be characters that are important yet unconnected with any other group in the series. I think that 34 novels in the series would make the series notable too. LA (T) @ 16:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've no doubt that the series is notable. The problem is that this list of characters is not notable except in an in world context. The only current guidance on the subject (WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.) suggests that in-world significance alone is not sufficient. Also, you have the problem that all of this is original research - its source is someone reading the book and then summarising the characters. Again, according to current guidelines, articles should not normally contain original research. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Lady Aleena and Resolute. These are important characters from the series, and the information needs to be retained. (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they do have in-world significance, but the current guideline (WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.) suggests that in-world significance is not sufficient.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character lists are acceptable spinout articles to keep the main article from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a far more interesting point. Sometimes you do have to create spin out articles to avoid the original article turning into something huge, but you then face the problem that what you spin out does not of itself has notability - because notability is not inherited. There isn't really a single guideline that resolves this - when is a spinout so non-anything that it should be deleted (eg spin outs that are nothing more than track listings for albums by indie bands that only have half page articles to start with), and when does it form such a major entity that the fact that it does not of itself pass WP:GNG is potentially no longer a reason to support deletion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Characters of Xanth or merge to the list of characters, with breakout articles/articles with the character information being linked properly. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Other Recurring Characters of Xanth"? (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails WP:V, so at it stands it should be deleted. However, list articls such as this (its a list even though its done in prose and doesn't have "list of" are exempt from size restrictions so all of the articles could be placed into 1 Characters of Xanth or List of characters in Xanth.陣内 _Jinnai 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lists are there to provide support to the coverage provided in articles about works of fiction by listing the elements that feature in the articles, not an exhaustive list of fictional elements that ever existed. This list clearly fails WP:NOT#DIR and combined with the fact that the list is riddled with unverifiable original research, there is no rationale for keeping it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above "vote" came here from Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Lets_see_if_there.27s_any_consensus_by_case as this AfD seems to be somse kind of test case. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only a test case in my head. There was such a consensus on this page for keeping, and for the idea that notability of the series covers all the articles about the series - something which (once somebody raised it) I can see some logic to, and which [previous RfC] established that 50% of editors were in agreement with. I have suggested the idea as a proposal in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction , to see whether it does have any legs, but I fear it has no support there as it definitely does go against the current application of notability. If the closing admin is concerned,Gavin Collins and 陣 are probably here because this AfD has been referred to elsewhere by myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable list of fictional characters without any WP:RS to support their notability nor any real-world perspective on their creation, reception by critics, controversies, etc., etc. Makes it a list of In-Universe indiscriminate information, and so it appears this fails on multiple counts at once. Agree with above 'other foo exists is not enough' responses as well. This material's not important enough to the topic that all of these characters cannot be dealt with with a carefully written dependent clause in the relevant book article - 'Beauregard the Demon, a literal demon in a bottle who answers questiosn to help Humphrey, told bink to go to X.', for example. ThuranX (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge. To List of Xanth characters as a section "Other characters of Xanth" and clean-up that article to express how the characters are organized. Agree with nom that short child articles still need to be well organized but deleting them is not needed here. -- Banjeboi 01:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All characters should have information listed about them. Not sure why the other article doesn't do that. I guess it'd be too long. There are other lists, such as the Magicians_of_Xanth, which contain all other notable characters. One list for the centaur, one for the goblins, one for various families, so all other notable characters who weren't on one of those lists, got put here, in the Other characters of Xanth. Makes sense. Look at the bottom of the article, and see the list? And before nominating this, why not discuss your concerns on the talk page of the article? Could have cleared up right away why the list exists and why it is necessary. Dream Focus 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there is a legitimate question as to whether these child lists are notable. And this is a question that would affect nearly every major book series we've written about. The nominator's decision to list this for a deletion debate is not out of place Resolute 02:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These lists come up for deletion all the time. Sometimes they are saved, sometimes they aren't, depending on who is around at the time to notice and participate in the AFD. There is no set rule established. I have personally participated in quite a number of these. And AFD should be a last resort, not the first thing done. Dream Focus 03:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are set rules - Wikipedia's style and content policies which provide us with the freedom to write articles without the need for an editoral board to supervise us. These policies say that this type of standalone article does not belong in Wikipedia because it conflicts with these policies, so it should be deleted. It fails WP:NOT as well as all three of Wikipedia's core content polices. There are no reliable sources to verify its content which is filled with opinions about these fictional characters that is pure original research. This article fails WP:NPOV as it is basically a content folk, because, as ThuranX points out, it does not contain any commentary, criticism, context or analysis about its subject matter that is not already contained elsewhere, such as the article Xanth. To be honest, there is no reasonable reason to keep this list. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All content can easily be verified. I found on the official website of the writer, a pdf which list all the characters, and what books and pages they appear in. Xanth Character Database I added that to the reference sections. And having read most of the Xanth novels, I read through the entire article, and found nothing that isn't mentioned in the books. Dream Focus 11:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To demonstrate that its content is not original research, the contributors should have cited reliable sources that directly support the information as it is presented. Since they have not done so, it impossible to verify any of the content of this article, for without citations, matching the content of this article with its source would be analogous to searching for a pin in a haystack. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the link I provided. Checking that pdf, for any name on the list, you can verify the information. Since the list has them all in alphabetical order, it won't take anyone more than a few seconds to find it. And I don't think you need a page number to find something, if its listed in alphabetical order. Dream Focus 15:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The pdf is self-published by the author Piers Anthony, and reproducing this source is probably a copyright violation. This may well be the last nail in the coffin.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may well be the silliest distortion of WP:V ever. Citius Altius (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read [[WP:SPS|self-published] thoroughly. There is no violation here. Any information from that .pdf is originally published in one of the books, and simply collected there for easy reference. Referring the books directly, or this collection of the information, gives the same result. And I see no copyright violation. Use the talk page of the article to discuss it, or tag any part you believe to be in violation of copyrights. Dream Focus 09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made my comments on the talk page. Basically this article plagairises the author's published notes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is plagairizing, that disproves your claims of it being original research. And if you really do think it is a copyright violation, you should tag the article appropriately and see if the admins agree with your opinion. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I vote keep because the idea that "there are no reliable sources to verify its content" is too silly. Citius Altius (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of its content is plainly derived from the books - which one would agree is verifiable if only someone put some references in. Some of it appears to be opinion - I don't know whether this is directly verifiable in the primary sources. None of it is notable - I seriously doubt anyone can find a reliable secondary resource (ie not the books, not the Xanth fanwiki if such a thing exists, not The Big Xanth Compendium etc) which even mentions these characters in passing, let alone says that they are notable. Gavin Collins statement of the current position appears to be correct.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "not notable argument" is a good one and it's pity people can't stick to more sensible arguments like that. Citius Altius (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's at least a mention of Beauregard in First contact: a reader's selection of science fiction and fantasy‎ by Bonnie Kunzel, Suzanne Manczuk. But the strongest "keep" argument seems to be that these lists are acceptable spinouts if the main topic is sufficiently notable. I would like to see that addressed properly. Citius Altius (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Gavin Collins appears to agree that "lists are there to provide support to the coverage provided in articles about works of fiction by listing the elements that feature in the articles, not an exhaustive list of fictional elements that ever existed". This is certainly not an exhaustive list... Citius Altius (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Xanth characters as article clearly fails naming conventions at WP:LISTNAME. If these characters would not be expected to be found within List of Xanth characters per the criteria at WP:LSC, then instead delete. Hiding T 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jenny is quite notable and other characters like the Gap Dragon get around. Organising all this Xanth material is best done by ordinary editing and deletion would be disruptive to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden , where is your evidence that Jenny is notable? Is she regularly mentioned in reviews? Has someone written an analysis of the series that says that Jenny is notable? Have there been serious discussions about who might play her in a film or tv show? Is she cited in works analysing characters in fantasy novels? If the answer is along the lines of 'she is notable because she appears in several books', then that's not what notability in Wikipedia is about.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three words: "Letters to Jenny". She is based on a real person, whose involvement with Xanth helped shape the series for almost an entire third of the first trilogy, from her debut in book 13 to her marriage in book 22. Even today, people continue to write to the author in order to ask how her Mundane counterpart is doing, and he continues to note her progress in the author's notes of his books, even when her elf version isn't present in them. I'd say that's pretty notable. (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff. Add it in - at least there's the evidence now for an article on Jenny (I wonder why did she never get an article of her own, if she's that notable)Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: since it's been raised, the part of WP:V that relates to Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves says the following:- Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
I don't believe copyvio is the issue here, as I think the text has been rewritten by the authors, and could as easily have been derived from original research. The issue with this article is that it appears to be only based on the Xanth database, which is not a third party source. From WP:BOP If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Find me a third party source on this list of characters, and I will withdraw immediatelyElen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What kind of thing do you have in mind? Citius Altius (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole problem (have you been following the latest RfC? It's quite interesting really). Shakespeare can produce scholarly tomes analysing every character - because his works are set as exam texts across the English speaking world. Most works of fiction, even most major book and tv/film series, don't have this depth of third party background, making it very hard to meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:N, which were designed with articles about Albert Einstein or Nuclear Fission in mind. I actually think this is one list too many - there are a dozen other articles on characters from Xanth (and none on Jenny, who on the evidence of Anon e Mouse Jr. is the notable character), but if WP:V and WP:N were rigorously applied, all of them should be deleted.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to delete every listed character that doesn't have a third party source? Citius Altius (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be what WP:V (which is the policy we have at the moment would appear to have us do. If you have a different interpretation, I'm all ears. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Basically this is nothing to do with verifiability so it doesn't seem right to delete based on WP:V. Citius Altius (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a great deal of ~~misunderstanding~~ variation in interpretation about Wikipedia policies among most editors - for example I think it's absolutely clear, and you think it doesn't apply. I do find this interesting - it is perhaps the ultimate barrier to Wikipedia every achieving it's founder's goals (I am reserving judgement on whether or not this is a good thing......)Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete perfectly verifiable material according to a policy called "verifiability" so something is broken somewhere. Why don't you move those statements to WP:N where they belong? Citius Altius (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm afraid they belong here ~~pet~~ (sorry, inappropriate, my age is showing). Wikipedia has a policy that Encyclopaedic content must be verifiable - you'll find it says so immediately below the edit window. As part of that statement, it links to WP:V which has been extensively quoted here. Therefore, either this article goes down as a policy breach, or the discussion on the policy starts here. Your choice.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK discussion of WP:V: WP:V is there to ensure content is verifiable. This content is verifiable. End of discussion. Find another policy if you to delete this. Citius Altius (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want to take a look at WP:WAF?

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

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

UFO sightings in Turkey

No evidence that this list of one UFO sighting is at all notable. Someone claims to have seen a UFO - may have been news when it happened but no evidence it's encyclopedically notable. See AfD for UFO sightings in Libya for a related AfD StarM 01:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of UFO sightings. One single incident is hardly notable, WP:NOTNEWS, but this content is relevant to the list of sightings article as it does appear to be documented in reliable sources. If a lot of UFO sightings start to occur in Turkey in the future, this could become its own article, but until that time it belongs merged with the rest. Cool3 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to support multiple "sightings." If the one claim is notable let there be an article about the claim. But we can't have an article masquerading about something it isn't in order to give coverage to one unnotable claim.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:45, 7 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. As far as I can tell, not a single keep vote was based in policy...and the ones that quote WP:EPISODE failed to give evidence for how these lists met it. Smashville^talk 14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to no consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 10. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes

I hesitated at first to nominate this page for deletion, because most shows seem to have a list of episodes page. I think this kind of list is a little different, because it isn't a plot summary like other lists of (show) episodes. If O'Brien is as successful as Leno or Carson, this list could end up being in the thousands of episodes. These kinds of shows have far more episodes per year, than sitcoms, comedies, etc. CTJF83Talk 07:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the following, for the same reason:

Bundled AfD Nikmat (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All A list of things, none of which are individually notable in themselves, is a perfect example of a non-encyclopedic list. Both lists are also (currently) an exact duplication of NBC website pages, and so also raise potential copyright issues. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Episode lists can be useful, but for a talk show it'd be very hard to verify. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far, only one episode has aired, hardly enough for a list. More episodes are out, and this mass deletion is getting out of hand.SPNic (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly notable. We could alternatively have an article on each episode. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How? What would the articles on each episode say? The jokes he told? What the guest stars said? CTJF83Talk 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I doubt anyone is going to maintain it, but you could include production and reception info, like other shows. I would almost be better to do an article for the first episode, and then don't do articles for ones after that unless they attract a lot of media coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Production and reception info would go in an article of a specific episode, not on this list. CTJF83Talk 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for both - These are clearly notable; also, saying that only one episode has aired and that there is not enough for a list is a poor reason; the show premiered last night and we all well know there will be more episodes for an expansion. Saying that these are just a list of things - none of which are individually notable in themselves - is also a poor excuse. How are these non-encyclopedic lists? Bottomline, I see absolutely no reason why these should be deleted. The list for Late Night with Jimmy Fallon has recieved good attention (as will the list for The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien) and has taken a long time to put together. Let me ask you this - are we likely to really remember the guests/musical/entertainment guests a long time from now? Probably or most likely not. I see both of these lists as a good source of information - both for the casual viewers and average person to the biggest of fans. Cartoon Boy talk 4:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete the reason we don't have a List of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno episodes is that there are 3,775 episodes, which would create a HUGE article. Besides guests, what is unique about each show that it requires an episode list? This list is different from other shows as there is no plot line to write about, only jokes and guests. If this is kept, whats next: List of Oprah episodes? Hey guesz wat guyz, Oprah gave away sum carz!!!1!1 (yeah, I'm pushing WP:WAX, but it's a good example). WP:SALAT could be applied as well since it is such a broad topic. I don't think Conan is going anywhere soon so this list would get massively huge QUICKLY! Just kill it now while it is still small... Tavix | Talk 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Wait a minute, slow down. What is the matter with having a huge article? And also, and I seriously ask you all this, who says that The Oprah Winfrey Show will have an episode list, etc, etc. Who says we have to give every televsion show an episode list? Where is that written in the fine print? Seriously, now, -- "Oprah gave away some cars" -- that's signifigant information how? We don't have to list notes dealing with the littlest details; only signifigant notes (ex: 100th episode, First guest to come back, Andy Ritcher leaves the show). I see that if someone says "Kill it now while it is still small..." , that is basically a death sentence for the article. That is simply not fair. The last time I saw someone say that was on a category I created when I first came here -- the first category I wrote, when I clearly had no idea what was "acceptable" and what wasn't -- it was deleted strait away. Now, what I created not valuable to the site in any way, but this is clearly different in my opinion. I ask you all to give this time. Don't shoot the apple off the tree if it hasn't ripened yet. Cartoon Boy talk 10:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait! How is Oprah giving away cars any less significant than who is on the Tonight Show? It is all trivial cruft. This list will get way out of hand when there are hundreds and thousands of guest stars on the tonight show. CTJF83Talk 07:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for both - I agree completely with Cartoon Boy. These are clearly noteable. We don't have to list notes for every little detail; and also when I read that we should kill it now before it spreads, it strikes me as being totally immature and disrespectful to the originator of said articles. How would you like reading that on a deletion disscussion for your thread? Give these articles some time; people may find them useful in some way. I see this as all about politics in a way, and that is just a shame. And I just realized something. The episode list for The Simpsons doesn't contain any plot summaries, and lists 441 episodes as of now. Are you saying that because a list doesn't contain plot summaries then it should be deleted? That's the vibe I'm getting, and come on, now, that list is not that dissimalar from these lists. One more thing, there is a list of episodes for Late Night with Conan O'Brien - List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien episodes - that has been here for a while now, and no one has ever given a second thought about that article or its notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.186.155 (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Information about guests and show notes will be of interest to fans of the show. I don't foresee any problem with handling the large number of episodes that will eventuate. Barrylb (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you going on what is of interest to fans, or what is notable for an encyclopedia??? CTJF83Talk 07:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep people say that there isn't a List of Tonight Show with Jay Leno episodes, but I think that may be mainly down the fact we don't have a full list of those episodes, I see no real reason why we should delete this list. Afkatk (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Even if there's a new article per year, I think it's a bit much. I dont understand wikipedia policy, I admit, but there's likely going to be hundred of episodes, per year. Even that will make it a pretty long and tedius list. --Evildevil (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no reason to delete. These lists are perfectly compatible with Wikipedia guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which guidelines are you talking about? Got any links? Tavix | Talk 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which guidelines do you think it violates? I haven't found any. It would be silly to just link to all Wikipedia guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Your turn. Tavix | Talk 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not violate WP:SALAT, since the scope is approproate - neither too broad nor too narrow. WP:SALAT does not place limitation on the number of specific items within a list, and indeed Wikipedia has lists much longer than this will likely ever get (since it will likely get split by year or some other appropriate category once it gets very long, assuming it ever does). This list is not a directory, so it does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Rlendog (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't see how this is much worse than, for example, the Daily Show and Colbert Report lists of episodes. Sure, it might not be as detailed but I believe it will get better. Give it some time? amisnaru (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This belongs on a fan page, not Wiki. Please refer to this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Guests_on_Late_Night_with_Conan_O'Brien_(2nd_nomination) --Madchester (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I see no reason why this should be restricted to a fan page. You provide no other reason as to why this shouldn't be on the site. You also refered to a deleted page that dealt with guests only. A full list of episodes (numbered, dated, guests/musical/entertainment guests, notes) is something else entirely. I seriously believe that both lists should remain on this site. - Cartoon Boy talk 9:17, June 4 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but have you seen the article you're talking about? IT IS A GUEST LIST! Also, you said that he provided no other reason for deletion, but he mentioned WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Tavix | Talk 03:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for both. This has the potential to be an extremely bloated article. 5 episodes per week and probably 40 weeks a year of episodes. No, this is useless fan fluff. I'm a fan of this show but I don't see any reason to keep this going. What use would the information be? Do people need to know who Conan's guest was on a certain date? Create a Conan O'Brien Wiki fan page and put this on there. This page is just more busy work for fans. It would also set a bad precedent for creating other pages like this for David Letterman, Jimmy Kimmell and others. I don't see the value.George Pelltier (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without evidence of reliable, independent, secondary sources. I'm unconcerned about the article's potential size or cruftiness of content, but whether or not it can be backed up by reliable secondary sources. Currently, the article has none, and previously it was only supported by a single primary source. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- If there is List of The Colbert Report episodes (a show with 5 episodes a week, just like Tonight, and has been running for years) with links to individual years, why not have one for the Tonight Show? This article can be finished once 2009 concludes and be titled List of The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes (2009) and beginning in January we can have a new article called List of The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes (2010) conman33 (. . .talk) 05:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That should probably be added to just because we have one article doesn't mean we need this article. CTJF83Talk 16:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Colbert 2009 article is out of date anyway. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that those articles shouldn't be here, but I dont know policy enough to really honestly comment on them. --Evildevil (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per WP:EPISODE (which covers TV episode (list) notability), A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The problem with this article is the lack of third-party reliable sources to verify the notability of individual episodes. Everything is coming straight from the horse's mouth - i.e., the show's official site.

We have similar episode lists for shows like Heroes, The Simpons and Saturday Night Live, because they actually have independent coverage of each episode. The likes of Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide regularly post reviews, recaps, and previews for specific episodes. This isn't the case for talk show episodes. There may be occasional coverage when there's a special guest (like Obama on Leno) or event (the recent Tonight Show relaunch), but otherwise, there's no significant episodic coverage of talks shows. To put it in historic perspective, I can find a reliably sourced, third-party review/recap of any episode of SNL aired during this television season or even the past five years. On the other hand, I doubt this is possible for each and every episode of the Tonight Show aired this year, let alone years ago. --Madchester (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EPISODE, "It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) explains further:

"When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate.

"While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. (See examples listed below). Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory."

Just because the individual episodes are not notable (and thus do not and should not have an individual article) does not mean that the list of episodes is not notable. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This year, only three episodes of The Tonight Show have merited extensive, independent coverage outside of NBC - the Obama episode, Leno's finale and Conan's relaunch. Independent coverage for three episodes out of some 150-250+ episodes over the year does not meet WP:EPISODE's notabilty guidelines for an episode list. I can't choose an episode (let alone several episodes) at random and expect to find reliable, third-party reviews or recaps of that evening's sketches or monologue.

Also note that the guideline stresses that episodes lists should not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory. That's all the article is right now - a list of episodes, with the guests (aka cast) that appeared that night. Details about that episode's sketches, jokes, monologue, etc. are scant at best without any third-party references about them. --Madchester (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It does not matter how many episodes meet notability on their own. Even if none did it would not necessarily mean the list is non-notable. As long as the list of episodes as a whole has sufficient coverage (e.g., TV Guide), it merits inclusion per notability. I am also not sure I would agree that the guest list is necessarily the same thing as the "cast". The guest list for a show of this sort changes each epsiode and is highly relevant, as opposed to a cast that is largely static. Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all; consistent with treatment of other TV shows, and Wikipedia is not running out of paper. JJL (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator does not give a valid reason for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there is a valid concern that this could lead to List of NBC Nightly News Episodes, it's not quite the same. Reliable sources are available to source each episode. At a bare minimum, a number of newspapers publish a daily feature saying who the guests will be on the talk shows of the day (and the musical entertainment), see [47] [48]. On this basis, all of the information in the list as of now can be sourced with independent, reliable sources. Cool3 (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is that those "bare minimum" sources are TV listings at best. Per WP:EPISODE, episode lists should be more than said listings of the original air date and cast details (i.e., WP:NOT#DIRECTORY). There still aren't any reliable, independent sources providing episodic coverage of each show's content (jokes, sketches, monologue, interview, etc.)

Putting it another way, if I missed last weekend's episode of SNL, I can find details of the guest (and musical guest) on any news site. On top of that I can also find a full recap/review of the sketches and musical performances on EW, the Huffington Post, TV Guide, etc. If I miss an episode of Conan from last week, I can look up said TV listings to see who was on the show, but I'd be hard pressed to find third-party review of the night's interviews or gags. This article needs independent sources that exceed the "bare minimum" details required of television episode lists. --Madchester (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is more out there than the bare minimum (at least for now). Given that the show is so new, it's hard to evaluate what's out there, but for the first several episodes, I've been seeing a lot of coverage. Just take a look at [more than 6000 google news hits for stories published in the last day. Given this, the best I can offer you is a comment on Letterman. I can find sources describing (in more than a directory fashion) most episodes. For just this Wednesday, which I assume was fairly average, I find: [49] [50] [51] and many more. It's an assumption, but I think it's a fair one, that the same will be true for Conan (and certainly all episodes thus far are well-documented). Cool3 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I mentioned above, there has been a lot of independent coverage of Conan's premiere. Enough to satisfy its own article. But outside of that one episode, there's a precipitous drop in such sources reviewing each episode's content. Your sources above would show weak support an argument for having a List of Late Show episodes, but that's not the purpose of this AFD.

We need regular Tonight Show episode reviews like this: [52]. Once all the post-premiere hoopla dies down, will there be sufficient independent coverage to exceed said bare minimum requirements of WP:EPISODE? Because this writer for the NJ Ledger has stopped reviewing the show after two episodes. --Madchester (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To support a separate article for each episode, we would need considerably more coverage than exists (other than perhaps the premiere), as you suggest. But to support an article listing the episodes, the coverage available is more than adequate. Rlendog (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not add List of The Daily Show guests as well? Or at least the lists by year. They're even less detailed than the Colbert Report list that is added. I'd do it myself but I lack the courage/know-how. -amisnaru (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator does not give a valid reason for deletion. Also it is consistent with treatment of other TV shows, and Wikipedia is not running out of paper. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Therefore you fail. Also, check out the second paragraph in WP:PAPER. There's your second fail. Tavix | Talk 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't fail any of the five pillars, so is fine per the 2nd paragraph of WP:PAPER. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first part: NOT A FREE PASS FOR INCLUSION. That mean's don't use it is AfD's perhaps? The second part mentions the 5 pillars but not only those, it also says other policies and guidelines as well. Tavix | Talk 22:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it meets all the relevant policies and guidelines, as discussed in many of the Keep responses. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:EPISODE as this is how we treat other prominent shows. It passes other necessary guidelines and there's only so many different ways one can dance around WP:IDONTLIKEIT to make it seem like one is bringing up a legit deletion rationale. Vodello (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a talk show, not a dramatic program with "episodes." A magnet for original research. Most talk show airings. whether the Tonite Show starring Steve Allen, Jack Paar, Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, or the latest incarnation have nothing but TV Guide listings of who is supposed to appear, and no reviews or book or magazine discussions with in depth coverage. Wikipedia is not a directory, and talk show episodes are not inherently notable, nor is a list of the episodes encyclopedic. Let's delete this and head off "List of Today Show episodes" June 6, 1955: Chimp J. Fred Muggs pooped on host Dave Garroway's desk." (added)Also, this is a mere directory listing, violating WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Absolutely no reason to delete a sourced list of episodes that falls well into Wikipedia's guidelines. I also think it is idiotic that the List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009) is listed here, but not List of The Colbert Report episodes (2008), List of The Colbert Report episodes (2007), etc. These are concise lists that are not unwieldy. True, there may not be episodes per se, but that's why we only have lists of them and not individual articles for each. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you understand that "sourced" usually means that multiple sources which are not only reliable but independent have coverage? This list is "sourced" only to the network which produces the show. Edison (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Global University School of Medicine

AfDs for this article:

PROD declined. I think this is a NN degree mill, failing WP:ORG. Gnews, gbooks, gscholar turned up nada. Lots of web hits, but they look mostly like advertising and directory listings, i.e. not significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Ray^Talk 01:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't it notable as a diploma mill? Hairhorn (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went through seven pages of Google search and pretty much got advertising sites, and Wiki mirrors. The only credible sources I got were Univ of Arkansas, clearly stating that students from here are ineligible to transfer/do their residency at their school, Maine gov website saying this school isn't recognized and a Korean site saying that this place is unaccredited (courtesy the Wiki list which it linked to). Don't know if this is sufficient for notability, two sources seem reliable for sure. For a diploma mill, they've been able to stay under the radar for sure, no hits on GNews. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't doubt they exist, and they probably should be on a list of degree mills somewhere on Wikipedia. I just don't think they're notable enough for an article of their own. Ray^Talk 03:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find a number of sources for American Global University, which appears to also be a degree mill, but there seems to be no connection between the two. I find nothing more than incidental mentions of this "medical school". No hits in Google News, Books, or Scholar. Nothing on Lexis-Nexis. Cool3 (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It seems to actually exist. The school actually is listed at the IMED [53]and gives the forllowing information[54] . Though I note with respect to their listings that "The International Medical Education Directory (IMED) is a free web-based resource for accurate and up-to-date information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries in which they are located. The agency responsible for this recognition in most countries is the Ministry of Health. FAIMER is not an accrediting agency. Listing of a medical school in IMED does not denote recognition, accreditation, or endorsement by FAIMER." [55]. It claims to be legally incorporated in Belize. It certainly does at least have a web site [56] It claims as dean Dr. Martin Soudah, a graduate of St. George's University--and I just found on google an interesting legal case in the Belize Supreme Court where someone tries without success to extract a statement of the financial affairs of him and the school. It claims affiliation with Antillean Advents Hospital, Curacao . I also note their student forum, including the threads [57]. [58]. Some of the website claims copyright as Copyright © 2008 American Global University, so it may be affiliated. If this is a total fraud it's a very elaborate one. I think we have an obligation to report on real but unaccredited schools, making of course their status clear. DGG (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a diploma mill. The website is set up so it looks the school actually exists, but it does not. One of the pictures on the website claims to be one of their dormitories. In reality, its a police station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megapoul (talk • contribs) 09:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic forex

{{tl:hangon}} tag was placed after prod, so assuming prod was contested. Prod Content was "Unsourced personal essay. Confusing. Original research." tagged by User:Wperdue. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - such a mess, complete with misspellings, it needs to be deleted and re-done. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a gsearch shows it to be a clearly notable topic, but gut this essay down to a stub. JJL (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily merge to Forex scam after removing all the unsourced essay junk. A google search does suggest that this is a big enough cross-categorization to deserve its own article, but right now the article is such a mess it's not worth looking at. It should be a small section (or even just a sentence or two) in the main Forex article for now, and once it's written like a real article it can be spun back out to its own page. And by the way, once it is moved to its own page it should not be under this title, it should be something clearer such as Forex scams in Islam or something. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no objection to this--probably makes sense for now. JJL (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Now that I look at the article again, most of it (the entire "What Islamic Schoolers [sic] Say" section) is not only unreferenced essay, but is also written in more or less unintelligible English—possibly machine translated. Since the merge I proposed is not anything that requires admin tools, I will probably just wait about one more day on this AfD and then, if no real objects have been raised by then, just boldly do the redirect myself (because of the unintelligible nature of the article, there's really no content to merge; just redirect it and then add one sentence or two in the parent article about how forex is apparently a big deal in Islamic law). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went to the article this morning to do the redirecting and merging I described above, but once I looked at the source more closely I realized it's a blog post and it doesn't say anything that would contribute to the notability of this topic. Furthermore, a closer look at the ghits I saw before shows that most of them are similarly insignificant—almost all appear to be forum posts or faq pages asking about whether or not forex is halal. That would just make this a random and non-notable cross-categorization; there are certainly thousands of "is X halal" discussions, for every topic you can imagine, and they shouldn't all have an independent Wikipedia page, this is not HalalWiki. So, I no longer believe there is any content worth merging, and I say the whole thing should be deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see over 6000 ghits (and others for Islam forex) including two gscholar hits [59], [60]; also, Amazon sells something with the phrase in the title [61]. It seems to be a recognized concept and at least a redirect seems appropriate. JJL (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not improved & sourced. As is, this page seems to be almost exclusively original research. While the subject may be notable, the content needs to be sourced as to not violate WP:OR Passportguy (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No waiting, just delete. WP:OR Niteshift36 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-write in English. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for clear reasons given by Passportguy and RHaworth. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 6 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 G10. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rat's tossbag

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rat's tossbag

This fails WP:NEO, among others, as far as I can tell. It lacks any sourcing. It might fall under WP:ATTACK and/or WP:COATRACK, but I'm not certain enough to tag for CSD on any of these. I suspect this is a speedy under WP:SNOW if nothing else. Tyrenon (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 5 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. Merge/redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beep Media Player

Not notable piece of software. Open source project that is dead and codebase migrated to different projects, last released in 2005, so no new references are going to appear to make this notable. Unreferenced for more than one year. In that year, only one non-bot edited the article indicating a lack of interest in editors to maintain this article to standards (90% of the article would be deleted as referenceless.) There is a weak claim to notability that it is the source project for Audacious. If so, then this deserves about two or three sentences in that article with a redirect. This article has no notability to stand as an indepedent subject. Miami33139 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, dead project, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Keep or merge per below, I'm trusting in Tothwolf. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the two notable forks. At the very least, this could be a useful disambiguation page to point people to the articles about those forks. The sources I found for BMP were fairly trivial, but it has been discussed in many Linux articles and books & directing people to these other pages is a good thing. --Karnesky (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a software genealogy tree. We do not make disambiguation pages where one old piece of software led to the creation of other software. If this piece of software is not notable, and it is not, then it does not need an independent article. If it is important to the history of other software, then it is worth mentioning in the article for the other software. Miami33139 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was one notable fork, then my suggestion would be to redirect this page to that fork (possibly with discussion of BMP in that other article). That outcome is not untypical for deletion discussions such as this. We can't do that here, because there are two notable forks. We do make disambiguation pages where different users who stumbled on one landing page may conceivably want to find different articles. That is the case here. DABs are typically different than articles & I agree that we can trim this article considerably to make it serve that purpose better. --Karnesky (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very easily taken care of with a dab header at the top of an article "Beep (Media Player) redirects here, for the other project..." Miami33139 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So where would you have it redirected to and why choose either Audacious or BMPx over the other? Neither seems to be to be a primary topic & this is exactly the situation that calls for using a dab page instead of a header. Either a DAB page or a redirect would require that this page not be deleted. --Karnesky (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary, even if the project itself is dead riffic (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without citations to reliable sources, there is nothing notable about this project, now or in the past Please show this project was ever had notability with sources. Miami33139 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay but as a nom please be familiar with WP:BEFORE, I found this on google book search: [62] , Principles of Multimedia By Ranjan Parekh, Ranjan Published by Tata McGraw-Hill, 2006 ISBN 0070588333, 9780070588332.

One sentence in the appendix? Trivial mentions do not make notability. Miami33139 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for hyperbole. One sentence in an appendix would truly be trivial. There is more than one sentence on the topic & it takes up a whole subsection of a chapter (NOT an appendix). The single paragraph is obviously not exclusive coverage. I'd imagine that many (not all) would be convinced that coverage in any individual source was trivial, so there's no reason to understate the actual quantity of content or to mis-state the ___location in the book to make your point. Note also that it receives a similar amount coverage in many other books. The guideline gives no exact test for significance of coverage. To Riffic, the coverage is significant enough & to you it is not. To me, it is somewhat borderline & I don't know why you are so passionate that this should be deleted. --Karnesky (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chainsaw-Merge or Redirect to XMMS. XMMS itself is notable, and while there has been a lot of forks of XMMS, not every one of them is worth having an article of their own, especially when the changes are little more than "XMMS with a few modernisations". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:37, 6 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. Nomination withdrawn. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfpac

While I feel that the group is somewhat notable, this article is poorly-written and largely unsourced (and, to be honest, the only reason I started an article on their album was because of the nudity in the artwork). Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages:~~

Delete all Simply having a member of another notable group isn't enough if no reliable sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per User:TenPoundHammer Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't spend a lot of time searching, but I added another source just now, an article about the group in The Morning Call. With that, a concert review in The Cincinnati Enquirer and an album review in Allmusic, there's enough at least for a "weak" keep per WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking nomination. That's what I was looking for. Thanks! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:27, 6 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. User:Esradekan makes a compelling argument for deletion over a redirect. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daudur

Band that has released one EP only. One member played only one year in an other (notable) band and has no article of his own. In other words, too thin. Punkmorten (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Project with a member who played in a notable band and that I am sure has the potential to grow in the future. I also feel that unlike other sites' entries, this one is more accurate and more comprehensive. Dark Prime (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gorgoroth. not enough beyond that membership to go beyond a mention in Gorgoroth's article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't transferrable. One member might be notable, but that doesn't make his current band worthy of an article of its own. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable side project of a non-notable musician. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. No point in redirecting it to Gorgoroth since he was only in the band for a year back in 1995, and Daudur was formed 6 years before his tenure there, and the EP was released 10 years after his departure, and really has nada to do with Gorgoroth at all. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 01:09, 5 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) 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chapman Family

Previously deleted for copyright violation, the new version appears much better in that regard. But this time the only real claim to notability appears to be the NME references. These do not signal notability in my mind, but I'll toss this for AFD instead of A7 CSD in case I am missing something here. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 29 May 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) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:45, 5 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, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancer transition resource centre

Previously A7 deleted. The sources are a little better this time, but I still do not see the notability. Giving it a chance at AFD instead of A7ing it again. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The charity has one a notable award. Dream Focus 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Through a Google search I found that the 'resource centre' does indeed match WP:CLUB's criteria - it can be verified by independent sources (for example, I think this is independent: [63]) and the scope of their activities is national or international in scale (see [64] for 'proof'), as WP:CLUB specifies. However, if this AfD is to be closed as keep, I would request that the article is moved to Dancer Transition Resource Centre. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:37, 29 May 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, 5 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 00:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition (software)

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough. Otterathome (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this supposed to be a really popular Gnutella client on Mac OS based computer systems? (Or I remember at least it has been...) Also, a google search returns quite much results on the subject: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Acquisition+Mac+OS&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Death (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't already know, 'Acquisition' is not just a name but also a common word. See Wikt:acquisition, so that search brings up every page with that word in it too.--Otterathome (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do know, but then search for: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&q=Acquisition+Mac+OS+P2P&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= This combination should filter out most of the 'normal' acquisition hits... (but also lots of usuable ones) Old Death (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, we don't judge an articles notability on google hits, but instead on available third-party sources, if you add some to the article it may prove it is notable enough to keep.--Otterathome (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://torrentfreak.com/mac-bt-clients/ and http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/15/acquisition-2/2 are two results that come out when doing a (really) quick research. Maybe we should give the original authors the possibility to react and add some more reliable links. I'd like to add that ηoian is quite right about that it is often very difficult to get good reliable third party coverage for P2P clients, except for the really big ones. That's one of the reasons, why P2P has no good coverage on Wikipedia and most of the articles are much to short etc. Old Death (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment P2P doesn't really have "reliable" third party citations usually (too much aggrandizing imo, and most of it is like self-published), however, this was mentioned a few times on torrentfreak, which is a citation used regularly on P2P related articles despite its unreliability. The article is outdated however. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources provided for this article don't meet our WP:RS and WP:N requirements. Third party reliable sources for P2P clients is absent because it isn't a general topic for a general encyclopedia. Maybe this article belongs on a specialist project with looser sourcing requirements. Miami33139 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe some sort of Wikia project for cataloging software? (Not interested in running it myself, just throwing the idea out there.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:01, 5 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 00:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder if anyone bothered contacting the initial authors of the article or maybe the developpers of the software to make them get their article sourced and partially rewritten...? mfg, Old (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just send an eMail to their Dev(s). Let's see how they react before throwing the article away. ;) mfg, Old (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've wondered why people seem to feel that imo useful (or more useful) articles should go to wikias, when imo non-useful articles like the hundreds of extremely detailed anime/tv show ones don't (don't get me wrong, I like, anime, but I don't get why there needs to be separate articles for some of the things and why everything needs to be so detailed that its almost word for word from the wikias anyway). WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't go well just because you feel this doesn't belong in a "general" encyclopedia. That aside, what is the difference between Acquisition and XTorrent? Both are from the same developer, and both are designed for Macs.....Besides the fact that Acquisition is one of the few Mac oriented software that support BT, and that it also supports Gnutella, I really don't feel that it would be an easy task to prove (with citations that aren't fringe OR) that the software is "notable." Also, contacting the dev would be a violation of WP:COI, I don't want this to be turned into the farce that kept Threshold (online game) (where I felt sources were essentially generated out of thin air to keep the older version of the article article, which was much worse, promotional, and lacked notability, by the devs/friends)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EditI've updated the article with the two citations (AOLNEWS seems reasonably RS), although I don't get why now that Acquisition exists when XTorrent doesn't, seems to be more citations for that. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TUAW didn't add anything but some commentary to a summary of a press release. This isn't a reliable source. It also appears you've made two citations to one source - notability requires multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. This is a single, not-independent (as a press release), and trivial source. Miami33139 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources there, and the first source sufficiently cites the two things that the source is inlined for, the cost and its notability for style and interface (as that is an opinion, therefore it has to be commentary). TUAW is run by AOLNews so it's not a self-published source or "press release". I would think that a sub-branch of AOLNews would not be considered "trivial". There is no rule that says a source can only be used to cite one thing, and notability is usually established by one or two citations citing an assertion of notability (although personally I feel that Acquisition should be deleted and that XTorrent should be created as there seems to me in my research more sources for XTorrent, you will notice that I have not !voted). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:22, 8 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Cruise

Contested prod. No notability established. Hasn't won a championship in a notable promotion. No third party refs to help indicate notability. Only debuted in Shimmer a month ago. WP:CRYSTAL. Nikki♥311 15:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 15:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom.--WillC 06:42, 1 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) 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a minor promotion that I'm not even sure qualifies as professional. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Afkatk (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:ATHLETE. لenna vecia 18:46, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QTorrent

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No signs of notability to be found and article not worth keeping. Old Death (talk) 20:33, 29 May 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) 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article claims or shows notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources and no claim of notability. --skew-t (talk) 12:39, 7 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 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Torrent

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 29 May 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, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources and no claim of notability. --skew-t (talk) 12:42, 7 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. Notability, requiring multiple independent reliable secondary sources have not been found to address the arguments for deletion. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

III (professional wrestling)

Non-notable professional wrestling stable that just formed at the end of April. There are no third party sources to help identify notability. The championships and accomplishments is a summary of what all the members have won in the past (when they weren't part of the group), and the team hasn't won anything yet as a team. Nikki♥311 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See reference 1^ "NWA Charlotte". http://www.nwacharlotte.com. May 12, 2009. http://www.nwacharlotte.com. Retrieved on 2009-05-14.

Also see NWA Charlotte

Also See Ryan O'Reilly (wrestler)

Also see NWA Homepage

Need any more? ldeffinbaugh 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are all primary, so none of them help indicate notability. So yes, I do need some more. Nikki♥311 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can see notability in the stable, but with only sources regrading the wrestlers that are third party and the rest are primary, I just don't see the notability in needing an article. Though that may seem confusing; what I'm trying to say is: the stable seems notable enough to write about in bios, but not enough to need its own article. Multiple titles are listed, but were any of them actually won during the group? It is a stable article, but it is made to were it lists each wrestler's history, which is not what the article should be. Without that, the article is nothing. The history of the stable is best to just be noted within each wrestler's own article. For now, I have to vote delete, because I don't see enough sources to justify notability.--WillC 06:49, 1 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, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteIf you view groups such as the four horseman they have history of members and of singles acomplishments. This is an established team. To make the argument that there is not enough done as a team then lets look at other "Teams/Groups" that have not won championships as a "Group" TNA had a group who was called the "The Elite Guard". NO Championships, NO huge accomplishments except being associated to Jeff Jarrett, the world champion at the time. (If being associated to him qualifies that this "Group" not be deleted then Phill Shatter having the NWA National Heavyweight title should be enough. He had the title "before" the group as Jeff Jarrett had the title "before.

Next we have 3Live Kru. Group who had a world champion within it. And did not have a long history, granted they did win the tag titles.

So my point is if this group "should" be deleted then there is plenty of "Tag Teams"/"Stables" that have never won a title that should be deleted at the same time. "Well there members made something of themselves" could be an arguments. The listing of the accomplishments of all 3 members answers that argument. Having title matches, tournament matches, and are currently the top heels for NWA Charlotte is enough to keep them ldeffinbaugh 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

First: the Elite Guard should be deleted. I've been meaning to start a delete discussion but haven't. Second: The 3LK are notable because they have enough reliable sources out there to establish it, they won three championships in TNA, they existed for near two years, and were featured in multiple main storylines in TNA. The problem with this group is: there is not enough reliable third party sources. That establishes notability on here. You must have third party sources, or the group is not notable.--WillC 00:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TNA is infinitely more notable than NWA Charlotte, so an established tag team/stable in TNA is automatically going to be more notable than any team in NWA Charlotte. Nikki♥311 03:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an excuse to put over the three members when they have their own articles already. Way too soon for any notability to even be established let alone be there. Rick Doodle (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I own NWA Charlotte and we established the name "III" just like any other tag team or group. They are 1 month old. I believe that the main notariety, right now, is that the mere mention of "III" in NWA Charlotte circles sparks an immediate recollection of the three individual members. The branding behind "III" is remarkable. It is smart, witty, memorable, easy to recall, fun to identify with, and all of the other items that make a brand stand out in professional wrestling. It is indeed rare when these brands emerge in the wrestling world. Ask 850 NWA Charlotte fans at one of our shows who is in "III", and they will all answer correctly. "III" will grow to become a known entity across the country because we have plans to have them tour nationally within other NWA peer promotions. "III" is a once-in-a-lifetime entity that comes along in professional wrestling. The last one was indeed "The 4 Horsemen." We ask you to please keep "III" and let it blossom into what Wikipedia user's and fans across the country will eventually want to read and learn about. And isn't that the true spirit of Wikipedia? Thank you. Jay Joyce, CEO, NWA Charlotte, Charlotte, NC.Nwacharlotte (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A group that is one month old needs some pretty remarkable championships and accomplishments to be considered for a separate article, no matter what the 850 NWA Charlotte fans think. Your argument does nothing to prove notability and is beyond biased (comparing them to the Four Horsemen, possibly the most important wrestling stable ever, is ridiculous). In any event, what they may eventually blossom into has no place on Wikipedia now (see WP:CRYSTAL). Also, please read WP:COI as to why the owner of the company shouldn't be promoting their own interests. Nikki♥311 03:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus wikipedia is not for advertising.--WillC 05:29, 9 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 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Reilly (author)

not noteable/vanity page Psykosonik (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No evidence has been shown that this is a vanity page, so to accuse the article subject of vanity is incivil, a failure to assume good faith and a breach of our policy on biographies of living persons. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:24, 29 May 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, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines and the WP:SPA that created it does give it a whiff of self promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to pass WP:AUTHOR. لenna vecia 18:44, 6 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. Nominator provided no evidence to support their claim. None of the commenters supported his view. Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janrae Frank

vanity page Psykosonik (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No evidence has been shown that this is a vanity page, so to accuse the article subject of vanity is incivil, a failure to assume good faith and a breach of our policy on biographies of living persons. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author has created a number of works, published in various notable media sources. If someone is talented enough to have so many of their works published by different magazines like that, then they appear notable to me. Dream Focus 16:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 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 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacen Tan

I think this is iffy, but I'm not sure this is enough to pass WP:ENT. Independent film director from Singapore (so systemic bias concerns) who has made four short films (five coming), all on the internet. The first has notability claimed from the number of internet views (which admittedly has some press), whose article is another issue. The sources are mostly blogs but ultimately I don't think this quote, literally, and this piece are enough to make it. Probably just a bit too crystal bally to include right now. No hits through news or books but again, systemic bias concerns since it is Singapore's underground film industry we are talking about. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements to article, and continue improving. Perhaps request assistance from WikiProject Singapore. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite thump (talk • contribs)

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, 5 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, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harbans Srih

Wholly unreferenced BLP, tagged for notability and references since April 2008. Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. لenna vecia 03:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSICBIO states that a musician is considered notable if they're covered in sources independent of the subject - like [65] for example - or has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable - which Srih has satisfied from a quick search. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it says multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. What other RS is there? Also, who are the notable acts on Acid Jazz Records label? لennavecia 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you; there aren't any sources, but the part about releasing two or more albums on an indie label appears to be a valid constitution of notability too. I think that the bit about sources should be a mandatory criterion, not just 'if you don't satisfy this one, choose another from the list' type of thing. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other criteria still need to be verifiable, but in that case the sources just have to be reliable. Non-triviality no longer matters if sources are used to verify one of those other criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Right, but Acid Jazz Records isn't a major label. Their artist roster does not include "many" notable performers. لenna vecia 05:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 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, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per wp:musicbio and lack of sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1) We don't have multiple secondary sources. 2) The albums are not backed by reliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Killers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Day & Age Tour

Tour which gives no indication of notability, see this previous discussion on notability of concert tours. RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 02:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article on The Killers.G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 09:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GainLine. None of their other tours has it's own article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:38, 5 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 V. Ravichandran. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sipaayi

Delete no refs, no indication that this meets WP:FILM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too short to deserve a seprate article. To my limited knowledge this isnt one of his famous films. --Deepak D'Souza 08:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the director. It's a possible search term and dubbing in another language indicates notability for a film, but there's simply not enough information there to support a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. I just found a couple of references - The movie had a 175 day run in theaters per Deccan Herald, but the snippet it available only on Google search, the link gives a 404 error. Another says that this was Soundarya's only successful movie in Kannada, so the movie appears to have been successful. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say merge and redirect to V. Ravichandran -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Above users only edits have been to vote "Keep" on AfD's, and remove ProD's. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of only two Kannada languages that Chiranjeevi has made, that should make it notable per WP:MOVIE. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:45, 9 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 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dipylon 2.0

Non-notable software TexasAndroid (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vase painting software used by only one person, and that person doesn't seem to be notable, at least the tone of the article doesn't convey him much notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches revealed no evidence that this meets notability guidelines. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:47, 5 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 Faza Navardan (I deleted the dictionary definition first). Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faza-Navard

Article merely defines a term used in a foreign language and gives further information on its grammar and usage. There is no other information on its subject that would not already fit the astronaut article. BassoProfundo (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this page through AfD after the proposed deletion tag was removed by the author. BassoProfundo (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the English wikipedia is not a repository for definitions of non-english words. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NAD and certainly not a dictionary for Persian words. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:36, 5 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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Herron

I removed a CSD A7 tag from this article but being a minor league player, he appears to not meet WP:ATHLETE. Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First round pick makes him notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 20:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep, or merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. I've cleaned up the article and added a number of refs. I'd like to see a bit more in the way of quality refs (and they may be out there, but I'm running short of time right now) before I'm in the strong keep camp, so I'm also okay with a merge.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might make it under WP:ATHLETE someday, but right now is still a minor league player. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 5 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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Owsley Sunshine

Self-published band, IMHO does not appear notable. AFDinstead of A7 CSD as it's been around a while, and I could easily be missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - their debut was significant enough for a brief mention in Rolling Stone. But here's not been any significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 1 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) 23:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST Niteshift36 (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 01:01, 5 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: nominator has withdrawn his nomination, and no other editors favor deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Legacy

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A proposed sports team which is completely unsolicited should not have its own page on here. If there is ever a planned expansion of the NHL then I would say, sure, let the proposed teams have their own page. This bid will likely be shut down in the following weeks as even the proponents of this team said they wouldn't take their cause to the courts and quickly give up. That means this team is a blip on the radar screen.George Pelltier (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - The article is about the proposal, nothing more. It's too early to delete. The group is entirely serious, so it is your opinion that they will disappear. In any event, there may be a better place for the article information. Alaney2k (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is most appropriate. Alaney2k (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say to merge this into Andrew Lopez, but the main player in this bid is not himself notable enough for an article. I agree with the concept behind the nomination - there's nothing right now that says this is anything more than a single press conference. With more context, it will be easier to see where this information should wind up - an article on Lopez, an article on the Hamilton team as a sidenote on its relocation, a stand-alone article - but at this point, there's nothing out there talking about the prospective team, other than coverage of the press conference, and there's certainly not enough out there to warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAgree that it shou,d be merged with one of the main backers of this team proposal. Probably Andrew Lopez. One press conference does not warrant a Wikipedia article. That is a very good point.George Pelltier (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Potential National Hockey League expansion. It's hard to argue for a delete given the mention in reliable sources already: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], though it might be a bit too early for a separate article. We can look at separating the proposal back out if this becomes more than a brief news story. Reso lute 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 23:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, preserving redirect to Potential National Hockey League expansion#Toronto. Looking at the other potential clubs listed there, the Legacy is in keeping with the scope of that article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the articles above. If it ever becomes official, obviously the article can be separated. Patken4 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the potential list.--Lvivske (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Potential National Hockey League expansion which was pretty much created for situations like this. The group hasn't even talked to the NHL so not only have they not yet got a franchise...they haven't even applied for one. -Djsasso (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the nomination for deletion on the page so the article can be merged with another more fitting article.George Pelltier (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not correct procedure. Wait until consensus has been determined (and I don't see why the template must be removed to facilitate a merge anyway). Powers ^T 13:58, 6 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.