Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 3

< 2 October	4 October >

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. JForget 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Nyegera Thimangu

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

Unsourced biography of a schoolteacher. This is sufficiently different from the previously deleted version that I'm uncomfortable with a G4 speedy, but it still lacks evidence of passing WP:PROF or other notability, so the same reasons for deleting as in the previous AfD still apply. Being the first non-male teacher in a small village isn't good enough, I think. Additionally, given the repeated recreation, I suggest page protection after the deletion (salting). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to verify anything. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No references. Jim Heaphy (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I confess that the "weak" probably is there mostly because it is such a sweet story of someone of moderate, but actual, achievements. But even assuming we got better citational support, this would probably fall sort of notability. LotLE×talk 01:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There were no sources to establish notability the first time around and nothing has changed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. I first thought she was the first woman schoolteacher in Kenya, which would be notable, but I realized. She is the first in a non notable town. Not even an attempt at a claim of notability, and a quick search suggests nothing likely.--SPhilbrick T 17:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waking Season

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

The notability of this musical group has not been established nor have any references come forward. The article has been tagged for 17 months. Wavehunter (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:RS and WP:BAND. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per notability. South Bay (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This band never managed to release an album as far as I can tell. The only thing I can find on a news search are appearance listings. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger

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

May not be notable yet - only one mention from a twitter page. WP:CRYSTAL might fall in here, given the lack of any solid press releases Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Dorough cleary stated on his Twitter page were shooting the video for our next single Bigger in Japan.If you don't believe that's his Twitter page refer to the Youtube video Best that I can which Howie himself states his Twitter username

Delete for now based on WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. I agree with the nominator for now. A twitter post is not a source. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to put this at anything other than original research...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a thoroughly nonnotable article topic; recreate as soft redirect to Wiktionary; it's a common word, after all. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you guys just give this article a week to gather proofs? I'm sure it'll be shortly announced officially. It'll be kinda odd to delete article and write it again after 2-3 days. If article still wouldn't have sources after an week - you can delete it. Btw, group wrote another tweet about it on official twitter page (which linked on their official page backstreetboys.com):

Everyone is sooo tired.....OMG the Bigger video shoot. It was so fun....plus funny. We hope u all like it. It was great 2 do it in Tokyo!

Meany (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Undeniable Delete, twitter alone is not an acceptable source plus according to WP:NSONGS a song has to have recieved independent coverage. The usual criteria for creating a page for a song is its cover art, release dates, writer/producer and at least one chart. Songs like "Everybody in Love" by JLS were removed for these reasons. Delete now and protect until the song charts. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Of all the things which suggest deletion, to me the single most persuasive one is, ironically, the argument above by Meany, who wants a keep. "I'm sure it'll be shortly announced officially" reads like a pretty persuasive argument that it is not notable in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sorry, but that's rude. It's the next single from the group. They had said that numerous times. I understand your points, there is no press releases yet. But group already shot music video and promoting song in interviews like their second single. Quite strange that words about their own song isn't reliable. I'm sure you all be able to make the right decision. Btw, here is some interviews:

http://www.livedaily.com/news/livedaily-interview-howie-dorough-of-backstreet-boys-20327.html

But now we’re going to smack you in the face with [second single] ‘Bigger,’ and you’re going to go

http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/10/06/backstreet-boys-interview-swine-flu-cant-keep-them-down/

Bill: The new single "Bigger" is one of the songs with Max Martin? Howie: That is correct. That is the next single we've chosen.

Meany (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xuan Pablo Hergon

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

Non-notable singer/actor lacking GNEWS and GHits of substance. Appears to fail WP:ENT andWP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Singer/actor 1205 Hits in Google —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.201.238 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC) — 189.216.201.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I agree with nom; this appears to be a non-notable artist. No sources, no record deal with a notable company, no hits. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable actor and singer. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Although I am a brand new editor, I simply do not see even an attemt at sourcing per guidelines. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no coverage about him. He is signed to an indie label that is run off myspace as far as I can manage to figure out. There's no reviews of his recordings that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dr. Meh 23:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs in Vojvodina

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

Seems to be a POV fork. There is no need to have an article about a specific ethnic group in a specific region, there is no encyclopedic information this could possibly contain that should not be covered in the Vojvodina article instead. Indeed, many of the section titles are identical between the two articles. Prodego ^talk 16:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego, before claiming that something is a POV fork and propose it for deletion because of that it would be better that you mention these problems on the article talk page. I used several published sources for that article and my mistake was that I did not listed them in the "References" section of the article, but they are listed for example in this article on Serbian Wikipedia: http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/Историја_Војводине#.D0.9B.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.83.D1.80.D0.B0 - I can copy-paste references from that list into English Wiki article (I mean those references that I used for that article). So, if you consider anything from article content to be POV, please explain what exactly and why. Second, there are several articles about ethnic groups in Vojvodina, for example Hungarians in Vojvodina, Slovaks in Vojvodina, Croats in Vojvodina, etc, etc, so would you delete only this one or all of them? Serbs are not only largest and most important ethnic group in Vojvodina but they have certain ethnographic features that make them distinct from other Serbs (for example language, folklore, culture, etc) and therefore they are specific etnographic group among Serbian people. Also, I cannot agree with your claim that "there is no encyclopedic information this could possibly contain that should not be covered in the Vojvodina article instead" - there is much more aditional info in this article and other articles about ethnic groups in Vojvodina that is simply too large to be covered in the main Vojvodina article. The only way in which we can cover content of all these ethnic articles would be to incorporate all of them into Ethnic groups of Vojvodina article, but, as I said, ALL of them, since there are several articles about ethnic groups in Vojvodina. PANONIAN 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a similar article Serbs in Kosovo where the long history section also seems forked. Hobartimus (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also forked? Do you want to imply that Serbs in Vojvodina article is forked? If you do, then please explain your reasons why you would think that. PANONIAN 19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per my statements above. PANONIAN 19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems no different than, say, articles like Armenians in Germany or Ukrainians in Russia and certainly seems notable enough. If there is a POV issue than it should be reviewed as a POV issue, not summarily deleted. Kuralyov (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kuralyov there is a very big difference to your comparison as both Germany and Russia are countries, while this area is not a country. A real analogy would be an article about Ukranians in Kostroma Oblast or even Russians in Orenburg Oblast. A german analogy would be Armenians in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Hobartimus (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article may be overly long, but if so, that can be dealt with through normal editing. The Serb population in Vojvodina is a notable topic because Vojvodina is an autonomous province of Serbia, with a more ethnically diverse population than Central Serbia, and although Serbs make up the majority of the population in the province, there are certain municipalities within the province where another ethnic group has the majority of the population. See Demographic history of Vojvodina. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We certainly should have articles about ethnic groups important in particular regions. Having this article isn't POV--eliminating it would be. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cresey

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

Non-notable, nothing in Google to indicate meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 15:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the closest thing to notability is the nomination for an award but since it appears to be a minor award the nomination is not enough. No significant coverage to establish notability ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. PK T(alk) 15:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple non-trivial sources have been added over the past couple of days. The subject meets criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO, or the general notability guideline. And the Canadian Folk Music Award nomination was reported by national news wires. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is now sourced with information I did not find in my initial review and appears to meet notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is now referenced and establishes notability. Thanks Paul Erik! -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- *blush* Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well referenced establishes notability. Kyle1278 17:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago shade

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. Notability is asserted but not supported by reliable sources. Article creator is the article subject, so there are WP:COI issues as well. Crafty (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Most of the GHits are to blogs, MySpace and similar sites. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be an autobiography. There is no coverage of Tiago Shade in reliable sources that I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tetradraw

(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) 22:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most review sites are looking for their first review. Most of the page is plagiarism of the project page. --SPhilbrick T 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pala Casino Resort and Spa

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

Article is written like a travel guide, and WP:NOT a travel guide. May be more suited for WikiTravel. Admrboltz (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article doesn't have the proper tone or sourcing, but such a large establishment must be notable. Maybe some news reports/reviews from local papers can be found. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like Northwestgnome said, being badly written is not a reason to delete. AFD is not a substitute for cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The last few reasons for keeping, as well as the ensuing improvements, outweigh the reasons for deletion here. MuZemike 22:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roslyn Fuller

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

Non-notable article lacking GHits and GNEWS. Included references in article do not show substantial coverage. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the author of the article and would appreciate any guidance on removing doubts around notability and verifiability. I have added several online and off-line sources since the initial delete request - please review and advise.87.198.37.109 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gladly. Review guidelines for notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and in Ms. Fuller's case, biographies on living persons at the respective links - all you'll need is going to be there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll change my mind if improvements can be made. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the first pages I have ever added to Wikipedia and I am a bit confused. I have had a look at notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and biographies on living persons but I still don't understand why this will be deleted. The article has a lot of offline and online sources and Ms. Fuller is quite known as an arts model in Ireland, so I am not sure what else to add to avoid deletion. Thanks for your help!Abraedt (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have received a lot of good feedback on how I can improve this article (thanks Dennis). Please give me 1-2 days to edit the article.Abraedt (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like you have until the 4th yet. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. See WP:PORNBIO for how to evaluate the notability of her work as a glamour model, WP:PROF for her work as an academic, and WP:CREATIVE for her work as an author. For me, the mainstream newspaper articles cited in the article from Metro Ireland, Sunday World Ireland, Irish News of the World, and Irish Daily Star are enough for WP:PORNBIO #5, but that's not an area I have a lot of experience in judging so regulars at that part of Wikipedia might have better opinions. She clearly doesn't pass WP:PROF (just a student, hasn't had a chance to demonstrate independent academic accomplishment) and I didn't see any Google news archive coverage of her creative writing. By the way, the article sources some information to LiveJournal, probably a violation of WP:RS. But there are enough other sources that I think simply removing that source would be the way to go rather than using one bad source as a justification for deleting the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added additional sources to support notability. I have also replaced the Livejournal source with the primary source the information was taken from. Abraedt (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have reviewed the articles. Unfortunately none are amount to substantial coverage. Additionally, I cannot confirm those refs that point to an item lacking URLs are indeed valid - I have gone to the sites and searched on the name - they are essentially unverifiable and unsupported by the site referenced by the author. ttonyb (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure I understand your concerns. Just because a source does not have a representation online surely does not mean it does not exist or that it is not verifiable as I have given exact publication names, dates and in one case even an ISBN number. There are many articles here with primarily offline sources. Abraedt (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Prof is not remotely attained. Other notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Found online version of Sunday World Article and linked to URL. Please review notability as glamour model Abraedt (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I verified a few of the press reports and found two others (not significant enough to add, but helping to establish notability). Seems notable enough in total. (And, to comment on the above, lack of a URL has never been a reason to exclude a source.) Zero^talk 14:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had doubts before about this one and didn't comment at the time, but now see this article taking shape and vote for a keep. Notability beginning to become clearer. Tris2000 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hallowes

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale was "Not notable; receieved basic media attention following one single event, so doesn't deserve an article"; PROD was removed by an IP user who simply said "naw." Giant Snowman 19:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as it looks like there is a rough consensus for retention. I will note, however, that Wikipedia is not a place where you get exposure; you get exposure first before popping up here. MuZemike 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit

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

I declined this as a speedy G4, the first AfD talked about pasted text and this is clearly not a paste of the same article, although hardly an improvement. Also inclined to give it another debate as the the first AfD was way back in 2006 when things were different and the "new" article was created in 2007. Also, I got a few google book hits for the product. SpinningSpark 17:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. While this reads like an advertisement, it could use some work. Tangurena (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. While original AfD nomination did mention "pasted text", it also said that it was both promotional and non-notable. It still is both, so I claim that it still meets Speedy G4, but if not, it should still be deleted. --Brouhaha (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

biased opinion. Hi. I'm Ira Baxter, the CTO for Semantic Designs, and the architect for the DMS Toolkit. I'm pleased to see it in Wikipedia. I don't know what you call "notable". You will find DMS in a variety of technical articles on software engineering under Google Scholar. The DMS technology is one of the very few tools on the planet that can automatically modify software reliably. The only other ones which I know which come close are TXL_(programming_language) and Stratego/XT, which also have equally notable (or non-notable by your definition) entries in Wikipedia. DMS has been specifically used to carry out a variety of serious industrial large-scale software reengineering tasks; to my knowledge, TXL was used for some Y2K work almost a decade ago but has not been used since for industrial purposes and Stratego simply hasn't been used for this at all.

[revised] A specific example of DMS usage was to automatically reengineer the software in the B-2 bomber; see http://www.semanticdesigns.com/Products/Services/NorthropGrummanB2.html. You'll mostly have to take my word for this, because as a black program the USAF and Northrop Grumman, the prime contractor, were extremely reluctant to let us say anything at all, let alone this. NGC has pretty fierce lawyers and would long ago have stepped on this if it weren't fact. However, you can see our work in the NGC news release at http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=145810 at the phrase "The task of re-hosting the FM OFP software..." and the mention of a JOVIAL to C translator which we built using DMS, see http://www.semdesigns.com/Products/MigrationTools/JOVIAL2C.html

What you call "advertising" in the article is merely statement of technology capabilities.

For why you should pay any attention to me, see http://www.semdesigns.com/Company/People/idbaxter. You are welcome to contact me at idbaxter@semdesigns.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.78.131 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence to support the notability of DMS, submitted by Ira Baxter by invitation from discussants above:

"DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit", listed in Software Engineering bible by Roger_Pressman, one of the most recognized authors in software engineering. http://books.google.com/books?id=QfnjAPx9xPAC&pg=PA851&dq=DMS+Software+Reengineering

Post-grant review of DMS originally funded as a $2M research project by the funding agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Advanced Technology Program, 1998. 4 star rating of out of 4. http://statusreports.atp.nist.gov/reports/95-09-0059.htm

12th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering 2005 : Page 13 http://books.google.com/books?id=F91VAAAAMAAJ&q=DMS+Software+Reengineering Article on reengineering Boeing flight software using DMS. (WCRE conference link: http://swerl.tudelft.nl/wcre2008/)

Technical paper: "DMS®: Program Transformations for Practical Scalable Software Evolution" in 2004 proceedings of International_Conference_on_Software_Engineering, the number one software engineering conference. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=999466&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=55567354&CFTOKEN=76359207 Cited by 175 other papers; check Google Scholar.

Discussion of DMS in book Generative programming: methods, tools, and applications By Krzysztof Czarnecki, Ulrich Eisenecker. Czarnecki made the ideas behind template metaprogramming practical. http://books.google.com/books?id=4CPmr3qcVvYC&dq=Generative+Programming+Czarnecki&q=DMS+ See also http://www.generative-programming.org/

Technical paper "Case study: Re-engineering C++ component models via automatic program transformation". Details of automated reengineering of Boeing aircraft mission software to enable remotely piloted vehicles with high bandwidth cameras. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0950584906001856

I additionally offer SD's website (http://www.semanticdesigns.com) as evidence of the interesting nature of DMS. Our website has some 70+ software engineering tools offered for about a decade (check the Wayback machine) for commercial sale, from test coverage, to intellectual property protection, to mass code migration, to software quality analysis. They are *all* built using DMS.

Finally, I note that if you decide to remove the DMS entry, you must reasonably consider removing the entries for TXL and Stratego (as well as lesser systems) mentioned on the wikipedia page Program_transformation as they have the same goals, and can be found in many of the same publications and conferences. If you do so, I think you will do a serious disservice to the software engineering community, which has traditionally done virtually everything by hand. Program Transformation tools are the way to automate software engineering, and this kind of technology belongs in Wikipedia where it can gain broad exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.78.131 (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references above seem sufficient--especially the citations mentioned for the 2004 conference paper. it would of course have helped avoid problems had they been in the article from the start. But, FWIW, different program discussed as the same conference or in the same book do not necessarily have the same notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. JForget 23:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technozoids

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

This is a minor toy line of a larger franchise. It doesn't assert notability and the details are very trivial, so it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What gives with all these non-notable product lines? Cheers to TTN for weeding them out. JBsupreme (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoids. The delete vote above should be discounted as it's a blatantly obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jtrainor (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There doesn't appear to be enough reliable information out there. Information, yes, but not from reliable sources. I have some of these in my basement, somewhere. It seems to have been popular enough to be notable, but just not enough stuff published about them. I recommend the article be redirected to Zoids and any notable information merged into the section on the Zoids page. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 23:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Cultural Club – Skopje

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

Non-notable political club, no independent media coverage. Of the seven sources currently cited in the article, only one is independent of the club itself, and that's just a local news report on some other friendly association's website which mentions participation of this club in a small local event in passing. Article was also misused for political WP:COATRACK advocacy (now removed). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 10:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The suggested proposal rationale does not quite correspond to the present version of the article. Apcbg (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I uphold the nomination. None of the recent additions constitute multiple, non-trivial media coverage. The organisation published some press releases about two events that are presumably major topics of public discussion in the Macedonian media at the moment (the ideological controversy over a newly published encyclopedia, and the havary of a boat on Lake Ohrid), but none of which is inherently related to the organisation itself. It got a few local media to quote those press releases as part of their coverage of those events. That's not "multiple non-trivial" coverage of the organisation as such, in my view. Still fails WP:ORG ("Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: First, the monument proposal (not a press release at all) submitted by the Club to the Mayor of Ohrid is surely “inherently related to the organisation itself”, and indeed reported by secondary sources as an initiative of the organization's.

Second, the Club’s lobbying effort over the Spaska Mitrova case (a facsimile of the answer the organization got from the European Commission is given in their website) is no press release too.

Third, neither is a press release the Club's activity (reported by secondary sources) over the issue of Bulgarian military graves in the Republic of Macedonia.

And finally, the cited entry in the official site of the Bulgarian State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad (a secondary source) is about the organization itself not about events. Apcbg (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these contradicts what I said. The list on the Bulgarian State Agency site is just a directory entry, hence not "non-trivial" coverage. The Spaska Mitrova case is just of the kind I described: a current issue that's in the news independently of this organisation, and the organisation has simply been jumping on the bandwagon making public announcements about it, and succeeding in having a few of them mentioned in press reports. Whether they make those public statements technically in the form of "press releases" or open letters to officials or through statements on their website or whatever else is immaterial. The letter by the European Commission is utterly trivial, and of course it's not a "publication" (by the Commission) either, so again no independent coverage. Non-trivial coverage would be press reports fully dedicated to the organisation as such, describing its function, aims, foundation, and that from an outside independent perspective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of non-trivial coverage ("Non-trivial coverage would be press reports fully dedicated to the organisation as such, describing its function, aims, foundation, and that from an outside independent perspective.") is not what WP:ORG says:

"Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability."

"Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories."

and even "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."

Nowhere does WP:ORG separate the coverage of organization's activities from the coverage of its structure, aims etc., as you are repeatedly insinuating.

By the way, the EU Commision's letter was never given as a source in the article; it was part of my comment here (your opinion of that letter, which refers to the Commission's evaluation of judiciary reform as a part of the forthcoming EU Progress Report on the Republic of Macedonia, is irrelevant).

While your last comment would seem more like an attempt of yours to explain how they became notable ("the organisation has simply been jumping on the bandwagon making public announcements ... succeeding in having a few of them mentioned in press reports" etc.), Wikipedia is concerned with the fact of notability not its alleged explanation. Apcbg (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then redirect to Bulgarians in the Republic of Macedonia. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to keep. Treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Mehiel

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

Being a candidate for office doesn't alone sustain notability. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. No sources. Whitespider23 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a candidate and losing elections does not make someone notable, neither does running a manufacturing company. No indication he meets any notability criteria. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elfriede Grünberg Prize

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

Scant mention outside the website of the people who actually award the prize. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no news coverage about this prize to support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion about a separate article on the author can be discussed on the article's or related project's page and outside this AFD. MuZemike 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum Crimen

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

I know I'm asking for trouble but I'm not sure that this article actually Wikipedia:Notability_(books). It's mostly primary sources and while there are some non-trivial published works discussing it, I don't see it actually being the "subject" of much.

The Washington Times piece only mentions the Magnum Crimen as an example of a "hostile source" used by Richard West for his "Tito and the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia" book, the real subject of the piece.
The Bundy book I don't know about but the talk archives show that I've been concerned about what exactly it adds.
The Lampe citation is to a footnote and really doesn't have more.
The Neubauer reference is about two sentences and is more Novak than the book.
Harris just has a single sentence on the subject.
The Lovrenovic reference really doesn't have more than a single sentence to it.

I've heard that this work is supposed to be very significant and an extremely detailed reference but without evidence of that, I'm not sure it's enough. I'm aware of possibly systemic bias issues but I'm also discouraged to see (for what it's worth) that there are no references in either of the interwiki versions either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment It would make much more sense to turn this into an article on the author, who has written other books. I think there;s not much question that he;d be notable--the number of publications listed at the Serbian WP is quite impressive: [1] -- and it's translation via Google at [2] DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would eliminate much of the content in this article. Creating a Novak article would make sense (but is a completely separate point) and perhaps a redirect can be done afterwards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that eliminate significant content? An article on an author can discuss his books? DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I guess I wasn't thinking about that. That actually makes sense. So perhaps your suggestion is to move to Viktor Novak? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article on author (Is that an option?) I'm inclined to agree with DGG here. It sounds like the book may not be notable, especially considering Ricky81682's research. This article has been contentious enough in the past, so let's redirect it to a new article on the author, which I suppose I'll start working on before this AfD ends... hopefully. AniMate^draw 05:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that separate? I agree with DGG as well. So as to this article, what? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Evidently a very notable book that continues to be discussed and cited recently in English language texts (in addition to the articles noted by others) such as Culture wars, Volume 17 By Ultramontane Associates, Inc, American Center for Law and Justice [3], The Church in the modern age By Hubert Jedin, Gabriel Adriányi, John Dolan [4], Kosovo-Serbia: a just war? By Frank H. Columbus [5] as well as numerous European texts. An article on the author would be good also. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the word "subject" at Wikipedia:Notability (books). I'm fully aware of further one-line references (or citations). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This Google Books search shows that the book has been regularly cited, with most hits seeming to be in footnotes or bibliographies, but these two appear to have at least some discussion of this book in the main text. Does anyone have access to the full text of those to check whether the coverage is substantial? Google Scholar just finds another bunch of citations and a few sentences in this paper, which may or may not be peer-reviewed - I can't see any reviews or other substantial coverage there. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a copy of Beyond Yugoslavia local to me, so I can check on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into article on author, per DGG. CoM's citations do not establish enough notability for an independent article. The author probably deserves an article into which (most of) this can be pasted. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Vjesnik page-length article about the book itself calls it "possibly the most controversial historical-non-fiction book published [in Yugoslavia] from 1945 to 1990" (možda najproturječnija povijesno-publicistička knjiga objavljena od 1945. do 1990.).[6] GregorB (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just wanted to respect those who have a clear idea what is the knowledge that this book contains. In order to support this noble cause, from this Google search [7], I've found (what I alredy knew) that this book is a reference book of many libraries of the American first tier universities: Princeton, Columbia, Yale, Harward, Notre Dame, Stanford, Berkley then of University of Toronto, McGill in Canada and of Oxford and Cambridge in England. At the end, my apologies to those two serious men (without their consent) who provided very good insight into this book for taking this article as an example of the assault on the knowledge and serious academic efforts.

I bet that the proposer will get proper support from those of his (or her?) educational and intellectal level. Consequently, I've already copied the article, 'contributions' (discussion, article text changes) of the proposer and his supporters, response of Mr Wales to my note on his talkage - as an evidence why American universites and colleges have strong stance against Wikipedia.--208.103.155.128 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see anything at my talk page, your talk page, nor at User talk:Jimbo Wales, nor do I see anything edits of this particular IP address (included deleted edits) that clarify. If this is related to the edits by User talk:208.103.155.74, Jimbo removed the prior discussion and that act was discussed further here. May I suggest asking the other individual for advice if you don't wish to speak to me. Otherwise, yes, I'm aware that the book exists at a number of libraries (including a few quite local to me). However, that fact is part of an explicitly noted exclusionary criteria of our standard, not a sufficient condition to determine notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This book is a subject and an academic book (according to the Wikipedia criteria), therefore a notable book. To learn it - read a great number of references where this book is cited.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The proposed deletion reasons are very poor. Calling upon the Wikipedia rule, then supplying information from un-academic and irelevant sources about this book (written by people who are not historians) as an (poor) input to this rule, then arbitrary interpreting and calling upon the Wikipedia rules, leads nowhere. "(including a few quite local to me)" is yet another false claim, which is visible from the discussion this user (Ricky81682) had on the article talkpage and from the list of libraries generated by the Google search. So, the fact is: a great number of historians (worldwide) referenced this book a great number of times and the book is a reference book of the leading academic institutions worldwide. Among the historians of the German language I would like mentioning Karheinz Deschner (Mit Got und den Faschisten) and Martin Broszat (Der kroatische Ustaschastaat).

Moreover, this user (Ricky81682) was involved into harassing other two users who contributed most of the article content - which is clearly visible in the archive of the article talkpage.--153.39.144.187 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per ChildofMidnight and GregorB and in being consistant with my voting on Wiki and trying to preserve what I consider worthy info for generations to come. Although I do not much like what this book talks about, it is important to point out things and actions that are simply wrong within religions in order for change to begin (and I was raised a Croatian Catholic). Citations and notabilty is there, if by nothing else then by common sense. Against merge to author article. Book stands alone, is vastly cited and controversial. One could almost say that the author is known in lieu of that work, not that the work is known due to popularity of author. Turqoise127 (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Earlier I was on the fence, but I'm convinced now that this article should be kept as being about a book which has had a significant impact, based on how often it has been cited. If specific reference to guidelines is needed then check out WP:BK#Academic books: "notability should rely on...how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In order to counteract this assault on this article (the AfD above) and previous assaults on their authors - I've copied the un-censored version of the article which will be basis for the Russian, French, and Spanish language versions. I'll appreciate any help from those who supported keeping this article alive on the English Wikipedia.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against recreation some day. Could be redirected as well. Tone 22:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Henry Jnr

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

This young man has a notable father and grandfather, but notability is not inherited; his other claim to fame is a kidnap attempt 16 years ago, but per WP:BLP1E I do not think that is enough to get him an article; we should wait until his achievements make him notable in his own right. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 00:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, insufficiently notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Brian Henry (New Zealand) or Henry Family of New Zealand Stuartyeates (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goscentral - I have to disagree with this. The notability in this case is not with individuals of the Henry Family, it is with the Henry Family itself. Therefore as the heir to it, he is eminently notable. I agree that a full article is not warranted on this particular member of the family at this stage, hence why I created this as a stub so that further updates can be made as necessary Goscentral (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly why the Henry Family as a whole has its own article. The nominated article should redirect there until such time as David jr becomes notable in his own right. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. No prejudice adainst recreation should he become notable in his own right. Edward321 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC) 09:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fame Kills: Starring Lady Gaga and Kanye West

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

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga World Tour 2010

Delete. A schedueled tour that will not happen. No out-of-universe (for want of a better phrase) context, making this a random list of dates. Dale 21:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom, useless information. Its the same as an article about a band that doesn't exist, or a brand of clothing that never made anything. Useless, Agreed —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 00:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think that the tour could easily be mentioned in both of the artist's pages, which would make this article unnecessary. Tikkuy (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinkadelica ^♣ 22:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form due to the extensive news coverage of its cancellation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gaga's still going to do the tour, sans Kanye. Dalekusa (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article could be expanded into a decently sized one, but no one has taken the effort yet. And at the same time not much can be said, just cancellation and what was planned (which I think they described the stage and some things like that). -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply In regards to Ipod's comments I would like to state that not much info was available at all to expand the article. No details regarding the background was revealed by Gaga or Kanye. I tried much, but failed. You must be knowing how I readily expand teh Gaga articles, but this time there seriously wasnt much info. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to "Lady Gaga 2009 Tour", or something of the like, as Gaga is still touring. Cancelation information can be included there. Liquidluck (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary article. Gaga's comment about continuing the tour doesnot mention it to be the Fame Kills tour. It can be her 2010 world tour also. This one surely fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a tour that didn't happen is just a news story. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, if there is barely any information on it, then it should be deleted. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not going to happen, so there's really no sense in having an article about it, right? Right. - DrachenFyre > YOU! (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So, This Is It tour (Michael Jackson) should be deleted too. --Jlrm1 (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Wilkerson

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

No claim to notability. Article not edited since creation July 2008, creator not edited since. Previous article of same individual deleted in November 2007 per WP:BIO and WP:ADVERT. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom. Note, another rescinded PROD - self removed as article has been previously deleted, but not part of a discussion as far as I can see. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only potential sources that I could find were this in Friesch Dagblad, which describes itself as a "Christian, regional [i.e. Friesland], independent newspaper"[8] and this in Norge IDAG, whose web site doesn't seem to have an "about us" section to allow us to examine its credentials, but is described in its Norwegian Wikipedia entry as "a Christian weekly newspaper published in Bergen", without any clarification of whether it is national or regional in scope. I suppose that, if these sources are deemed reliable, by the letter of the notability guidelines this article subject would be notable, but should we really accept this if the only sources are partisan publications covering a small region and, at best, a small country, when the article doesn't even claim any particular connection with Friesland or Norway? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My review of both sources (given I don't speak the language) indicates that the references to Gary Wilkerson are in respect of his relationship to his father, most especially in the second of the two. While the first appears to denote a speaking engagement by Gary, it is promoted as it being by the "son of...", while the second source is about a visit by David Wilkerson (using his picture) accompanied by "his son". Neither I feel gives Gary any specific value outside of his famous father, and this is the same issue I have with the article - notability is not inheritable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information on his own web page is sufficient to show that he is not notable[9].~
Delete - The article claims notability ("famous") but gives no reasons or reliable sources; therefore it fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 22:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmichael Road

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

non-notable street Derek Andrews (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps notable (it claims to be a major street), but without coverage, we can't be sure, and we need proof before we consider something notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't feel inclined to look through these at the moment, but it would seem to me very likely that there would be some substantial coverage amonsgt these Google Books and these Google News results. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on those sources, it's expandable, as the article would suggest. It would have been better to at least try to source it before bringing it here. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides the nom offering no rationale as to why they think the topic is non-notable, I agree with DGG that the sources provided by Phil Bridger indicate there's enough coverage for expansion.--Oakshade (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see very much in the references that I wouldn't expect to find about any road in any city. --Derek Andrews (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a major road but it is a notable locality due to its rather famous residents. --Deepak D'Souza 18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just how famous are the residents? None of the names mentioned are linked to articles to demonstrate their notability.--Derek Andrews (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editorial decisions over merges should be handled on respective talk pages. No reason to delete has been brought forward, nominator has recognised his mistake. - hahnch e n 23:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Street Fighter IV

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

Merge: The whole content of the article is already included in a section in the article for Street Fighter IV. The information exclusive to Super SFIV is not enough to merit its own article, at least not for the time being. Also, the information in the SFIV article is much more elaborate, showing that most editors keep updating the SFIV article and not the separate one. uKER (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand: Article looks fine as it's own independent article with the exception of it being a stub. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting losing the content. Only keeping it in the Street Fighter IV article until there's enough information to merit a separate article. --uKER (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my decision. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. We don't delete clearly notable articles, we expand them with verifiable information. Nominator acted against consensus in performing a merge of this article in to Street Fighter IV, and is now trying to delete it to enforce his view. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? Now where was that consensus reached? I surely must have missed it. BTW, you keep trying to make it appear as if I'm trying to dump the information and crying out for its notability when nobody is questioning it. It's just that things don't work the way you're proposing. Things don't first get a separate article and then eventually get merged if there's nothing to say about them (thus your calling my merge "premature"). It's the other way round. The game is little more than a patch to SFIV adding a couple of new characters and moves. I say keep it as a section and if some day it reaches enough individuality, only then reverse merge into a separate article. --uKER (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. It was reached on the talk page, where there was no consensus for a merge (thus we maintain the status quo; a separate article). Also, WP:N makes no distinction between subjects which are "patches" as you call them and full fledged games. The topic, Super Street Fighter IV is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia in an article of its own. As the title isn't even released yet (and thus, information is still coming out) it's premature to force a merge at this stage. I've expressed fuller views on the talk page, which is where you should have kept this discussion, but you didn't like the result there, so now we're here where you can ask the other parent if it's okay... —Locke Cole • t • c 08:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you even aware that the SSFIV section existed long before I merged the article, and furthermore, my merging consisted of virtually NOTHING, since the article lacked anything worth adding? See for yourself here. Don't just look at the big colorey blocks. Look at the text and find the differences. Now here is your reverse merge. Now, you tell me, who's keeping status quo and who's forcing their liking down other people's throats? 90% of the content was written in the SFIV page. You want status quo? LEAVE IT THERE. --uKER (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it. Not different to the degree necessary to have another article on it. --Izno (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to clarify that I nominated for deletion because until this edit in which Locke Cole copy/pasted the whole section from the SFIV article into "his article", the Super SFIV article was shamefully at loss compared to the section in the SFIV article. Currently they are in fact the same, save for the "Additional Characters" section which only reiterates things already said in the previous section, so there's nothing to merge anyway. --uKER (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To editors who may be swayed by the personal attack claiming it is "[my] article", please note the edit history of Super Street Fighter IV. I've only recently become involved, mostly because of the inappropriate merge that was performed by UKER (talk · contribs). Other than reverting the merge and moving the material back (which bloated the Street Fighter IV article), I've left editing of the article to editors more familiar with the topic. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Street Fighter IV. Deleting it is unnecessary since it's notable. However, it's only a re-release of SFIV and doesn't merit a separate article. Nominating it for deletion is not the right way to solve a dispute, but on the other hand, I agree with the merge.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only voted "delete" because there wasn't really anything to merge, but technically yes, since I intend to keep the SSFIV article as a redirect, my vote should have been "merge". Changing accordingly. --uKER (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is Articles for DELETION, you should just withdraw your nomination and, if there's still a dispute, go to mediation instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I assume it was a mistake bringing up the discussion here since deletion was not what I should have proposed, but if I withdraw the nomination, we'd have to start the voting all over again. I'd rather let this go on for a while and do whatever the outcome turns out to be. --uKER (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has a good development section referenced by reliable sources. Putting up an AfD is unessasary since it is notable. Just continue with the merge discussion. You shouldn't abuse AfD just to make a point or something. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per nom
Merge per my earlier proposal. I will go on the record and say an AfD was a bad way to go about this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already did recognize it was a mistake of me to nominate for deletion, didn't I? --uKER (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a statement Uker, not an attack upon you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Govvy (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sameehg Doutie

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

Fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I happened to notice that both articles that you tagged for deletion were created by the same author Thuglife99. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-incidence - I found them both through the 2009 World Cup Under-20's squad list for the South African team, that's all Steve-Ho (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to this site, this player has made 6 appearances in the South African Premier League, which is a fully-pro league. He therefore meets requirements at WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in a fully-pro league Spiderone 12:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for the nomination to be withdrawn given the above information Steve-Ho (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per updated information. GauchoDude (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing at a fully professional level. DavidDublin (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The nominator withdrew the article. Govvy (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Maluleka

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

Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to this site, this player has made 2 appearances in the South African Premier League, which is a fully-pro league. He therefore meets requirements at WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes ATHLETE having played in a fully pro league. -- Big Dom 11:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fails GNG but not ATHLETE Spiderone 12:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for the nomination to be withdrawn given the above information Steve-Ho (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per updated information. GauchoDude (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile (sauce)

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

Original research and regional-pride fork from chili pepper (theological argument about "chili" vs. "chile" spelling). No sourcing, no verifiable encyclopedic content. Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've removed the material copy/pasted from external Web sites in defiance of copyright. Of the remaining material, the sections "Chile, the sauce" and "Chiles, the peppers" are copy/pasted without attribution from our article New Mexican cuisine and are therefore also copyvios, as well as being duplicative. Take all that away and there's basically no article left. This topic is sufficiently covered in the articles listed in the "See also" section. Deor (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Edgecombe

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

Delete: Non-notable one-line article stub. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wasn't he entitled then to a seat in the House of Lords, granting an assumption of inherent notability as a member of a national legislature? He gets some coverage at Google Books. It looks likke there are sources for improving the article. Seems to satisfy WP:BIO. His residence was written about quite a bit,[10] as was his patronage of Reynolds, a world class artist,[11] unless there are multiple individuals of that name. If it is an heriditary title, it is likely still notable. Edison (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is much to be said about the man, not least the notable ecentricity of paying the poor to dig pointless tunnels as a form of poverty relief. The family owned a park in Plymouth, notable for spooky sculpture and topiary. Yes, it's a stub, but it is not incapable of expansion. I, for one, did not know that he was a benefactor of poets. I don't think we slaughter our children on the grounds they are not adults. --Brunnian (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I find the last line "I don't think we slaughter our children on the grounds they are not adults" to be really in very poor taste. This is not an abortion polemic. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry if I offended. It is a metaphor, much as authors are advised to kill what they love to improve their prose. I think the jump to the subject of abortion is a leap I can't comprehend.--Brunnian (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expandable. & referenceable, see the above. "lord" does not necessarily imply a member of the House of Lords, by the way-- the title is used in other ways as well, as for the sons of dukes -- see Lord. The title probably needs to be changed to "Mount Edgecombe" per MOS DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if this person is so notable, then why does the article still consist of one line without even a reference? I think that those who claim the person is notable should improve the page to confirm their assertions. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss whether the subject should have an article, based on policies and guidelines. If you feel that the article needs editing then WP:SOFIXIT explains what to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, not exactly a model Wikipedia article, and certainly people should not be going around creating one-sentence articles. But the good Lord E. is clearly a notable notable. (couldn't resist, sorry).--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James rollason

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

Speedy tag removed by a third-party, possibly a sockpuppet. No assertion of notability, this is the kind of page that's better suited for Facebook. Speedy delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retagged for speedy delete. AfD seems unnecessary. Hairhorn (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No context. By reading article, I still don't know who he is; all I know is that he is a "friend of stars", "sexy" and "played a vital role in more porno". Nothing indicates this person's notability. No sources/references to support. Per WP:BLP, "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ham 09:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Da Vinci: Flights of the Mind

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

This is a biography of Leonardo for a general audience, and does not clearly meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books). The bulk of the article is a 6-paragraph-long quotation from the New York Times's review. Ham 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the review indicates that its a major, detailed biography, and not one of the many glossy, oversized. cheaply put together volumes on him. the author has won major literary awards. I agree the article here is poorly structured, giving way too much space to the review quotes, which may be copyvio anyway. I would be utterly shocked if this book has not received multiple reviews. it needs cleanup and more sourced references, but I have no doubt that a da vinci scholar reading the book could turn this into a featured article if they wanted to, considering that the book probably contains new information on da vinci.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has indeed received several reviews, many of which are here. Nicholl's other biographies, which have undisputably won awards, are on poets and playwrights; he isn't an art history scholar but a professional biographer (no value judgement intended). Even if this were a scholarly monograph, according to WP:NB, "textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs" do not necessarily qualify as notable. Ham 16:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per this. Thanks for the link, Ham. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, i cut out the last section, an Amazon customer review is not RS. Triplestop x3 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews linked by metacritic.com very clearly show that this book passes criterion 1 of WP:BK. I'm rather at a loss to understand why the nominator thinks that reviews in The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Washington Post, The Independent, The New Yorker etc. don't satisfy this criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading criterion 1, I had assumed that "multiple, non-trivial published works" doesn't count book reviews, otherwise every book that gets reviewed in the above publications every week would qualify for a Wikipedia article. I was thinking more along the lines of sources showing that the book has been influential in the field. I own and read a lot of books like this and I don't think there need to be Wikipedia pages about them, otherwise you'd have one for each Leonardo biography, just for starters. Ham 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that criterion does say, "this includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews"(my emphasis). And why shouldn't every book that gets reviewed in the above publications every week qualify for a Wikipedia article? It's not as if we're running out of space. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough, I stand corrected. Most of the existing articles are on seminal texts. Ham 11:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ham, based on this conversation, would you consider closing this nomination keep? We can do it ASAP. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets all notability criteria and then some. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book has sufficient reviews. Dream Focus 03:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if improved from present 1-line text. Book is notable, but there are much better books on Leonardo that don't have articles - those by Kenneth Clark & Martin Kemp (art historian) for a start. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas and Ferb: We Saved Perry

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

Contested prod. Upcoming (?) movie whose principal photography has not yet begun (WP:NFF). Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually an animated series, but still completely unsourced and with no scheduled airdate. Nate • (chatter) 19:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep I am closing this AFD as keep because no other result can plausibly emerge from it judging by the first two days of the discussion. Of course, from the purified point view of a relativist the question what is the Earth's ___location in the homogeneous and isotropic universe is meaningless. However, the vast majority of readers are not physicists, and even not all physicists are relativists. So, the question what is the Earth's ___location in the Universe does not seem to be so meaningless after all. Ruslik_Zero 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's ___location in space

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

As it is this is a non-article. It is table with some (unsourced!) factoids about the "topography" of the local universe. I don't see how this can be made in to an article in the tradiotional sense with a normal article structure. Nor is it really a list. Apparently, it was recently moved from template namespace to article namespace. Is there really a reason for this page to exist and if so in what namespace does it belong? TimothyRias (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't a template either. Why is it not a list? The information in this article isn't exactly Gnostic gospel, it can be easily found if needed. Serendi ^pod ous 15:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep well sourced "article/list". Like many articles, I don't understand why this was nominated. Ikip (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is exactly the sort of thing you expect to find in an encyclopedia. The kind of thing that school kids would like to read for a project. The justification for deleting is a justification for expanding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per Graeme Bartlett. Extremly useful, now well sourced, and encyclopedic by any standard. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. i suspect that it was nominated at least in part for having no lead or text outside the image and the chart. It seems very incomplete without that. so expand it and it should be fine. subject matter is perfect for an encyclopedia. the only rationale i would see for deletion is if this material is duplicated in another article, but presented better. still, a separate article on ths subject is good. reminds me of "powers of ten" by philip morrison.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There is an abhorrent amount of people in the world who don't know the difference between the Solar System, a Galaxy and the Universe. The fact that even in its current, underdeveloped state, this article could help reverse such great astronomical ignorance and replace it with intelligence, that should really already be common knowledge, is enough to justify its keeping and expansion. Wikipedia is a place for more than just those who already know about the topic they are reading on, making the "the information can easily be found" comment irrelevant. RJW37 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge. "Earth's ___location in space" is meaningless. Rename, perhaps to "Earth's surroundings" or "Earth's surroundings in space" or "selected distances of astronomical objects from earth." If a suitable merge target can be found, I would support that over a rename. At any rate, the list and graphic are both nice and should not be lost. Gruntler (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the title meaningless? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locations are relative, not absolute. You can talk about earth's ___location in a particular, given coordinate system, or earth's distance from the sun or from the center of the galaxy or from Andromeda or something. But ___location is always relative to some kind of measurement tool and "in space" isn't a measuring tool. Gruntler (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This I know all too well; however the title is perfectly understandable to anyone even if not formally precise. And, well, it is its ___location in the Universe 3D space: only it is a relative ___location. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of useful information presented in an easy to follow table. Just the sort of thing that encyclopaedias should have. HumphreyW (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's ___location is space? Why it's right here, isn't it? I'm going to save this to disc, however, just in case I get lost on my next trip. Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Amply sourced, and definitely worth printing out and keeping in the glove compartment.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced and well written, a useful navigation aid (for navigating Wikipedia, that is !). Not entirely happy with title, even new title Earth's ___location in the universe, but can't think of a better one at the moment. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the idea of the article is actually quite neat; it just needs to be organized to be less awkward in how information is presented. Nergaal (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Race (sociology)

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

I don't doubt the concept of race is relevant in sociology, but we already have a slew of articles on race, and surely this could be covered at, say, social interpretations of race. The article's structure is also terrible (a grab-bag of unrelated sources strung together to make it appear like a unified topic - ie, a synthesis), and some of its statements unprovable ("Many Japanese still believe that they did not commit as many massacres as the Western World and China said they did"; "Most Germans and Austrians are ashamed of [their Nazi past], but Hungary has yet to really face up to what it did and say sorry for it"), but the forking is the fundamental problem. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The language and illiteracy is being sorted out, but it's a bit of a Tort-snort.--86.29.143.196 (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep With a huge rewrite. I agree with the nominators argument that the article is all over the road, but I do find its content important if better structured. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This article needs desperate rewriting/c/e, but it is certainly a page worth keeping. But as Aspensti said, it is ALL over the road. avs5221 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it does need a massive re-write. I'll work on it a bit. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 03:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyoli

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

I can't find any sources online that are about this plant. It has been unreferenced for almost 3 years and for all we know could be WP:MADEUP. Smartse (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this legend is mentioned in the book "Tales and legends from India" (page 13) by Iris Macfarlane ([12]) and in the book Legends of the gods: strange and fascinating tales from around the world (page 33) by Noreen Shelley ([13]. JoJan (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Reinwardtia trigyna and edit according to the following sources. It is a common name of Reinwardtia trigyna (Roxb.) Planch.[14] It is the name of a legendary male character.[15] Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my googling skills need some improvement! It seems as though we need two separate articles now though, one for the plant and one for the legendary character. Smartse (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination as we do now know what plant the article is talking about. Smartse (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 22:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga World Tour 2010

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

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fame Kills: Starring Lady Gaga and Kanye West

Delete. Just a list of dates with no contextual support (ie. production, budget). Therefore, this fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATELIST. Worth a brief mention in Lady GaGa or The Fame. Dale 11:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tour is only going to grow and expand, so is the article. --PlatinumFire 13:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that Gaga's fall 2009 tour was just cancelled, [16], it seems a bit premature/speculative to create an article that's nothing more than a schedule. If the tour comes off and gets adequate press coverage, the article can always be recreated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But only Kanye West pulled out. She is still performing solo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.185.110 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the reasons Platinum mentioned. Tikkuy (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - whatever the flaws this article has, it does not meet any of the categories of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATELIST. At this point, the subject seems notable and it is sourced, and seems to meet the criteria of WP:CRYSTAL for including a future event. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gaga posted on her Twitter account that the tour is being announced this week, and we will have plenty of information available then. ---Shadow (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Lady Gaga. Fails WP:RECENTISM as of now. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons Platinum and ShadowRanger mentioned RayOfLight (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chiu

AfDs for this article:

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

Chiu does not meet the notability requirements (WP:BIO). Coverage is not substantial as references to his website are either his own advertising, promotional articles or mentions of the website as being stupid (such as in the book "505 Unbelievably Stupid Web P@ges") but not uniquely stupid. The article appears to be cut & paste from his own advertising material about his scam products offering to make you immortal. Though "feature articles" were mentioned in the last AFD (2 years ago), there are no significant reliable sources demonstrating notability in the sense of "notorious" and it appears unlikely that any such sources will be found and added to the article (as per WP:BIO "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"). Ash (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails BIO, no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Lara 17:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Another NN-BIO and this one looks like a catalog of 'failings' written by someone with a beef - Alison ^❤ 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless it gets significant inclusion of RS that debunk his nonsense. Then it would at least serve as a useful warning to likely marks. Per FRINGE and WEIGHT those sources would then make up the largest part of the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Major BLP issues also. Kevin (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chiu probably merits some mention at Magnet therapy, but there do not appear to be sources available for a policy-compliant article. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to the WP:ATHLETE failure (if an editor has proof that the Finnish league is actually fully professional, let me know and I'll restore). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonni Heikkinen

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

Contested PROD. Player doesn't play in a professional league. Spiderone 07:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 07:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please stop giving false information. Finnish league is professional and Heikkinen had a professional contract with his club KuPS. --SM (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment False information? Why don't you start backing up your claims with reliable sources. Spiderone 12:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are meaning that in every article of football player there should be mentioned that the league he is playing or have previoisly played is professional? In my opinion that is not an useful idea. --SM (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof on the Veikkausliiga page that the clubs are professional. In fact it's the opposite. Spiderone 13:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Now there is, and it is the only sourced claim in the whole page. --SM (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the page and found no such claim of professionalism. Quite the opposite. The previous statement said stuff about part-time contracts and we have no reason to suddenly say that it's a load of rubbish since it's been there since Wikipedia was born. Spiderone 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must understand that Google Translator etc. are not quite reliable. The page says that the clubs, managers, players etc. are on professional level but still many players have an education which is normal because you can't play football your whole life. That does not meen that the players are not pro. --SM (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read it said that players were studying and playing football at the same time. A clear sign of being part-time which means the league must be semi-pro to accomodate. Spiderone 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case English Premiership is not professional? Many players are doing other jobs like appearing in advertisements and some are studying manager's licence etc.--SM (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should look at WP:GNG. Has the player received "significant coverage"? Absolutely not. Nothing more than trivial mentions. Any "sources independent of the subject"? No, nothing more than squad profiles. Any "reliable sources"? No, there aren't any that I can find and there certainly aren't any at the moment. Spiderone 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonni Heikkinen has received sinificant coverage in Finnish sports media very much the same amount as any second highest tier player. The coverage is mostly in Finnish which I think you don't understand, so I believe your estimations about the coverage are not very reliable.--SM (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But just looking at the article there would be no way of knowing that this player has significant coverage. Spiderone 18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How good or bad an article is has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. --SM (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't just take your word for it either. As it stands this article fails WP:GNG. An unsourced BLP can't ever pass it. Spiderone 18:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said the amount of sources in the article has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. You can write bad article about anybody and it does not have effect to the notability. --SM (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SM: The sources are needed for both verification and to improve the article. I was just discussing ball in Finland on another talk page. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks like some Finnish players are professional while others are not. This has caused some confusion with the athlete specific notability guidelines. If you have sources regarding this specific player it would help. Even if they are not translated we can poke around the internet and see what we can find. As it stands, Heikkinen won't be assumed pro (not saying he is or isn't just saying what will happen). More importantly, the article simply isn't ready to be an informative summary of the guy without additional sources. If you want to seriously see if this can be an article the best way to go about this is by providing those sources.Cptnono (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is not fully pro at the moment. But he has played in top tier. Example: in 2006 he won the Finnish League Cup with KuPS [17]. And yes, at the moment the article is not very good in any way. But the vote is on about notability, not the level of article itself. --SM (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Finnish highest league players are almost entirely pro. Like I answered you in my talk page, in 2001 survey only 8% of top tier players had other jobs than football [18] (which does not mean they are not pro still!), and since then the league has improved in all ways. --SM (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: How much a player earns money is not the best indicator for notability. For example media coverage is more important. The top league matches are shown on national television, written on national newspapers etc. which I think makes the media coverage "significant". --SM (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to know that this player is notable? Do we just take your word for it? Wikipedia isn't about assumptions, I'm afraid. If he has been talked about in newspapers then why can't this be used in the article? As it stands this is a stub and, unlike Gael Kakuta and Lauri Dalla Valle, there is no reason to dispose of WP:ATHLETE in this case. Spiderone 12:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played in the Finnish top league (a professional league) + is a League Cup winner. ,,n (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a professional league though, as your mate SM fully admits! Giant Snowman 08:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I know that technically this discussion could have been closed as a no consensus call, but given the weakness of the arguments above (a he said/she said spat, a per nom), I think this could benefit from more community input. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: Maybe this has exposed flaws in WP:ATH and WP:FPL criteria, but as it stands, those are the tools by which we judge articles that do not apparently meet WP:GNG. If those wishing to defend the inclusion of this article had spent as much time and effort sourcing and providing the evidence of the significant coverage that they claim exists (but is absent from the player's fi.wikipedia page) as they have trying to overturn established criteria, I might have been able to !vote otherwise. Kevin McE (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spiderone may have been in a spit spat contest above, but Kevin is correct that the player fails to meet WP:ATH and WP:FTL criterion. avs5221 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played in the top-level of a notable European league. Eldumpo (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the league is "notable" is POV. It is a semi-pro league and the player himself has not received any coverage in secondary sources. Spiderone 07:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is prove that the player is real, you haven't proved that they are notable. Spiderone 07:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is the winner of a Finnish cup competition less notable than someone who has made a substitute appearance for a fourth tier English team in an early round of a cup competition? WFCforLife (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ATHLETE, yes. This is why the article must pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 17:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that my example certainly wouldn't pass the GNG, yet would be kept. I'm leaning towards delete because there is currently no demonstration of notability (in Finnish or English). The keep arguments claim that such sources exist (in Finnish), and if these are put into the article and verified as being reliable, I don't see a basis for deleting it, whether it passes the atrociously worded WP:ATHLETE or not. WFCforLife (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Finnish sources (which I still believe do exist) have not materialised. A name on a lineup sheet isn't sufficient. WFCforLife (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of ocean wave energy conversion systems

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

The table filled with question marks seems unlikely informative or useful Beagel (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it would have been better to wait to post this until more of the blanks were filled in, but it is only a few days old and it seems likely that sourced information can be found to complete the table. JohnCD (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the chart at the moments doesn't have much info, but if it is kept it may be improved by the wikipedians, and the filled in article will then have significant value. KVDP (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - KVDP is the article creator, so please take that into account when counting his !vote. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, shouldn't this be in Wave power? Abductive (reasoning) 18:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many question marks hang over this article, literally. Agree with Beagel, in that this table is unlikely to become informative, useful, or notable. Johnfos (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE, specifically, "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." This is clearly not a hopeless case and normal editing can make this a worthy contribution. I had not initially realized that the article creator had made other similar blank charts without intending to add content. Gruntler (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article creator doesn't know how to fill in the chart. Abductive (reasoning) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A hopeless case. The article creator has abandoned it less than 24 hours after creation, and the only reference is a shady-looking site which is completely unable to help him fill in all the question marks. In fact there probably isn't any other site that would help fill in the gaps. And above all, what good is this? It's not exactly encyclopedic and is only of interest to manufacturers of these things. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A possible topic, but the present article is not worth expanding. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 05:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Tim Song (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2000s energy crisis

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

No reliable sources found. The current crisis (Subprime mortgage crisis is documented with a large number of related articles ; it does not refer to energy crisis, nor hints there might be one.Environnement2100 (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be pleanty of reliable sources. Dale 11:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large number of sources ; none of them is related to "2000s energy crisis". Please review the current 98 references, most concern the price of oil evolution, not an "energy crisis".--Environnement2100 (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title 'energy crisis' might not perfectly convey the topic, but the dramatic changes in oil prices in this decade are notable and on first glance appear accurately portrayed with adequate references. Shanata (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"might not fit perfectly" is understatement for "is not suited" ? You seem to know about science Shanata, and you probably know that "energy" is not equal to "oil", and "crisis" is not equal to "price raise".--Environnement2100 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article contains a lot of well sourced, interesting information. However, I strongly believe the article is poorly named, and that it should have something like its original title: Oil price increase between 2003 and 2008. This is because, as I see it, "crisis" is a point of view and the "crisis" (if we are to call it that) was confined to petroleum rather than "energy at large" (ie there was no price spike of coal, natural gas etc). I think it was rushed to rename without consensus based on a few articles an editor found calling it an "energy crisis", and because they were in "reliable sources" standing behind that and saying it was an unassailable position. See the article's talk page for further bickering on the matter. TastyCakes (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per TastyCakes. If the title of a well-written article is incorrect, you could correct the title, not delete the article. Beagel (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Anyone who's ever paid $4 for a gallon of gasoline in the US is aware of the "Energy Crisis'. rename if it makes you feel better. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans pay *much* more than that, and have been for decades. So we are back to "Gasoline price crisis in the US"--Environnement2100 (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A really important article about one of the major economic issues of the decade, and likely of the future. I am open to renaming. Gruntler (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Natural gas and coal prices rose dramatically along with oil during this time period so it's not inaccurate to refer to the "energy crisis." Increasing coverage of these topics is an alternative to renaming. Gruntler (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references to coal nor natural gas in the article.--Environnement2100 (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think coal, in particular, rose anywhere near as much. TastyCakes (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coal prices took off in 2004 and are currently 3-4 times as high as they were in 2000. [19], [20] Gruntler (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I guess that should be mentioned in the article too. TastyCakes (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting : why is there no mention of "coal crisis" in the article then ? The point is, if there is (or was) one, it should be in the article, not in your defense for the article. Your first link leads to "Metallurgical Coal" which is a special case. When you ask EIA/DoE, it says coal went from $35 to 69 between 2000 and 2008. Factor in dollar devaluation.--Environnement2100 (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is about "steam coal" and shows the price quadrupling in many important countries. but anyway, the doubling in the US is quite significant (25% cumulative inflation since 2000 aside).

My point is that something about the "energy crisis" ought to include coverage of coal (and natural gas too, its price was doing some pretty crazy stuff as well [21], and consequently electricity too). If that's not going to get added anytime soon, then the article should be renamed. But if it *is* going to get added, the title is fine. Which should happen is really up to that page's editors and what their plans are.

Certainly there *ought to be* coverage of the 2000s natural gas and coal price fluctuations in Wikipedia and it's a shame that no one has yet written those articles (beyond a small amount of coverage at the articles on coal and natural gas prices). Then we could merge them all and have an awesome energy crisis article. But that is obviously beyond what this AfD can accomplish. Gruntler (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think an article (called something like "energy cost increases from 2003 to 2008") that covers the price increase of various forms of energy during that time would be good. TastyCakes (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this one The Price of Coal and see how terrified and/or interested people are in the "coal crisis". This article has been sitting there for quite some time and absolutely no information has been added in the range of coal, gas, electricity, hydroelectricity, etc. I hope you understand nobody ever will now.--Environnement2100 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. Why wouldn't people add to an article that includes the increase in the price of coal? TastyCakes (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been created in 2004 ; some 3000 edits since, most of them in 2008. Since 2004, people have had so much time to include edits concerning coal crisis, if there ever was one. Now coal is headed down, I do not suppose anyone will care more. Also, most edits were done during 2008 : this article was spurred by sensationalism. Now the economic crisis kicks in, the high sensations are gone, obviously this article intersts noone, be it oil, coal or whatever energy source. Realize that the numerous forward-looking statements/refs in the article, turning up wrong now, are maintained by noone either.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first lines of the article state : (quote)This article is about the causes and analysis of the relatively high oil prices of the 2000s. For discussion of the effects of the crisis, see Effects of 2000s energy crisis. For a chronology of oil prices during this time, see 2003 to 2008 world oil market chronology. (Unquote) : obviously no reference to energy is wanted.-Environnement2100 (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. A large number of edits does not necessarily indicate that the article is a good one, or that it has been properly organised, or that the subject is exhaustively covered. In the case of including coal and other energy sources in the article this is especially so, since the article was named "Oil price increase since 2003" until the end of 2008. Further, I disagree entirely that "no one cares"; I think there are many people that are interested in energy prices in general over the period. Your claim that "no reference to energy is wanted" is bizarre - articles are written by editors such as ourselves. If it's decided that an article's subject includes another so far neglected area (in discussions such as this), it is a simple matter of inserting it. The goal should be to have a good article - not to delete things we don't think people care about enough. You say the article was written during a period of sensationalism, and to an extent I would agree. But all that indicates to me is that we should go through the article and apply proper, non-passionate, encyclopedic language with the benefit of hindsight.

You are very gung-ho about deleting the article entirely and to hell with anyone that found it useful. My stance remains that it is an article with useful, notable information and has every reason to remain, although (as with most articles) there are many areas on which it could improve. TastyCakes (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odell Menon

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

Has not played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Jevansen (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. Neither of these cricketers have played at the top domestic level in India:

Delete all. Cricinfo, which is a very comprehensive and reliable source for cricket, has no record of any of these players playing any matches at the levels described by the nominator, which for the uninitiated, equate to fully professional levels as described by WP:ATHLETE. I can also find no sources that would meet the general notability guideline for any of them: only passing mentions in reports of matches at the youth or amateur level of the game. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Neither Cricinfo nor CricketArchive support the claims of first class / List A cricket.-SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Bartsch

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

Never played an AFL game. Claim to fame is being drafted by four different clubs during his career but never making the cut. Played semi professionally in the SANFL but didn't do anything remotely spectacular. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Jevansen (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. These players have been delisted without making an AFL appearance:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, as failing WP:ATHLETE, unless evidence can be turned up that any of them did play in top flight of the AFL. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Bartsch & Veale, Not sure about Willoughby, Delete or redirect the rest. WP:GNG outranks WP:ATHLETE, and those two's specific & peculiar draft history provides that. Willoughby's stunt/acting work needs more investigation.The-Pope (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Lankiveil. Orderinchaos 04:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Draftees who do not make the first team fail WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. What is up with all these athlete articles for players who apparently didn't actually compete? Who cares about this stuff? Fails WP:ATHLETE... all of them. Lara 18:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What's up with all these editors not understanding that the general notability guideline outranks WP:ATHLETE. I didn't realise that this was ProAthletesOnlyPedia. Is this just a warmup for the new draftee articles in two-months time?The-Pope (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of beaches uk

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

Straightforward non-notable band. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "highly anticipated debut album is now in production" => fails WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a slight claim with the airtime on local radio stations, but the whole article is so shamelessly promotional there's nothing worth salvaging at the moment. If someone does manage to find better evidence of notability, the artile should be either completely rewritten or reduced to a stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is in fact notable enough to meet WP:BAND, that is not knowable from the article as it is completely devoid of references.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Zapf Creation. Sandstein 06:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chou Chou (doll)

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

I do not think that this doll is notable. There is nothing special about it, at least it can't be extracted from the information given in the article. Aditionally, the text is highly advertising. Reducing it to unbiased facts would only lead to a small line thast could be merged into Zapf Creation. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unreferenced, spammy article that has little or no encyclopedic value. Regards, Javért ^☆ 20:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The spamminess can be dealt with through editting. The dolls are widely sold and was the top-selling toy fort he UK in July 2009. Google news searh turns up lots of articles including [22], [23], [24] just to mention a few. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to Zapf Creation the parent company. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Zapf Creation. Notability established, maybe however better not to fragment. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge per above avs5221 (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Added a citation for Duracell Top Ten claim. Other articles in business and general databases were either the same as the Easter and Bilingual articles linked by Whpq, or passing mentions on "hot this Christmas" lists in a few magazines. Zapf_Creation could be made into a better article, IMO, and all the non-spammy information could be retained. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GazoPa

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

non notable search engine website. Johnfamson (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot see that notability has been established. Haakon (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. The application is also the subject of scientific research: [33]. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacoenvironmentology

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

"Pharmacoenvironmentology", from what I can see, is not a recognised branch of pharmacology and not notable. According to my searches on Google [34], this term has been created by the author of this page User:Szrahman, which is also a conflict of interest WP:COI. Moreover, if you look closely at the websites obtained through Goggle search, all the websites have the name Syed Ziaur Rahman or SZ Rahman written in it and there is NO offical websites that can certify the existance of this term. In addition, there are no other sources/references (except the ones containing his name) that talks about Pharmacoenvironmentology. I also saw a book about this subject, but this book has been written by S.Z. Rahman... The references in this article are questionable and does not seem to be closely related to the subject; it seems more like a promotion. I have nothing against the S.Z. Rahman and I respect him, but there is just no 3rd party reliable sources to support. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be mostly promotional material and lacks sources.--Stormbay (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pharmacovigilance, including material on ecopharmacology and PharmEcovigilance, which are alternative names. The concept of considering the environmental effects of pharmaceutical drugs is worth covering. Fences&Windows 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note ~~the rather misnamed~~ Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment, which discusses this issue. Fences&Windows 14:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge I suppose its enough of an alternate term to be appropriate for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per Fences&Windows. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Howard, Jr.

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

Article reads like a vanity page. Article does not meet WP:BIO guidelines (as is evidenced via Googling). Page seems to attract edit wars, including many unsourced and potentially libelous allegations Axlrosen (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find much of anything on this guy OR his company--most of what comes up for both are press releases. Blueboy 96 13:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. THF (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86.172.137.232 hit the nail on the head on the article's talk page back in September. This article is a coatrack. It is actually about, and has been primarily about since its very first version, some helicopter company. So my immediate thought was to follow 86.172.137.232's suggestion and swiftly rename and refactor. But looking for sources on Pompano Helicopters I found nothing at all. The world simply hasn't independently documented this company. There are duelling press releases by this company and another relating to some legal actions that they are parties to, but those are not independent sources. There are also a few helicopter accident and noise protest reports in newspapers, but those don't actually say anything substantial about the company from which an article can be written.
This article, despite its title, was never really an article about a person; and there are, simply, no multiple independent published works (by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy) documenting the subject (that the article is in fact about) in depth, to be had. The PNC is not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a coatrack that additionally fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not wiki worthy. Self-promoting and then a war page. A-StarPro (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)— A-StarPro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - same reason as Ironholds et all. Kevin (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kauffman

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS support. Unable to find independent reference to support award for film. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopefully this young filmmaker will achieve notability in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this director. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable now, but his day will come. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copy vio from the fellow's own website. --Whoosit (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 7 05:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sameera Aziz

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

Shameless spamvertisement for journalist, unsalvageably hagiographic. Orange Mike | Talk 04:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've removed the least encyclopedic parts of the article. This discussion should be listed in "Saudia Arabia" and "Pakistan" related discussions. Be careful what you refer to as "unsalvageable." There seems to be plenty of sources online to establish notabilty [35], with very little work. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep - self promotional, no-notable, originally a cut/paste from facebook. Noble effort to save the article, but still nothing there. It's not the quantity of ghits but the quality that matters.If we are going to rely on simple ghits to judge notability we are in trouble, as it is misleading. If you run a simple quoted version of her name you get about 4500 ghits - but as you scroll through to subsequent pages the number reduces to 170 [36], none of which are WP:RS to establish notability. 7 06:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned as an honored speaker by the Pakistan Times and the Arab News at an international symposium are not "quality" mentions? There are over 100 articles online which were written by this journalist for the Saudi Gazette, which is itself a notable publication. There are regional differences in return of search results, especially since many of the articles regarding this author will be in a language other than English. Even if that were not the case, non trivial mention in 3 notable, reliable press outlets meets notability requirements. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing articles for a notable publication does not confer notability. The Saudi Gazette reference is not a third-party reference. The other three references I would indeed call trivial, but regardless, of trivial-or-not the threshold of notability is not that they are non-trivial, but rather that their has been significant third-party coverage from RS. Being quoted by one publication while speaking at a function for your own paper doesn't meet the bar for me. However I really don't want to come off as being argumentative here, and I may be biased by the cut/paste spam&copyvio start of the article. If she is indeed notable and the only difficulty we are having is because of regional search results then I'm happy for the article to survive. I just personally don't have the language skills to confirm that, so hopefully others with those skills will be able to chime in. 7 09:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your open mind. I have been hammered on these boards for being West-centric in regards to my thresholds of notability, so I've learned to look for "aggregates of information" when dealing with Asian countries. Also, "journalism", as we know it, does not exist in Saudi Arabia (see BBC article), especially for women (see topical article and Women's rights in Saudi Arabia). So we may never find the type of sources you might expect to find for a Western reporter. The fact that she is a senior editor for one of the few magazines allowed to publish in Saudi Arabia, makes her a much bigger fish in a small pool. The amount of info we are seeing about this reporter is actually a testament to the level of notoriety she has achieved in the international community. While we may never get a slam dunk on notability, do we really have a slam dunk on the deletion? --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to keep based on work done to the article and sources discovered by OliverTwisted. 7 05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable journalist deserves article --117.195.134.197 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. article is good but very short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.120.150.175 (talk • contribs) (comment moved from talkpage)

Update - I've listed this article at the Saudi Arabia portal and Journalism portal for additional feedback from editors more familiar with Saudi Arabian journalism. Also, please keep in mind that there are only 2 newspapers within Saudi Arabia which are printed in English, and the subject of the article works for one of them. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the sources, but the article is by no means a good one. I did a bit of trimming, and there's more needed. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so do i 've to inform the writers and journalists from saudi arabia to take part in this disscussion? because nobody knows about this article in wikipedia until now. what is the best way to inform the people? i sent this article to madam sameera at her official e-mail ID <redacted> (that published in news paper earlier), she replied with thank you. she liked the article. (MOON) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon round (talk • contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a blatant hoax--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizer Allen

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

This article is full of lies and Kaizer Allen is not even famous and has no reason to have a Wikipedia article, he isn't with Arista either, everything on this article is lies and it looks like a child wrote it. Most of the references are fake and he doesn't even have an official website. Krystalsmith77 (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Gnews hit. No mention on Arista's website. Only a few thousand Ghits, from which I can find no reliable source. Snow delete as a hoax. Also interesting that these pages are edited almost exclusively by a few SPAs. I'm expanding the nomination to include the following pages as well:
- Quit on Playin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kaizer Allen (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Don't Leave (The Dogs Are Barking) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  If this is closed as delete, the closing admin is requested to delete Template:Kaizer Allen as well, per WP:CSD G8. Tim Song (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax or delusions of grandeur. This guy is 15, all references online appear to be user-generated content. Hairhorn (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Closing in preference of the still open first AFD (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gelato Fiasco

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable ice cream parlor. There are thousands of ice cream parlors in the US, no reason to believe this 2 year old place is any more notable than other parlors. L0b0t (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to combine the AfDs. I'm leaning towards a weak keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mea Culpa This mess is my fault and I apologize. I sent article to AfD using Twinkle, went to work, came home and found no tag on article and no evidence in history of having been sent to AfD. I thought the listing was maybe incomplete or it didn't stick so I used Twinkle to AfD again and now we have 2 listings but I think only one of them is listed on the AfD page. Please somebody, show me what I did wrong, how to fix it, and how to avoid it future. Thanks. L0b0t (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moved to User:Koolspeed/A Tree Full of Secrets JForget 00:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Tree Full of Secrets

AfDs for this article:

(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) 03:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per nom and previous AfDs.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's an on-going work-in-progress page, we promise to have it done in 3 weeks, we are just so busy with school work. --Koolspeed (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can put the article in your user space: User:Koolspeed/A Tree Full of Secrets. When you are done and if this gets deleted, ask the deleting admin if he will restore it. If the admin refuses to, take it to WP:DRV too see if the consensus will be too restore the article. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G3 with a heavy dose of salt. Blueboy 96 03:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stunt Cock (individual)

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

nonsensical attempt at a bio - probably vandalism (subject born in 1865 but "He truly believes in shooting Charleton Heston" ??) Kresock (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC) *Speedy delete this article has already been deleted as vandalism several times and protected as well. The author changed the case of one letter to avoid the protection. Eeekster (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Energy Systems, Inc.

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

Fails WP:N and lacks notable references. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company is a major employer in the Manitowoc area and western Sheboygan County and NASDAQ-listed. Not every company has to be a GE to be notable. 437 G-hits and 17 current month G-News hits. Nate • (chatter) 08:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only due to NASDAQ listing. Needs reliable sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A NASDAQ listed company is enough notability. Its not like its some OTC company that no one has ever heard of or cares about. I will add a reference tag to it as it its rather unreferenced. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 00:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two of these books appear to be reliable and independent, and to have significant coverage of the subject. There may also be some independent sources here, but I'm not prepared to wade through the hundreds of press releases to find them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 3800 companies on NASDAQ; that's hardly a qualification for "notable." This article is an obvious plant by the company, which keeps on trying to add hype to the article. Absolutely no reason for this company to have an encyclopedia article.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Gibbs, Jr.

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

Considered nominating for CSD A7 at first however I'm unsure so I'd like some more opinions on whether this should stay, and I'll do this in the form of an AfD. :) [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 02:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see an indication of notability that would meet our guidelines. A distinguished career, but encyclopedia worthy? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is more deserving of a local interest page elsewhere on the WWW. Seems a worthy individual, but with limited notability and extremely limited sources. --Whoosit (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acela circuit

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

Passing mention in a single reputable source is insufficient demonstration of notability. Durova³²⁰ 01:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the apparent WP:NEOLOGISM; though seven of nine have apparently served in this group of courts, it does not appear to be a notable term. They more or less all had to serve somewhere (Harriet Miers notwithstanding). Frank | talk 02:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The term was used in the New York Times in a way suggesting it was in the vernacular.

2) That the seven justices had to serve "somewhere" is meaningless. The point, and the reason the term has come to be used, is the proximity of the circuits and states that the "Acela circuit" represents - seven small states (and one district) out of 51 that represent 4 circuits out of 12 are the source of all but 2 justices.

The point is that almost all the justices come from a small corner of the U.S., and that is why the term has come into parlance. Cranialsodomy (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are just 177 ghits, and all appear to be a loop from the Times.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times reference reads thus: And only a few of those appeals courts at that: seven of the justices served on what might be called the court of appeals for the Acela circuit, in Boston, Philadelphia and Washington. That hardly qualifies as "suggesting it was in the vernacular" or "come into parlance". It looks like they made it up. If it were common (and thus notable), they would have used a different construct than might be called. Frank | talk 12:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Neologism. As best as I can tell, it was made up by a New York Times writer. We can't have an article on every witticism emanating from that newspaper. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be anything in this article that isn't already taken care of elsewhere. If the "Acela circuit" designation ever comes to be signficant beyond this particular bit of trivia, it might merit its own article. As of now, that does not seem to be the case at all. Brettalan (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dražen Vikić-Topić

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

Notability is questionable. No references/sources provided. Google search reveals not much pertinent hits to can justify notability [37]. Also, per WP:BLP, "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Originally an NMR chemist. GS cites do not pass WP:prof #1 or other Prof class. Now a politician or bureaucrat in Croatia; appears to hold one of six second rank positions in Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport. (http://public.mzos.hr/Default.aspx?sec=2431). Is this enough for WP:Politician? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep Borderline, unless there are good sources for the GNG. 71 papers in Web of Science, but citations relative low: best are 39, 34, 29, 17, It is not really right to tell whether or not a chemist is notable from Google scholar. I will gladly check in WoS or Scopus, for those who don't have access, but anyone at a university should have one or the other. The ministry position is sub-cabinet level, so he;s not automatically notable there either. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly ordinary academic career doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF, and work as civil servant doesn't seem to reach notability as politician. LotLE×talk 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with nomination. --Kebeta (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as author-blanked. Skomorokh, barbarian 09:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RECTRO.

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

Non-notable and unverified game Eeekster (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 (db-web). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to tag it again. An IP keeps removing the AFD tag and your speedy went as well. Eeekster (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - author blanked the article, it's already G7'd. Tagged by nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kinda hard to make a vote if we keep having a edit war on the tagged page.S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this crap and block the author for vandalism. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpyCatcher

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

Very little detail and does not meet guidelines. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — S-J-S-F-M-W (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage. Only external link provided is for the software's website. No notability here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is not entirely true as I have found a review from CNET that does show little notability but it does not seem enough to make me withdraw this AfD. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spycatcher as a likely search term. Current article does not meet WP:GNG. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advertisement, which annoys me beyond belief. Also very little sourcing and it screams adware spam. I say lose it. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 00:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's of note that one of the two delete votes was cast by a now indef-blocked account. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Parker (doctor)

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

While subject appears to have done some good work, he doesn't appear to meet WP:BLP Frmatt (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for clean-up. Although I think it would be preferable to merge and redirect to Parker College of Chiropractic (which is notable within the chiropractic world), that article has not yet been created and I cannot see the sense in removing the information from Wikipedia entirely. Location (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Repurpose~~see below the founder of a college may be notable, but the first priority is an article on the college. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. First relist was after 5 days so let's give this discussion a little more time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — S-J-S-F-M-W (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - no notability as per WP:BLP. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The college is notable, it's accredited [38] and been established for over 30 years and i ~~will write~~have written a stub article on it in addition to this one.[39] As its founder and president, he was notable also, and can stand by itself. Someone above said this is a BLP, but he died in 2000. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than enough information out there to expand both articles. as shown here [40] and for the college here [41]. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough notability claims in here, world tour, claim to saving chiropracty. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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