Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 2

< 1 November	3 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Norris (physiotherapist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable - does not meet primary criterion of multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Reads as spammy and has been edited by an editor with the same name. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 23:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it nessecary to delete this page. It is an advertisement, and just plain useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most or all of his books are by major publishers: Human Kinetics is the most important of the publishers in its field, and Butterworth and AC Black are very respectable. Some editing is certainly needed, though. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject and his books are lacking coverage from reliable independent sources. --Jmundo (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By searching for the subject's name in combination with each of the book titles I could find only one review of his work. The subject works at a time and place and in a field where we could expect to be able to find more sources than this online. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO - no coverage in third-party sources. References in article are either irrelevant or directory listings. Tevildo (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most References are not even used correctly. Most Links posted on WP point to the page where the the text related to the article is at. Citing the entire site like swinden.gov.uk is unacceptable. --Cutno (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ghits alone, especially without any evidence that the sources listed in Google are adequately reliable, do not establish notability by themselves. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Cartoon DataBase

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a nonnotable website that does not meet the general notability guidelines as it hasn't been significantly discussed in reliable, third-party sources. The only coverage I could find was a mention in the Reference and User Services Association's best free reference websites list, but this isn't the well-known award needed for notability per WP:WEB. Them From Space 23:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article about web content does not explain the significance or notability of its subject. Further, it is unsourced (see WP:RS), and good faith Google searches turn up plenty of listings of its name and testimonials of its existence but, in my opinion, no significant, reliable, independent coverage (see WP:N). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ghits show enough coverage in independent media sources. Edward321 (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the ghits again and I still can't see the significant discussion of the site from reliable sources. If you provide a few examples that you found I'm willing to change my mind, but I haven't yet found the coverage needed to build a verifiable encyclopedic article. Them From Space 20:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless these sources can be found - add them to the article and bump the discussion. I have been monitoring this (and its sister for quite a while now and they have both been down for months with no sign of them returning (see their respective talk pages). So it is unlikely that any new material will appear to bolster its notability (unless some newsworthy reason appears to explain the sites' disappearance), but if you can find some older material then I'd look it over and reconsider my opinion. (Emperor (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Alvarez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable fansite/autobiography Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article without references. --Jmundo (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The history of the article is quite strange, has it been hijacked? [1] Why did it start off as a redirect to Dexter's Laboratory? Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Borderline A7/G10 (an unusual combination, but we have it here). Tevildo (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, movie made in an elementary school class. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake's Angels

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about "a short movie made by kids just having fun." Contested PROD. No sources, none found. Fails WP:NF. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. OR, SYNTH Black Kite 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Series

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The "Wii Series" is not recognized at Nintendo websites and appears to be original research. Relevant content should be merged into Touch Generations. Aether7 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NEO --Teancum (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course "Wii series" isn't recognized at Nintendo websites. As I explained on the talk page months ago, "Wii Series" is an unofficial name for a group of games starting with the word "Wii" that are clearly part of a series, much like Wars (series). As these games are a well known video game series and are clearly notable, the article was built as "Wii Series". The only other possible name for this article would be "Wii (series)" (which I happen to think would be better, but that's irrelevent to this afd). --Yair rand (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a similar discussion happened with Wars (series). The games seem to be part of a series, yet no official name has been given for it. Thus, the article is named for the common word of the games' names, which is "Wii" in this case. Nowhere would one be able to find the name "Wars series" used officially, yet the article still goes under that name. --Yair rand (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The primary name for that series is Famicom Wars, and I would support a move if it were proposed again. Just because some games in the series were neither for the original Famicom, nor included Famicom Wars in the title (the Game Boy Wars games), doesn't mean that it wasn't the name of the overall series. Contrary to some of the arguments in the "Move to Famicom Wars" discussion, the Advance Wars games and Battalion Wars games used the Famicom Wars naming in Japan. Naming aside, the crucial difference between that series and the so-called "Wii Series" is that Famicom Wars is officially acknowledged as a series. Dancter (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. It is the word "Wars" that connects those games as a series, not the name of the console. Also, the Wars series is all part of the same genre. Sports, Music, Fitness, (and Chess if I may) however are all different. You say that the Wii games listed are part of a series because they have the word "Wii" in it; how would it be much different if I said Bass Hunter 64 and Donkey Kong 64 are part of a series because they both have "64" in it? Games with words like "Famicom", "Game Boy", "64", "Wii", etc. are not part of a series because they are on the same console and named after it. Aether7 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're trying to support my argument or undermine it. I was trying to explain that the "Famicom Wars" naming persisted long after that series moved on to other consoles. Despite the use of the word "Famicom", the Famicom Wars name came to mean its own thing, apart from the console. It's not the same thing as the "64" designations. Dancter (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that they are part of a series because they all have "Wii" in the name, I said that the article should be named "Wii series" or "Wii (series)" because they all have "Wii" in the name and there is no official name available. The article is not about the name "Wii series", it is about the currently unnamed series of which all titles begin with "Wii". --Yair rand (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Dancter: My earlier comments were responding to Yar rand with my own reasons for disagreeing, not trying to undermine your comments. To clarify, it is the name "Wars" that has continously persisted throughout the series in multiple regions. "Famicom" has persisted in Japan and "Advance" has also persisted into the games on the DS. This is all just further indication that the Wars series is truly a series. While I agree that "Famicom" and "Advance" have come to mean its own thing for the Wars series, this is not the case in my comparison of the "Wii" and "64" designations. Aether7 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Yar rand: Ok, so you disregarding the name "Wii" as indication of these games being a series. What other evidence is there that these games are intended to be a series? Aether7 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Sports Resort is a sequel to Wii Sports. Wii Sports Resort's ___location (the Wuhu Island) is the same at Wii Fit and Wii Fit Plus, and Wii Sports Resort reuses a game from Wii Play. Yeah, I know, what I just said is OR, but you asked the question. Angryapathy (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Nintendo were to make a statement calling it the "Wuhu Island series" you might have something there. Table tennis in Wii Play does not even compare with table tennis in Wii Sports Resort. Aether7 (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As for the original question in this AfD, should the content be merged with Touch Generations, I see no sources that include this "Wii series" with Touch Generations. Angryapathy (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since Sport, Fit, Play and Music have different development teams, isn't this just a "List of games published by Nintendo that begin with the word 'Wii'"? Marasmusine (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the title of the page may not be a universal term, the page itself reflects key titles released by Nintendo which have been specifically designed for the capabilities of the Wii. The issue to me is the title, not the content of the page. Angryapathy (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment A quick persual of the web gave me this article, "here", which says, "Miyamoto described 'Wii Music' as one of the fundamental Wii games that was in development at the same time as 'Wii Sports,' 'Wii Play' and 'Wii Fit.'" Obviously they have an assocation, even if they don't have a specific name. Angryapathy (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you describe is part of the focus of Touch Generations which these games were later associated with. I am looking to merge relevant content to that article. Do you still want to keep or would you rather merge? Aether7 (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I oppose merge) - There is nothing to merge. None of the material in the Wii Series article is worthwhile merging into a Touch Generations article because none of the refrencing support or mention Touch Generations. If anybody has new material related to Touch Generations, then it can be added to that article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about statements such as that. I still think that the article is problematic, presenting the games in manner not generally reflected outside Wikipedia. I would still favor only strictly verifiable information about a series, meaning that use of the "Wii Series" name be minimized, the synthetic reception section and figures be removed, and that the bulleted list and table be replaced with contextual prose. I don't want this to become another "nth generation" situation, in which original research becomes entrenched, circularly justifying itself when outside sources cite Wikipedia. Dancter (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is not "obvious" this is a "series" without any sources to indicate that Nintendo is doing these games as a "series" as opposed to being games that all happen to require specific capabilities of the Wii and are therefore not on other platforms. Really, with the available sourcing, all you could do is make a list of games from Nintendo that are exclusive to the Wii. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As for the original question in this AfD (I suggest everyone read that this is a merge proposal, not an outright deletion), should the content be merged with Touch Generations, I see no sources that include this "Wii series" with Touch Generations. Angryapathy (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is still just a deletion proposal. I said "relevant content should be merged", that is to say if there is anything relevant to merge. Upon further comparison of the two articles, I agree with Whpq's comment that there is really nothing to merge. Aether7 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. There is no sources identifying this as a series. That they all have Wii in the title is likely to do with the fact that they are Wii-exclusive titles and represents a consistent branding for their product. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For starters, the article's title is spelled wrong. You don't capitalized words like "Series" if its not part of a proper title. Secondly, this is just a list of Wii games that has the word "Wii" on its title. It would be like creating a list of every GBA game that has the word "Advance" on their titles and calling the article "Advance Series". Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of this being a series is not that they all have "Wii" in the title. There are dozens of games that have "Wii" in the title. This refers to a group of games that are collections of smaller games that all take place on Wuhu Island, use Miis as playable characters, are "designed to appeal to a wide audience extended beyond the traditional gamer demographic", developed and published by Nintendo, and use the features of one of the various Wii devices as the basis of the game. --Yair rand (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Nintendo officially classifies them as a group where you can yank off the "Wii" at the start as a floating term (that's what needing an article for a series is), we have no right to change how they use the name of their trademarked software titles. Period. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as video game WP:SYNTH gibberish. If this sticks, I'm going to have to insist that a "Super (series)" article get created to needlessly confuse readers by re-categorizing every Super Nintendo game released with a name beginning in "Super" (there are about 260). Each game starting with "Wii" is a separate title and they have no relation other than their publisher (Nintendo) and the decision to give them an incredibly simple name so that it'd be easy product recognition. Just because it's in the same fictional place or, um. Ok, I'm going to go with disagree+2 based on what the "definition" of this series was just given to be. For a more realistic comparison, do we have a single tag (series) article for the 16 original SNES game releases? Those were all meant to compliment one another to welcome in new players just as the WiiSomethings are. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – While we know what the series of Wii games is called, we don't know what, as no one has bothered coining the term for the series' name, nor has anyone verifiable acknowledged that there is a series. Otherwise, I agree with the original research and verifiability concerns here. Now if there was something here verifiable that this is all in a series and is named as such, then I would favor keeping it. MuZemike 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rust Blaster

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Search for reliable sources come up empty. Non-notable manga that fails WP:BK. "Reception" section is based entirely on an illegal website that violates the author's copyrights. Deprodded by IP with no explanation. —Farix (t | c) 21:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely fails WP:BK and WP:N. One-shot manga. Could not even find a listing for it in Anime News Network. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usually, Anime NN has pretty good coverage - so the fact that they don't list this manga is telling. Sources to show its notability would be welcome, but I can find done. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master Pierce Rayer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character from a non-notable video game. Not appropriate to merge anywhere. —Farix (t | c) 21:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Gundam. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable character from a seemingly unnotable game; redirect to Gundam doesn't seem appropriate when the game itself has no article; fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to the appropriate list of characters--seems major enough to include. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And to which is the appropriate list? If you can't identify a valid merge target, then there is nothing to merge. Instead, it nothing more then an WP:ILIKEIT comment. —Farix (t | c) 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no list of characters in..., then it should be made. There's always the main article, but that usually is not the best place. I would describe the basis for my !vote the view that any character who plays a role in the plot of a fiction should at least be be redirected to a list, and whether or not I like the article, the character or the fiction has nothing to do with it. I am profoundly uninterested in them all; I am interested in Wikipedia having some mention of all significant elements of all notable fictions. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't play any role in the series itself, but appears only in the single game, which is unnotable on its own. Such a minor character is not appropriate for inclusion in a character list for the series as a whole. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Collectonion, fails notability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 19:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LeShaun

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability other than relationships is not shown. Completely without references and full of dubious statements and rumors: "Leshaun and Ludacris are brothers and sisters", "She might get a part in Why Did I Get Married Too. It's been a rumor." BLP issue. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete clearly non notable,I think it should be deleted as soon as possible the authour is edit warring (removing afd) instead of discussing it here--NotedGrant Talk 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but please finish the AfD listing. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the impression that all the industriously wacky editing gives, there actually is a recording artist using this name, and some of the article content is apparently accurate [2] [3] and there's a decent version of the article kicking around somewhere in the history[4]. The current nonsense might have something to do with a lawsuit she filed, although it is a bit old (but don't music industry lawsuits just go on forever?) [5] Deletion decision should be based on the best possible text, not the vandalized rubbish. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hullaballoo. That the article is not currently of high quality does not mean that it should be deleted. Xihr 07:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has in entry in a print encyclopedia, so the outside world considers this to be an encyclopedic subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criterion 1. Multiple RS news articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Bear

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources found for this and the refs provided cannot be verified. I believe this may be a hoax, or if not, the character is a non-notable one anyway. Athe Weatherman 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you bother to give a chance, you would see refs look on ebay for loads of books for a start —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugnunc (talk • contribs) 20:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previews at Google books show that this is not a hoax. Bobby Bear seems to have his own entry in this specialist encyclopedia, although only that small snippet is visible. He also has his own entry in this book. If you have an Amazon.com account, you can take a look at the page. Zagalejo^^^ 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [6] Appears to be a real thing. Needs better refs but is surely notable. Gigs (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cited references would confirm the subject is not a hoax. Warrah (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Agree that refs need improvement, but I think there is enough evidence to document notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makeself

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a utility to create self-extracting scripts for software installations on Linux systems. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent lack of secondary source coverage. Gigs (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is probably the most widely used software to create self-extracting archives on Linux, used by the Google Earth installer, the Nvidia installer, and many other projects. I know there is not many coverage, but... did you honestly expect coverage of a CLI tool used mainly by (Linux) software developers? --SF007 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has no coverage, it should be deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said, this kind of software does not really get lots of reviews due to its very nature. I feel there is no strong reason for deletion given the popularity of this tool --SF007 (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a strong reason. It fails WP:N and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you handle mine?

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album doesn't exist, so I don't quite see how it could be notable enough for its own entry. Prod declined without changes, also nominated for A9, but A9 doesn't apply. Hairhorn (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says there was a "re-release in 2006" but then says it was never released. Kind of confusing, but from a little research I'm getting it wasn't released. At any rate, the coverage looks pretty slim. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 19:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a non-existent album. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uncited speculation MrMarmite (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogging ethics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, reason was, "original research". Article reads like a blog post/opinion piece and cites another blogger as the only reference to substantiate its contents. The article's subject matter can potentially support an encyclopedic article along the lines of Journalism ethics and standards, but the article in its current state is unsalvageable POV/OR. Suggest deletion unless someone wants to attempt a complete rewrite in an encyclopedic tone, citing reliable sources. Muchness (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patent original research. I'm not even sure how one would go about writing an article on the topic while keeping to NPOV/V. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think it would be possible to create an article on this subject... this isn't it. Nothing to save here. Gigs (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Warrah (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Spencer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Founder of a non-notable "anti-immigration group" that produces some noise but fails to get substantial independent media coverage. Jmundo (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Finally got this article to be something other than a mouthpiece for Spencer's racist ideals. Seems like there ought to be more on him but I couldn't really find any reliable sources demonstrating his notability. Also the lack of recent edits on what otherwise might be an article on a controversial person seems to speak volumes for his notability. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is thinly sourced and has been tagged wikth various problems going bask as far as 2007. Will Beback talk 01:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Thinly sourced" is not a reason for deletion, as long as it is sourced, as it now is.. And an article having been tagged for problems just means they have to be resolved. We do not delete articles because we have difficulty editing them DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree - a lack of good sources is an indication of a lack of notability. The relevance of the tags is that they urged editors to improve the sourcing yet no improvements occurred, which means either folks weren't interested or the sources don't exist. If we can find sources that meet the requirements of WP:N then I'm fine with keeping the article. Will Beback talk 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This google news search result shows a couple of articles behind pay walls. Although I've not ponied up the money to look at the articles, the very fact that the articles use him as the headline points to him being the primary subject of the article. There's tons more search results, which include him being mentioned or quoted which wouldn't count towards notability, but it's quite evident that sources do exist. Cleaning up the article is an editting issue. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's interesting to read about US-centric views about their neighbours and illuminating to know that such views exist. One would hope that through education, fewer people would discriminate on simplistic grounds such as this gentleman appears to do. To know that such people exist gives those of us who like to promote education a good motivation for doing so. Matt Stan (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his radicalism is what makes him notable; I've found lots of more reliable news sources, see [7]. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are headlines with his name in it, which seems to be enough. A notable player in a political movement is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo vehicle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article defines a term, gives examples, and cites usage. This should be a dictionary entry not an article. The article doesn't define a category of vehicle. It defines a marketing term describing the way a car company promotes an exceptional vehicle to improve the image of its entire line. The type of "halo vehicle" depends on the marketing aims and differs with each use. Again, I think it should be a dictionary entry. VegetativePup (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This crosses the fine line between a subjective category of cars and a pure marketing term, even if most of the car categories are little more than marketing terms.Mighty Antar (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —swa q 17:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Far too much of a niche word and not a term people would be searching for, leave it for car magazines to discuss. In fact, the article even says it's a marketing term and there isn't exactly a lot of info. List of the cars are entirely subjective by the editor and has no source (Peacocking), and this is most certainly not a "Car classification". Everything here is covered in Supercar, Concept Car and Flagship... these are already separated for a reason and there's no "special" car that wouldn't fit into one of the three. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge: I support the deletion. The nomination is pretty much spot-on. However, I also think it should also be merged as a sub-heading into the flagship#Automotive article, because "halo vehicle" does seem to have some standing as a term in North America (and whilst we shouldn't have actual articles for 'marketing terms', they should where possible be included into existing more notable articles). 78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a significant disagreement here over whether this article by it's very nature fails WP:NOT#Directory. There is a consensus that the list is currently in need of improvement if it is to be kept. Given the two precedents cited which show that this type of list has not previously been automatically considered a violation of policy and the divergence of views here, no consensus can be the only outcome. I will add a cleanup tag to the article and suggest that a centralised discussion be held to discuss whether/which lists of bus routes are permittable. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Ipswich

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The very nature of this page means it can't be encyclopaedic, it's a list of bus routes. Dancarney (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While in this case it probably isn't notable, I disagree with "The very nature of this page means it can't be encyclopaedic, it's a list of bus routes." These can be notable. See List of bus routes in London. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article needs referencing, but clearly meets Wikipedia's broad content definition as an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazeteer. While this article may not be appropriate for a traditional encyclopedia, it is cleary acceptable information for an almanac. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My nomination for deletion was based on Wikipedia not being a directory, or a travel guide for that matter, which is what it reads like to me. Dancarney (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is purely a directory, contrary to WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We consistently have these articles for every city with enough of them to bother about & people to do them. They are not transient, but semi-permanent geographical features the same as other parts of the transportation network. They should be seen not as directory, but as combination articles, because every individual one of them is almost notable--though this is the desirable way of handling them, not generally individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Precedent allows articles covering this wide an area to be kept. (It also provided something to merge to for people who start articles on individual bus routes.) An expanded article on bus services in Ipswich would be better, but this is a start. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I realize we have a lot of directory-esque pages, but I seem to remember "bus schedules" at one point being the quintessential example of what wikipedia is not (there are a lot of reasons for this... accuracy, lack of visibility, not enough traffic to warrant updating so it's accurate, etc.). Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Bus schedule" is an American word. Does it mean bus timetable, which obviously wouldn't be notable, and obviously would be an example of what Wikipedia is not, or would it be a bus route, which is different. A list of bus routes is immensely different. Or does it mean everything? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bus schedule" is not an "American word", but in any case, there's no need to analyze my expressions as though they were law. I simply mean that this, whatever it is (its a schedule of busses--actually, it has less information than an actual bus schedule would have), is not notable and falls under the not a directory criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's not American, what is it? I am a bus enthusiast and I don't know what its equivalent is. The article isn't a schedule of buses, it's a list of routes. I take schedule to mean a timetable (i.e the thing with the actual times of when the bus will come). A bus route is completely different

I'm not analysing your expression as if they were by law, I am just trying to grasp a concept of what people are referring to by "schedule". What I take to mean schedule isn't what a list of routes is. This article, as it currently stands, probably isn't notable. I am not arguing against your delete vote, just merely trying to understand what is going on. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Abstain: This is a prime example of what Wikipedia is NOT: a schedule or timetable or bus stop listing. See WP:NOT. --Triadian (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, this isn't a schedule, a timetable or a bus stop listing. So the explanation of your delete vote doesn't explain much. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok, I as it stands now, this is simply a "bus stop listing" as you put it. This goes against WP:NOT policy so if the list is going to remain as is, then it needs to be deleted on that basis. Lists such of these have been nominated for deletion before and there is no one guideline for handling such articles. It's a can of worms. See this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egged bus lines and more. The only bus route lists that have survived deletion have been ones that can prove a higher degree of notability (such as serve a city with a population over a million) and have paragraphs of additional information like List of bus routes in Manhattan. These lists border on being "directories", so since we're on the border, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. By comparison, Ipswitch, although a nice city I'm sure, only has a population of 126,000. I don't see the notability for this list being high enough to hop across this line. It's a hard decision, but if this thing is going to stay, it needs to be reworked to be as detailed as the other lists in its class. I'll change my vote to abstain. --Triadian (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as it stands now, this article isn't notable. As you say, Ipswich isn't a very big town, and glancing at the article shows that the list is pretty basic. But, as I've said above, some of the wording used doesn't match what is used in English. To me, as an English bus enthusiast, this is a list of routes (per the title). It might be a "bus stop listing" to you, but it isn't to me! I'd take "bus stop listing" to either be information posted at an actual bus stop, or a guide of what bus stop each routes stops at (for example in a city centre). Now you've explained yourself, I fully understand what you mean. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with the precedent that bus routes are notable. Wikipedia isn't a directory for local information. Secret ^account 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article consists of directory-like information and lacks encyclopedic content and sources, but it is likely that it can be improved. At least two of the companies that operate buses in Ipswich are notable, and the contents of the lists should be verifiable, so it appears to either be a suitable topic for a list or overview, or suitable for merging or converting into a list or article on a less narrowly defined subject. snigbrook (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUB Cinema at Elon University

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school movie screening program. It doesn't appear to have any cultural importance beyond its campus. Warrah (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. I recall that the student union in my university also held movie nights, but it certainly wasn't something that would be worthy of an encyclopedia entry. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 - this article about an organisation does not explain the notability or significance of its subject matter. (Also fails WP:N for lack of reliable independent significant coverage.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Adventist Prepatory Academy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school that does not pass WP:ORG. The article reads like an advertisement. Warrah (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. _{-- Eastmain (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. All high schools are notable. Yes, copyediting the article to make it NPOV will be necessary. The article should be moved to the correct spelling, Taipei Adventist Preparatory Academy. And this appears to confirm the school's notability: TAIPEI ADVENTIST PREPARATORY ACADEMY AWARDED 5-YEAR ACCREDITATION BY NSDCA/AAA. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while not all secondary schools may be notable, this one is about 7 years old, has 250 students, and has been the subject the news articles - see [8]. It meets my standards for high schools. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that all high schools are notable on Wikipedia. Can I please get a link to the policy that says that? Thanks! Warrah (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He might mean WP:AFDP not really a policy though. Stupidstudent (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The common outcomes for schools are that high schools are kept, while elementary schools and middle schools are merged. Also, DGG's explanation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Požarevačka gimnazija is applicable to this AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never asserted that "all high schools are notable on Wikipedia"; but most high school AfDs have ended as "Keep", and several admins, including myself, have set up their own standards for notability of high schools; and likewise, many editors believe that all such articles should be notable (emphasis added). Bearian (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also think that my ideas are in line with immortal words of the benevolent dictator for life. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All high schools are notable, and the source provided by Bearian verifies the school's existence. Cunard (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bloom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Searches provide no reliable sources to establish notability under general or book specific guidelines ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn notability is established. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The book has been reviewed by a few newspapers with a reasonable circulation and does have an ISBN number, it does meet the very base criteria for notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The book has been reviewed under its full title, Simon Bloom, The Gravity Keeper by book-related magazines like Publisher's Weekly [9] and School Library Journal [10]. It's also been discussed at various sites for being optioned for a movie deal by Universal Pictures, including The Hollywood Reporter [11], [12]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitaburger (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC) The book was also a Spring 2008 Book Sense Children's Pick [13]. Booksense, now called IndieBound, is associated with the American Booksellers Association and independent booksellers. Pitaburger[reply]
Keep considering the above information--which the nom could have found. it's time WP:BEFROE were required. Reviews are what make a book notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But just any review won't do. I'll review each reference in turn: (1) The school library journal review doesn't indicate notability: it's a one paragraph blurb on what looks to be a laundry list of similar "reviews." I think it's intended as a purchasing guide for grade school librarians. None of that indicates notability and it's not a "review" in the sense the guidelines talk about a review (like something that would show up in the Times or the New Yorker). (2) The Children's book review is more promising. It's also a one paragraph blurb, and amongst a laundry list of books. (3) The Hollywood Reporter reference helps a lot. It's the first one so far that indicates notability, which is the real requirement. The book has been optioned (which alone doesn't mean much, but it indicates the book has some visibility). (4) The second Hollywood Reporter reference (from what I can see) says there was previously a bidding war, and that a notable director is attached. That's enough for notability. Shadowjams (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway mt6841

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original author contested Prod. I have looked multiple times and have not been able to find any reliable sources that discuss this laptop. The article as it currenty stands is a product sheet with no indication as to why it is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As it stands the article could definitely use some work, however, the machine was made by a notable manufacturer and although the page has now been moved, it appears that the product has been reviewed by an editor at CNET. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It has been reviewed by CNET and it is made by a notable manufacturer but the product itself does not appear to meet notability criteria on its own. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this laptop. Joe Chill (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge with other laptops from them, as usual with products. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find anything worth merging this with. I am sure wikipedia loses nothing by deleting the technical specifications of a laptop. Not really encyclopedic. Polargeo (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dar ul uloom bhera sharif

The result was Speedy Delete (G12). Alexf^(talk) 09:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced essay, failing WP:OR and WP:VER andy (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to re-creation. This is very hard to follow - Beginning of the 19th century is considered as an educational deterioration for the Muslims. Separation and distance from awareness snatched the dignified status of the Muslims from them.... - but it would appear to be about a Muslim school or educator; it's hard to tell. That institution might be worthy of an article, but this text appears entirely unsalvageable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a perfectly sensible article at Darul uloom which links to several Darul ulooms. I'm guessing that this article might be something that would link in too, except that it's such gibberish that it's hard to tell exactly what it's about, nor whether it is in fact sufficiently notable to link there. andy (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Knowing that, this text makes a lot more sense. We have an article on Bhera, apparently the city where this is, which mentions "Dar-ul-‘Uloom Al-Muhammadiya Al-Ghawthiyya". This may be an alternative transliteration of something mentioned in the text. We also have an article on Muhammad Karam Shah al-Azhari, who seems to be a significant figure, and who may figure in this text as well. This probably is notable. All of these articles seem to be written in a similar panegyric style, however. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the "probably" that's the problem. There are no references, incomprehensible English and a very strong POV. Even if it really is notable it needs a ground-up rewrite. andy (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. I've just noticed that the article is a copyvio of http://www.darululoombherasharif.com/e_index.html and related pages. There's a copyright notice on the front page. andy (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted under the G12 criterion for Unambiguous copyright violation MLauba (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Note that nothing precludes the recreation of a non-infringing article based on the sources uncovered here, as long as content is no longer copy / pasted from third party sources. MLauba (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Goenka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This bio page is a content fork of Tally Solutions. Being a board member of a company does not of itself meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Ash (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Tally Solutions. Our article is partially copypasted from this website. However, I've found several independent and reliable sources (oneindia, Computer Reseller News, indiatimes.com, businessgyan.com) proving notability of this person. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the references suggested by Vejvančický. In my view, the article now demonstrates notability. Bharat Goenka's title is managing director. In British and Indian business, the title is normally equivalent to chief executive officer. (In the financial services sector in the United States and Canada, the title usually refers to an executive of lower rank.) -- Eastmain (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking the sources added I'm unclear as to how this addresses notability as defined by WP:BIO. As per the nomination, being a CEO or MD does not of itself imply notability.—Ash (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person and their works have been the subject of a lot of non-trivial coverage from independent and reliable sources. Seems to meet WP:N to me. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Crossing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shopping Center - was CSD'd in July. No notability established, no references. Wikipedia is not a shopping directory, and nothing about this article is encyclopedic. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a few referendces, including one from The New York Times. -- Eastmain (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _{-- Eastmain (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Weak Delete - The mall seems to have a few articles written about it but nothing substantial enough to qualify as notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A tiny shopping center with 110,000 to 120,000 square feet of retail space, per refs of the article, far below even a regional mall. Edison (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Only for the NY Times coverage. Warrah (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NYTimes coverage is only incidentally about this shopping center. At 190,000 sq ft, it's below the level we usually include. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see that this has more than very local interest. NYTimes falls short of really significant coverage being only a couple of paragraphs in a much bigger article. Polargeo (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - despite the New York Times article, overall this is not a really notable mall, due to insubstantial mentions in the news, and is too new to be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Frederick, Elector Palatine. NW (Talk) 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick of the Palatinate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This royal family member became one - 1 - day old. It is in no way necessary to cover the topic in a separate article - he should be mentioned by name and life duration in the articles of: his father, mother and possibly siblings. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most people searching for "Frederick of the Palatinate" will probably be looking for the man that started the Thirty Years' War, not his one-day-old grandson. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Myself, I found this page when searching for Frederick II, Elector Palatine. I made the disambiguation page Frederick, Elector Palatine. Geschichte (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - He should maybe be mentioned (I'm sure his short life had an impact on his father) but there's no way this deserves its own article. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Die young, stay pretty, and keep your name out of the history books. Should be mentioned in Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Royal genealogy cruft, of which there is definitely too much on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Panyd; certianly all royals should be mentioned on WP, but not all deserve their own article. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I certainly agree this article isn't notable I am not sure Royalty equals notability but by the same standered youth does not remove it. We should be wary about saying the subject is not notable because he was only around for a day. If that were taken to be the case where would we draw the line? Stupidstudent (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Should be mentioned in articles of his parents but doesn't deserve separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus from established editors that the article fails the notability guidelines. The new editors provide no actual evidence to refute this. Davewild (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bennie King

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The "extremely popular in the UK primarily through Internet and underground promotion" song has exactly 3 google hits. 1 blog, 1 twitter post and this article. Lindz Skankface has one hit - this article. Nothing to back up the claims in the article. noq (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sigh. You have no idea how far I went to give this article a chance. I had to remove tags for A7 and 9 because the original version at the time did actually mention notable and not 100% unreasonable pop culture issues and awards won. After much research (see article talk page) I've found everything I've dug into further to be a hoax, and the only thing I've been able to verify is that this person exists. There is nothing left on the page that could bring it up to the lowest of notability standards given for music-related articles, and everything else of note was a hoax. Get rid of it, please. It's a tad too good a hoax to be a coincidence, since the factual bits needing to be verified WERE on external websites as mentioned, but it just has different information. Is there a policy of some sort along the lines of "resulted in deliberate waste of another editor's time"? ♪ daTheisen (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep More popular in Nigeria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattystarr (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reference for this? noq (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing whatsover found to even hint at notability.--Michig (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*keep: uploaded pix of artiste in newspaper to wiki commons the link is gloucester_echo.jpg. I own this artistes single DONK and know friends who do also. Seen him gig.his sooooo sexy--luluxxx (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattystarr (talk • contribs) [reply]

struck out comment made by user:Pattystarr impersonating someone else - see article history. noq (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Live in Bristol and seen this artist gig. Have also heard DONK on BBC xtra 1. Ive also seen him in the THE GLOUCESTERSHIRE ECHO when i was in Cheltenham. he isnt kanye west. but i definitely think we should watch him.musician. robikes (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again got a reference? noq (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no real evidence that this artist is notable per WP:MUSIC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure if I agree that it's a hoax but it is definitely not a notable subject. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's left isn't a hoax... I think. There was just a ton of stuff that was and I had to delete ASAP after it got clear. The only thing I was able to confirm in all of this was that said person does actually exist. Obvious that isn't enough... even if the rest is true. Very very elaborate hoax though, I do give credit. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep::I actually saw a report on the 29th of October 2009 in THE GLOUCESTERSHIRE ECHO, where this artist was interviewed during the premierre of Micheal Jacksons THIS IS IT movie and he was referred to as A "rising Hip Hop" star ♪ span> 12:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.41.154 (talk)

The reference is where? noq (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems strange that a load of first time editors are coming here to say this article should be kept. Still no references for establishing notability. noq (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. Not an A7, as there's an assertion of notability - but, still, not a credible assertion. Tevildo (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embrosia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable, unpublished book series. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does it exists? Google Search result refers only back to Wikipedia. Absolutely non-notable. @nominator: Don't forget to sign your nominations, please. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May be a WP:HOAX, and if not, not notable at this moment. Athe Weatherman 16:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 19:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fennia (restaurant)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP , can't find much coverage on this one [14]. nothing particularly special/notable about this restaurant nightclub. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 19:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 19:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The restaurant has a relatively short history and it has no national-level significance. --MPorciusCato (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this restuarant. Joe Chill (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No media coverage, and the website has no mention of coverage either. This establishment fails WP:N. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Roget-King

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO, can't see how this 11 year old passes WP:ACTOR. most third party coverage is passing mentions [15]. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. He's been in lots of big magazines like Variety but only has a name in a cast-list. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur that he is not yet notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least he was nominated for a Young Artist Award in 2005. Would have been easier had he won. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article is notable with no support for deletion apart from the nominator. Davewild (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Caddy

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, I'm not at all convinced by the previous AfD 4 years ago which probably predates the existence of WP:CREATIVE. hardly any in depth third party coverage [16]. also the award that she has won are not very highly recognised. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Only changes from previous AFD are additional notable awards/recognitions. Nom's comments don't address rationale for previous keep outcome (to say nothing of refuting it), and Google Books (as opposed to GNews) search turns up additional strong signals of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This woman has had multiple articles written about her and her works, especially in Australia. She is certainly notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ITSNOTABLE. please provide examples of multiple articles? LibStar (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a search of google books shows that she has co contributed to a some books but that it itself does not meet WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An award-winning poet and author and we are trying to delete the article? Sounds improbable. As far as WP:CREATIVE, poets are not mentioned explicitly in the guideline. So there is some leeway in interpreting this guideline and don't forget it is only a guideline, not a policy. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

simply being award winning does not automatically guarantee notability, the depth of coverage is the main indicator of notability, ...the awards mentioned are not very well known, if the award was well known it would naturally follow that such award winners would get lots of coverage in mainstream media. it is generally accepted practice that WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE should be followed, otherwise what else do we follow? LibStar (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can argue this point to death but the citation from the university of Melbourne calling the latest award "prestigious" and worth $50000 is good enough for me. I think this praise is superior to coverage from the mainstream media because, in my opinion, praise by a university entity is worth much more academically and in a literary sense than the words of a tabloid or other non-specialist medium in their arts section. That's my take at least. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 03:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Ms Caddy only won A$4000 for the award. [17]. also the award is not well known so would hardly call is prestigious, [18]. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected for the amount. I mistook that dollar sign for a 5, i.e 54000 dollars instead of $4000. Anyway here is the headline of the university of Melbourne press release: WA Poet Caroline Caddy wins prestigious University of Melbourne poetry prize Media Release, Thursday 13 November 2008. The university press release calls the award prestigious. Why would they lie? Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 04:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because the university sponsors the award??? "sponsored by the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne." almost comes under self published sources. we need some outside third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to beat a mortally wounded equine for much longer but I may be old-fashioned because I believe in Academic Integrity. So let's just agree to disagree. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 05:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if someone is sponsoring an award, then writes an article about it, I can hardly say it's impartial regardless if it's a university...Australian universities these days are as much into self promotion to attract students and funding as private companies. If it was Melbourne University saying in a press release that its rival Monash University had a "prestigious" prize, that sounds far more reliable. the fact is, there is little third party evidence to prove this award is prestigious or to prove it somehow elevates this person to satisfy WP:BIO, WP:N , WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if Ms Caddy won the major Australian poetry awards such as Grace Leven Prize for Poetry (which has been won by a long list of notable Australian poets) or Mary Gilmore Prize and got third party coverage for it (rather than a press release from the organisation giving the award), I would reconsider. Also I am refuting the original AfD as there is little evidence of indepth third party coverage of Ms Caddy or third party coverage of her winning these supposedly notable awards. satisfying WP:BIO, WP:N , WP:CREATIVE, or WP:GNG is a minimum expectation for any biographical article, not because you think the award they won passes them over the line, or that a self published press release says it's prestigious. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple awards, obviously meets the relevant criteria. Misarxist (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as previously stated, the awards are minor in nature, the test of notability is significant coverage as per WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:BIO, which this person fails. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, the National Book Council Award certainly was significant. Thanx for the reminder, article coming soon. (Will have to look off the internets as it stopped in '97.) Misarxist (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable poet. --SM (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence park panthers football

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia's nobility guidelines. Btilm 04:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, this is an organization which makes no claim to importance, so qualifies for speedy deletion. --Jayron32 04:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per A7. So tagged. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - the article as it is now does not show how this subject is important.Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top College Football Upsets

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, overly broad category based probably off speculation (what criteria?), no work for almost 1 month. fetch comms 03:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless the criteria are set in stone, this is going to be filled with opinion; the whole concept is more opinion than "fact."--Milowent (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tend to agree with Milowent. The article is completely unsourced at this point and appears to consist of the creator's opinion as to what are the biggest upsets. If someone had the time and inclination, I suspect sources could be found to rescue this article and turn it into something worth saving. The following might provide a good starting point: Espn list. I'll defer a "keep" or "delete" vote to see if someone makes an effort to rescue it.Cbl62 (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced; OR. What is a 'Top College Football Upset' is always going to be subjective and without some objective criterion this page will never be encyclopaedic. TerriersFan (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary POV list -Drdisque (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 majority of editors in this discussion favoured keeping this article, however, they lacked a compelling rationale, relying mostly on WP:ITSNOTABLE. There are cases in which our usual standards for the inclusion of topics in the encyclopaedia – significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources – are ignored in the face of an overriding reason, but there is no motivation to make an exception in this instance. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Watson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This professor does not seem to pass WP:PROF to me. Abductive (reasoning) 02:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective view. Think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound66 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Btilm 03:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bordering on strong. Generic deletion rationale is subjective and unconvincing. Nontrivial hits and GScholar and GBooks, plus awards in field listed on official website. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank youFoxhound66 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep. one of the foreunners in critical political economy. What is your reason to delete an influential IPE Scholar?Foxhound66 (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations? Lack of evidence that he is influential? Abductive (reasoning) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you deem of lack of citiations is the simple mindedness. Professor Watson has added greatly to the literature of BritishIPe and should be considered more an IPE Scholar than even Francis FukuyamaFoxhound66 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like how can you justify Matthew Watomn's deletion and not nominate Ronen Palan?Foxhound66 (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Nothing is preventing you from nominating articles on topics you know to be non-notable. Abductive (reasoning) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You simply dont understand. Both Watson and Palan are distinguished scholars in the field. Simply reason just becuase there's little on thme does not help. Again they are "more" IPE scholar than that of Francis Fukuyama. Think before you remvoed everything here.Foxhound66 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what; the International Political Economy article has a huge list of Notable IPE scholars many of whom are redlinked. Can you find any bluelinked ones on that list that are not-notable? Tell us a couple of them, and if they have less citations than Matthew Watson I'll believe you. Abductive (reasoning) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The professor in question does seem to be quite big in his field, he's been quoted and consulted by many major newspapers about current events. I can't find much on him academically though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you aren't looking hard enough128.232.246.95 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two articles and a book is not notability. Few Assistant professors are notable & there is no sign that he is one of them (we could even take the very nature of an untenured position to mean that the notability is not yet recognized by the profession). Comparing one person to another is a classic non-argument, used in either direction -- we lack many articles on people we should have and have some on those we should not. Some of the arguments above seem to be saying that he ought to be notable. That;s not an argument either. How an assistant professor can be a forerunner in a field that has been in existence for about two centuries escapes me entirely. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait firtsly IPE is not the same as political economy (which is under the school of economics), get your facts right. Secondly, he has published more than two articles and a book (see his own publication page and the range of publications under academic journals). All these acadmeics are thorough academics in ta field that just emerged from the sub set of International Realtions. Palan is IPE, Watson is IPe Fukuyama is more IR than IPE.128.232.246.95 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query. On his web site he claims he is Professor of Political Economy, yet the WP article states that he is Assistant Professor. GS cites are 39, 31, 25, 21... which seem meager for a full Professor. What is the resolution? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How does that ever matter? No one address assistant professors in communcations as Assistant Professor xxx. Do you know that even Drs/lecturers are called professors?128.232.246.95 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His department has split the difference, and says he is an Associate Professor. This must have happened since April 2009, the last time the article creator edited. Abductive (reasoning) 10:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His web page on the University of Warwick's site states he is Professor. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

See the BLP problem? His website says that, but as of the creation of the Wikipedia article. he was Assistant. His website cannot be believed. Abductive (reasoning) 11:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense again. He is a reader in International Political Economy. He was previous a senior lecturer but even then people call such lecturers professors by mistake.128.232.246.95 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Prof or Assoc. Prof: In answer to Abductive - a webpage on him on the University of Warwick's website is, I think, an authoritative source for attribtuting his job title. It is the University's page not his private page. To double check I phoned the department and after checking some lists the administrator said he is now a "full professor". I have put further evidence to his true status on the article's discussion page. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The mind reels at this inversion of the usual finding in BLPs; usually it's the Wikipedia article that is lax in omitting the word "assistant" or "associate". Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Noted British IPE Scholar. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes128.232.246.95 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not good form to root for the notvotes you agree with, but I appreciate your enthusiasm. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established - no evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hevimesta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP. hardly any third party coverage [19]. no need to create an article for every single night club in the world. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G10. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nazistic lemmings who marched behind Bushitler

The tone and title are a clear violation of neutral point of view. However, the quotes and other facts about these people are well-sourced, so I thought it deserves a chance at AfD instead of being speedied. I'll be neutral for now, but welcome others' thoughts on what to do with this article. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonavista State Park Golf Course

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than non-reliable local tourist information portals, this golf course seems non-notable. Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _{-- Eastmain (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. State parks, like towns and villages, ought to be regarded as inherently notable. References about them have to exist, even though they may not be easily found online. Their initial discussion about whether to create a park, the legislation to do so, and the development of facilities for the park will not have gone unrecorded. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's as notable as any other state park, although the golf course is fairly small at 9 holes. Still, it has some history, once being part of Willard Asylum for the Chronic Insane. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State parks, even those which happen to be golf courses, tend to be notable, and references can generally be found for them. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin Sial

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From looking on Google, this person seems non-notable. Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable actor with only a cameo or two to his name. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources = no evidence of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G1) by Mav. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferroneous

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Scientifically looking" text was taken from element 118 and was given a new name (no relevant Google hits). Hype. If an admin feels speedy deletion is more appropriate, please go ahead. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as patent nonsense and duplication. --mav (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburg, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This place doesn't seem to exist. Neither the Lancaster County website nor Census.gov lists it. The latitude and longitude given when the article was created pointed to Pittsburg, South Carolina, suggesting it was created by mistake. —Mrwojo (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. I can't find anything to verify that this exists.--Oakshade (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania as per below.--Oakshade (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Redirect: to Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Joe Chill (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mistake or a hoax. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I perused some 1950-60s USGS maps online and didn't see any Pittsburg in Lancaster County, though I suppose its possible I overlooked it.--Milowent (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find a Pittsburg, Lancaster County in the GNIS, but it's only a locale, and locales aren't usually notable enough for articles. But Pittsburg does appear to exist. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, I should have looked there too. Those coordinates pinpoint a spot north of Pittsburg Valley Road, and west of Pittsburg Hill road, in Manor Township. But a place called Pittsburg itself is not listed on the 1955 (photorevised 1990) USGS map I looked at[20] in that spot, and I am hard pressed to say this is a "town" because there is no concentration of residences on the USGS map. I found one reference to a local resident referring to "Pittsburg Valley" in public town meeting notes at manortwp.org. If there was a place to merge this article into it would be Manor Township, but there's nothing worth merging.--Milowent (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to containing administrative division. --Polaron | Talk 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania per Polaron. Locales aren't really notable enough to have articles, but this place does appear to exist (per the above evidence, plus a "Pittsburg Valley Road" and some houses in an aerial view of the coordinates), so it should probably be redirected to the jurisdictional article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable musician Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agreed -- those sources you provided clearly suggest notability. I no longer think that this should be under AfD. Should I just delete the tag from the page?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Originals — Keith Urban

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per precedent, iTunes Originals albums are not notable. This one doesn't seem any different from the others — no reliable secondary sources, no third-party reviews, etc. Only source is a link to iTunes store, no secondary sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: All that I can find for significant coverage is [26] and [27]. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Joe Chill's articles look to me like significant coverage. It's not much, but I think it's enough keep the article. Despite the general idea that iTunes Originals albums are usually not notable, this one looks like an exception. Tim meh 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Chill's diggings-up. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there seems enough coverage of this, and the inclusion of several new songs seems to merit the independent status of the release. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is a fair amount of coverage. I agree with Timmeh. Btilm 05:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus here that this topic is not sufficiently notable to merit an article. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bournbrook Kebabs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No google support fort notability. Fails WP:N even taking votes of students into account. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article received a double-CSD, PROD tag portion of the deletion process was apparently skipped and brought straight to AfD. If you have any concerns with this, feel free to contact me, but I have my reasons explained below. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason for a local Kebab shop to included even if some local students like it. noq (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Short-term Keep~~ ~~Delete at standard close~~ Just Delete it, please, see below. on assumption the article doesn't improve. This editor is new to Wikipedia and this is his/her first article published, so showing good faith is greatly appreciated in the short-term. Is the article in keeping condition? No, of course not yet. BUT, what saved this from A7 and 11 is the mention of a local/regional media source and an award said to have been won. If these are shown true with sources, they would certainly get a clean bill of health from general Wikipedia notability standards for businesses. I admit I have no way of knowing if the article will stand up, but it deserves a shot to get off the ground and formatted properly first so we might not scare away a new contributor especially after they specifically asked for a little more time. I guess the 7-day AfD will have to do. Any help that could be given to the author would be much welcomed. Thanks... ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you also like to short term keep his other article, about a boy brought up by wolves in Birmingham? Everything about the kebab shop article screams speedy delete. There is zero chance that the article will make the grade. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you and I agree that as-is it'll go at the end of the discussion. This is also a far cry from how that article was, but if this turns into such an obvious hoax to meet G3 like that then I completely support it going. Since the article at no point in its existence been spamming commercial links anywhere or making outrageously extreme claims about itself (I mean, there are no weasel words or peacock statements), it doesn't demand G11. To directly quote the G11 text, Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. Since there's no spam on the page, you'd be CSDing on only the name. That's pretty straightforward. Detailed researching of G11 shows it can be really specific about regional-level media and local awards as reasons to not CSD and run the normal delete process, which is the only reason I saved it in the first place. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An award + two verifiable and reliable references; enough notable Rirunmot 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete. Winning a mention in a local student paper is not a claim to notability, and no more interesting claims to notability seem imminent. Hairhorn (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - uncited claim of winning an award in a local student newsletter does not convey notability. I also fail to see the "two verifiable and reliable references" mentioned above - all I see is a Google Maps listing and an entry in a minor business directory, both of which prove nothing more than that the restaurant exists, as do hundreds of thousands of other restaurants....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. For goodeness sake. Non-notable company. WP is not a directory. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Just reverted vandalism by an anon user that had changed other users comments. Edit history implies they may be related to the creator of the article up for deletion. noq (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closer inspection shows that the Bournbrook article used to mention another winner of the student paper award until 92.236.180.136 changed it to Bournbrook Kebabs. Google searches match only wiki pages if quotes are used, lots of others without quotes. I think this is a hoax. noq (talk) 6:46 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Vandalism again - above comment was deleted by 92.236.180.136. noq (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Irregularities: See here[28] where the author contacts me and. Well, I think it speaks for itself. I don't suppose that's close enough to author requesting delete? Likely no, but worth tossing up. As to why they blanked the page here I have no idea whatsoever, and that's completely unacceptable under any circumstances. I'll try to speak with them directly, but in hoping I don't need to return here again I scored out earlier comments and changed to Delete. User needs mentoring on some basics first. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The author clearly isn't requesting that the article be deleted, in fact he/she is requesting your help to stop the article getting deleted. When he/she says "feel free to delete this", it is referring to the comment placed on your talk page, not the article itself -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris the Dude is correct, I do NOT want my article on Bournbrook Kebabs deleted. I meant the comment I had left on Datheisens page where I am clearly asking for help on the article. Some useful advice would be greatly appreciated!!

I am unaware of people deleting comments, I am sorry this has been happening but I find it very rude and inappropraite. Unfortunatly I am unaware of who is doing it and so can not do anything except offer my apolgies on behalf of the inconsiderate person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polonius-laid (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only chance you have of getting this article saved is if you can provide evidence that the kebab shop is notable, which in Wikipedia terms means that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:N). What that means is that you'd need to be able to prove (with evidence to back it up i.e citations (see WP:CITE), not just relying on people "taking your word for it") that the kebab shop has been the subject of coverage in mainstream newspapers, TV programmes, reliable websites which employ paid editing staff, etc. So far the article only mentions a throwaway reference in a local student newsletter, which I'm afraid doesn't cut it. If you can produce anything like I've detailed above, you might be in with a chance. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and by the way, you yourself deleted two comments from this page, as can be seen here..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who started the article invites a would be deletor to call to the establishment for a free burger and chips, raising suspicions that the desperation to keep the article is promotional. Either that, or the quality of one side of the debate here makes me very worried about the entry levels for University nowadays. Kevin McE (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chun (professor)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prod-tagged this article on a professor emeritus, saying "Low h-index, in the teens. Article makes no particular claim of notability." User:DGG deprodded, noting that he has 68 papers published. My contention is that there is no particular contribution to his field to be found, so there is no need for an encyclopedia article on this person. If secondary or tertiary sources exist to show that Dr Chun made a discovery that warrants an encyclopedia entry, I could not find them. Abductive (reasoning) 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence there is no contribution to his field from the wikipedia based searches above --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have followed WP:BEFORE to the best of my abilities. Have you any sources? I suspect not. Abductive (reasoning) 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I'm not going to call you ignorant just because you disagree with me. The topic is still the deletion of the article. Try to get back to it. If you spent time reading about Chun you might learn something, and it wouldn't require more time than searching up a wikipedia essay to call me ignorant for disagreeing with you about this deletion. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice job baiting. But I didn't call you ignorant, I characterized your argument as fallacious and specified the fallacy as an argument from ignorance. In other words, you came up with a bizarre evidence of absence argument that cannot be refuted, but you are doing it in an environment (a BLP AFD) where such an argument cannot be accepted. Abductive (reasoning) 01:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, now my arguments are not only from ignorance but bizarre? Nice. Anyway, back to Chun's h-index. What is it? How was it calculated? Your searches above are based on "Paul Chun (professor)." Suprise, that's a low return even for some well known professors with sky-high h-indexes.
      - So, my ignorance, my bizarre arguments, my baiting aside. And, back to Chun. What is his h-index? How does that compare to Gould's? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With this extensive a publication and presentation/symposium record, burden must fall on nominator to prove that subject's contribution to his specialized field aren't consequential. No breakout "discovery" is required, any more than an actor must be top-billed in a film to be notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given his decades as a researcher, his low h-index is evidence of low impact in the field. Abductive (reasoning) 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep comparing one person to another to see which one should have an article is one of the classic arguments to avoid. We have probably some articles on those we should not, and lack a great number of those we ought to have . Full professors at research universities are usually notable, and he is no exception. Web of Science shows about 100 articles (there are some in other fields--it's a common name) The highest citation counts are 100, 50, 38 36, 33, I consider that sufficient to show citation as a major figure in the field--even one paper at a level of 100 is very considerable distinction. I find h index = 15, but there is a great difference between someone with 15 articles and 15 citations each, and someone with a distribution like his. The reason I distrust h factor is that it is incapable of telling the difference. Judging professors by h factor is a little simplistic, as one needs to consider the actual record. (indeed if someone had 14 articles with 200 citations each and the next one had 15, the h index would still be 15.) I wish the nom. would stop relying on it. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also look for an statement (in the article and elsewhere) of what the person has done or discovered. I'll continue to believe that an encyclopedia entry requires context, not some citation count (as DGG uses) or an h-index (as I mention in my nominations). Every professor is an expert in something, and every professor publishes. But why should encyclopedists care, if they cannot be embedded in a network of cross-references to other articles? Abductive (reasoning) 23:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Top GS cites are 21, 19, 18, 16... h index = 12. WoS does much better as shown above. Borderline case appropriately brought to AfD after deprodding. Some indication of context can be found easily by anybody at GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 04:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svarnkalash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, no wiki page for the author. Prod & prod2 declined without improvements. Hairhorn (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page for author was deleted through AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil shastri sharad. Hairhorn (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 05:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't been able to find anything to show notability for this. -SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOKS. No reviews, news articles etc; couldn't even find any publisher information or verify that the book exists besides this this photograph uploaded on wikipedia by the poet. Abecedare (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bre Pettis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable video-blogger (see WP:NOTABILITY). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick search reveals plenty of coverage in independent sources, like [29], [30] and [31]. Most of them are blogs, but nonetheless seem to be reliable enough for our purposes. Robofish (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as founder of NYC Resistor, which is notable. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a founder of two notable organizations, MakerBot and NYC Resistor. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Bat Burglary

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A relatively minor sports news event that doesn't seem to be notable enough to have an article of its own. A brief mention in related articles (e.g. 1994 Cleveland Indians season, Albert Belle, and Jason Grimsley) should suffice. There are also concerns about WP:BLP, especially regarding Grimsley's involvement: the article title characterizes the incident as a "burglary" which doesn't seem to be supported by most of the sources. *** Crotalus *** 14:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The topic is the subject of numerous articles in reliable sources. Dlduncan2 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Drdisque (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Enough reliable sources, and the topic is independent enough of all three suggested articles to keep. "Burglary" can be edited to more neutral language. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For many of the reasons stated above, plus the Pine Tar Incident- which is similar in stature to this story- also maintains its independent article.-RomeW (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 04:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Rhythm Artists

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist management agency. Several references are given: all are scanned event tickets or flyers; none actually verify the claims made in the article (i.e. that this agency managed the artists in question). No significant results in Google searches. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is info about Inner Rhythm Studios. Joe Chill (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 argument here revolves around whether Winston passes PORNBIO#5, as there is no assertion that she passes any of the other criteria. I find that HW's argument that #5 should not be used where subject obviously fails the other criteria is compelling, and effectively refutes the argument put by Morbidthoughts. Kevin (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexus Winston

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After reading her Askmen profile, she satisfies Criteria 5 of WP:PORNBIO for me due to her appearances in Maxim, E's Wild On, several B movies, along with her Get Out show on HDNet. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - May meet WP:PORNBIO #5, but the article needs a lot of work. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per her Askmen profile. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Mordbidthoughts. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Askmen.com does not satisfy WP:RS, and PORNBIO#5 shouldn' be used to rescue an article whose subject falls so far below the notability standard in all relevant areas that there's no reason to believe the subject even remotely approaches the the GNG. But even if we accept askmen.com as a source, it describes her movie appearances as "marginal skinflicks," not mainstream films, which don't satify the "mainstream" test of PORNBIO#5. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About whether askmen is a reliable source. Good enough for the noticeboard, good enough for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Askmen shouldn't be used in these arguements because it's not mentioned in the article. Her appearanes are in IMDB which is referenced. Her "movie" credits are little-known made-for-tv skin flicks and her tv show had almost no coverage. I'm changing my answer to delete. --Stillwaterising (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I risked a google search and found she was also a correspondent for Wild On!, [32]. I take it that penthouse pets are not considered as notable as playmates, because playmates all seem to have articles on here?--Milowent (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fasihuddin qureshi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My knowledge of contemporary Pakistani painters is non-existent, but I don't see much in the way of notability. If the article is worth keeping, the copyvio of his website needs to be dealt with. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Eastmain (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could have been speedy deleted as it doesn't assert notability and it as well, it may be a copyvio. freshacconci talktalk 03:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fresh. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: I tagged this as a copyvio. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. NW (Talk) 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wharton magazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently launched student magazine. Fails WP:NOTE. Google produces a few WP:RS but they seem to refer to a previous magazine of the same name which ceased publication in 1982. Nancy ^talk 07:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no WP:RS; school things belong in school, and not on an encyclopedia. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This isn't even titled right, the publication is called "iBR" = International Business Review. I can't find any sources even mentioning its existence on Google News archive. I am generally in favor of having coverage of university publications, but there needs to be at least some independent coverage of its existence out there to do so.--Milowent (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to school's article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since the actual content of this article is covers a NN student magazine of a different title. Nothing worth merging, so redirect to Wharton School of Business. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Bollea

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ATH and WP:ENT, as well as broader WP:GNG. Only relevant news coverage is a reader contributed article in 2008 - http://www.prowrestling.com/article/news/8198 7 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; boldly redirecting the album. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Heavygrinder

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model and DJ. Previously speedied. The article itself makes no real claim of notability beyond releasing a self-produced non-charting album on a label with no Wiki article. Trivial GNews hits. Has a couple interviews as sources, which made me think about just using the notability tag, but the sites they're on are unimpressive enough to garner an AfD to get some other opinions. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An editor has, I assume in a good faith effort to make the subject look more notable, padded the ref list with trivial performance/party announcements. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say delete, but Those interviews show at least some degree of notability. No published album doesn't say so much about a DJ. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the album Eternity (DJ Heavygrinder). You should probably list that as a separate AfD. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the album but keep the artist per Apoc2400. -- ISLANDERS27 06:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep artist, she is known internationally (as a DJ) by many, and often appears as main artist at larger events in the US and south-east Asia (at least Japan, China, Indonesia). Definitely notable. A.N. Yzelman (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: per Google search - - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bamboozle 2007: Everything Will Be Much Better Once I Get These Clowns Out of My Head

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:NALBUMS states: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable...." I don't believe this album falls under the category "mixtapes," as it was released by a legitimate record company as a chronicle of a music festival. I also don't believe that it falls under "promo-only," although I could be wrong. Ultimately, since numerous notable artists perform on this album, my conclusion is that the compilation album is sufficiently notable. Like Joe, I had difficulty finding significant coverage; nevertheless, because all the content in the article is verifiable, I think notability is sufficient for the aforementioned reasons. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has inherited notability, due to the notability of its artists. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The artists pass WP:MUSIC, but this album doesn't. Joe Chill (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 14:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I would just add that The Bamboozle event has achieved some notability, so even if the artists have not inherited that same notability, event-related products might be notable by association. I'm not sure if I am missing anything in the notability guidelines on this, so that's why my vote is "weak keep." Doomsdayer520 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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