Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 17

< 16 September	18 September >

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 redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Elementary schools. The school was already listed there; there appears to be nothing to merge barring a fundamental restructuring of the section. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack D. Gordon Elementary School

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

Elementary school with little significant coverage in reliable sources, just a few notes about a virus in 1996. Shubinator (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this page i am trying my best to collect information about this school.-- ♠ Dwayneflanders' Talk 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Shubinator (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Elementary schools per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per TerriersFan. Doesn't seem to have enough sources to make an article. Chzz ► 04:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – not enough sources and what we usually do with elementary schools. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 04:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Terriersfan. Skier Dude (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything sourceable to Miami-Dade_County_Public_Schools#Elementary_schools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Racepacket (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Elementary schools. The school was already listed there; there appears to be nothing to merge barring a fundamental restructuring of the section. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes Elementary School

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

Elementary school with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Shubinator (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Shubinator (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Elementary schools per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFanSkier Dude (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything sourceable to Miami-Dade_County_Public_Schools#Elementary_schools, per the usual procedure in these cases. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing individual opinions. Sandstein 05:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Wahhabi" Myth

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

Contested prod. Opinion piece that was never finished. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as improperly sourced synthesis, ~~and possibly Merge any properly sourced statements with Wahhabi~~. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 23:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire premise of this page violates the neutral point of view and possibly the rule against no original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not neutral and not an obviously notable myth. The writing is also terrible... that can be fixed with editing, but given the first two, there's no point. Hairhorn (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overview comment The creator of the article David.Baratheon (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC) has generated a lot of heated discussion at Talk:Wahhabi (and associated pages) and this is what the Myth article is really all about. He feels very strongly that the Wahhabi article is inaccurate and biased, and that the very term "Wahhabi" is actually a derogatory term used by opponents (ie saying there are no Wahhabi, it's a myth, whilst the Ultra-Cons respond that this is an attempt by the Wahhabi to cover up), invalidating the Wahhabi article as it currently stands. He also feels that the Western press is similarly biased -- and this may well be: the UN said as much and that ref was provided on the Wahhabi talk page -- so one suggestion was that editors look to scholarly sources in preference to press and right wing Conservative sources.[reply]
Wahhabi is really in need of an expert in the subject who can also mediate.
However, David is going about this the wrong way, deleting the Wahhabi lead and replacing it with things like "Wahhabi is a derogatory term used by opponents ..." for example, and creating the Myth opinion piece in his frustration. I seem to recall him creating "The Wahhabi Myth", an article based on the book of the same name (his main source), which was deleted prior to this, and I did show him how to properly reference that book, which he has not done. Esowteric+Talk 09:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary, POV-based fork of Wahhabi. If the author can improve the latter article, with facts rather than emotional outbursts, he should be encouraged to do so. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created this article is because nothing is happening with the wahhabi article and all the while, this misguided knwoledge is constantly being propagated. I have demonstrably shown using authentic sources that the Terrorist groups are actually waging wars AGAINST the "wahhabi's" (proper name is salafi's).

As no one is doing anything and i have repeatedly posted in the discussion pages then I thought I would catch your attention by creating a page. I donot accept this page shoudl not have been created though as it is a phenominan that is occurring in teh world and I can prove it with sources and so i stand by the fact that the only people who wish to delete this article are peple opposed to salafi Islam. Leave the politics and sectarianism out of this. If you want me to stop creating such articles then get someone to actually intermediate and loko at the evidences I provide. You do nto post the article "nigger" as a person originating from africa, you have it as a derogatory word. Not as wahhabi is also a derogatory word, it shoudl be described as such. I find teh article offensive because it defines "wahhabi" as an acceptable name to call people. The sight has obviously many POV pushers and I dont see the same harshness applied to sufi's. How would you feel if I described sufism under the title "Ahlul Bid'ah" (people of innovation). You wouldn't like it woudl you. If you wish to discuss the salafi movement, do it in teh salafi article. Put wahhabi as an offensive term and give a link to salafi if people wish to know who the salafi's are and what they believe. We need intermediation and NOW. If not I will continue to create such articles in order to fight this POV being pushed in wikipedia. If we do not call ourselves "Wahhabi" then it is derogatary and yet no one is addressing thsi insulting POV being pushed on wikipedia.

David.Baratheon (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: repeated vandalism to Wahhabi, Talk:Wahhabi and Salafi have been taken to the admin noticeboard. Esowteric+Talk 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VERY Strong Delete Article is confusing and not clear It seems it is just POV of the Wahabi author.Shabiha ^(t) 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete there is no way this is appropriate for Wikipedia in any sense.Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creating a separate article is not a suitable way to resolve a content dispute Chzz ► 21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. policy delete reason: WP:OR Chzz ► 03:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's clear that the creator of this article believes that "Wahhabi" is a derogatory term. The question is whether this is a common belief, or just the opinion of a small group. If most of the people who are known as "Wahhabis" believe that "Wahhabi" is an accurate term to describe the school or movement within Salafi Islam that they follow, then we should not ban the term from Wikipedia. Looking at Google Books, I notice that the word "Wahhabi" is used (with no suggestion that it might be offensive) in books published by major university presses such as Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Princeton University Press, and Columbia University Press. I do not believe that these respected publishers would knowingly use derogatory terms in their books as though they were normal words, so I have to assume that the word "Wahhabi" is not commonly known to be offensive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Metropolitan90. This controversy is already discussed at length, and from many viewpoints in the article, addressing many of the author's concerns: [1]

Delete - smacks of WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:FORK, WP:SOAP, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV-fork and an (incomplete) essay, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per everyone but article creator. Isn't it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Sandhu

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

The subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:Bio - a Google search turns up blogs, Facebook and LinkedIn pages, occasional references to the deals on which he worked, and the SEC matter described in the article. Awards, notable contributions to the field, secondary source coverage of the individual etc. are not apparent and there does not seem to be anything to distinguish this individual from other successful dealmakers. JohnInDC (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Universal Express -- it's not clear that he was even more than a bit player in the latter. Mangoe (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and general notability guidelines Chzz ► 21:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's indisputable that he has participated in a number of notable deals, but there's no coverage of the person himself as opposed to his work. Doesn't meet WP:BIO at the moment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the requirements of the relevant notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher H. Knight

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

Does not meet the primary criterion of WP:BIO - no reliable secondary sources in Google. Also, appears to be a WP:AUTOBIO, original author User:Chknight. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, significantly less coverage than the author of the same name, who is also not notable. Agree that WP:BIO is not met here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Surprisingly, I found this New York Times article. I have no idea who Julia Simon is, nor why her marriage to Knight desrves an article in the NY Times Style section, but there it is. However, I am unable to find any other articles writing about him. The search is made quite difficult as Chistopher Knight, the Brady Bunch actor shows up as much of the search results. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Yim

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

Non-notable individual known for a single local event. Some coverage, but appears to be all local. ttonyb (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Jim Carmel (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy requirements of WP:BIO or WP:GNG Chzz ► 03:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what he did is laudable and impressive, but WP:BLP1E would appear to apply here. Only fleeting and localised coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doaba Headlines

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

Disputed PROD. There's nothing in here to suggest this is at all a notable newspaper and worthy of an entry - the article states it was established only 5 months ago. ~Excesses~ (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - article has been moved to Doaba Headlines Nakodar since it was AfD tagged. ∙ AJChamtalk 19:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - article has been semi-protected due to continued removal of the AfD tag. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:00, 9 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 23:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability. The paper has a decent website, but is there any third-party coverage or references to it? I couldn't find any. The article also reads like an advertisement for the paper, especially further into the article. Buddy23Lee (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few ghits, none that qualify as reliable, but what is quite telling is the fact one of the top ghits for this is the Wikirage report on this nom. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above arguments. Also note that the creator has been spamming this link in dozens of Punjabi town articles. Them From Space 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RickDate

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

There only really seems to be one source for this, copied in many places. The source admits that the scheme is only used by himself and a couple of his programmer friends. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, although I'd be willing to change my !vote if someone had some indication of widespread use. Weak mostly because it's an older article that's had a bit of work on it and some notes on the Talk Page, which goes some way to saying it's more than just one person using it. On the other hand, the talk page suggests it only has coverage because there's some really minor controversy over who first used it and why. ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. This seems to be a non-notable application of Base 36 which is a well established technique. (See Base 36#Uses in practice.)--RDBury (talk) 05:02, 10 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 23:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one source mentioned by nom is part wiki part forum. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks widespread coverage, fails WP:GNG Chzz ► 21:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Manning (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premier League football club sponsors

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

Article proposed for deletion with the rationale that This is not an encyclopaedic topic. Furthermore, the content of the article has no context. I agree with this reasoning, and furthermore think it is a fairly useless synthesis of information that is readily available from the individual club articles, or even the 2009–10 Premier League article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. – Pee Jay 23:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't see the point of the article because being an advertising of certain companies. Sponsors of a certain league is really a non-notable intersection and therefore unencyclopaedic. Tavix | Talk 23:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per original PROD rationale. Giant Snowman 07:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless trivia -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete listcruft Spiderone 08:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actually, I think kit-sponsorship is a generally notable topic, and if this list were sourced, I don't see how it wouldn't be encyclopedic. matt91486 (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Manning (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bárbara Padilla

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

This singer doesn't meet the general notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koblizek (talk • contribs)

Keep-This singer is the runner-up on the fourth season of America's Got talent, and, based on the coverage, should have a page on Wikipedia. Cpudude91 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-A google news search gives a total of 999 hits on Bárbara Padilla and just by browsing the first several pages it was clear that there is plenty of independent news coverage on this artist to satisfy WP:N and WP:Music.Singingdaisies (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's gotten significant coverage and was a runner-up on a top-rated American TV show, the other runners-up of which have their own articles. Why is this even being considered? 147.9.224.66 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1 by Willking1979 (talk · contribs). Tavix | Talk 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh minute

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY; also, no references. Airplaneman ^talk 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 U.S. Route 92. We seem to have an atlas verifying that the road existed at some time under this name, but the current content is unsourced and as as such unsuitable for a merger. Of course, any merger can be done from the history if sources are provided. Sandstein 05:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State Road 600A

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

Part of a group of articles that survived mass AfD (as State Road 600A (Florida)) in August 2006, this entry has not been expanded since and is incomplete. This "ministub" references three former road sections, but gives brief detail of only one, and gives no indication if this road still exists. There are no references to enable the casual editor to help expand the article. Apart from bot and gnome edits, there appears to be no interest in expanding the article into an encyclopedic entry. I consider that such a "stub" would not now be acceptable as being of a reasonable standard, and am AfD'ing it since I cannot PROD it since it has already survived an earlier deletion review and I have undertaken not to Speedy delete such articles without review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Please note that I did WP:PROD the article, but self removed it upon realising it had been AfD'ed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into U.S. Route 92 (internally designated FL600) as a bannered route (A typically standing for alternate). Admrboltz (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Admrboltz. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say merge per above, but there's nothing to merge. It's a one sentence article. Dave (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to U.S. Route 92, since there's nothing to merge but it is a plausible search term. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to U.S. Route 92, this appears to be a former route closely associated with that route and there is probably not much to add to the FL 600A article. Dough4872 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Nothing to merge, still a valid search term.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 18:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. --Triadian (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect --199.254.212.44 (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete WITHOUT REDIRECT and without merge. Nothing on this page is sourced (the article has existed for ample enough time for sources to be added). Therefore, redirecting this search term to another page would not be WP:Verifiable. You might as well redirect to Pink Elephants on Parade as to U.S. Route 92 since there is no source given to relate the statements on Florida State Road 600A to either page. Also, do we really want to merge unsourced material into another page? Or is there some policy I am unaware of which overrides WP:Verifiability during the deletion process. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? We know this road exists. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid point. As for sources, the 1965 Rand McNally Road Atlas shows 600A on Manhattan Avenue in a rectangle, meaning it's either a secondary state or county road. I don't think Florida had county roads until the 1980s, and even now the systems are interconnected such that a redirect from one to the other would be useful. --NE2 06:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We "know" no such thing - and unlike "water is wet", it needs to be reliably sourced. Even a 1965, or 1995, road map is no evidence of it continuing to exist. A 1965 road map probably provides sufficient evidence to make the title a redirect, since it is then a search criteria, but still not to make if a merge candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the source, please add it to the article and I will change my comment above. I would consider the 1965 Rand McNally atlas to be WP:RELIABLE and WP:SECONDARY and that would answer my concern (even if the reference is not on-line and only exists in real life). (I state the importance of a reliable, secondary source, because this is an example of an unsigned FDOT state route, bringing notability into question. An FDOT map would be a primary source.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to U.S. Route 92 I don't think you need a secondary source to support a redirect. Racepacket (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to think that people are asking for a redirect because SR 600A is a sub-topic of US92 (SR 600). Under this editing guideline, the sub topic of SR600A should be explained within the article. In order to explain it within the article, it needs to be sourced.
Misspellings, tenses and capitalisations do not require any sources under the WP:Redirect guideline. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please read note 3 on the policy page WP:Verifiability where the founder of WP says that unsourced information should be agressively removed. Unless Florida State Road 600A can be sourced (and proven to exist), I interpret this to mean that the term needs to be removed from WP. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Manning (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an editorial action, I'll move this to Long Distance Calling (band). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long Distance Calling

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

does not show significant coverage as needed by WP:GNG and does not meet the list in WP:BAND 龗 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Long distance — if someone types this title in the search box, that's probably the article they are looking for, not some obscure band. *** Crotalus *** 16:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect wouldn't be suitable in this case because both articles are not about the same subject. Anyway, delete per WP:BAND. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (two resources added), or redirect to Long distance and move WP:BAND to Long distance calling (band). Anna (author) 21:04, 10 September 2009
Move to German wikipedia site. Perhaps they would satisfy WP:Band notability there, or at the least have a better AfD discussion. SithToby (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term to Long distance. The band fails to meet notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after correcting meets both WP:MUSIC#C1 and WP:MUSIC#C4 (tour around Germany). Anna 11:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think these reviews: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and an interview [8] are enough for notability. Anna 12:25, 16 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 21:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and then convert the resultant redirect into a disambiguation page. allen四names 15:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per some of Anna's sources above; I see in particular that there are two reviews on Allmusic. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Anna prove that Long Distance Calling passes WP:N. Also, this source substantiates Anna's claim that this band passes WP:MUSIC#C4. Cunard (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Like Me

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

I find no significant references to this book, in a field in which I am admittedly not familiar. I discovered it on the author's Wikipedia page, flagged by an editor as self-edited. It is cited in blogs and fringe publications, often in articles by the author. The page may have been created to give credibility to the author's page Tim Wise, which has no reliable secondary references. The book is cited in some scholarly publications on what I believe is called whiteness studies. If Wise or his book are actually notable, I am willing to be corrected, but it looks to me like simple self-promotion.Historicist (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this request for deletion, this is a highly regarded book in the fight for social justice and social justice education. The main page could be edited because it seems to be sloppily compiled, but there can be no question as to its credibility. This is a book that has continued to shape the field and make white Americans take a good look at their life and privilege because of their race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.41.68 (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs improvement, but book seems notable. Because he writes about race issues apparently Tim Wise is a magnet for internet wackos of all stripes (like i see references to him not being "white" because he's a "jew" -- moonbat express stuff, to be sure, my reverend would say), but that is not a reason to delete the article. Sources to be integrated could include [9] (Boston Globe calling the book "influential"), [10], [11], [12] (book is referenced in another book, "Understanding & dismantling racism"),[13] (review in Willamette Week). Controversies can be summarized by citing sources. If for some reason consensus is against book having its own article, material should certainly at least be merged into the Tim Wise article, because there are many references to him online. --Milowent (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain the article about the author say that "His memoir, White Like Me: Reflections on Race From a Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press) is taught at hundreds of colleges and high schools across the nation." Can this be shown--it would be a sound reason to keep. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 10 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 21:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the book, in and of itself, has gained enough notability as a publication on its own merit, as shown here by Google News, [14] and by Google Scholar, as shown here [15], to meet our current criteria for notability for inclusion here on Wikipedia. Likewise, it ranks 4th in Minority Studies - 9th in Race Studies in America and 9th in Discrimination & Racism book sales based on Amazon's sales history. To me that is notable. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot stain

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

In the 6 months since the previous AfD, this non-notable neologism has received zero coverage in reliable sources. It was coined by Maude Barlow and has not come into common use outside of her work. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added some more info... a second paragraph to the lead. This term may or may not have been coined by Maude Barlow. If it was, she is a notable person, and the term is used by others because of her notability also [16]. Her notability is pretty convincing [17], and it appears that other science based water related professionals use the term. skip sievert (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Gigs (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Editor above ^ the recent removal of referenced and cited material does not bode well for an effort to improve the article. Please refrain from removing material in the article that is sourced and relavant. The article currently is trying to be improved. I find the removal of sourced and cited information and the removal of an expansion questionable and troubling especially when an Afd is happening authored by yourself. Notability of this term is trying to be established, if it is possible to do so, within guidelines, as it appears to be notable. This edit is not really productive as to that [18] skip sievert (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Adding unrelated information about Barlow to this article is inappropriate, doubly so since it's unverifiable whether she coined it or not. I'll leave it for some other editor to revert, since you seem to believe my actions are in bad faith. Gigs (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The neologism isn't notable and doesn't appear to have any sources outside of a single person (Maude Barlow). It's WP:NN at the least. --Lithorien (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists call them "hot stains" - the parts of the earth running out of clean, drinkable water. They now include northern China, large areas of Asia and Africa, the Middle East, Australia, the Midwestern United States, and sections of South America and Mexico. How did the world's most vital natural resource become so imperilled? And what must we do to pull back from the brink? end quote from here [19]. It is notable. Who came up with the term? A little research probably could nail that down. Our standard for inclusion is "Verifiability, not Truth". Also this article in The Nation discusses the term and gives references for who is using it and how it is being used [20] skip sievert (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those articles were authored by Barlow. Gigs (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say The Nation is notable as to sourcing the term, and also there was a co-author that is also well known Tony Clarke (activist) so your comment is not accurate - skip sievert (talk) 23:05, 10 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 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to have been widely used by anyone except Barlow and those closely connected to her. She's unquestionably notable herself, but just because she coined a term does not make it notable. WP:NEO applies here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keeep its used in enough sources to satisfy me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly, "hot stain" has several meanings 1) A Wood stain that is applied hot, 2) Hot stains used in biology e.g. a Ziehl-Neelsen stain - that uses heat to improve penetration of the stain into the bacterial cell wall. It stains mycobacteria red and 3) An area devoid of ground water. There are plenty of references for substantiating "hot stain" for 1 and 2. There are many references to "hot stain" in the context (3) of running out of drinkable water, but these are not reliable sources like YouTube videos (GIRLZ OF ZAETAR - "HOT STAINS"), blogs (Wise geek, Double tongued, Fire Dog Lake, blogpi.net ... etc.), discussion groups, interviews in German, audio programs ... The reliable sources come from a very small group of internationally renown water scientists and activists - and of course closely associated with Maude Barlow. kgrr ^talk 13:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or maybe merge and redirect to Maude Barlow. Searches of google scholar [21] and the google news archive[22] demonstrate that this term is simply not used as described here. No hits on pubmed either. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Spiro

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

Fails WP:PROF. Every professor has published papers, and this resume-style biography does not stand out in the crowd as the type of exceptional professor that our academic notability guidelines looks for. Gigs (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I get GS cites to be 191, 122, 30, 28, 18, 11, 7, giving h index = 7. Somewhat low for usual WP:Prof #1. Citation patterns in this area are unknown to me. He might pass on WP:Author. Input from scholars in the field and info on library holdings would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Info on library holdings: Entry for 'Spiro, David E.' at WorldCat Identities says 277 of the libraries WorldCat covers hold his book The hidden hand of American hegemony : petrodollar recycling and international markets. Other books have much lower holdings and not sure if their author is the same David E. Spiro as not listed in the article under discussion or on his personal website. Qwfp (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given Xxanthippe's data in GS citations I would say that WP:Prof#1 is not satisfied. The AfD discussion of Peter M. Haas may be useful to gauge the citation pattern in this area. CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). The citations in GS and books, including at least one by a prestigious university publisher (Cornell UP), add up to a certain level of notability. A somewhat unusual career path though.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see the impact. The book gets 30 cites in a search on GS, showing that having a reputable publisher doesn't guarantee the book will be used. I don't see anything much in a news search either: search on David E. Spiro gets five hits, other permutations adding search terms e.g. identity theft or business produce low hits. If someone comes up with sources that can be used to write the article and substantiate what is there, I'll be happy to change my views. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 16 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 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His book belongs to the Cornell Studies in Political Economy series; it appears to be an academic monograph. As such it will likely appear in academic collections as a matter of course, and I don't think the number of library copies will be particularly meaningful; I think we should try to evaluate this in terms of WP:PROF rather than invoking WP:Author on purely numeric evidence. But my usual trick for digging up academic reviews of books (enter the title at http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/) came up dry, and I don't see any other evidence that he passes WP:PROF #1 nor any other of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. Notwithstanding deletion I went in and replaced first-name-only references with last-name-only references. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above. Jim Carmel (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sindelar

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

This person is non-notable and does not meet WP:ARTIST as no reliable sources have been produced or can be found for this person to support the article apart from one self promotional website. As a check, no Google News, no Google Books and no Google Scholar articles exist for this person. Wikipedia is not a resource to reprint self promotional literature as if it were encyclopaedic or notable.—Ash (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sindelar is notable because he produced a large body of work in the form of religious art that was used-- reproduced and published, but rarely credited-- by the cluster of more-or-less interrelated Ascended Master Teachings groups, who are notable and even pretty well known for having had millions of followers in the US, and all then the usual fate of cults. Sindelar's work is strange in style as well as in content-- like George Washington on his knees in prayer to swords with purple plumes of flame with a white star of David in the middle. (The prose that accompanied the first uses of his work is also, uh, impressive, and later was made even more so by being cantillated by Elizabeth Clare Prophet in any media outlet she could get exposure in. No description can do it justice, but the style resembles a tobacco auction, and the content included prayers that society be protected from such perverse, demonic, and possibly extraterrestrial forces as: breakdancing, Cindi Lauper, Pat Benatar, and the movie "Ghostbusters". I couldn't make this up if I tried- have a listen to their tracks on "Sounds Of American Doomsday Cults, vol 14".) But long story short, there were and are strange cults, some Notable, some of which published Sindelar's art, which was copious and unusual. I'll go shake the tree for whoever would have more insight and references than Google Books has(n't). I have two volumes containing his work, and have seen many more (and stupidly passed up a chance to buy), but this is definitely not my scholarly area-- so I started this stub in the hope that someone whose scholarly area this is part of, would naturally stumble on it and expand on its content. This hope of mine seems to have wikidisappointed me, and you!, so I'll do some legwork now. I can think of a few books about the Ascended Masters movement, and some must mention Sindelar, but I have none of the books on hand. Thus I regret having moved away from the vicinity of a university library, to a small island in Alaska. Sean M. Burke (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) As you created the article over two and a half years ago and nobody has found any reliable sources that come close to showing notability (self promotional websites and publications or "cantillations" from Elizabeth Clare Prophet are unlikely to count) you may find third party sources hard to find.—Ash (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The great difficulty, we have all discovered, is that prodding Google Books for a rarely/never credited artist is simply not going to reliably reflect where his work appeared, over what period of time, the breadth of his work, nor of what importance it held for the I-Am/ECP/etc groups. I needn't reiterate my actually quite low opinion of the groups, but the many, uh, adherents in the groups did seem to take his work very seriously and to take it (along with its strange accompanying text) as "revealed", essentially ikonic-- I have actually seen his paintings sold as ikons. Ikons, annoyingly, often go unattributed, thus occluding the artists' potentially significant notability. In other works, this is harder than it looks, and I see no reason to believe that in the two and a half years, anyone stumbled on the entry and even gave this a try.Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, those things are more about the notability of those groups, not about the artists' work. Sindelar is mentioned in the book Prophet's Daughter, by Erin Prophet, but just in passing. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've corrected me on an extremely crucial point-- his importance isn't going to be established as much by mention of his work, as by use of it. The two thin books I have, Fundamental Group Outline Fourth Class and [...]Fifth[...], are each 48 pages long, and have a new, elaborate, full-page painting on every fifth page or so! (And they are all wowsers, hooboy.) The first ("Fourth") book says "second edition 1970", and the second ("Fifth") says simply "reprinted 1971". They are from "St. Germain Press, Inc." I'm ILL-ing all the St. Germain books I can get my hands on, and try to see whether Sindelar produced thirteen paintings, or three hundred, spread over four years, or forty. Therefore, as my Inter-Library Loan requests are percolating and processing, I request that this CFD at least really Wait-- if the publication of his stuff is a factor, as I imagine it really has to be. (And I have to admit that I'm itching with anticipation at seeing the weirdness of yet more of his stuff. The not-even-100 pages that I currently own are dazzlingly strange. They put the Codex Seraphinianus to shame!) Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ seems to have established minimum of fame that is needed for an wikipedia article.--Judo112 (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there are no reliable sources that come near to meeting WP:ARTIST, I'm rather puzzled as to what you mean by "fame".—Ash (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And im quited puzzled with you...but the opposit..?--Judo112 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"no reliable sources have been produced or can be found for this person to support the article apart from one self promotional website. As a check, no Google News, no Google Books and no Google Scholar articles exist for this person."

Seen this?

Sindelar's connection to the Ballards and Prophet (who subsequently appropriated his work because he didn't bother to copyright it), is in fact the reason he is remembered at all. I do understand that it's not the notability of said groups but of Sindelar himself that is being questioned here. However I'm voting to Keep his article separate, or Merge it into the already existing article on the I Am Activity. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Source) Thanks for finding that newspaper article. A painting presented during a court case as part of a commercial fraud prosecution against the "I AM" movement does not appear to do much to meet any of the requirements of WP:ARTIST. I am not sure that this AFD discussion is terribly meaningful if participants are going on their gut feelings and beliefs rather than the stated notability requirements.—Ash (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Maybe he and May don't rate their own articles, but I still think they ought to be mentioned in the articles about the groups, in passing, since they were the creators of some pretty iconic outsider work. Not at the level of Darger, but the Jesus and St. Germain portraits and especially the "Your Divine Self" or "Magic Presence" illustration turn up fairly frequently, and usually uncredited, in New Age books, magazines, websites, etc., but not just there. I've seen bastardized editions of "Your Divine Self" twice on the covers of reprints of older, non-New Age classics of spiritualism and psychic research -- nothing to do with the Ballards or CUT. People might like to know where it came from. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying for (as the expression goes) the "spirit of the law, not the letter of the law" of Notability. (And I'll note: 'letter of' is still subjective, since it depends on readings and applications of blurry terms. I am fresh from an argument with my father on my point. Bitter much?) We should not call one of those "gut feelings" and the other of those, say, "blind legalism"-- that makes this unproductive. Moreover, the Notability points are not Law From On High, they are, as said right in their title, "Notability Guideline". Blah blah blah, arguing until the sun explodes, blah blah, I'd be basically happy with a Merge. Sean M. Burke (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take a decent reliable source over blah, blah, any day ;) —Ash (talk) 06:39, 17 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 21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep overlal standard of article, notability.--Judo112 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also sourced well, which even more indicates notability.--Judo112 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I never knew who it was who painted the curious portraits of Ascended Masters that are widely reproduced in the various Theosophical/I AM descendants. Their widespread reuse does make Sindelar an "important figure" who's been "widely cited", so he does meet the biography notability guideline. His existence and authorship are confirmable in the literature. Since his portraits have apparently circulated in the USA before 1978 without copyright, we could probably improve this article by including some of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As is noted above uses of Sindelar's paintings of "channelled" religious figures, and the many 'knock offs' therefrom, are at this point widespread within the New Age movement, even though most of the time he is unacknowledged as the original artist. I've added a couple of more references to the article, as well as some minor detailing on the earlier part of his career which should help to substantiate his notability. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its time to keep this article.--Judo112 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although his portraits cannot exactly be considered great art, since they are so widely used by those who are adherent to the Ascended Master Teachings, it is interesting to know something about the artist that painted them. Keraunos (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without deletion to preserve article history. GlassCobra 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chima Simone Benson

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

She was a contestant that got expelled with little notability outside of that. It doesn't warrant an entire article. –túrian^patois 20:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but her expulsion was a major news story. She was also notable for her rape by a famous serial killer. Her expulsion, not to mention her other controversial statements and actions got her more coverage than many other contestants with pages; take Sheila Kennedy,Brittany Petros,Erika Landin,Nicole Nilson Schaffrich, and Jason Guy as just a few examples of much less notable contestants. With so much news coverage, how is she not notable? Landonjgsu (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying major. She is a one hit wonder in terms of publicity. –túrian^patois 23:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with your opinion Túrian. Calling this article a one hit wonder is ridiculous. It was a multiple hit wonder at the very least. The article itself has a plethora of information that is well cited. This article is definitely more meaty than the other contestant's articles. I vote for it to stay. Not to mention, "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources." wikipedia:notability --GSouthern Force (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article also has a 'plethora' of unsourced information based on claims that she made during the series. On that same notability template that you linked to, it says: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event." Wikipedia:Notability That's exactly what this was - a short burst of coverage in reality TV circles. Mkubica (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through and found one claim that was uncited. It is now cited. Any other "claim" was mentioned on the episodes and cited through an episode recap. Landonjgsu (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the citations at the ends of sections made me think that the earlier claims weren't being referenced. But do you have any comment on the quotation from the notability template? It seems to fit this article perfectly. Heck, I'll even throw in another: "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event." Mkubica (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benson had an episode of Cold Case portrayed after her. There were major news articles. Since she had involvement in, not one, but two television shows (Which are NATIONAL); I believe the article should stay. It needs its own page because it is about her and not about Big Brother 11. There is more to this woman than just her getting kicked off of a television show, and her story being portrayed in another television show proves this.--GSouthern Force (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion: This article is completely unencyclopedic and, even now, the subject is losing notability (not to mention the complete lack of historical importance). Fans of the show may feel passionate about their favourite "house guests," but now that her 15-minutes of fame is over, I suspect that this article will be abandoned. I thoroughly support its deletion. Mkubica (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Google News Search feature at the top of this page, if you type in "Chima Simone", the first page includes three articles about events that happened to her. For proof: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Chima+Simone+&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a Landonjgsu (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this person is very notable due to her antics on national TV and no that information is not covered adequately elsewhere. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a full article that was so well written and with such full citations. 141.165.189.88 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:1E. And no, being raped does not constitute as an event. She is known for being a member of Big Brother that misbehaved. So what? Her information is already covered elsewhere. –túrian^patois 01:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. There is nothing here that isn't already covered in the List of Big Brother 11 contestants. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Jim Carmel (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Benson has multiple claims to being notable. It's true that being a rape victim does not make someone notable, but leading the police to the criminal and assisting his prosecution IS notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.43.171 (talk • contribs)

She knew her rapist. Big whoop. –túrian^patois 17:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Turian should recuse himself from any further participation on this discussion on the grounds that he has been extremely uncivil and is obviously not objective on the subject. 141.165.43.238 (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to ~~life~~ wikipedia. I believe all Turain's comments have been on topic. You may not agree with them, but they are on topic. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Turian's comment was at best extremely insensitive. Ms. Benson did not know her rapist. She was attacked in the middle of the night by a stranger, raped, and beaten into submission (to the point of requiring two facial reconstruction surgeries). No big whoop. Landonjgsu (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the user above Turian. Being a rape victim doesn't qualify as notable, but being the victim of a famous rapist and having your story told on Cold Case Files does. In addition, I have added some new information to the "After Big Brother" Section of the article. I also ask that everyone interested in this topic look at the Discussion page on the article. Thanks! Landonjgsu (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Big Brother 11 HouseGuests (U.S.)#Chima and preserve the history of this article under the redirect Chima Simone Benson has not received enough coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. Her participation in Big Brother 11 counts as WP:BLP1E. Being a rape victim does not establish notability; see Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Victims: As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Benson failed WP:GNG before the rape, so she is not notable.
The history of this article should be preserved so that interested editors can complete a merge to List of Big Brother 11 HouseGuests (U.S.)#Chima. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK criterion 2.3. Renominating with the same rationale one week after the previous AfD was SNOW closed as keep most certainly fits the criterion. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoroCoro Comic

AfDs for this article:

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

Failure to provide independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Kalium-39 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC) — Kalium-39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nominator. --207.160.233.153 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC) —suspected sockpuppet of nominator as both accounts have edited the same articles.[reply]
Speedy keep per previous AFD. Agathoclea (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a bad faith nomination. This editor has nominated this article before under bad faith using now indefinitely banned account Mathemagician57721 (talk · contribs) and has vandalized to articles about manga serialized in the magazine, Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu and Pokémon Pocket Monsters under various IP accounts. —Farix (t | c) 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Sources were presented in the last AFD (which closed just over a week ago) that helped establish notability. I don't see anything thats changed between then and now. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Good manners require at least one month between two AFD. That aside like in the previous Afd WP:V and WP:N are asserted. Furthermore there is a bunch of Anime News Network news mentioning that publication. --KrebMarkt 21:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and ban the nominator. Doceirias (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's unsourced. --70.247.249.17 (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC) — 70.247.249.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —suspected sockpuppet of nominator.[reply]
Keep. Even aside from procedural issues and other evidence provided during the first discussion, the magazine that initially serialized Doraemon and Pokémon, among other important works (including several winners of the Shogakukan Manga Award), is clearly notable in some way. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cumulative voting. Insufficient sourced content for merging, though any merging can of course be done from the article history. Sandstein 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allocation voting

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

Delete. The article says:

Allocation voting is any voting system in which voters are assigned a number of "points" or other unit of account, and are expected to allocate these among a number of alternatives. Unlike preference voting the numbers do not represent ranks but weights. Unlike Range voting, the total number of votes is fixed. A voter may cast all votes for a single candidate or option, or may spread the votes out among multiple candidates or options.

So according to that, "allocation voting" is a neologism for cumulative voting. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect: plausable search term. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cumulative voting as an alternative but seemingly lesser used name. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Cumulative voting. allen四names 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD-G7. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roster (software)

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

The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further explanation of the reason for deletion I would agree. This is a young project without much information out on the internet. I will re-write the article when I feel like I can provide enough coverage. Stephenlienharrel

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Manning (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gmdit

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

Reads as a promotional piece, citing only the company's website as a source. Contains no encyclopedic value for historical information or educational purposes. Aramova (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GM Dealer Information Technologies is a service available to U.S. and Canada General Motors Dealerships. GMDIT provides information and services to ensure the proper operation of GM applications and to maintain an efficient, secure network. No showing at all of general importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an advertisment, not an encyclopedia article. It's almost blatant enough to quality for a CSD G11, but I'll err on the side of caution here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM, per above. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 00:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that there is enough third-party significant coverage, just barely, to warrant inclusion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Slotnick

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

non notable. there are only passing mentions in third party sources, but no independent coverage specifically about him. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on a quick search. Nominator is right in that the article's references are mainly mentions of his name, but there's also this article about him in The American Prospect. If you combine that with the many, many quotes, I think this should pass WP:GNG; a more thorough search might reveal enough to make this a strong keep. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Man, do I apologize for that one misplaced apostrophe. Sorry for shouting. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay, so there is one piece of independent coverage. if there is more, i would say keep. but just one article shouldn't be enough Theserialcomma (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One piece, which I found immediately using nothing but Google News. Did you consider what is laid out in WP:BEFORE before you made the nomination? Spending a minute or two just Googling should do the trick, considering that there's a dozen or more references in the article that mention him--and lots of mentions do help toward notability. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - prominent enough attorney, represented American Apparel when sued by Woody Allen, and is "managing shareholder" of a notable New York City law firm. 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sterling (journalist)

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

I stumbled onto this article as it had been vandalized and I turned up a series of long term vandalism that I have tried to revert. After cleaning it up as best I could it seems that there may not be anything notable left. I do not know this field well, but all of the citations I could find were in sources I am not familiar with (in terms of how reliable they are). Per the recommendation on Talk:Jim_Sterling_(journalist) I'm starting this Afd to see if others who may be more familiar with this genre have better luck finding anything notable. If they do not, then it probably should be deleted. If they do, the citations should be added. Thank you! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator; the notability guidelines are not met. A quick Google News search reveals some hits but they are in blogs and other unreliable sources, and none of them seem to be about him as a subject. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he edits a gaming blog, does he? Not seeing any notability (or third party coverage of him, for that matter) here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Society

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

Non-notable student society that organizes notable gatherings. All of the external links cited in the article give excellent coverage of the conferences and meetings organized, but none of them at all mention the society itself except in very very brief passing (most of them not at all, or not by name). — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They have compiled all their press mentions on this page of their website. This surely will make researching easier, considering the large number of false positives their name alone gives. No opinion on notability just yet. Abductive (reasoning) 08:00, 4 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 22:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reporters in the sources say, "at a symposium at the University of Chicago", without even identifying the Chicago Society as the organizing body. This is an indication of non-notability. Abductive (reasoning) 19:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one challenged the sources so the sources have it Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoZella

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

Unremarkable singer (fails WP:NOTABILITY). Most of the references are to a single blog. Some trivial mentions found in Google search, but nothing significant. Obvious COI in article creation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable independent sources not found, and most of the links lead to magazine and newspapers' front pages. Also, a common link in the article proves COI because it lists MoZella as an artist on Beverly Martel Music, which just happens to be the username of the article creator. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the speedy on this was contested, FYI. ArcAngel (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep allmusic bio [23], allmusic review [24], boston herald (ppv) [25], The Cauldron review (college pub) [26] and the Movmnt Magazine article cited [27]. And probably the Skope article. The claim that "Most of the references are to a single blog" is not true, no reference represents more than 1/4 of references. Worldsend looks like it is not a reliable independent source so should be ignored for notability purposes but that still leaves multiple other sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if the article is kept, WP:COIN sounds like a sure thing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP BC MOZELLA IS FABULOUS <3 heard her on 107.3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.238.5 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Keep Mozella is signed to Motown. Management looks like it is Worlds End. I don't understand the affiliation to Beverly Martel. Can someone explain ? Thanks, Youandwhosearmy (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the link I pointed out. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NETZ

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

Product is no longer available. And organization's contact / web site is no longer available. Shulini (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both not a valid reason for deletion and I've found the current web site which I've added to the article. However, I've no idea if this software is notable. Edgepedia (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The web page mentioned is a page to a distributor and not the original software developer. The software is simply unavailable and therefore cannot be notable. Please let me know your views. Shulini (talk) 10:36, 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. NW (Talk) 20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Dembovskis

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 19:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is what WP:BLP1E is for. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Troff

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

The notability is unclear to me. Being in the top 100 in the US for his age is not notable to me (being in the top 10 in the World would be). Being Utah High School Chess Champion is not notable to me. Winning the Salt Lake Open could possibly be notable, not by itself, but if he is the youngest in the world to win such a tournament or something like that. Being "top for his age in quick chess" is too vague to be credible. SyG (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Troff has been in the top 100 for his age for an extremely long time, which is certainly a great accomplishment. He is extremely talented for his age, and has won several important tournaments, including the Salt Lake Open two years ago (at age 15 or 16) and the High School Championship this year. He has great potential, and is an extremely promising youth. I say keep. Grand Mattster 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is a current value, and can change over time. Troff may very well be a chess grandmaster one day -- but his future skill and reputation is not relevant to his present notability. I am inclined towards delete for now, and remake the article when Troff competes in major international tournaments. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being top 100 in an age group is a respectable personal achievement, but hardly worthy of a Wikipedia article. The notability just isn't there (yet). Sasata (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked for sources, but there seems to be little, if anything, outside of the Utah chess scene - i can't find any widespread coverage. I think there's a consensus on WikiProject Chess that being a state champion is not, in itself, enough to confer notability. He simply hasn't done enough yet. By all means re-create the article at a later date if he does fulfill that potential.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough at this point. Bubba73 (talk), 20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep this page so that people can keep tabs on this rising star. I concede that Jeremy may not be as notable as his brother Kayden, but he is still a talented young player that many would like to keep a watch on. I still say Keep. Grand Mattster 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you personally involved with Troff in any way? Bubba73 (talk), 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do know the Troffs. I have taken classes from Jeremy and Kayden both, and played in tournaments with and against them several times. But I assure you that even if I did not know Jeremy, I would support keeping this page. Grand Mattster 19:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is being involved with Troff reason to doubt my credibility? Grand Mattster 19:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a possible indication of involuntarily overstating the notability of the subject. After all, notability is a very subjective notion. SyG (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a possible conflict of interest. Bubba73 (talk), 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems logical, but not grounds for my discredit, or for the article being deleted. Grand Mattster 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a rule of thumb, Grandmasters (about 2500+) are notable, while International Masters (about 2400+) are a bit iffy; we may keep them if there is something substantial to write. USCF rating has not been over 1900 at any point, which means that he is still below expert level (2000+), and on par with that of a strong amateur. Troff's rating is certainly high for his age, and much higher than my rating, but age-restricted state championships are not among the most prestigious of tournaments in existence. Whether this is a future grandmaster or not is too early to tell, and WP:CRYSTAL suggests we should not be trying to make such predictions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot about the crystal ball principle. Delete (and userfy) without prejudice to remaking the article when Troff achieves IM or GM ranking. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakkalle. In absolute terms, his rating is still very low, and it's impossible to know whether he will eventually became a notable player. Most players on the "top 100 under 15 in the U.S." and such lists will not - they'll either lose interest and/or hit a plateau at a non-notable level. I was once on a top-50 list myself. Krakatoa (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that? Grand Mattster 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if you think about it has to be true. Many thousands of players have been on such lists over the years, and there are far fewer than 1,000 (are there even 100?) Grandmasters and International Masters in the United States. Indeed, even extremely strong players often do not attain the International Master title, let alone the Grandmaster title. Confining myself to Chicago players, Andrew Karklins played in the U.S. Closed Championship twice, getting an even score in one of them. Greg DeFotis got a +2 score in the 1972 U.S. Closed Championship, in a field that included 7 GMs and 1 future GM. Albert Chow and Leonid Kaushansky tied for first in the 1994 U.S. Open Chess Championship. Eugene Martinovsky, Richard Verber, and Craig Chellstorp were also extremely strong players (distinguished Senior Masters, i.e. with ratings above 2400) from Chicago. None of those players ever became an IM or GM - and that is very, very far from an exhaustive list of strong players who did not attain those titles. Krakatoa (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serena (pornographic actress)

Withdraw - Notability has now been established. TheoloJ (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged for notability concerns since December 2008 and doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. TheoloJ (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's in the XRCO Hall of Fame. Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Famous porn performer in her day, and as Epbr123 points out, meets WP:PORNBIO as an XRCO Hall of Famer. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. there seems to be a consensus that the article doesn't quite meet the GNG but i am going to userfy and the author is welcome to contact me for a sympathetic consideration of voiding the close as and if better sources come along. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phatchance

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

no real notability shown. Main independent source about subject is of questionable reliability, some others are not about him, only other independent reliable source that mentions Phatchance has trivial coverage. nothing else sugests satisfying wp:music Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are five external sources in what is, for all intents and purposes, a short article. On top of this one of these sources is the biggest street press in Australia, if nothing else the article should remain for his work as executive producer on a verified, nationally distributed release. Two of the other sources are internet transcriptions of popular Australian street press. I edited the original article you contested and provided a range of verified third parties for all statements, including interviews with media, video interviw and artist pages, all of which are popular and well visited. Your original contest has been fixed so I fail to comprehende why you have taken this to discussion? Chance_Waters was personal libel and the article was deleted five years ago, I see no relevance to the current situation. page clearly meets WP:Music as I edited your previous contest and made sure it did. I have been through your user page, you make a habit of contesting articles that generally shouldn't be contested, you're overly aggressive in your editing and you put unnecessary strain on the system by suggesting articles with relevance. Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC) — Stevezimmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:ADHOM and WP:FAITH... C: DreamHaze (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems to satisify wp:music well sourced.Blazinthrough (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC) — Blazinthrough (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I have reviewed the sources identified. No reliable source provides anything close to the threshold of significant coverage. Beyond that, I have made a good faith search for other sources, but was unable to identify anything that gives rise to the presumption of the subject's meeting BIO or GNG. ^Bongo_matic 01:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair criticism but I believe due to coverage in media artist does meet wp:music, I am willing to assist in editing the article further if it will satisfy your criticisms, I believed I'd already addressed user:Duffbeerforme issues with the original article, this is why I removed the prod notice. I'll save a copy of the article, if deletion is decided then when I find some time I'll edit and recreate, a quick google search does turn up quite a few third party references/mentions/publications. Remember that the artist is also in a (dead) band that should also be searched.Stevezimmy (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reference is in Hip-Hop Sphere. That website cites Nurcha Records as an "affiliate", Nurcha Records being the former label of Natural Causes, so that reference is clearly not independent.

Moreover, it seems possible that there is a connection between Stevezimmy and the author ("Steve Zee") of that article. A little clarity would be helpful. ^Bongo_matic 03:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of that article, I blog and review for a number of Australian hip-hop websites, it's my area of interest, I covered that event hence why I took the time to work on this WP Article. It is not one of the reviews or interviews I was talking about. Nurcha Records as a label ceased operation years ago, there was a publicity affiliation between that website (which I review for [non profit]) and that record label (whose artists I take an interest in) this is a small genre. Please check the 3d world, ozradio and music feeds reviews by different third parties. Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's relevant to the thrust of the discussion, but the article states "closure of operations in early 2009", which doesn't seem to be "years ago". ^Bongo_matic 03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know nothing was released on the label after 2007, it was a pretty small operation. Stevezimmy (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative~~ Delete. I'm in agreement with Bongomatic in that the sources that are provided don't provide a significant enough coverage of the artist, Chance Waters, to warrant an article on him. The blog entry and other "sources" are simply short pieces of "trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates" (to quote from WP:Music), and the few others which aren't forum posts or other trivial coverage don't seem significant enough to me. I can't see any reason why Phatchance actually is notable. DreamHaze (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a feature article and an interview with the artist from reputable Australian Street Press in my edits, I know you haven't looked at the article since we discussed the initial prod tag, otherwise you would see this. Stevezimmy (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have, as a matter of fact, reviewed the article as I typed my vote here. But to be thorough, I'll go through them one-by-one. The last source, number 12, appears to be a list of fan reviews of his song, and the source above it, number 11, is self-written by Phatchance. The only awards which make an artist notable enough for an article are major ones, and so number 10 on its own wouldn't make this artist notable enough, as listed at WP:Music. Although the sources about Nurcha Records are good resources for the article should it make it through this discussion, they don't give Phatchance significant cause to have his own article. This brings us to number 7, an article with only 5 very short paragraphs (that's 14 sentences) which even discuss Phatchance's band, Natural Causes. Number 6 wasn't likely to be a reliable source, being a forum, but is unavailable anyways due to the site being down. Number 5 is the band's MySpace, which can't really account for the group's notability as it's a band-published source. Remarkably, number 4 appears to be a legit interview and, although I cannot attest to how reliable OZRadioMAG is, is the only worthwhile source I've gone through so far that supports your cause. Number three is another blog, a band-published source. Number 2 is simply a listing advertising an upcoming concert, not proof of notability. And, lastly, number 1 isn't even an interview with Phatchance, but a band member. This last article would be better used to advocate an article for Mind Over Matter, but not a single band member. None of this seems notable enough to warrant an article. The first guideline to music articles' notability (if it is this guideline that this article is indeed clinging to) is that it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable", and I honestly don't see that in this situation at all. I don't mean this in a hard-feelings way, I just honestly don't see the article's notability. DreamHaze (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys are approaching this from an international perspective and without any scope on the nature of the genre we are dealing with. Ozhiphop.com is one of the largest music websites in Australia, it's the primary website for the genre we are dealing with, has more than 100,000 members and the annual awards are very serious in context. The 3d world mention is relevant to where it is referenced, as are the other articles cited, all of them are contextually placed simply to reference the information that has been put forward, in the case of the 'mention' you're talking about, it's a citation proving that Phatchance was the executive producer on that album. If you visit a page like Australian Hip Hop and have a look through the artists you'll see that in context this article is definitely relevant. Check through half of the artist stubs that currently exist for the genre and you'll see that this is one of the better referenced of those. Ozradio magazine is a physical publication, that is a transcription of that edition. Music Feeds is a direct interview with the artist, that is a also a physical publication, both of those magazines have thousands of copies distributed nationally, in the case of 3d world hundreds of thousands. In reference to unearthed If the hundreds of fan reviews don't illustrate notability in context I don't know what does? That website is one of the most important websites in independent music in Australia, do some background reading on it. For a stub, which is what this article is, it's extremely well referenced and there are much bigger fish to fry, much more easily. I understand why this article has been prod marked, but I feel that deletion is not the answer, a better move would have been to request further expansion or development. Cheers, Steve Stevezimmy (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For a stub this article is indeed very well referenced and I don't think it should deleted. This article, a stub, should be expended instead. It seems to me that it has benefited from additional reliable and verifiable sources since being nominated for deletion to satisfy WP:Music and it should not be overlooked. Bech86 (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This user's opinion was solicited in this manner. Perhaps not in direct contravention of WP:CANVAS, but close. ^Bongo_matic 07:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make my opinion less valid. And definitely not WP:CANVAS. Bech86 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. What makes the opinion lack validity is the fact that you have not (nor has the author) identified any citations that satisfy the notability criteria. ^Bongo_matic 09:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to WP:CANVAS, I actually do see a bit of a resemblence to the description of Votestacking, as you are actually one of two people that were notified by Stevezimmy who were selected from Duffebeerforme's talk page. They're the only two people that Steve decided to notify, and both of them are users that would have perfect reason to be upset with Duff. I'm not saying that your opinion, Bech86, is at all swayed by this--I have no reason to believe that you would let personal feelings bias your vote here--but I do believe that contacting only the two people who would have every reason to be upset with Duff to this AfD doesn't exactly look good on Stevezimmy's part. DreamHaze (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, apologies if you felt I was trying to 'rig' a vote, I contacted those two people because I saw on user:duffbeerforme 's page that he had been excessively prod notifying articles they had worked hard on, that in my opinion did not deserve the notification. Since bongomatic and yourself have conversed with duffbeerforme and found this page either through duffbeerforme or through tracking his user page I don't see any difference in what I did (reaching out to people who might have had an interest in weighing into the debate re deleting an article I obviously feel warrants inclusion on Wikipedia) to what has occurred with both of you automatically. I didn't request that they vote either way, infact, one of the parties I contacted is an administrator on Wikipedia! I simply feel that user:duffbeerforme is being overzealous in his approach to deleting articles and didn't know what the procedure was in terms of drawing people into the debate, I asked for a character reference and input, obviously bech86 shares my more liberal view on independent artists that should be included in Wikipedia so that users opinion is valid. I'm sorry if you feel I was trying to rig a vote, it was not my intention, apologies, I don't feel user:Bech86 would vote against their honest opinion either way.Stevezimmy (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found Phatchance through patrolling the Recent Changes by New Users, where I saw your edits to the Phatchance page and proceeded to your page to tell you how you can work with Duff and what the PROD tag meant. You'll see that on your user talk page. I actually had never even heard of Duff before this article, and only posted on his page because you neglected to tell him that you removed his PROD tag and wanted to be polite and let him know. I also don't presume to make assumptions about what your actual intentions are, nor am I making accusations--I just wanted to make you aware of how it looks. As I said before, I have no reason to believe that Bech86 would let his personal opinion sway his vote at all, no do I think that the other party would. C: DreamHaze (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has since been edited by a third party, hopefully this satisfies some of the criticisms you guys have?Stevezimmy (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss something? I don't see any additional references that provide evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, or any facts that give rise to another reason to presume notability per GNG or MUSICBIO. ^Bongo_matic 13:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I meant more that a third party with awards that specialises in Australian Music would take the time to edit and expand the article indicates more viability for the article itself? I understand your argument, I just disagree and believe it's a contextual issue. Stevezimmy (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so, I have taken on board the criticisms levelled towards this article and attempted to address them. I've just expanded the section on Natural Causes to include their radio success and a little bit on their release history. I have also furthered the referencing and provided third parties that demonstrate regular radio appearances for interviews and guest spots. This combined with Dan Arndt's contributions to the article mean it now has nearly four times the references it had when it was initially prod marked and is twice the length. Hopefully this is a compromise all of you are happy with. Stevezimmy (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms have been about wp:music and the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not about the article size and total references count. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I made a pretty big effort to add further independent coverage to satisfy your criticisms, or do radio interviews and proof of radio charting not count towards this? I sat down and had a big read through the wp:music article, it's very subjective and I think this squeezes in across four different categories, even if you think the independent coverage isn't 'notable' enough (this is a very subjective statement; I've already given my reasons and don't want to repeat myself) then the extra contributions and published works I've added coupled with the radio play and his bands success warrant inclusion? Really I felt the article was fine as a stub, as most in the genre are, but when you prod marked this article there were only a handful of sources that showed independent coverage (an issue I have remedied) I don't believe you'd have prod marked if you found the article in its current state. I've seen a lot of the articles you approve of and there is often less proof of notability than in this article, I appreciate your stand point but we'll have to agree to disagree and let an administrator make their decision :) Stevezimmy (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For disclosure, I was asked to comment. This has in no one influenced my opinion, though. The issue here is are there two reliable sources that discuss this person at length and are independent of the subject. An analysis of the sourcing follows (using ref numbering as of this revision
1. Y Appears likely to meet RS requirements and is about the subject
2. N Possibly RS, but isn't about the subject directly
3. N Not significant coverage
4. N Community contributed content -> not a reliable source
5. N Not sure what this is exactly but it is either not independent or not reliable & in any case isn't significant coverage
6. N Unlikely to be meet RS & not significant coverage
7. N Not significant coverage
8. N Not sure of the significance of the work itself, but being published in it doesn't establish notability
9. N Not independent of the subject
10. Not sure, can't evaluate as it is 404
11. N Not independent
12. N Not independent
13. N Not independent
14. Seems to be a legit review of a Cd by one of his bands
15. N Not significant coverage
16. N Not significant coverage
17. N Not significant coverage
18. N Award is not sufficient to establish notability
19. N Not independent
20. N Fan reviews don't establish notability
21. N Currently down, but appears to be a forum post which wouldn't meet RS

So basically we are looking at 1.5 sources, at best, right now. I do sympathize with Stevezimmy as he has obviously put a lot of work into this. Unfortunately, the subject doesn't appear to meet Wikipedias standards, so I'll have to say weak delete. I would require either several additional reliable sources reviewing CDs by bands he has been a part of, or one additional reliable source that talks about the subject in depth to change my mind. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThaddeusB, I see no reason to conclude that OZRadio.com is an RS. See its "About us" page. ^Bongo_matic 01:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website in general is certainly not a RS, but an interview published in their magazine seems reasonably likely to meet RS. In any case it is a rather moot point, as I doubt anything else will surface and it certainly isn't enough by itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict—was in the process of replacing my comment with: I see no reason to conclude that OZRadio Magazine is an RS. It appears to have had only one issue (see its main page). The associated website is certainly not an RS (see its "About us" page). ^Bongo_matic 02:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to do such a thorough review Thaddeus, I'm still new to this all, so it looks like it could be a case of wait and rebuild. Appreciate your help :) Stevezimmy (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 10 is an article on Nurcha Records with a 5 short paragraph section on Natural Cause (Phatchances old band), primarily quotes from Mr. Chance on Music Feeds website [28] and maybe in the mag. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is spot on, site isn't 404 for me but it's a transcription from Music Feeds which is a free Street Press distributed throughout NSW. The article was a feature article on Nurcha Records, the artists old record label, there's a five paragraph interview with Phatchance which was also in the physical publication. I believe it has between a ten and twenty thousand copy distribution, though this might have increased since the time the article was released. Ozradio mag had about a 20,000 copy distribution nationally in that first edition. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the radio interviews be counted as reliable sources? Just because there aren't audio transcriptions of the interviews themselves doesn't mean they didn't occur, they're big broadcasts and the shows themselves are saying they happened; if an artist appears on Oprah and there's no video recording of the appearance does that make it useless? What about unscanned newspaper articles etc.? I could use some clarification here :) Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most radio interviews like this seem to fall into "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" which is listed in wp:music as not counting towards criteria #1. Without a reliable source showing otherwise they don't help much. Newspapers are generally good, especially big ones like The Age and The Australian. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A closing argument for why I feel this article still warrants inclusion I understand the arguments put forward here, but I think regardless of the lack of large scale sources dealing with the subject, the sheer number of additional sources I managed to dig up that talk about the artist in one fashion or another show there's merit to inclusion. I went to this website [29] and had a dig through the page hit statistics for phatchance and this wikipage is getting hundreds of hits every month, regardless of this discussion there are obviously people turning to Wikipedia for information on the topic and that is the purpose of Wikipedia itself, to provide information to those people searching for it. Removing this particular topic doesn't give anything to Wikipedia, it doesn't clean up the site, free up a search term or remove wp:vanity or other forms of vandalism, it simply limits the information available on the website to people who want it, regardless of arguments in regards to wp:music or wp:bio I've worked hard on an article dealing with an artist that has worked on nationally distributed releases, gained national exposure on radio and through street press and who obviously tours the country regularly, as someone involved in the genre I know the article warrants conclusion and it seems silly to take it down rather than continue to build on it, but this is a group decision so I'm happy to accept the outcome either way. Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The sources and verifiable content seem to me to be enough to warrant inclusion, maybe. If it's deleted it can be userfied and worked on there. Additional reliable sources with substantial coverage would really help. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will strongly encourage userfication if this article is called for deletion. Stevezimmy has shown a hell of a lot of good faith and has worked hard to make this a good article. After his effort I will remember Phatchance and if I see any coverage in reliable sources I will work to improve the article. Based on what I've seen there is a damn good chance it will be coming. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. ^Bongo_matic 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ThaddeusB's assessment of the sources provided. Userfy the content; no prejudice against re-creation if and when better sources can be found.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Mill, Stamford

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

A watermill in a city that really has no importance. LAA Fan^sign _review 18:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Grade II Listed building. Keith D (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the original complaint. What is meant by 'a city that really has no importance'? Stamford is not a city, it is a market town, historically one of the five boroughs of the Danelaw. How is that 'of no importance'? The King's Mill is locally said to be named for Henry VIII, after the dissolution of the monasteries. The current building is 17th century and is listed in the national monument register There is no reasoned explanation of the proposal to delete, and the remark above reads like a vexatious provocation, not a sensible criticism of the suitability of the article being listed. I understood that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia.--Brunnian (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my original statement was misunderstood, the meaning of my nomination is that the mill itself has no real importance. An article is on Wikipedia if something interesting is in the article. Did something happen there? Does it hold some record? If so, you can put that in the article with the link; I would be willing to help you with putting a proper reference in if you find out. Hope this helps. --LAA Fan^sign

Well, I trust the additions to the article will help give you some understanding. The millstream probably dates to the time of the Danish conquest, of around 970, but may be earlier: it cuts trough the roman route of ermine street and there are stones there that suggest the millstream is older than the road. The very existence of "the meadows" as a public grazing right owes its existance to the millstream, that defines the outlines of the land. The Earliest known record of a mill is the domesday book, and as 'north mill' the site is the subject of a law suit in the court rolls of 1143. Which I am unable to cite at the moment. Corn was ground here for at least 900 years, until the coming of the railway changed the way agriculture was done. The current building is a grade II listed building and the home to a day centre for handicapped kids. Like all Wikipedia articles I was creating a stub that I hoped people with access to the records would be able to expand - I don't have a copy of domesday, for example, but the Lincolnshire Record society does. When domesday on line covers Lincolnshire I would be happy to make the citation. Perhaps the director of the Kings Mill Centre will write about his work? The hydrological challenge of a watermill in flat country is in itself evidence of sophisticated application of technology. I can't say that in an article without being accused of lack of citations.

The Via Melancholia is one of the most popular walks in Stamford, and traditionally formed part of the hare and hounds course for the boys school in the 18th and 19th centuries. I didn't put that in because I have no references to it. But the Via Melancholia is beautiful, tranquil, and deserves to be better known.

There is a category page Category:Watermills in England which is very light on Lincolnshire (and east midlands in general) entries even though there are several dozen known watermills in the area, some (like cogglesford) still working after a thousand years. Maybe all of them are 'of no importance' either?--Brunnian (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills is a new project (and a small one). How it obtained the name Kings Mill will require historical research. Most mills forming part of the crown estate were soldoff under James I. The question will be hose it was before the dissolution. There were 1000s of mills in England and we cannot have articles on them all (much as I would like it), but do not be too hasty over a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a listed building means it's notable, because as the article says, it's "officially designated as being of special architectural, historical or cultural significance". That, in itself, is reason to keep the article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but consider merging unless more sources can be found. Listed buildings are not inherently notable according to guidelines, and it is unclear whether there is consensus on their notability. Grade II listed buildings are not of no importance but often only of local interest, and multiple sources are needed. There is at least one (the listed buildings record), and the Lincolnshire Life may be another if there is sufficient coverage, so it is possibly notable enough, although maybe there should be a list article, or a section of the Stamford, Lincolnshire article, that this could be merged to. snigbrook (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stamford, Lincolnshire unless someone finds enough sources for the article to grow beyond its current stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (alternatively merge to Stamford, Lincolnshire). There is enough content to be worth having; certainly deletion should be be an option. Tag for sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Merging is that it makes a nonsense of the categorisation mechanism - you can't have a whole town categorised as a mill - and the project linkage. Not to mention how you make the kml mapping tool on the category page pick it up and name it.

I am hoping to include something about the day centre, but there is little publicly available material. Their minibus can be seen in the photograph on the National Monument record. --Brunnian (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as being a listed building, it is also a scheduled monument, thus meeting WP:N. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a Grade II Listed building and the article has references. I see no problem with this.--BSTemple (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness to Laafan, the references were not there during the 6 minutes between creation and being flagged for deletion.--Brunnian (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just by virtue of being listed means its the significant subject of secondary coverage. And nominated an article for deletion within 6 minutes of its creation is not cool.--Oakshade (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A listed building is wikipedia-notable. There will exist adequate reliable sources. doncram (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discworld stamps

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

This is essentially a set of Discworld collectibles produced by a single small company. I don't deny that the article is neutrally phrased, and just manages to escape being an advert, but the fact remains that these are very unnotable products, even within Discworld fandom. Delete for non-notability and sailing too close to being promotional. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply and rebuttal of the above Discworld stamps are in fact now a major division of stamps within the Cinderella stamp ___domain. There have been over 2 million produced and they are now housed within the British library Philatelic collection. They have become one of the few items of fan and commercial activity that has entered mainstream stamp collecting throughout the world. Furthermore their design and production is recognized as being amongst the best within the Cinderella cannon. Their commercial value is now considerable and these stamps achieve more in auction than many other Cinderella Stamps. What was once a parochial, fan based collectible is now a legitimate part of stamp collecting. Bernard Pearson Pipesmoke (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The poster above appears to be the producer of these stamps. The poster's only edits are to this deletion discussion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who better to provide information on the subject to correct your assertion of non-notability? He is answering your posting above, and is not the source of the original article. I fail to see the relevance of your comment? DarrenHill (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was purely for information, to ensure that whoever decides the result of this process is aware of the fact. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, just seemed a little bit of a random inclusion. All is clear. DarrenHill (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DarrenHill has recently joined Wikipedia and has only contributed to Wikipedia on this subject. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discworld stamps are collected worldwide and a search on ebay will see the interest in these individual works of art. They are mentioned in philatelic publications and are taken seriously by Cinderella philatelists, unsigned contribution by User:Demdyke.

This is User:Demdyke's first contribution to Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw people's attention to this forum thread asking people to come and argue against the deletion of this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent, third-party sources to establish notability. Peacock (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added references to the launch of the stamps and the article in gibbons stamp special. User:Annebn

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lichaj

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ATH - not played a game (yet) in a professional league Steve-Ho (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE (hasn't yet "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:GNG (hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). What coverage there isn't enough, as it fails WP:NTEMP, which states that "routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." Giant Snowman 13:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated this article for deletion a while ago but no consensus was reached. My opinion hasn't changed; most of the mentions are brief and trivial therefore failing WP:GNG, he fails WP:ATHLETE as the Peace Cup is not a professional competition and even though it's not a reason for deletion this article contains some WP:CRYSTAL. Spiderone 15:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regular squad profile type coverage only, nothing of significance, currently fails WP:ATHLETE, recreate if and when--ClubOranje^T 09:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATH as he has not played in a fully-professional league. --Jimbo^[online] 11:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The principal issue is whether this is an overbroad list (WP:SALAT) or not, with some additional OR/sourcing concerns (though these do not seem insurmountable if one considers the works of fiction themselves adequate primary sources for the purposes of this list). A rough headcount shows that about 10 people consider it overbroad, while about 6½ (counting a week keep as half an opinion) do not. Since SALAT is essentially a stylistic issue, and de gustibus non est disputandum, I can't resort to policy to determine whose arguments should be given more weight. That means we don't have consensus for deletion, though if the article is not improved a second AfD might well achieve that result. Sandstein 05:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides in fiction

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

Unnotable list primarily consisting of WP:OR and random personal interpretations; fails WP:N and WP:NOT as it is a wholly indiscriminate list. Failed prod; prod removed by User:Cyfal with explanation of: "This article was proposed for deletion. I object the deletion for following reasons: First, I don't think it is OR because for fictional works, one can always read the book, watch the movie or whatever, thus the entries in the article are sourced. Then, this article was split from the article list of suicides, which was already nominated for for deletion, but the result was keep. However, a nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion nevertheless might be appropriate to discuss this more?" However, I disagree that except in a few specific instances, you cannot simply review the fictional work to determine what is or is not "suicide" unless it is explicitly stated - while list does not actually limit itself to true suicide, but also includes "attempted suicides", apparently "assisted" and "self-sacrifice" and other very broad interpretations of "suicide"; an article on the fictional treatment of the topic would be notable and appropriate, but a indiscriminate and unlikely to ever be completed random list of names and works is not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still vote for keep. Concerning the WP:OR: I've checked the (few) cases where I did know the fictional works myself, these cases were undebatably suicide except one (Thelma & Louise). Although I must admit that in case of these tons of mangas and animes which I don't know the distinction might be more difficult. Nevertheless, I don't think this is a reason for deleting the whole article. Concerning WP:N and WP:NOT: I think only entries where the fictional work has a wikipedia article should be allowed, I think this then is enough notability. If one disagrees, one could also introduce as rule of thumb that the person who committed suicide itself must have it's own article, otherwise it shoud be deleted from this list. --Cyfal (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That speaks to the notability of the individual entries works, but not to the notability of the topic or why such a list is useful and valuable. And, being familiar with those manga and anime series, I can tell you almost all are not suicide by any real definition. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the notability of the list itself, Pharmboy on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides describes also my opinion, therefore I just cite him: "[T]he list isn't indescriminate, it is informational, it is limited in scope to notable persons, and makes for a reasonable starting place to research suicide. It offers more than a category does, with brief info on who they are, is wikified nicely (demonstrating they are notable). And it is well organized, allows for possible suicides, well thought out, and the wikified nature makes it self sourcing. Its a dark subject matter and has a certain amount of ICKY factor to it, but that doesn't matter." --Cyfal (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is for people with real-world notability, and appears to have nothing to do with this list, which is not limited in scope, not well organized, not well thought out, or anything else. Its basically a cast off to fix up the original, that was split rather than just excised. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm more or less responsible for splitting this material from List of suicides way back when. I thought it was an indiscriminate collection of information then, and it doesn't appear to have improved much since. However, if there are editors willing to work to improve the list, they should be given a chance. I have no objection to deleting this if the improvement doesn't happen, however. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -This article can never meet a standard to be considered encyclopedic. It's subject can be discussed in other articles such as Tragedy. The list goes from Shakespear to Television and is far to wide a scope for an article. Horribly long list article. No encyclopedic value.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under a combination of WP:IINFO, ~~WP:DIR~~ WP:NOTDIR, and WP:V as well as failing WP:SALAT with an overly broad scope with little to no encyclopedic value. —Farix (t | c) 00:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so much OR, so much indiscriminate information, so little parameters. Shakespeare to Anime is far too wide a net to mean anything. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list of no encyclopedic value. Doceirias (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic doesn't seem inherently non-notable. This list has no where near enough references, but this seems like an appropriate topic for a list article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While this is a list of random names it does have potental if book/manga cites can be used and it is intresting. Im currently split on the issue. - Knowledgekid87 7:21, 18 September 2009 (AT)

This is not an RfA, either you think the article should be deleted, or you think it should be kept, and if it is kept then you think it should be kept as it is or merged with another more relevant article and this redirected to it. If you have no opinion either way then why vote? Why not just change the title to comment, because that is all you are adding, a comment. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is just so awful that having it around tarnishes the good name of Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contra the previous commenter's hyperbolic rhetoric, this is not awful. Nor is it inherently an unencuyclopedic subject: how suicide is treated in fiction, including how it is depicted in different times and cultures, is a subject of academic study. As such, it's a suitable topic for a list of fictional suicides. Is this a good list? Gods no -- needs sourcing and cleanup (I am dubious myself about including anything but successful suicides) and balancing to avoid bias, but all of those are editorial decisions outside the scope of AfD. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Honestly, he biggest issue with this article is that's it's so broad and impossible to maintain. Maybe if it were several articles like "List of suicides in film/novels/comics/anime/etc" it would be more passable. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an RfA, either you think the article should be deleted, or you think it should be kept, and if it is kept then you think it should be kept as it is or merged with another more relevant article and this redirected to it. If you have no opinion either way then why vote? Why not just change the title to comment, because that is all you are adding, a comment. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then consider it a comment ffs. Either way, acknowledge that this pointless little chime-in is infinitely less constructive than anything I said. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet another indiscriminate list. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list itself is beyond indiscriminate (is it really necessary to note suicides in a show like South Park, where there's virtually no continuity between episodes? and I lost count of how many entries were actually "I'm gonna sacrifice myself so you can all get outta here alive!"). The topic certainly may be notable for discussion in an encyclopedic setting, but I question whether keeping it in its current form will really encourage the cleanup and refocus necessary for that. In this case, then, I think what's needed is a clean slate - delete the current list, and recreate an article without the list under a more appropriate title, focusing on the topic. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. This element of storylines, a meme of sorts, is widely used and discussed. It's worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that doesn't address the problems with WP:IINFO and the fact that it is a list of loosely associated trivia and violates WP:NOTDIR Point 1. —Farix (t | c) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defer to see if it can be made acceptable then either Keep or Merge with List of suicides. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely oppose merging this back to List of suicides. It was split off for good reasons, and the consensus on that article is likely to favor keeping it gone. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, strike ~~Merge~~ and replace with Delete. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and no use merging back into a larger list. Certainly this isnt OR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is yet another indiscriminate list, with a thin criteria that fails WP:SALAT. I don't think there's any way to get a strict criteria of inclusion that wouldn't make this list both discriminate and encyclopedic. Subdivisions might be acceptable, such as a list of suicides in Shakespearian literature. Them From Space 17:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of suicides in notable fiction might be a better choice. If the fiction was notable, then this aspect is important to note. Its a valid content fork, since it is a long enough list to warrant its own article. If it was short, then it'd be fine back with the original, the way fictional orphans are stuck with real life famous ones at List_of_orphans_and_foundlings#Literary.2Ffictional Dream Focus 01:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youthie

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

Article on a congregation's youth ministry. Appears to be non-notable, as I could find no reliable and independent sources on it.[30] Prod was tried and contested back in 2007 when the article was just being created. (The first source in the article does not discuss this youth ministry at all.) GRBerry 15:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources anywhere.--Patton123 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source, no notability. --Whoosit (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for sources and found none. Also, the "cutting edge" website URL is defunct. --Milowent (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources are indeed all from the same press release, which has me give more weight to the delete side, which has backed their position up more solidly. NW (Talk) 20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IParkIt!

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

No references to verify popularity claims, or establish notability. Google search does not show any coverage in reliable sources, nor verify claims Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete –As spam claims in article cannot be verified or support. In fact the one notability claim “..#1 on UK Apple store is false in that the Apple Stores do not even show carrying this item, as shown here [31]. Struck comments based on Dori findings Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I did a little bit of research, and somehow, unlike Omarcheeseboro or ShoesssS, I was able to find coverage of the game in WP:RS, and find it in the iTunes store (tip: Apple.com ≠ iTunes.app). OTOH, that led to me tossing almost everything that was in the article, as none of that was verifiable—so, all we're left with is that the app exists, but is not (yet) terribly notable. My keep is because I think it meets WP:GNG, but I'm not even sure about that. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a popular iPhone app is not notability.
Delete - All four citations are actually the same single source - the Nickelodeon press release made at the end of August. This does not count towards the significant, independent coverage suggested by the notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cristoferus Malinia

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

Hoax. The genus Cristoferus is not included in Kew garden's GrassBase [[32]]. A google search only gives the wikipedia entry. The image shows a chive plant (onion family). The snail 'doopahe' does not exist. JoJan (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. I agree completely, the article is riddled with deliberately bogus "information" and cannot be construed as any kind of good faith effort to make a real article. Invertzoo (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have made numerous searches, and can confirm that there is no evidence that either the supposed plant nor the supposed snail exists. The Flora Europaea does not list the plant, which it certainly would if it were common in Europe. The picture looks to me like a chive, as stated by JoJan, and in any case it is certainly not a member of the family Poaceae. A hoax, without a doubt. In fact would it qualify for a speedy delete? Just what constitutes a "blatant" hoax? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I have now looked at the image file at full size, rather than as displayed in the article, and there is no doubt whatsoever: it is a chive. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A check of the contribution history for the editor who created this article reveals a history of frequently adding information which has no sources cited and for which I can find no evidence. Frequently the information is such that I would expect confirmation to be easy to find if it were true, and sometimes the information is clearly false. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~In my opinion, this hoax isn't covered by CSD policy as this hoax is not blatant. It could have fooled anyone who is not versed in botany. JoJan (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable citations for the claims. This is starting to look like a standard modus operandi for this editor. Side note (full disclosure): I was involved in the deletion (FfD process) of an unsourced file this editor added to Wikipedia and made unsubstntiated claims about in some of his early edits; q.v. N2e (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - please attend to File:Cristoferus.jpg, I declined speedy so that it would be available for the remainder of the discussion here. Skier Dude (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the image file, Delete because the author has written "DUPA" on the image in small handwritten letters near the shell aperture. Other than that it's not a bad image at all except that I think someone may have physically placed the snail onto the chive flower. It's the snail Cepaea nemoralis on a chive flower. Invertzoo (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I also say we should watch out for edits from User:83.4.190.87 as it appears that this may well be a sock puppet of the same user, User:Czlowiek widmo, who has so far shown a pattern of problematic edits of various kinds. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave User:83.4.190.87 a level 3 warning for adding a probable hoax to List of Polish people. JoJan (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax, esp. per JamesBWatson's comments. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who Dares Pour Fresh Air in The Moon Lung

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

Does not meet notability guidelines noq (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note an almost identical copy of this article exists under the title Man Yaskubil Hawaa Fi Ri'atil Qamar. Noq (talk · contribs) nominated both for deletion separately with the same rationale. I have now redirected the other debate here to avoid unnecessary duplication. The redirect in this direction is solely because I spotted this debate first, it is not an expression of a preference for one title over the other. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like we have nothing on the Gnews/books/scholar searches, no sources provided. As of now, appears to be straightforward fail of WP:N. Ray^Talk 01:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually zero hits on google outside of Wikipedia. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of prehistoric foraminiferans

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

Esentially is a list of redlinks with a few links to disambiguation pages scattered about. Completely unsourced, does not meet WP:SAL (no lead in paragraph or any other descriptors), and is an WP:O without one page linking to it. J04n(talk page) 12:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While no expert on the subject, I was able to supply a lead sentence. Each of the red links there is a link to a potential encyclopedia subject, even if the subject is obscure and few have been written. In its current state, the article may be adopted by an invertebrate paleontology project, if we have one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of the reasons given are sufficient for deletion. The source of the names was an online version of a marine fossil genus list published by Jack Sepkoski for the purpose of tracking mass extinctions in the fossil record. You would know this if you had bothered to ask me what my source was before trying to delete the whole article. Abyssal (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the confusingly-named Ihcoyc/Smerdis of Tlön.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad reza taheri

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

Autobio with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My findings were consistent with the nom's. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. for reasons demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This is essentially the CV of a newly-minted PhD who has not yet had the time to make notable achievements, has no cites yet, etc. Another article way ahead of its time. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Essentially a duplicate of Ahmad Reza Taheri. If deleted, both should go, if kept they should be merged.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the article Ahmad Reza Taheri. Per nom, Agricola44, and Fabrictramp.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:ADVERT, CSD A7. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EpZilla

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

Contested PROD, non-notable software "still under its research phase...by a group of four students from University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka as their final year research project." Pontificalibus (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep votes are mostly all out of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; please do review that and base your comments on policy for future discussions. NW (Talk) 20:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Adblock

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

Contested prod. Software which is only in beta realease yet, and which has not received significant attention in reliable independent sources. Fails our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Why would a product not be submitted to wikipedia, because it is in beta ?

Today many software products are distributed actively, while they are still in beta. The fact that the product is in beta, means that it is in a development stage, where users can give their input and form a given product. Who knows, today a product might remain in the beta development stage, like gmail was for many years.

About reliable independent sources, then it is stated on the webpage that the product has been tested with the distribution sites softpedia.com and hotlib.com. Off cause being a freeware program Simple Adblock has not yet been in the newspapers, but a quick google search shows that many people in the blogging sphere is writing about the program.

So, just to summarize, I don't find that the Simple Adblock page should be deleted. The information on the page is up-to-date. Off cause in time the article will probably grow and gather more depth. --Jeanclau (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable article that is interesting to read marygillwiki (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an "interesting" article is not grounds for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I originally added the article after trying out Simple Adblock. I got it recommended through a forum and it is the best adblocker I tried so far and I am sure it has thousands of users. So I was surprised not to find it in Wikipedia and thought I would share its goodness in an informative way. The SW is very mature and just because the makers don't advertise much about it (they are probably coders) I don't see why it can not be in Wikipedia. At least I tried to keep the article simple and serious. The modifications done later also appears useful - at least I learned something I didn't know before.
Comment I personally won't be using this product, because I will not use Internet Explorer. However, I would like to point out to supporters of this article that it is not the quality of the product that is in question. It is the notability. This needs to be established as per Wikipedia guidelines. Reliable third party sources are needed to establish this. Blogs, I'm afraid, count for nothing. Nor does personal experience, for obvious reasons. Please sign posts with four ~ things, like this Peridon (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from reliable sources that this product is notable. Existence is not notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, I have updated the article with two links to awards from downloads sites, who have evaluated the product --Jeanclau (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC) — Jeanclau (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I don't see how these satisfy WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't !vote twice, you already gave your "keep" above, repeating it gives a skewed impression to a casual reader of this debate. And these are not awards, these are ratings, and pretty worthless ones at that. HotLib seems to give nothing but 5-star ratings[33] if they rate at all. Download 3000 also seems to be very easy in giving away 5 stars (in my random check, everything gets five stars...) Fram (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may very well be the best ad blocker available today. But there is no coverage about it in reliable soruces that I can find and as such, it fails to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, With all due respect for keeping a high level of quality in Wikipedia and the impressive energy put into preserving it by users in this discussion I feel there is a bit of or the egg dilemma here. Someone has to be the first serious source for a new object or idea, and I think there is good reason to believe this is trustworthy and serious project based on the many user comments on the net. After all the non-centralized anarchic user control and contribution are what makes Wikipedia trustworthy. My vote goes to keep this article (or I would not have put it there in the first place) but I respect your guidelines and I am prepared to add it again, when it becomes "known enough" for Wikipedia. zippiezop (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand your sentiment, you are wrong: Wikipedia may never be the first serious source: we are a compilation of information from other, older serious sources (see WP:V and WP:RS for more info on this). I do agree with your final statement though: deletion of this article now does not mean that Simple Adblock will never have an article here, just that it still fails our guidelines for the moment. Fram (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It's very clearly non-notable. Cannot find any third-party coverage, and by the article's own admission, it's "new". Haakon (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting, I think, that all the keep votes so far are from fresh users. Haakon (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't meet notability standards, and unlike the mother product, it appears to be borderline advertising.--WngLdr34 (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not appear to be notable at this point. No significant coverage by reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The topic is notable, but the content is not (yet) suited for publication in our encyclopedia. DionneJames, I suggest that you develop it in your userspace, at User:DionneJames/Minorities in higher education first, and I am moving it there for you. Sandstein 05:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities in Higher Education

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

Written like a school essay or research paper. Possibly some copyright violations. Totally unencyclopedic. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Minorities in higher education in United States or Minorities in American higher education. I agree that this article needs major work and possible deletions on the copyvio front, but the subject itself is encyclopedic and is written about in tons of studies, articles, etc. Joshdboz (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD has not been transcluded on the main AfD page, only linked. As such I've relisted it to elicit a response. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a term paper. And not a very well sourced one, at that. While the subject may merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, the content does not: it's largely WP:OR. Easier just to bin it & start afresh. --Whoosit (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy. There seems to be no coverage of this notable topic, but this is a dreadful start. Better to take the stats and start again. Rd232 ^talk
I am working to improve this article...any feed back would be helpful. Please do not delete I am improving now. I will fix sourcing issues.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DionneJames (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivaylo Marinov

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

~~Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Soccerway hasn't recorded any appearances.~~ Spiderone 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - following new research which shows notability. Giant Snowman 12:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has played twice in the Bulgarian A PFG (I've added a Guardian's Stats Centre reference to the article) so the article passes WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent work by Jogurney. Maybe nominators should check such sources first? 8lgm (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually there isn't a problem with just using Soccerway and Transfermarkt Spiderone 14:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience, transfermarkt is not always reliable. For Bulgaria, the best options seem to be Guardian's Stats Centre or the PFL's website (which is really difficult to use if you don't know Bulgarian). Jogurney (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combat-Helo

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

Not even a computer game: just a project to develop one. No evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not explain how this game might be notable, and the material does not attribute reliable secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that reliable secondary sources have not covered this. The lack of a video game publisher or development company mentioned makes me think this is just a self-published game. Also, the page's creator, User:Gary L. Wright, looks to be the same person who's personal website hosts the Combat-Helo tribute site. Sorry to say, but the article does not meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing a day early per WP:IAR. The subject now passes WP:ATHLETE (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Borini

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

Recreation of WP:PRODded content. The subject is a 18-year old reserve/youth team player for Chelsea, with no fully professional appearances at all. The subject therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no more notable than the last time Spiderone 09:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now passes WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 17:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 - recreation of previously deleted article. Giant Snowman 09:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CSD G4 doesn't count for PRODs. Only items deleted through AfD. --Jimbo^[online] 09:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fair enough. In that case delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - has now made his professional debut, so passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 09:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:ATHLETE. Jarkeld (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passed WP:ATHLETE. Jarkeld (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has just played in the match against Tottenham, some other time we'll have to create it again, why delete it?--Andrea 93 (msg) 17:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as of today he passes WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 17:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep it, there is no need for deletion. Sonyds13 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hes played a first team game,hes valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.53.175 (talk • contribs)

Keep per WP:ATHLETE — Luxic (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PLAYED AGAINST SPURS FROM 87TH MINUTE, NOW MEETS [[WP]:ATHLETE]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.186.205 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Treatise on White Magic

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

This article is an unnecessary content fork of Alice A. Bailey about a book written by her. This book does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BK. If this page were considered necessary and encyclopaedic then we would leave the door open to creating separate pages for all the other writings and concepts she published during her lifetime ~~that she claimed were telepathically dictated to her by a Master of Wisdom~~. Ash (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This would appear to be one of Alice A. Bailey's more important and better known books. A rudimentary Google Books search reveals multiple instances of substantial discussion and critical commentary by multiple, independent authors.[34][35][36]. Some of these writers are scholars researching the history of "channeling" and similar subjects. Unfortunately, not enough excerpts of some of them are online to enable this article to be expanded immediately, but it fairly clearly meets the books notability guideline. The slippery slope argument and remarks about the texts being "telepathically dictated" would appear to indicate a scientistic or positivist bias. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(bias) I have struck the telepathy mention from the nomination as you think it introduces bias. I would point out that this was a factual comment based on Bailey's own explanation of her work in her own words as repeated in her publications and as documented on the Alice A. Bailey page, this was not intended as deliberate bias. I have removed it to avoid any confusion on the matter.—Ash (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an important work having to do with the occult comparable to Aleister Crowley's 1912 book Magick, which also mentions the Great White Brotherhood, and to the 1971 work of Isaac Bonewits. Keraunos (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of characters in The Elenium and The Tamuli. The content is still available under the redirect for anyone who wishes to merge it. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Orders (David Eddings)

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

Contains only WP:OR plot summary, no coverage by third party sources, fails WP:N. Too large to merge to the articles about the literary works. A merger into a new article about the fictional world, as suggested by the editor contesting the PROD, is also a bad idea as long as that target article would also consist only of unsourced, unnotable plot summary - we'd need some substantial third party coverage about the entire subject matter first. Sandstein 05:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalise. As well as this article, we've also got The Elenium, The Tamuli, Races in the Elenium, List of countries in The Elenium and The Tamuli, Sparhawk, List of characters in The Elenium and The Tamuli, and Bhelliom, all for the same series featuring the same characters. That's a great deal too many articles, and what we actually need is two: one combined article on Elenium and Tamuli and one list of characters.
I agree that the article we're considering should probably go, but I feel what's actually needed is a talk-page discussion in which the future of all these articles is taken as a whole (ideally without the time-pressure of an AfD), rather than a precipitous decision on one individual article, so if it's decided to delete this article at this discussion, I would prefer that the said material is held in userspace for the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I agree that we need much fewer articles about all this, but as long as the actual content of all of them is unsourced plot summary, it needs to go. I don't object to userfication to the userspace of somebody who wants to undertake the work S Marshall proposes. Sandstein 09:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant my userspace; drop it in User:S Marshall/Sandbox which doesn't contain anything I need at the moment. :-) I'll do the work, if that's the consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge too large to merge? merge some of it. Probably not an appropriate article. When I deprodded it , I suggested a merge, and some possibilities to rationalize the articles, and I do not know why it was brought there when there was a preferred solution available. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without scholarly analysis, this is all WP:PLOT which Wikipedia is not. Abductive (reasoning) 22:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be sourced (as opposed to what (nothing) is presently sourced) then 'Redirect to List of characters in The Elenium and The Tamuli. Plainly the pager cannot remain as unsourced OR. However, WP:BEFORE requires us to look at alternatives to deletion. Since we have an obvious merge target, and the existence of these orders within the books is readily verifiable, then I see no policy basis for a deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator after article re-write, Non Admin Closure. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Strome

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

Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strome is a college tennis coach. What sources I could find were mostly on conference sites. He seems to have been moderately successful at Miami and Army, but I couldn't find any evidence of national success. Cmprince (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Head tennis coach of 4 NCAA tennis teams including LSU, Miami (Ohio), Duke and the US Military academy per [37]. More proof of notability comes from this article which details Strome's career at Miami University. Perhaps a statement from this article could also help establish notability criteria, "He has now received the laurel four times during his career, which ties former Army head coach Steve Strome for the most accolades received by a men's tennis coach in league history. He has guided the Mids to five Patriot League crowns, which also ties the league standard held by Strome." Apparently Strome, assuming we are discussing the smae one which I find highly likely is some kind of record holder amongst tennis coaches. More articles with information are [38], [39], [40], [41]. Or for reading material that mentions Strome try [42], [43], [44]. Last but not least I do not believe that WP:ATHLETE can be used in this situation as Mr. Strome was not an athlete but rather a coach. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources only seem to mention Strome in passing. The league referred to in the "laurel/accolades" quote is the Patriot League. The Patriot League article does not mention tennis, so I presume that it isn't particularly well-known in the sport. While he may have been successful at some schools, it's unclear that he's made a wider name for himself in the tennis community. You are right about WP:ATHLETE, but I think it's still a good guideline, replacing "competed" with "coached." Cmprince (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate your opinion, I have a few hours so I plan on doing a rewrite and we shall se from there. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, minor coach, not really an encyclopaedic entry New seeker (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Administrator - I have preformed a complete re-write of this article, with multiple references, biographical data and an infobox. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in light of the rewrite by Marcusmax, I hereby withdraw the nomination. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Transformers (animated series) characters. NW (Talk) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tailgate (Transformers)

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

Non-notable Transformers character. I looked for sources and didn't find any reliable ones. Trivial listcruft/fancruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tailgate should have exchanged his walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage. Then he might have been notable. Gigs (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good start, and Tailgate is a notable character. Mathewignash (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is he notable? Sources need to back up your claim of "notable", otherwise the article isn't notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, no significant reliable sources available. Skinny87 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Transformers (animated series) characters. Not a significant character in terms of being important to advancing the plot of the series in which he appears. --Polaron | Talk 23:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not any merge potential in this article much less notability. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Transformers (animated series) characters, not a notable enough character to have their own article, but still worth a mention for the sake of completeness. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no significant coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollydale

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

It's not clear to me what this article is supposed about. In its original form, it was about a neighborhood in Philadelphia, but I can't find any information about that. Now, it's supposed to be about a neighborhood in Chicago, but I can't find any information about that, beyond the comments on the article's talk page (which don't make sense to anyone who knows Chicago geography - the Howard L stop is in a completely different part of the city from Woodlawn.) To muddy things further, the poem mentioned in the article might actually refer to a place in Ohio [45], but I can't find much information about that, either. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Zagalejo^^^ 06:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only source used in this article is a poem, and I can't find any other evidence that this neighborhood exists in Chicago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only evidence I can find showing this is a place of some sort is a general g-search showing this is a section of the city of South Gate, California.--Oakshade (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched the USGS Geographic Names Information System and there are various hits (including the California ___location), but nothing for Chicago or Philly. Nothing notable. There is a small Hollydale Park (appears to literally be a neighborhood park) located in the Chicago metro area, in Homewood, Illinois. --Milowent (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:V. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Mechanical Man. (non-admin closure) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mechanical Man (film)

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

Reason Evil-yuusha (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Mechanical Man. Both articles were created by User:Nugov on two consecutive days, likely by mistake. I will be bold and perform the redirect (or merge, if required) and I will close this debate per WP:SK as the nominator's wish was for the page to be moved and not deleted. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense which is the wrong speedy criteria and the tag on it was csd-g4. The article was not nonsense. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct criterion is recreation of material deleted through a previous AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Goon

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

Either a non-notable drinking game or a hoax. No references at all. Google turns up a few hits on WP mirror sites and such. Its alternate name, Goon of Fortune, has already been deleted three times, one as a result of this AfD discussion. Contested speedy, notice removed by anon IP (suspected to be the original author). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Speedy deleted. An admin deleted this article on September 19. This discussion may nw be closed. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. See - AfD/Goon of Fortune and AfD/Goon Of Fortune. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Already deleted twice in AFD. First is was no concensus, delete, and then delete. Joe Chill (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student Life at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar

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

Unremarkable, non-encyclopedic, unreferenced article. Should be redirected to Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar; however, editor continues to remove redirect. ttonyb (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. No reason for separation from the main article. JUJUTACULAR 04:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect non-notable content, per WP:NOT. Chzz ► 04:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even redirect material, not a notable topic, and not a search term for an encyclopaedia. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability or general interest whatsoever. Seems a type of poorly written WP:SPAM. --Whoosit (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopedic topic. Salih (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just redirected Academics at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar to the main article, also by the same editor. These are content forks for an IIT that hasn't even been around for that long. It's possible to create articles like this for the older six IITs, but definitely not for these new ones. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why should it be deleted? New IITs are doing pretty well and they have the right to put up articles on student life.It would be updated with more data in a few days! No good deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradosh1990 (talk • contribs) — Pradosh1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Wikipedia is a not a webhost and this subject, which lacks any independent sources, is not suitable for the encyclopedia. The information contained on this page is better suited for a university hosted webpage. Abecedare (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The principal problem with this article is that nobody has cited, either in the article or in this AfD, a reliable published source (in any language) that even proves that such a game exists. [46] is a self-published source, hence unreliable, and at any rate only gives the name of the game. [47] is a dead link, but appears to be a blog and hence also unreliable. This means that the article fails not only WP:N, but also WP:V, a much more important core policy. I am therefore forced to agree with the plurality of "delete"/"redirect" comments. The article may be redirected by any editor to an appropriate target, and I will userfy the content on request for improvement. It may be resubmitted if adequate coverage in reliable sources is found. Sandstein 05:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mushgi

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

Should have been deleted via speedy twice. No context, made up, hoax article. 2005 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't say with any certainty that it is a hoax. I couldn't find anything to verify its existence however. I see 2005's removal of the reference to this game at Culture of Mongolia has been undone, which should be removed again unless some sort of evidence can be found of this game. JUJUTACULAR 04:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up I took a look at the source, and this does not seem like enough to substantiate a separate article. I'm okay with the mention of it in Culture of Mongolia. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 01:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I removed it again. A single youtube video about some drunks in Kentucky has nothing do with Mongolia, or anything else for that matter. The hoax aspect is irrelevant since there is no evidence this exists. 2005 (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite what you might think, there are things on this planet that even Google has yet to learn about. To be fair, I'm actually quite surprised about the lack of online material here. I have played this game myself with some Mongolian friends, so I'm pretty sure that it isn't a hoax. What I've found as reference so far is one mention in Mongolian (and an English explanation on the same site). That should at least make it clear that the game exists, and we can now search for more detailed information to build the article. Both speedies were correctly rejected, because the article doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. And for future reference, If you ever again stumble over a Mongolia related topic that you're uncertain about, then this is the place to ask. --Latebird (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One reference on one site copied directly from here does not mean something exists! The only mention online not copied from from here is a youtube video of drunks having nothing to do with cards. Regardless of that and the fact the "article" is a few no context words though, there are absolutely zero online references for the game so it clearly must be deleted since it is completely unverifiable and unnotable. 2005 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - The assumption that a source mentioning the game in Mongolian would need to copy it's explanation from the English language Wikipedia is absurd. In fact, the wayback machine shows that this explanation has been there at least since Nov 2007, which makes it obvious that it is really the source for the article here. In case you're wondering: The Mongolian text talks about a person whipping out a deck of cards (хөзөр) and saying: "Let's play Mushgi". Besides that, the article is a valid stub giving all the context required. Taking all that in account, you have provided no valid reason for deletion. --Latebird (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are no sources. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:V. There is no notability. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:N. The one nonsensical sentence has zero context (what kind of cards are used, what is the object of the game, are tricks taken or melds made or hands compared... etc). The "article" fails every criteria we have for articles. 2005 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There now appears to be one source, the other issue you have are not reasons to delete, but requests to expand. Any more references are likely o be in Mongolian, Chinese or Russian, and so will not be easy to spot by English speakers. So I will request Keep Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please refer to WP:V and WP:RS. Sources need to be reliable, and one, single mention of this online on a novelist's site about his novel obviously does not qualify as a reliable source. Also, you are very strangely mistaken in your notion that the other things are reasons to "expand". The one single non-reliable source is an exact copy of the short sentence in the article. There is no "expand" possible when the entire universe of knowledge about this game is already in the article! LOL. It can't even be categorized as a card game. How are the cards dealt in this game? Where was the game invented? How fo you win? What is the object of the game? Are "cards" made of glass or oldsmobiles? Does whever shoots the other playesr first win? This is wikinonsense. There is zero evidence there is a card game of this name on Earth, while their is definitive evidence there is not a notable card game of this name. 2005 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell that the given source is unreliable? Because you can't read Mongolian yourself? That only invalidates your judgement, but not the source. In fact, the author Radigan Neuhalfen is not a "novelist" but an anthropologist who has studied under Jack Weatherford, one of the most prominent authors in Mongolian studies. Researchers like that don't just invent information about native games.

It is also incorrect (and bordering on bad faith) to claim that the one link we currently have is "the entire universe of knowledge" about a topic. If you could show that the topic was impossible to verify, then your argument would be valid. But topics with a reasonable chance of verification are generally not deleted from Wikipedia. The other nonsense that you just made up also gives a strong indication that your real motivation is more based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT than rational consideration. --Latebird (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it please. Just because you WP:ILIKEIT is no argument for keeping this. Articles must be verifiable about notable subjects. I've already pointed out, and you keep ignoring, that there is nothing online about this topic, other than one no context sentence and one completely different youtube video. It is not verifiable (the burden of which is on you to show), so stop pretending you can't click the link to see that. And to claim it is notable is ridiculous since you can't even answer how this alleged game is supposed to be played, how do you deal it, how do you win, etc. So please don't belabor this anymore. Others have suggested redirecting it to the Culture article, where it could be (weakly) refed with the Neuhalfen link. 2005 (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information on Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable. The goal of Wikipedia is not to contain absolutely everything that might be true. Bhimaji (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others. As 2005 points out, a single source from a single site doesn't qualify a topic for inclusion. Rray (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As the others pointed out, a brief mention in a single source is not enough to justify a separate article. On the other hand, if the source is an anthropologist with expertise in Mongolia, the game likely exists even though materials about it may be hard to find. Redirect to Culture of Mongolia, where a recent version already says "One of the actual popular card games that is played is Mushgi" but without a source. Merge the citation there. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article is verifiable (a glossary made by an author with a scientific background related to the topic in question is a trustworthy source), but it has not been shown that it is notable enough to merit an article of its own, and I don't see any way to show it. Integrate the info into Culture of Mongolia or write an article on Games of Mongolia. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Drastically fails standards for multiple, independent reliable sources giving more than non-trivial coverage. No reason for a redirect as the existence of the game cannot be verified. Our standard here isn't truth but first verifiability and then notability. We lose nothing by removing this obscure game even if it turns out to be true. At best it's just an uninteresting piece of trivia. DreamGuy (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the game is confirmed by an expert SPS. That's nowhere near enough to base an entire article on, but it is enough to source a sentence in an existing article. Redirect is the proper outcome when a source exists but not enough notability for a standalone article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article was to be retained, it would probably have to be renamed. It is no great wonder why you couldn't google "мушги" - it's because it's "муушги". Here's some evidence:

Юм л бол муушги, покер тоглоно гээд л суудаг болсон байсан биз?

халтар хөзрөөр “муушги”-дах үед Алтансүх өвгөн нэг их чухал царайлан хөмхийгөө зуун, хөзрөө ширтэж сууснаа ингэж хэлсэн юм.

Тэр өдөр чинь Конфи мэтийн архаг 5-н гар стадион тойрч суугаад хоорондоо муушги мушгиж, 5-н элэг 5-н ходоод нэгдэн 8-н ширхэг 40-н хэмийн Чингистэй байлдаад

All in all, we have 5 separate google hits for “муушги” and only the one already mentioned for “мушги”. Our scientist, if an Englishman, might have mistaken a long vowel for a short one. Furthermore, as exemplified by the third example, the word "мушгих" is slang for "play cards", making this confusion much more likely. Finding evidence for Mongolian card games is very difficult. I looked up Mongolian games in a South Mongolian lexicon on Mongolian customs, and of over 400 pages devoted to this topic, there were merely 1,5 pages devoted to card games. This is due, as the lexicon implicates, not to the limited success that card games have had in Mongolian society, but due to the fact that they are a recent, imported phenomenon. That is, imported as a generic class of games. Two card games are described there, but not even Hözör which is probably the most popular one, so it is no wonder that muushgi is missing. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the number of google hits is any indication, then the correct spelling is actually муушиг/muushig. --Latebird (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it is! (It was negligent of me not to try this spelling.) And, this google search gives a somewhat different perspective on the matter in question. Wanna download muushig?

http://hinews.blog.banjig.net/post.php?post_id=235528

Here’s a metaphorical use within a political commentary which indicates that the writer expected every or at least most potential readers of his text to know this word:

2004 оны сонгуульд АН хүүхдийн 100000 төгрөг амлаж ард түмнийг хошгоруулж эхэлсэн. Хувьсгалт нам энэ бооцоог тав дахин өсгөж залуу гэр бүлд 500000 төгрөг амлан муушиг тоглож эхэлсэн. http://publish.news.mn/show/id=334

Statistically, muushig seems to have a good chance to be mentioned together with poker, hözör and daaluu. Finally, that’s fun. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I decided to be bold and perform the merge and redirect, if that's cool. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Mongols know this game because it is widely spread here. Why do you, folks who are not Mongols, want to delete this game without any knowledge of the game? The correct spelling of the game is "муушиг". The article should be retained. GenuineMongol (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks who are not Mongols need articles to spell the name correctly(!!), require notability, and some explanation of the game or rules! Please curb the belittling comments since obviously deletion is appropriate under those circumstances. Now that you added something more than five words to the article, it could be redirected to the proper URL, and judged on the merits of the one Mongolian reference that you added. 2005 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something more than five words? How arrogant you are! No appreciation for contribution? You obviously did some contributions to card game articles. Sheephead has the single reference, but still exists and you contribute to it. What's wrong with Mushgi? I have added most of the rules of the game to the article and categorized the article more precisely. The article should be kept. GenuineMongol (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant??? The entire article was Mushgi is a Mongolian card game for five or more players. Okay, that is eleven words, not five, but please stop the wikinonsense. Your comments don't help anything. Once again, the previous article obviously should have been deleted. Now that an actual article has been created, it should be moved to the properly spelled URL, Muushig. Now please, refrain from the condescending and frankly strange comments. What is in the article space now is completely different than what is there before, but it is still on the wrong URL. 2005 (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Muushig within my possibilities. Hopefully, an administrator would take care of the redirect issue. GenuineMongol (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but in the future, don't "move" an article by cutting and pasting its contents. See Help:Moving a page. Melchoir (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't notice of the change in the Wikipedia rules, so I thought that the beta view hid the move function somewhere I don't know. Anyway, thanks again. GenuineMongol (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no worries Melchoir (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VoltaicHD

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

Delete - Fails WP:PRODUCT ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any significant reliable source coverage. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, not notable product. This is WP: ARTSPAM. --Whoosit (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW... Tone 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right Celebrity

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

Contested prod: still has no third party sources or demonstration of notability. Durova³¹⁹ 02:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely uncited; I was unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources (beyond one source credit) --Cybercobra (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was likewise unable to find evidence that this may meet WP:WEB. JUJUTACULAR 04:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh. As above + WP: ARTSPAM. --Whoosit (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unsourced self-promotion. -- DustFormsWords (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, obvious self-promotion New seeker (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Culshaw

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 01:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Ray^Talk 02:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp:oneevent Chzz ► 04:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The crime itself is one event. His inclusion as one of only 50 offenders in the UK to be issued a whole life tariff seems to move him beyond WP:BLP1E. At most, merge the article with the man's entry on the List of prisoners with life tariffs (please note most of the prisoners listed have separate Wikipedia entries for their name/crimes--if deleting this man, why not delete them all?). --Whoosit (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting them all if they aren't historically significant sounds like a good idea. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Public Health Physicians

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

Notability DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to expand on why you believe this article should be deleted. "Just not notable" is not an argument. JUJUTACULAR 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Significant coverage" per vast number of Books/Scholar/News GHits. Location (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ,national associations in a field will usually be notable, as this one is, but it probably needs some rewriting, showing signs of copypaste. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is evidence for the org's notability in its role as an public health association & lobbying group. But substantial re-write needed: evident bias plus a lot of extraneous detail. --Whoosit (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable -Ret.Prof (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Herried

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

fails WP:ENTERTAINER. One bit part does not notability make. Ironholds (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear failure of WP:ENT. All ghits I found are trivial. JUJUTACULAR 04:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one and only one film credit is a strong presumption of failure of WP:BIO. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one voice gig in 12 years kind of says it all. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Systematic Chaos. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repentance (song)

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

Contested prod; WP:NSONG tells us three things relevant to this nomination. First, "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." Second, songs must must the requirements of WP:GNG, although placement on "national or significant music charts ... [or winning] significant awards or honors" establishes a presumption of notability. And third, even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song fails to clear that hurdle and should be deleted or merged into Systematic Chaos. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Systematic Chaos. Title is appropriate for redirect under WP:DAB. Rlendog (talk) 15:42, 14 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) 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and others. JUJUTACULAR 04:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITag (mobile phone software)

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

Unremarkable product, lacks 3rd party references RadioFan (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any reliable source coverage of this iTag. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:21, 15 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) 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the coverage I find for iTag is for software that recognizes songs - not this software. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sources; seems to fail general notability guidelines. Chzz ► 04:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G11) by Staxringold. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 16:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RUM Tareq Al Nasser

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

non-notable, no reliable references, possible WP:COI (page is listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult), portrays the subject in a promoting manner. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The unique provided source doesn't support notablility Rirunmot (talk) 17:08, 10 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 00:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable WP: ARTSPAM. --Whoosit (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It may be a victim of systematic bias, because there are precious few English resources online beyond facebook or other directory listings. In any event, this piece is highly promotional in tone that I have tagged it WP:CSD#G11. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hands On! Tangrams

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

Article does not assert notability. This also applies to the article Island Officials. -- furrykef (Talk at me) 05:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:14, 10 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 00:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Young (tennis)

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

Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:47, 10 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 00:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unreferenced, looks like promotion by locals New seeker (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Brown (tennis)

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

Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:46, 10 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 00:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple Google search reveals many sources to show notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability. Chzz ► 04:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Carter (tennis)

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

Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:46, 10 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 00:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value, unreferenced, promotion by locals New seeker (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LSU_Tigers#Men.27s_Tennis. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Diel

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

Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:45, 10 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 00:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is an issue with using WP:ATHLETE in this instance, this person was a coach, not a player and the last time I checked the two are different things entirely. Assuming good faith this person likely did exist, some references here and there can prove his existence however not his notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 70 Ghits, of which most are directory listings, although I accept it could be because he is an old-timer. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on the school's athletic program that this person coached. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dub Robinson

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

Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom is correct in that the article is currently not properly sourced, however, verifiable sources do exist. There are no good guidelines regarding coaches, but I believe 28 years as a coach for an NCAA sport is sufficient for notability purposes. I would also assert that LSU naming a stadium after him fulfills #1 of WP:ANYBIO. Location (talk) 22:58, 12 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 00:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gnews search gives enough stories to confirm he meets WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 02:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. WP:NAC _Met^ty 15:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Simmons

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

Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:44, 10 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 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has been elected to the Collegiate Tennis Hall of Fame. [48] Secondary sources exist, apparently sufficient to write a good, if brief, article Ray^Talk 02:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of secondary sources out there, so keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close you're right. The article of Hall of Fame election is enough. Nomination withdrawn. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Trastienda Club

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

LAA Fan^sign _review 01:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would !vote delete, but the nominator falied to express his rationale. Anyway, I am going with delete per WP:N and WP:RS, but I await comment from the nominator. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 03:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, it has 397 GNews results, so I say this can be merged into a nightlife section in the Buenos Aires article. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 14 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 00:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per RUL3R. I suspect there actually is enough material to write a real article on the subject, but we don't have an article right now. Ray^Talk 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merge suggestion is an interesting one, but without proper sources attestiing to the fact that it's an important venue is likely to be met with removal from the target article. Ohconfucius (talk) 08
Keep – Our requirements are that the subject meet notability guidelines through the verification of 3rd party – independent and verifiable sources. This club meets those requirements as shown here [49]. Though 95% of the articles deal more with who is playing at the club, the prolific amount of articles also establish that the top entertainers of both the region and nation view this establishment as similar in nature as to playing Vegas here state-side. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pointed out, individual notability overrules NFF, which is what I believe this discussion focuses on. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayana (film)

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

Future film that has not started principal photography, so it does not pass WP:NFF. Clubmarx (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is premature by many months. Fails WP:NFF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Changed my opinion... see below[reply]
keep. Just check Google News (Just type Keanu Reeves ram or Disney Hindu or Gary Oldman or Chuck Russell, etc) You will find there is lot of News about it and recently Disney announced as well that they are planning to produced the film, I'm certain very soon you will find imdb entry about this film.Indian (talk) 10:34, 16 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 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF, the pre-production drama has been going on for too long. Can be recreated when the movie is at principal photography stage. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sigh. Goes to prove that you shouldn't believe everything on Wikipedia. Now that the correct title has been identified and the article moved to it, sourcing doesn't seem a problem and it appears to pass GNG, so NFF is moot. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Textbook case. That is a good guideline, and we should follow it. Ray^Talk 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep per changes made by MQS, and per results of a Google News search, which produces plenty of references to verify the information in the article. I am happy to change my vote; thank you MQS. Delete per WP:MQS, a new policy that says "if it's about a movie and MQS can't make it a keep it's not a keep." Drmies (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF Chzz ► 04:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject of the article has received bery substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The correct title should be Hanuman (film), but there is already an article at that name so it will have to be disambiguated. That it hasn't happened yet is clear, but the casting and media coverage make it notable already. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change the name to Hanuman (2010 film) or change the other to Hanuman (animated film) or disambiguate. My earlier opinion above was predictated on a search under the current name Ramayana, which limited search results. COM's subsequent search and discovery of the alternate name has convinced me that enough pre-shoot coverage allows consideration of an article about this film in some manner... even if a later merge to Kenau's page or the director's. Very recently unearthed coverage in Economic Times, Rediff, Contact Music, and many others show that this is one of exceptions to WP:NFF that guideline allows. We'll be hearing more... not less. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that in this case the buzz outweighs the fact that principal photography has yet to start. pablo_hablo. 12:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keanu Reeves as a monkey god? Halfway believeable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not, according to the sources he won't be playing the monkey. pablo_hablo. 18:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Male Transitional Center

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

This unsourced article on a small prison/halfway house doesn't make any claim to notability, and a Google News/Books/Scholar search doesn't turn up anything either. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 11 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) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an article. This is a directory listing, something which Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, there is no evidence it passes notability criteria. Ray^Talk 02:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value, unreferenced self-promotion New seeker (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TightVNC. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RemoteVNC

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

Tickle me contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 3 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) 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. Ray^Talk 18:50, 11 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 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with TightVNC. --Cyclopia (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to TightVNC as RemoteVNC is a fork of TightVNC. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians in Nicaragua

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

Article is ~~entirely~~ mostly unsourced. Cannot find any non-trivial coverage of this population in reliable sources in English or Spanish:

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

Thanks, cab (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial coverage has been added, like an article about how an Armenian charity in Los Angeles sent goods to Nicaragua, or a self-published essay about Armenians in Central America which mentions Nicaragua in a few sentences and estimates there's 300 Armenians there. The main point of my nomination stands. cab (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search and added the few sources I could find. There doesn't seem to be much to say except that they exist. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:13, 10 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 00:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, egad. Another Fooian Barian article of a tiny immigrant group from one country living in another, with no particular note except that they exist. Ray^Talk 02:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't looked at the article yet, but I'm going to predict that this article includes an infobox stating that the Spanish name for their ethnic group is "nicaraguenses armenios", that the languages they speak are Spanish and Armenian, that their primary religions are Armenian Orthodox and Catholic, and that they are found primarily in Managua. Let's see if I'm right. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I got two out of four guesses right (the article lacks the phrase "nicaraguenses armenios" and I didn't guess all the religions mentioned). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Well it is sourced, but I wonder if it would be possible to merge this into a bigger article about minorities in Nicaragua. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to an appropriate article: no sources on a group that makes up 0.05% of the Nicaraguan population. — DroEsperanto (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence that this is a notable community per Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good to me. How would deleting this article make the encyclopedia better? It's a tightly written article that provides good context for the Armenian population in Nicaragua. Perfectly notable. A merge would be okay too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good stub that needs expanding and more sources, but not deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC) P.S., POV check: Despite my user name, I am not Armenian. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what "more sources" do you propose that we use to expand the article, given that no one has bothered demonstrate that any such sources exist? cab (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2,907 people is enough to make this group notable. A village with population of 2,907 would be notable, so I think a population group is as well. In any case, this info absolutely should be somewhere in Wikipedia. The Armenian diaspora is notable, and every country should be covered. Possibly merge this into another article if an approriate target is found. But for now, keep. Offliner (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should "every country" be covered, as opposed to merely the ones where the diaspora population has actually been covered non-trivially by secondary sources? 3,000 numbers is not particularly big for a diaspora population anyway, and per WP:BIGNUMBER numbers are not what makes for notability anyway: sources do. The population number is already at Armenians per country. The article has no real content besides that number. cab (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article currently does not have much info, but it can easily be expanded. The subject matter is such that academic sources almost certainly exist, it is only a matter of finding them. Offliner (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The subject matter is such that academic sources almost certainly exist. I see no reason to assume this if such sources aren't locatable in Google Books, WorldCat, or other such databases. At minimum if the topic were notable you'd see a hint of a citation to some paper about them in a bibliography somewhere. But no, there's nothing at all. Compare that to other small populations you might expect to be equally obscure, like Koreans in Mongolia or Chinese people in Senegal or Greeks in Poland, and in fact simple internet searches reveal a wealth of sources. The simple fact is that not every diaspora population on earth has been written about in non-trivial fashion --- some small ones have been and some big ones haven't been. Sociologists and anthropologists and journalists have a limited amount of time and space in which to cover such topics. cab (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with cab. The size of the population isn't the issue; coverage in reliable sources is. The 2,907 isn't even referenced as far as I can tell. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, this source, listed as an external link, estimates the population at 300. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Freedom

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

Spam, and lack of notability. Abc518 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Deletion log); 19:26 . . Skomorokh (talk | contribs) deleted "Quick Freedom" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Was deleted once already --Abc518 (talk) 01:44, 10 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) 00:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam and salt due to previous deletion as spam. Ray^Talk 01:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; spam; couldn't this be speedy if prev deleted? Chzz ► 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt Unable to find any reliable source coverage. Salt to prevent WP:ARTSPAM. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyGreenPC

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

Non-notable company and software. Haakon (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the software may be good, but I can't find any evidence of widespread adoption or media coverage. Would not seem to meet WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:14, 13 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) 00:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Also, very spammy. Ray^Talk 01:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence of WP:N. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very low level of Ghits is a bad omen. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Ackman

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

William Ackman is a hedge fund manager, and of importance to only a select few wealthy investors. This page is round about advertisement (illegal according to the SEC) for his hedge funds. Mr. Ackman is not a relevant person of society, yet he has a team of marketing experts attempting to make him one by clogging our Wiki-pages with his often well disguised marketing shtick.You Talkin' to Me??? (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Was an improperly formatted AFD. Fixed it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up if necessary. The article here is OK, but couldn't hurt to change it. This does not appear to be advertising. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 11 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) 23:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has references to proper profiles by major news organizations (Bloomberg, Star Tribune, among others), so subject meets WP:BIO notability criteria. The article does not appear to have much advertising, and is remarkably neutral in tone (I say remarkably, b/c in my experience most bios of comparatively obscure figures on Wikipedia are heavily biased). Ray^Talk 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--seems pretty obvious now, given the state of the article and the quality of the references. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "a few wealthy investors" are what make hedge fund managers notable, as the sources show DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very obviously not advertising in its current state. A few wealthy guys make these people notable, as DGG said.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 18:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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