Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 2

< 1 June	3 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States

This list, though incomplete, isn't needed, as this can apply to anyone. Zoo Fari 23:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Related:[reply]

Delete. Any list that can potentially contain easily over 1 million entries is definitely not wanted in Wikipedia. Also, WP:BLP -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, this list is too broad. I don't know if a category would be better, but a list like this is of no value, because you're likely to have at least 30% of US BLPs (conservative estimate based on current support levels) as part of this list, for it to have any value. And if the list is going to be selective on who can get in, even if they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, then the title of the list needs to be changed. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering that more than forty percent of Americans support gay marriage [1], it would have to be one hell of a list. Too broad in scope, no real value. — Rankiri (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been renamed. In response to above concerns, I have moved the page to List of American politicians who support same-sex marriage. Bryan Hopping ^T 02:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the list has been narrowed, we are talking about supporters. This ain't no 3rd party, and will require fundamental polls to determine specific politicians who do support same-sex marriage. One can't simply determine a politician's opinion, and the politician himself is least likely to expose this opinion. Just my 2 cents, and still keep my delete. Zoo Fari 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the article you nominated for deletion no longer exists. I suggest this AfD be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopping (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry. Moving the article while it is under AFD debate is not a kosher method of getting around an impending Delete result. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response My earlier comment still stands, now instead of the list being 30% (or 40% per Rankiri) of US BLPs, it will be the same proportion of US Politician BLPs, the problem stands. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. SpacemanSpiff is correct. The New York State alone has at least 89 State Assembly and 20 State Senate members[2][3] who publicly proclaim their support for gay marriage. The renamed list would still have to cover thousands of US politicians. — Rankiri (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just too broad to be of use. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:SALAT. Hekerui (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as members of List of lists that are too vague to be useful. Frank | talk 09:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Would the list contain people outside of the US who support gay marriage within it? Even if we could decide upon criteria for inclusion upon the list, I can't really see what use it would be. ɪntə svɛnsk 12:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both copies of this potentially huge but vague list. PamD (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like List of American politicians who have publicly declared support of same-sex marriage. This addresses the problem of vagueness (which I really don't see as a problem since it would need to be based on verification in a reliable source). I have to wonder if those who are saying that this list would run to the thousands have actually paid attention to the statements that politicians actually make. Many express support of extending rights and benefits to same-sex couples but very few of them actually use the word "marriage". Otto4711 (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which would lead almost inevitably to edit wars about what is a reliable source for whatever they actually did say and what they meant to say. Mind you, I'm not saying an article shouldn't exist because it is difficult; I'm just saying this one is going to be of limited (if any) value. Frank | talk 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's sourced, then it's public. If it isn't sourced, then it is not for Wikipedia. So "publicly declared" bit in the title is unnecessary. GregorB (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a huge and rather unhelpful list indeed. Is List of supporters of partial-birth abortion in the United States next up for creation so we can target all those folks too? How about List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States so we can seperate everyone onto one list or the other or maybe create an undecided one as well. -- Banjeboi 18:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am inclined to agree. --can dle •wicke 16:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should include List of members of the United States Congress who support same-sex marriage created by the same editor. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reston, Florida

Unremarkable Place of no note. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources are available. Sebwite (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs expansion, but not deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Niteshift36. The article needs to be expanded rather than deleted. (I'm the author.) Tim Ross (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this place appears to be an informal neighborhood rather than a town. I don't which reliable sources are being referred to above. If the subject were a settlement such as a village or incorporated city or something similar, I would have called for keeping it as long as its verifiable, since subjects like that are traditionally covered in encyclopedias, but I don't think Reston, FL is any of that. Rather, the subject appears to be a neighborhood in the town Havana, Florida. While a collection of houses which is recognized by the authorities as a separate entity deserves its own article, a collection of houses called "Reston" by some commercial property developer is not inherently notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a housing development. I'm a hardline community inclusionist, but this falls below the bar. --NE2 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the interest of some consistency (based, I'm afraid, on personal observations rather than references), I'd like to point out that there are now articles on five unincorporated communities in Gadsden County, Florida: the subject Reston, along with Hinson, Lake Tallavana, Mount Pleasant, and Scotland. None of these are neighborhoods of other towns. Scotland is a good deal closer to Havana than is Reston, and Hinson may be as well. I believe that Hinson, Scotland, Reston, and Lake Tallavana all receive mail via Havana (zip code 32333). Although both Lake Tallavana and Reston began as commercial developments, that was 30-40 years ago, and these communities have had no such commercial connections for a long time. All of these places are population pockets of perhaps 100-300, more or less surrounded by less developed areas. If some of these are sufficiently notable for articles, they all should, perhaps, be treated in the same fashion. Tim Ross (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right about Lake Tallavana, but the others seem to have grown up around railroad stations or intersections of old roads, and so are likely to have more historical information available. --NE2 20:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I originally nominated this for deletion as it appeared to me to be nothing more than an exclusive housing estate, it is not a town or city, and as such it is of no note as nothing special happens or has happened there. It is no different in that respect to the housing estate where I live, and where I live does not merit an article either. As for the comment that we already have four other such developments in the same area with their own articles then perhaps the answer is to review them all and judge each on it's own merits? Trevor Marron (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - Having looked on Google I can see no shops or municipal buildings? Are there any? If not then it is just a housing development of no note in my opinion. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll always be in favour of keeping articles on well-established named settlements, but I see no evidence that this, with its hundred homes, is any more notable a similarly-sized street or apartment complex. I'd certainly be willing to reconsider if any of the sources mentioned above are provided. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a recently built exurban housing development. No sources in article to indicate notability as a stand-alone article. --Polaron | Talk 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment - It is sad that the two attempts to develop a consensus on notability for populated places failed through lack of consensus: the first and the second. We are left to decide notability in such matters by using only the general notability guidelines. This means the existence of "reliable sources". The two listed with the article are what is available: (1) a listing in City-Data.com, which incorrectly, as noted above, names it a "neighborhood in Havana, Florida", but correctly shows the location and configuration of the community; and (2) the local homeowners' association website, which is more informative. These are, I think, clearly sufficient to show the existence, location, and extent of Reston. This is a considerable improvement over what we have for any other unincorporated community in the county. Sure, it's not an especially important place, but it is named, has reasonably clear boundaries, and is not part of any other community. These factors, along with the modest but present showing of notability should be enough for a "keep". The fact that it is exurban and was commercially initiated (some 30-40 years ago) is not really relevant to the issue of notability. Tim Ross (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You are going to need a better case to establish notability for a housing development of 100 homes. If this was a city or a town, then I think there would be a case that could be made. Housing developments are generally not notable. Do you realize if this one passed how many of these we could add for any major metro area like Vegas or LA or Miami? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And even more comments - Actually, Reston is not a housing development. It started that way, though, quite a few years ago. So did many, many other Florida communities. As to the large number of similar communities that could be added to Wikipedia, the point is well taken. You are correct, although it should be noted that such communities are already being added, I think, in considerable numbers. Even in Gadsden County, Florida, Lake Tallavana has the same characteristics as Reston. If "started as a housing development" or "has few or no businesses" or "has only 100 or less homes" are disqualifiers, either singly or in unison, there does not seem to be any recognition of that, of which I am aware, in any of the various Wikipedia:Notability articles. Those might be useful suggestions for a future Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) 3, but I don't think they apply now. Tim Ross (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loopthing

Does not meet notability requirements per WP:WEB; only has blog sources and a press release. Couldn't find any reliable sources to assert notability. News searches, etc, have only found press release and other self-references. I'm not certain that it might be considered to make a "credible claim of significance or importance", hence not speedy. Chzz ► 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage in reliable sources are lacking. There's blogs and press releases but this short mention is the only thing that seems to qualify as a reliable source and independent of the site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much per nom - doesn't appear to hit the notability mark and my searches (incl. Yahoo Ireland for e.g.) have not turned up sources of the necessary independence and reliablity either: the link from Whpq (above) basically being no more than press-release-rehash local media filler. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As original PROD'er. A beta site with 4 employees does not usually make for a notable website and I can't find evidence that this would be an exception. TN X Man 02:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - I have added two new reference links(references 10 and 11) to the page which are independant, and which I feel are notable sources as both are well established sites with their own respective audiences.{Donagh mc (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tan | 39 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bioforce (Omni Books)

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

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

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

Unnotable fictional character from someone's self-published book[4][5]. Completely unnotable book and certainly not notable characters. Wikipedia is not a personal website host nor the place to build someone's notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are character/fictional element articles for the same unnotable, self-published book:

Also, here is the on-going related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition's War (Omni Books). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Page Shouldn't be Deleted. This Book is Sold Internationally.Souper Chiva (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)— SuperChiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

These pages shouldn't be deleted. Unnotable book is completely subjective - I could call ANY book that. This book is in europe, asia, and the americas (a list is on rejectionpress.com). If this article and it's content are not false, why is it being targeted for deletion? How much of wikipedia is about fictitious subjects that many people could call unnotable? I think these articles should stand and people should find something notable to do!.spydr357 (talk) 3 June 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC). — spydr357 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is absolutely no basis for deletion here, it is a legitimate piece of work. Personal opinions and attacks are subjective, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. leppardjane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leppardjane (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — Leppardjane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This book is published none the less. So facts of the book should be welcomed, just as Much as every Marvel and DC comic book characters. So when can this book be worthy? What stadards must be meet? Certainly not to the standerards of User:Collectonian? "Unnotable fictional character from someone's self-published book[1][2]. Completely unnotable book and certainly not notable characters. Wikipedia is not a personal website host nor the place to build someone's notability. -- Collectonian" The unnotable book? When does a book become un-unnotable? When it becomes as big as Harry Potter? Im a little lost becuase I dont believe there is a scale to messure the Unnotable?--Blink78130 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blink78130 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — Blink78130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Would self publishers such as Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, or Benjamin Franklin be marked for speedy deletion? Again, I say this articles should stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spydr357 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — Spydr357 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This page is riddled with sock puppets. Most the people posting here are only posting here because the author asked them to. Personally, I think a strong delete is in order, even if the author is a swell guy. His book needs to have more notability before consideration here.

And the reason I am not posting using my personal name is because he has already posted the identity of one Wikipedia editor on his MySpace blog. [6] is of note. 71.72.162.219 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are all sock puppets, why do we all have different IP addresses from all over? I read this person's book and I keep up with his page. Every couple of weeks he posts again and again about the articles that are being put here on. Four times now I know he directed his 30 something thousand fans/friends here. How many people does it take to become notable? I think this whole thing is silly. "More notability before consideration here," ??? is this the pentagon now? How many scifi works are enshrined in wiki? I think this is a case of one admin targeting someone they don't like or agree with - end of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.110.236.22 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — 173.110.236.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You don't need to have the same IP to be a sock puppet. Rallying your friends on your personal blog serves the same purpose. Read about notability on Wikipedia for further information. Several verifiable sources have to make reference to the work for inclusion on Wikipedia. 71.72.162.219 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - you are a hater. 2 - show me a verifiable werewolf, until then why does wiki have so many articles and opinions (not notable) on this site. What a bunch of do nothings with nothing better to do. Are you the same guy as Collectonian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spydr357 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a personal policy, I don't normally respond to insults, but I think it would do well here for the community. Read the two links I said above. As for "verifiable werewolves", the point is not even related. If one were to write an article about werewolves, it would have to be by using reputable second-hand resources (i.e. journals, news articles, noted scholars, etc.) about the mythos of werewolves. Werewolves do not have to exist to write a verifiable, neutral article about them. As for my identity, while it isn't relevant, I am not Collectorian. Any admin can verify that. 71.72.162.219 (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a little time thinking about this before i decided to say anything. I am not a sock puppet when i choose to not delete this article, and related articles. I made my decision based on the fact that the book that this article is about, and the characters contained within, is a published work. Based on this alone, i can't, logically back the deletion decision. Calling this work, "unnotable" is a matter of opinion. The fact still remains that it is a published work, easily purchased on Amazon, and other such sites. Almost anything could be labeled "unnotable" if seen in the right place of the world. I understand that this being picked for deletion was like winning the lottery in reverse, and most likely was not personal, but in a over-zealous attempt to make Wikipedia a more reliable source, we should be careful not to break the rules that we judge by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turninrobot (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — Turninrobot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Non-notable characters in a series written by a non-notable author. The series isn't notable (see Google News Archive and Google). The lack of reliable sources and the lack of a notable series means that these fictional characters can't even be merged. Sockpuppet votes have no sway over AfD discussions. Cunard (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No evidence presented our found in my own search to support notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sock/meatpuppets above have been claiming notability really loudly, but have not come up with a single reliable third-party source to support it. Availability on Amazon.com does not make a book notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 09:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entire set as listed. Fails WP:BK, fails WP:N, fails WP:RS. Those who have already expressed their somewhat intense personal interest in this literature are also recommended to check out WP:COI and WP:NOTMYSPACE for further understanding as to Wikipedia's purpose and content policy, and WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:SOCKPUPPET for dessert. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some thinking and as the best thing that I though up, I am submitting all of my created pages for deletion. I realize that I when I went with making the easier pages first(character pages) and saving the harder pages for later(pages relating to the book itself) I was doing things backwards. As I said before I am ok with all of my pages currently pending for deletiion to be deleted. I hope that it would alright that I create an article for the book and/or series of which these pages relate to in the correct way. I am sorry for causing so much trouble and I hope that something like this matter does not happen again. Jakesnake13 (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As anonymous IP 71.72.162.219 above and a person who is deciding to now stay out of this debate, since I "know" Joe and only posted what I did above as revenge for an understandable reaction I did not like nor thought was right, I will tell you what the people have posted here are generally correct. Please carefully read about notability and verifiability on Wikipedia. I also had an article deleted on here and in the end, I see it really is for the protection of the integrity of the encyclopedia. I am willing to help you establish notability if it is there. And it may not even be there yet. But if people look at this calmly and coolly and rational decisions are made, it may one day be there. Joe has a reader base of around 30,000+ people (if all of the people on his MySpace page are truly fans) and one day, may be notable enough for Wikipedia and other encyclopedias, online and off. And maybe you can consider a mentorship? Drumpler (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also encourage you to read WP:COI before attempting anymore work in regards to this book/series. If the works are notable, someone who is not the author, his family, nor among his MySpace friends, will actually create the article. At this time, the book isn't notable per Wikipedia's book notability guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian is referring to WP:COI - I too recommend having a good look at the policies cited in the discussions here. Also the creator and supporters may find it worthwhile having a look at some of the other pages up for WP:AFD (links the day they were flagged - they generally have 5 days, so the older ones are more likely to have more contributions to the discussion). These will also show how the policies are objectively applied and I'm sure it won't be long before you guyz come across an article where you'll easily see why they are essential :) Plutonium27 (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Omni_(Omni_Books) I used the wikipedia Search but didn't find any articles about the books themselves. Why would someone make articles for characters, technology, various conflicts, and whatnot, for a series of books, without making an article for the books themselves? Dream Focus 14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Jakesnake13's explanation above (its currently just below my Delete). Helps to read the page before commenting...Plutonium27 (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Fails the guidelines listed elsewhere, and the sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting don't speak highly of this situation, either. This particularly applies as at the extent of the contributions of at least one of the puppets is vandalizing the Austin Powers page.Tyrenon (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually the sockpuppetry case was incorrect the only extra account that I had was omniuniverse which I only use when i'm away from home, and it was never used in any of the deletion discussions. All the other accounts are not mine. and I've never even looked at the austin powers page.

Jakesnake13 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Jakesnake13 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bacon dishes

There already is a Category:Bacon dishes, further reasons below Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike the category, the list explains what these things are. Yeah, a category is a lot better if I have the time to click on each of the entries. We can have both a category and a list. One of those is efficient. Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Speedy keep (along with its imputation of bad faith). The stated reason for deletion lacks validity per Wikipedia:Lists#Purposes of lists, which states specifically that:

redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic.

Nominator was notified of the lack of validity of the reason for the nomination and has refused to withdraw it or modify it to be consistent with guidelines. Bongo matic 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lists and categories are permitted to coexist. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists suggests categories are more appropriate where the list will get out of date quickly, that is not the case here. --kelapstick (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list does more than the category so removing it would be a net loss for Wikipedia. Tavix | Talk 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I'm starting to feel like i'm repeating myself. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, they're supportive, each one doing things the other can't. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, categories and lists perform different functions, and in some instances it is appropriate to have both a category and a list on a topic. However, "categories and lists are not mutually exclusive" is not a blanket argument for creating a corresponding list for every single category on Wikipedia. In particular, I note that "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics.... Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." But the dishes in this list, for the most part, are not famous because they have bacon. Chuck (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like another reason (besides "it sounds silly") not to have something called Category: Bacon dishes. "I'll take 'Bacon Dishes' for $400, Alex!" (Sean Connery remark left to imagination) Mandsford (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find any basis for your opinion in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Lists, where many of the advantages seem apposite, and none of the disadvantages. Nor is there support for your position at Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items (which cites NOTDIR), which highlights verifiability, neutrality, and referencing, none of which are problems for the list items. Bongo matic 00:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that that list of advantages and disadvantages is meant to be comprehensive; therefore, the fact that the list in question does not meet any of the listed disadvantages is not an argument for keeping it. Meanwhile, which advantages do you feel the list meets? As for the "listed items" standards, that seems to be directed towards lists whose criteria for inclusion may be vague or arbitrary. I am not arguing that the criteria for inclusion in this list is vague or unclear, so it's only natural that you won't find support for deletion at Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items. The mere fact that criteria for inclusion in a list are clear is not in and of itself a justification for the list; otherwise we could have List of Sesame Street characters whose names contain the letter G. To put it another way: I am not challenging that if the list exists, it is appropriate to include Bacon explosion on the list, which is what Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items is directed towards (it is, I agree, verifiable, neutral, and referenced that Bacon explosion is a dish that contains bacon). I am challenging whether the list should exist at all, and Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items is silent on that matter. Chuck (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There could be hundreds of bacon recipes, a Google search reveals two bacon cookbooks. The list could possibly include thousands of redlinks and will be permanently incomplete. It seems too trivial to have a list, we could also have a List of apricot dishes or a List of chicken dishes, but that would be too broad and trivial, the best place for ingredient lists is the Wikibooks Cookbook. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a list of dishes would not typically appear in a cookbook (I just checked several popular ones). In fact, it's precisely the sort of information that would appear in a specialized, food-related encyclopedia. This is relevant, as the core principles of Wikipedia begins with the statement "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias." Bongo matic 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any article on Wikipedia "could possibly include thousands of redlinks". I just don't know of any article that actually does. With one exception, all of these appear to be on the list because they have an article about them in Wikipedia. I agree that some of these items are too trivial to merit their own article -- do we really need a page on Maple bacon donut? -- but nobody has moved to delete them. As long as people care about things like Bacon and egg pie, it will be a blue linked term. Mandsford (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← (After edit conflict) This isn't an argument for inclusion but I wanted to point out that there is a List of egg dishes and List of rice dishes. Having redlinks isn't the end of the world, and that should be easily curtailed by Wikipedia:Red link where it says to write the article first before adding an entry to the list. Also ingredient lists being more appropriate for WikiBooks cookbook is not a criterion for deletion. --kelapstick (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The List of rice dishes went through an instructive AfD process. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rice dishes to see the likely outcome. Bongo matic 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It only takes a quick glance at the article to see that this provides more encyclopedic information than any category could, so the nomination reason doesn't hold water. I'll have to take a break from editing now because this is making me hungry in the way that only the mention of bacon can. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cogent arguments made by most everyone and especially Mandsford. Phil, I share your sentiments. Come by the house tomorrow morning for grits and bacon. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per previous arguments. Normally there are reasons to delete an article which can be countered with reasons to keep it. I can see the reasons to keep but the delete side is tantalisingly close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oh, and there is at least one other bacon cook book: Seduced by Bacon... Bigger digger (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any article about bacon is ipso facto notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a cookbook. The list can not be encyclopedic, as bacon can be added to almost anything, including the Monty Python "eggs, bacon, Spam and Spam" dish. And saying one likes bacon does not actually count as a reason for "keep". Lastly, "list" and "category" may be synergistic if each comprises a "limited universe" of items. As this list is not so limited, while the category is limited to the articles found notable, it is clear that synergism is not a valid claim here. I think I may create a "List of dishes with salt in them" if this stays <g>. Collect (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, thanks for a cogent delete !vote. The list is not a cookbook, it is a list of bacon dishes, and (I think) doesn't tell you how to cook them. There is a limited scope, it's not a list of everything that could have bacon added to it, it's a list of bacon dishes. I can't see a problem with including non-notable bacon dishes with a short description even if they will never have an article – this actually makes the list more useful than the category. Bigger digger (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, cookbooks generally do not list recipes by ingredient. Bongo matic 03:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a list of reasonable scope, and it contains information that can not be in the category. Ladyof Shalott 17:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists are not superseded by categories. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As previously stated, it goes beyond the parameters of a category listing. But where's the bacon pizza? :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Babayan

Non-notable person (vanity page / autobio), unreferenced, and google search for that exact name brings up 103 hits [7] , most of which are twitter and facebook, and no evidence of notability. I would CSD but the page claims (without evidence) that he is a champion. I've added maintenance tags to request references and support of notability 4x, but the original poster deleted 3x and now an IP has started removing them. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. I cannot verify the claim to being a dance champion. As a competitive latin dancer, one could argue that meeting WP:ATHLETE may be appropriate. The ISDF ranking (see bottom of page for spreadhseet link) shows no ranking for him in th Latin Dance rankings. The World Dance Council provide no ranking ior other membership search function to allow verification. The International Professional Dancesport Council world ranking shows no Alexander Babayan. If this person were a notable dancer, one would expect to see some form of coverage or evidence of international competition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did wonder if it may be ever so faintly possible that competition results/info have been reported in the Georgian language - hence no search results. But a national champion to not be listed on official membership/rankings? Even tried a couple of spelling variations and still nothing. Aleksey Vayner had better watch out for the competiton ... Plutonium27 (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the claim in the article is not very clear. Dancesport has multiple international organisations so there isn't one clear governing body. It could very well be that the Georgian national championships are not held under the auspices of any international governing body. I am not familiar with competitive dance. However, if that were the case, I'm not sure that being a Georgian national champion would be notable enough. As for possibly being only covered in the Georgian language, based on this article, the dancer lives in Toronto, Canada so if he were a notable dancer, some for of coverage in the English language might be expected. As somebody who lives in the Greater Toronto Area, and grew up in Toronto itself, I can assure you that there is a variety of press aside from the mainstream dailies that might have covered somebody like this. The Eye Weekly and Now Magazine are two that immediately come to mind as alterntive press that might give this sort of thing some coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NetSPI

Previously speedy deleted but still reads like an advert. Unsure this can be rescued, so AfD raised. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start fresh. Most of the contents of the current version actually belongs in the article Computer crime (and it's there already). Notability seems to be adequately asserted, though. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. References are not about this business specifically, which is a online consulting firm. Speedy delete would be justified: the current text is obvious advertising full of patent nonsense, but it may be best for the stated reason to let this ride to establish a firm precedent against the recreation of any article about this business: The age of the Internet almost simultaneously became the age of the Internet criminal.[1] As email, web sites, and e-commerce flourished and provided new richness and productivity, so the hackers, script kiddies, phishers, denial-of-service attackers and email scammers were right behind, perpetrating disruption, needless expense, and theft on an enormous scale. Protecting individuals and businesses against these predators is the mission of IT security consulting firms such as NetSPI. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The delete votes dealt with the issues that would affect his notability, whereas the Keep votes simply stated he was notable. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Riggenbach

The subject is non-notable, and the article is mostly an autobiography. Bob A (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Little or no RS coverage, although he seems to have a decent body of published work. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article, until yesterday, when I expanded it in hopes of saving its life, could hardly be called "an autobiography," since I did not create the page. Until yesterday, my only participation in it at all was to correct my birthdate. As for whether I'm "notable," the Marquis Who's Who in America seems to think I am, but what does it know? Jriggenbach (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was 2 days ago, and that edit contributed almost the majority of the content of the article. See WP:AB and WP:N. You seem to be new here, so I don't blame you. Bob A (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Riggenbach is well known in the Libertarian world, and even for those that don't know his name, his voice is recognized as he has recorded a large body of work at The Mises Institute, most notably audio books by Murray Rothbard. He was a featured guest on The Lew Rockwell show just the other day and LewRockwell.com is well known as the best read libertarian site in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.229.42 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only because his books are fairly widely available. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: normally I'd say that as In Praise of Decadence (ISBN 9781573922463) appears to be in over 200 libraries, when combined with his Google Book and Google Scholar hits, the article should be kept. I'm !voting delete, though, for two reasons: primarily, because the article currently has no third-party sources. If none can be found, there simply shouldn't be an article. Secondly, because, as the subject himself wrote above, 'As for whether I'm "notable," the Marquis Who's Who in America seems to think I am, but what does it know?' Well, WP:BIO explicitly says "entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability." If that's the best he's got to prove his own notability, then I don't think we've got enough here.
But as I said, it's mostly about how the article currently contains zero verifiable reliable sources. Per WP:BIO, again: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I just don't see that we have it in this case. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dori. Willing to change if sources are found, but until then it's insufficiently referenced for a BLP. لenna vecia 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 18:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Wealth Manager

Advertises a non-notable product offered by a commercial entity; all citations asserting notability are that entity's own press. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already given enough mention at American Academy of Financial Management. Hairhorn (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put a merge tag on that article, but if the only sources are press releases from that company or their own website.... well.... (at that time I didn't notice that the second ref in the article was also from the AAFM, my bad) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi News

Seems to aim at being a list of all Hindi language news sources - however such a list will never be complete - should be a category instead Passportguy (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's no reason not to have a list. Certainly the number of Hindi news sources is finite, anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The scope of this artcile is just to broad. We need to stay focused on here to produce good quality articles. A list of Indian TV stations - fine. A list of Hindi language newspapers - okay. But a list of all newssources, including TV, radio, news papers, magazines, blogs, websities, bulletin boards, public announcements etc etc etc is never ending and not helpful. Passportguy (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Changing to Keep ~~No sources for an article that is really just a list of some Hindi news sources.~~ Priyanath ^talk 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing to keep after reading Spaceman Spiff's comment below. Article should be renamed to reflect that it is about the history of Hindi newspapers, and history section should be expanded. Article also needs to be better sourced and written as an encyclopedia article. Priyanath ^talk 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's perfectly valid for us to have a list of news sources in any language, and especially one as widely spoken as Hindi. This article is a perfect start to that, providing some contextual information. If it ends up getting too large it can be split up into newspapers, broadcasting, etc. The fear that this will list every blog, web site and bulletin board is unfounded because every list is implicitly confined to notable subjects unless otherwise stated. The current name of the article might not be the best one possible, but that doesn't make it deletion fodder. And yes, there need to be sources, but can anyone honestly say that there is any possibility that no sources exist about this subject? Let's use common sense rather than lawyering. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a list: This is not a directory of all the Hindi news sources, but an article on how the Hindi news media has evolved. It will help not only those people who want to understand the history of Hindi news media, but also to those who want to understand what is the current state of this field/market. Of course, it has not taken that shape yet, but this deletion debate started just when the first para was written. So please, let it evolve (and contribute) instead of pressing the delete button! Indusmedia (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs some development, but a reasonable article. Title probably should be changed, but thats for later. DGG (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just started working on this article when I found that a list already exists: List of newspapers in India#Hindi Language. Given that, this article just needs to be the history of news media in Hindi, it isn't there yet, and the content isn't sufficient for a page yet. I think such an article will be good, but this isn't there yet. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a clear difference in the nature of this article and the other article List of newspapers in India#Hindi Language created by Spaceman7Spiff. One can just have a look at both the articles to see how different these two are. In fact, some of the early comments for deleting this article were based on the fear that this article was going to be a list. And List of newspapers in India#Hindi Language is actually a list, useful list I would say!

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airsoft game type variations

This is blatant WP:OR. There is not a single reference about the topic. A significant portion of this article is unencylopedic and written in a poor tone or second person. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a game guide, per WP:NOTGUIDE. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WinEdt

Non-notable software - no sources to support notability. In fact no claim of notability is made. ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep news coverage and multiple books. Nominator has made other AfDs on this subject. --Karnesky (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those appear to be just passing references not amounting to significant coverage. And again, please stop the accusations of pointiness. – ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 78 results on Google Books and 563 results on Google Scholar suggest sufficient notability. Was WP:AFD really a better choice over WP:ATD? — Rankiri (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rankiri. Salih (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Karnesky and Rankiri have confirmed notability via their Google searches. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity estate

Given the name it is rather hard to do a Google seach, but with no references provided it is likely that this real estate company is non-notable. Passportguy (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; personally I would have filed this under DB-Spam.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Given its connection to the Pakistani military, I can see why this wasn't a great candidate for speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence offered or found to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now that I have fixed its spelling and wikified it, blast this spam. Chris the speller (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cor-BALL-o

Zero Google hits, refs provided do not have any info on this self-invented, nn game Passportguy (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found via Google, Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. ceranthor 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources can be found to indicate that this game even exists, making it completely unverifiable at best and a hoax at worst.--Unscented (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, likely a hoax --mhking (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither reference has to do with the "sport". See WP:MADEUP. Tavix | Talk 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Valley2city^‽ 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ufuk Birdal

Another musical figure/act with a (possible) assertion of notability but no evidence of it. Seems to fall short under WP:MUSIC. Tyrenon (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Where's this "possible" assertation of notability? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the first time in my AfD voting, I have to agree with TenPoundHammer. Speedy delete this non-notable autobiography that asserts no notability. I have done a Google News search for sources and have been unable to find anything. Cunard (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lockwood Analytical Method for Prediction

WP:NOT includes not being for essays. While a very detailed essay...that's not what Wikipedia is for and therefore this has no place here. Tyrenon (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is either WP:OR or a copyright infringement of a published text. Passportguy (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite original research but definitely non-notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or a publisher of original thought. TN X Man 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I haven't followed all 12 steps, I predict that this article will be deleted for lack of verifiability and no evidence of notability. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep Clearly there's no argument for deletion anymore, since the article has been greatly improved. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid: Other M

Here, I'm somewhat uncertain, but while the game was announced, it is also a year or more off of release. I've known games which have been at such a stage that they could be tested/demo-ed which have failed to make release (and that are not named Duke Nukem' Forever), so if I've jumped the gun please let me know. However, under film guidelines (the closest I can find) this would likely fall a bit short. Tyrenon (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the precedent on unreleased but announced video games is. On one hand, you have Left 8 Dead, but on the other, you don't have Half-Life 2: Episode Three Sceptre ^(talk) 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenon, could you please link to the "film guidelines" you speak of? In regard to the game possibly being canceled, it's possible, though highly unlikely. It's being published by Nintendo. I don't see a problem with having an article where people can add more information as it is revealed. Hypersonic12 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF. Also, read WP:CRYSTAL. There's no point in an article if no verifiable info exists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hammer. Yeah, NFF is what I was thinking of.Tyrenon (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The game has already entered "Principal Photography" (it is in development as shown by the e3 trailer), and in my opinion, "the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (first bullet). It has been my observation that Nintendo very rarely has let first-party publicized games die away. I could be wrong.Hypersonic12 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It's been officially announced as in development and is receiving a lot of coverage. Vodello (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Metroid: Other M is the true article, ~~so I am in favor of deleting this one~~. Please don't nominate the other article for deletion. Vodello (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've requested a history-merge of this article into the true title. I would also request that my last edited version be present in the article as it is already cleaned up and verifiable. MuZemike 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Back to Keep because we keep changing the title of the AFD. Vodello (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Vodello (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – First, already plenty of reliable sources (Eurogamer, Kotaku (if the link comes back up), The Mirror, Gamespot) that provide plenty of coverage of this upcoming game. Second, give the article a chance; it's only been up for 15min before AFDing it. MuZemike 21:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per above, the article seems to be verified. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Better idea: Speedy delete (G6) and history-merge to Metroid: Other M, which is the actual title of the game. Article should still be kept, however. MuZemike 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]
- ~~Tagged Metroid: Other M with a {{db-histmerge}}. MuZemike 22:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Agreed, I created the page with the wrong title...Hypersonic12 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done History-merged and moved to the actual title, along with the AFD. MuZemike 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to remove the page. Yes theres a degree of WP:Crystal here, but the game is announced and backed up with supposefly reliable sourcing. The question to me only is raised is if the sources are questionable but this is an official press release from the company which is genuine enough I believeOttawa4ever (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable sources point at it. Marlith (Talk) 00:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it has enough sources to warrent inclusion and we should improve the article as more sources become available. I Feel Tired (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Nintendo unveiled it in their Keynote speech for E3 2009 with a long trailer, meaning they're really committed to the game, so I think the only thing keeping it from being released in the closure of Nintendo and/or Team Ninja, or the possible acquisition of Team Ninja by Microsoft or Sony, which is probably really unlikely. Also, what's with people talking about two Other M pages? Ever link on here points to the same article... JQF • Talk • Contribs 01:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY, good work all around. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apologies for a bit of a rant here. Seriously, I saw the story in Slashdot, saw the trailer, went to Wikipedia to see what we have here, and bam, now I'm staring at the deletion discussion. This is the second time I've been hit with this sort of thing (the last time it was about the next year's Eurovision Song Contest). This isn't funny, guys. If we cut tiny game modding teams years and years worth of slack based on a few game mag appearances, we sure as heck shouldn't be immediately deleting something that a Real Company™®© has announced for a release a mere year hence, gosh darn it. We're talking about Nintendo here. *sigh* Let's try again in 2012 or so and if no one ever made nary a peep about the game after all, then maybe we should try deleting this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, one of the silliest noms I've seen in a while. Thanks! Fin ©™ 15:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, I agree. This is a silly nom, and should be closed asap. ScienceApe (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The main problem with the article is users, including both IP and registered, wanting to add their own speculation or assumptions. However, there is no reason to delete this. That was a very official announcement, and this game is not going to fall into oblivion unless Team Ninja is disbanded due to financial troubles, but Nintendo would probably still own the code anyway. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, the game is clearly in development and this nomination appears to have been the result of a mistake/misunderstanding. ShadowUltra (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant L Roberts

While there is a clear assertion of notability, verifiability is sufficiently lacking at the moment that I am prepared to suspect a hoax. However, if it is a hoax then the hoax is not blatant, so it comes here.Withdrawn. Tyrenon (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of information is that you need to prove this is not a hoax? --Carshza (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I offer some links to some sites and independent articles that may help show the authenticity of this information? --Carshza (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to both: Please do provide links to independent information. If there are independent sources, then the article is likely notable and I'll be more than happy to withdraw it. I would, for the record, prefer a "mainstream" newspaper/network/etc., but an industry publication will also be more than enough.Tyrenon (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will list them as I find them and will also put them on the page itself.

Los Angeles Times

Maple Leaf Times Online

IMDB Database

Sports Illustrated

Hillary Swank thanking Grant Roberts in acceptance speeches (Video)

CBC Canada on Brain Gains, the Healthy Student Body program

The Star Phoenix - Million Dollar Baby & Grant Roberts

Grant Roberts & Healthy Student Bodies Program

Is this enough or should I try to dig up some more?

--Carshza (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain about notability myself, but sources are very easy to find. Nominators are expected to make a little effort. Hairhorn (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A9 by PeterSymonds, NAC Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It Has To Be (album)

Primarily, the lack of sources, which make notability questionable and hard to determine (as not all albums make the cut in my understanding). More importantly, as an album without sources, I am always wary of a hoax. Tyrenon (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A9 this and the other two John Watts articles, as the artist in question does not have an article and no other notability is asserted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belle The Film

No confirmation that film has started principle photography; fails WP:NFF. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL. ceranthor 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Merge the article with Belle Gunness. It has a few sources but is relatively small and is already mentioned in the other article. When more verifiability for the movie comes available de merge for its own articleOttawa4ever (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Film still in pre-production. Fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the imdb entry gives 2011 as a release date, so wait a year and then see where it is. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, upon author request (G7). Jamie^☆S93 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Puttick

Very unfortunate - but WP:ONEVENT Passportguy (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI've been looking around Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and there's one called Wikipedia:Notability. It says a subject is notable if the subject has received lots of reliable independent and secondary coverage, which Puttick has in mountains. Whereforeone (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:ONEEVENT? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to be included here a person but be notable. I cannot see that he did anything notable himself. If you can source significant coverage on the parent's actions then you could create an article on that. Passportguy (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Away End

No reliable external sources provided to pass WP:N. Non-notable internet based magazine about Scottish football. Article appears to be for promotional purposes. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Can't find anything in Ghits or Gnews to establish notability. The number of interviews with Scottish footballers looks promising, as is the move to a printed magazine as well as the web version, but I don't see evidence of notability just yet. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not set up in a proper wikipedia page due to lack of knowledge of how to do that. However, I would argue over how notable the magazine is, as it has set up good links with most of the major clubs in Scotland, and its popularity is ever growing with a number of news agencies covering the story - only one of these links has been posted to the page so far however I can find and add them if you wish. 84.71.194.242 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would concentrate on posting links to coverage by news agencies. If you can find enough, that may save the page from deletion. Be aware, however, that it is rare for a publication that has been in existence for a few months to have enough coverage to be notable. The other option is to copy the page over to your own user space, wait for further media coverage, and repost the article once there is enough to make it notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable fanzine. Giant Snowman 00:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no notability I can see.--ClubOranje^T 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strode Mansion

This mansion does not seem to be notable, having famous former owners does not make a mansion notable by itself. Arnaud Rousseau (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems worth including. Can't it be merged into the University of Alabama article or into an article about its former owners if it isn't independently notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its designation as an historical landmark in itself demonstrates notability. --Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The house is in fact highly notable not just for its former occupants (incl. Gary Taylor (English literature scholar) and Richard Yates (novelist)) but for its architecture also. (Disclaimer: I once broke a really expensive chair there--as a detractor said, because of "the way I sat down.") I'm going to find a couple more sources to add to the article--also, I am going to move it, since it's not called the Strode Mansion but the Strode House. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If only I could prove that a little better... Drmies (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge to the University of Alabama article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as Strode House) and fix the tone of the article. This probably drew an AfD to itself because of the excessive localism of the early draft. Some of the additions since then seem to be too casual, even flippant — but at least the reference to Richard Yates "trashing" the house is reliably sourced. There is no question that this is a notable subject. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, but with the proviso that the good Dr. Mies is added to the list of people who have trashed the place. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomkin Coleman

Individual is non notable, no mainstream media coverage, the books claimed to be authored by this person cannot be found in google and are not carried by amazon or any other book retailer online Thisglad (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Thisglad (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete What you may not know is that Tomkin Coleman married a couple in reality TV style before there was such a thing. If you recall long ago a groom in Minnesota let his friends audition prospective brides at the Mall Of America in Minnesota. The chosen bride did indeeed marry that groom and They are still married today. Tomkin Coleman married that couple at The Mall Of America. Since then he has a well known Wedding Officiant practice in Minnesota and will be interviewed by Minnesota Public Radio in the coming week. Notable person is indeed local and Tomkin is known in the Twin Cities.

You can read more about this notable wedding at http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25121427/—Preceding unsigned comment added by Galljc (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 June 2009

Delete WP:VANITY crossing into WP:ADVERT territory. The MSNBC link above does not give any mention to the conductor of the service let alone actually naming them. Nothing found to satisfy WP:N. Bloke seems to be an independent operator ("Chaplain of Unity Services") out of the gown/cake/limo/Your Special Blessing ads. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyright violation Acroterion _(talk) 17:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best dressed list

List of best dressed people, Wikipedia is not a directory. Apart from that I strongly suspect that these lists are copyrighted Passportguy (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio: "© 2009 Condé Nast Digital. All rights reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast Digital." Not that it needs the notice. Drawn Some (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 The lists are verbatim copies from Teen vogue and are not covered by fair use at all. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3) by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs). Tavix | Talk 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potato (slang)

Hoax, references don't seem to exist. Also WP:NEO. Otterathome (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per the otter, WP:MADEUP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. See this blog entry from the author. Hairhorn (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideacart

Does not appear to be notable software. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software. A Google News Archive search returns no relevant results, save for a download page from CNET. Cunard (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no references; original author is in ecommerce & may have had a WP:COI. --Karnesky (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Open Source eCommerce Software

Redundant to Category:Free electronic commerce software and a magnet for linkspam. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Free electronic commerce software, not needed on it's own. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 17:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. The only red links in the article have no external links & have never been articles. It may be that red links really should be turned into stubs. If that is the case, this is clearly not redundant to the category. If someone with more knowledge on the topic than I have can point to why all red links are not notable or can turn them into stubs, I'd be swayed to say this should be redirected to the category's index. --Karnesky (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to a slightly stronger keep per Exit's work. Should move the page to 'Comparison of....' --Karnesky (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Free and open source software are completely different in terms of license and colloborative coding approach. It may be merged with another list, but merging with a category wouldn't be much proper. Kasaalan (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While they are different, there is not practical difference in the scope of the list or category: all programs included in either are considered free under the DFSG and by the FSF & open source by the OSI. --Karnesky (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are better, categories are only contain links, lists can also contain summary info. It is nice that someone spent time on building a list, a sub category may also be included under free software category along with this list. Kasaalan (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - viable and intresting intersection. Did some work to show what the benefits of a List over a :Cat are. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "magnet for linkspam" is not a valid deletion reason. See the edit history of List of social networking websites if you think otherwise. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-autonomous art

This article is pretty much unsourced original research. A google search only reveals wikipedia mirrors and some uses of the term "post-autonomous art" in a context outside of this so-called movement. There appears to be some limited use of the term as a descriptive term but with no connection to an actual art movement per se. This may be a copyright violation, although it's difficult to find the original site amongst the mirrors. In any case, this article has been worked on since the original editor created the article, so it may not qualify for speedy as copyvio. The few mentions of artists on this page seem to again be original research, i.e. the artists or third-party sources writing about those artists do not use this term. freshacconci talktalk 11:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar yields 10 hits, which seem to indicate some consensus that the label is useful. Relatively readable article even if the underlying concept is all moonshine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said, the term is in use, but not in this specific context. As such, the article would basically need to be blanked and started from scratch. If deleted, I'd have no prejudice against re-creation using information gleaned from google scholar search. But as it stands, if this is a keep, who's going to rewrite this from nothing? freshacconci talktalk 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the OR and added some sources. I'm still not convinced it's a keep though.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's much better. I'm wondering, however, if a merge to Superflex is more appropriate (if that group does in fact use this term or has been described as such by reliable sources). That article needs sources too, but notability doesn't seem to be an issue as they have a significant exhibition record (Venice Biennial, etc.). Is the Jeff Wall reference specifically about this particular concept? Not trying to be intractable here, just trying to be clear. The problem with coining terms that are being used in other contexts is exactly this. Wall may be referring to a general tendency in a post-autonomous practice that is in fact autonomous. Having said that, I downloaded the PDF of the Wall text provided but haven't read it yet. But I will; I like Dan Graham and Wall's writing is usually quite interesting. freshacconci talktalk 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always do things backwards. I just read the Superflex article and it makes no reference to post-autonomous art. Is Michael Lingner using the term in relation to that group or has some other writer using the term as Lingner used it in reference to Superflex? freshacconci talktalk 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I've asked a question and then actually looked at the source provided, and yes, the term in relation to Lingner is used in a discussion of Superflex. All dots connect. freshacconci talktalk 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Jeff Wall is talking about something else altogether, although to be honest it's not clear what he's talking about. Passing uses of the term are made in variety of different contexts and each one is probably a separate coinage. What's left is that Michael Lingner (a non-notable artist in WP terms) wrote a couple of essays that were read by Mary Ann Francis and Sally O'Reilly. Here are the relevant texts in full: Francis on Lingner and Superflex [8] and the Lingner article she references [9]. O'Reilly seems to be quoting another Lingner essay, which she she doesn't name. There's something here, but it's not ready for WP yet. --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article says it's mostly used by some artist without an article, therefore the presumption is that it's not notable. Googling around shows no reliable sources for the term. DreamGuy (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polish R&B Chart

Article designed to announche the newest hits on a particular chart, fails Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS Passportguy (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add to WP:BADCHARTS, the site from which this is sourced is a forum. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is what Wikinews is for. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible fork/recreation of the "Polish National Top" series, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actium erp

Unnotable software; borderline spam Rcawsey (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software by non-notable developer. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should have been CSD-G11. --Karnesky (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author has written on Talk:Actium erp:

“

Thank you for your comment! Can you provide us with more information about your criteria you made use of in tagging our article about Actium ERP as "Unnotable software; borderline spam" !?! There must be something we don't do right! We are not intended to "spam" the readership as much as demonstrate the inter-relation and co-existence of Open Source and Proprietary software. When we compare ourselves with Compiere, SAP Business One and other companies using either type of licensing in the development of their product, we fit right in! So please, can you provide us with more information about the process you make use of in the determination of our presence here representing a "spamming" threat to your readership! We will be glad to oblige! Perhaps is it the format of the article that is a problem; perhaps it is the category it belongs to! One thing is for sure, we have no intent of spamming your readership. Without prejudice! --PMaloney (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

Copied to this page by Cunard (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMaloney, the article will be deleted because it lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pagodaball

Non-notable game or sport played at only one school. To quote WP:MADEUP: "Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website or blog instead." Qwfp (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Qwfp (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why can't I say "per nom"? He said what I would have but did it better than I could have. Drawn Some (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —Qwfp (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't there a way to speedy this? I even did a google search for it, just in case... Nada. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or else transwiki to BJAODN, a textbook definition of something made up in school one day. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many "octagonal pyramid roofs" do they have in Jamaica? The author overplayed the hand by saying that there were tournaments and prize money. Why no press coverage? I guess because it's "underground". "In the future, it is projected that this sport/pastime shall spread throught the entire world". Please check back when that happens. Mandsford (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sometimes, I can visualize how a game works from the narrative. This one is especially hard to figure out -- 16 players, 2 for each side of an octagon, maybe it's two 8-player teams -- unclear whether players are removed from the game as a "life" is scored, or if there's a time limit or playing to 16 or what. YouTube would be a better place for ideas for games. So many of these get deleted from here, the YouTube group could be called "Games that didn't make it on Wikipedia". Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, isn't notable. Matches WP:MADEUP Fyyer 03:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg–Ukraine relations

another random combination with no resident embassies. all relations between these 2 countries seem in the Ukraine-EU context. [10] There's this and this but neither together make an article. LibStar (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have a hard time being convinced those news tidbits made the topic significant enough to be mentioned IN an article much less stand on its own as the notable topic OF an article. Luxembourg just isn't a very big country and some of these small countries just don't have extensive relations with all of the other 200 or so countries in the world. We need to accept this as reality. If Ukraine and Luxembourg forge some sort of notable relationship leave a message on my talk page and I'll help write about it. Drawn Some (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Embassy in neither country of the pair? Seems to be a long stretch to noatbility. Collect (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not sure why this tag was placed here? in 6 days there has been zero improvement to article. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress the lack of relations between these two nations in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't need another of these articles that randomly pair countries. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect for development – the relationship is not notable. No sources discuss these relations. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These random-nation 'ships are getting rather tiresome. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly unremarkable. And can we ditch the superfluous boxes, please? When it was tagged is irrelevant, it's what comes of it at the end. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Unnotable bilateralism. Eusebeus (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The First Descent

Non-notable band. Someone changed the CSD to a prod, then someone removed the prod, so now I'm bringing it here. Ridernyc (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is a pretty clear A7 candidate. Hairhorn (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy - success is claimed, but unsubstantiated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but placing the line "This was a big local success and their first track" in an article with no references should never be enough to avoid CSD. Ridernyc (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WinGeno

Contested PROD. References insufficient to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More independent ref's have been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.113.165 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like nice software, but no indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are blogs. The developer is the article's main proponent, so there are WP:COI issues here. --Karnesky (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. merge discussion can take place elsewhere Fritzpoll (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WinShell

Contested PROD. The recently added references are not sufficient to demonstrate notability (they are not even close to significant coverage). Fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Similar information provided in wikis like Texmaker, TeXnicCenter, WinEdt and LaTeX-Editor (LEd). Do they all have independent sources? Delete them all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.113.165 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other stuff exists is not a helpful argument in deletion discussions, but as you have raised it, yes, if those articles don't meet the inclusion criteria they should be deleted. In fact I will take a look at them right now. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to make a WP:POINT? --Karnesky (talk)

Comment: No not at all, that is not my style. I am just trying to weed out articles that don't meet the GNG. – ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I appreciate your efforts at improving Wikipedia. With that goal in mind, can you please try to not even give the possible impression of WP:POINT? After making this particular AfD, you have nominated every other article that has been linked in this discussion for deletion. While your direct purpose may not be to disrupt Wikipedia, I think that may be an unintentional side effect. It takes time and effort to find sources and improve articles & deletion discussions tend to be short lived. By making this shotgun nomination (without a centralized discussion), I fear that many articles will be deleted before we have a chance to improve them. Please be a little less hasty in marking so many articles for deletion & pitch in to see how they can be improved and/or at least ask others to improve them. --Karnesky (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, therefore notability not demonstrated. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Dawn Bard (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given mention in several sources, per their webpage. These should be added to the article. Also note that, procedurally, multiple PRODs are bad. --Karnesky (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are LaTeX how-to guides. And the list clearly says "articles and books which mention WinShell". Notability requires more than mentions. Hairhorn (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the dutch article, WinShell takes up 1 of the 4 pages. It gets a whole page or more in Kopka & Daly's book too & is (with WinEdt) one of only two editors they recommend for Windows. I don't have access to the german/japanese books/video. The "mention" is more than incidental in more than one source. --Karnesky (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be exclusive coverage on this in TUGboat. --Karnesky (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Karnesky's sources. Not familiar with the Dutch or German languages, and reasonably sure the mentions in the larger books are going to be minor, it's difficult for me to agree to definitely keep. An alternative idea I have would be to merge to a list article of similar software per WP:FAILN or to an overall company article per WP:PRODUCT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. coverage in at least six books and part of TeXLive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.194.34.103 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that at least one of the book sources in there appear to be sourced to Wikipedia (such as this one). Furthermore, could you please confirm that the coverage in those six books is substantial? I kind of doubt it at a glance, and ghits alone are not an indicator of notability (or lack thereof). And also, being part of TeX Live doesn't make it notable; if anything, that's an argument to merge to TeX Live. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The multiple sources in the article are not sourced to Wikipedia and have more substantial coverage (all have at least a page). I find no evidence that this is actually part of TeX Live & don't think it should be merged there. --Karnesky (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was talking about a very specific reference (see the link above), which I'm almost certain is sourced to Wikipeida (note the "[WP]" following the entry on WinShell). I didn't take a close look at the other refs because I don't see a point in attempting to interpret how substantial coverage is in a language I can't understand. And if it isn't part of TeX Live, then it shouldn't be merged there. But per WP:PRODUCT it might merit merging (perhaps with WinGeno) somewhere. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And in fact, should this close as keep, no consensus, etc. I think it would be a good idea to at least discuss a merge with WinGeno to a general article on Ingo de Boer or a development team involved in making the software. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - [edit conflict] Yes. I was clarifying that this article now includes multiple independent non-trivial sources. (The particular book you referred to seems to be a machine-generated book of "quotes" about "latexes" (and not LaTeX in particular). It would be a useless source even if it was not sourced from WP.) Neither WinGeno nor the developer seem to be as notable as WinShell. If we want to seriously consider a merge, perhaps we should make a consolidated discussion. But I'd want to keep WinShell & delete WinGeno. --Karnesky (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seems it was the turn of those favouring deletion to resort to WP:ATA today Fritzpoll (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scavas

Car design that never even made it into production. Nonnotable trivia with poor sources. DreamGuy (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find some mentions online, but nothing substantial. Maybe in there's something better in Greek? The text of the article as it currently stands is almost a copyvio of the link given as a reference; only a few words have been changed. Hairhorn (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep World car encyclopedias contain a large number of models that never went into production, as long as they were intended to (which means they were properly engineered). I understand that Wikipedia's quality is also safeguarded by filtering out irrelevant articles, but I stronly believe that the effort of people that enrich it should be respected. I am an author and contributor in the automotive sector for years, and I can argue stronly enough that this article ojectively should be included in any car manufacturers list. The site that was added as a reference provides plenty of support.Skartsis (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reference as added by Skartsis provides the independent evidence of notability to support keeping this article. Varbas (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account was blocked as a sock of a banned user, so vote invalid. DreamGuy (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable car design that never saw a scrap of metal. Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant design in automotive history. Would be fine to merge it somewhere to an article on prototypes, greek automotive history, or the University of Patras's engineering department. Every athlete that has ever competed at the Olympics is notable, but not this historic design by a Greek engineer? I object your honor! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piréz people

Non-notable fictional people invented by a small polling company, used in a local survey, no lasting significance or relevance. The only reference provided is to the polling company itself which invented this fictional term. Contested prod by the article creator. Hobartimus (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete As nominator. Hobartimus (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge... somewhere. Hairhorn (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildofMidnight (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hungary is a small country and Tarki is a small pollster. Does it meand that anything happening to them is insignificant or irrelevant? The story produced a vast number of online and printed articles in Hungary and lively discussion. The statistically evident hatred towards a non-existent people does have a relevant message to people living within and beyond the borders of Hungary. If this is deleted, we have more reason to delete most of the numerous enwiki articles on hoaxes and non-existing persons.--Korovioff 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Re: "a small polling company, used in a local survey, no lasting significance or relevance" - "Tárki explores for about fifteen years with standard methods xenophobia and changes in the attitude against foreigners in the adult population of Hungary." Sik Endre, TÁRKI I will amend the article when I have a bit more time with further details. Szabozoltantamas (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewritten and amended the page and pointed to the general aspects of the described phenomenon. Please consider to remove the deletion proposal.Szabozoltantamas (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tárki is a major Hungarian public opinion research company. They findings are used in the (Hungarian) media on daily basis. So the company is definitely notable. They findings about the Piréz people were widely covered by the Hungarian media in 2006 and 2007, both in news and op ed pieces. --Gondnok (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fictional country#In survey research (now you have somewhere to merge to...) It's not that I don't think it was notable, it's just too short. And eh, just because the company that made them was notable doesn't mean the products are, in reposnse to some of the above arguments.

Oh, but I'd gladly change to keep if someone provides some of the 'lively discussions' mentioned above.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 04:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 3)#Semi-finalists. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Grand

People notable for only one thing normally get sent to the article on that thing, which is what I did - a redirect to the last Britain's Got Talent series. Colonel Warden disagrees, so I'll see what you lot say. Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to discuss redirections. There is no question of deletion here. See Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:DR and take it to Talk:2 Grand. --Triwbe (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not independently notable. If someone wants to merge the content, that's fine too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent 2009 Series or whatever it's called. No further content here that's worth merging; this article doesn't even state the surname of the members of the duo. - fchd (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:1E. I42 (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Skip redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One failed audition? Not notable. Collect (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

FYI, the duo's audition was indeed successful, and they advanced along to the season's final, among the 9 other contestants. Jamie^☆S93 01:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MUSICBIO.--Otterathome (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the duo achieve any notability outside Britain's Got Talent. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 3)#Semi-finalists per WP:PRESERVE. There is no reason to delete this information. A paragraph in the Britain's Got Talent article is the best alternative to deletion. Furthermore, "2 Grand" is a legitimate search term for this duo. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animo

I actually helped out on this article, and used it for a DYK nom. But looking at it more closely and doing research off wiki, I don't see anything out there that says that they've been associated with the record labels claimed. Fails WP:BAND Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I find it hard to believe a band that played 4 Warped tours manages to be non-notable, but they really seemed to have pulled it off. Hairhorn (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Mulholland

Footballer fails notability at WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league or cup. Contested PROD by User:Cement23, no explanation given. --Jimbo^[online] 11:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can find ony minimal information to verify the information in the article. The player stat page that was provided is a broken link. When I went to the club page on maltafootbal.com, Matthew Mulholland is not listed as a player. I did find a single match where he was substituted in but according to the statistics page it was for a total of 1 minute. Doesn't make him notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per Wp:N--SKATER ^Speak. 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Malta Prem league is not fully professional and 1 minute for a non pro team is not in itself notable. Appears to have done nothing of note elsewhere either.
Delete per WP:N --Angelo (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer. --Carioca (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Said Faqi

Does not satisfy the conditions for notability with regards to scientists, WP:PROF. Sixty peer-reviewed publications is quite common, and in itself not enough for notability. No other merits are mentioned which could justify inclusion. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60 papers is nothing to sneeze at, but I agree that it's below the bar of notability. He seems to be have been entered as an example of a Somali scientist; probably there are not many of them in the west. But that doesn't merit a whole entry; at most it would qualify him for an entry on a list. See: Category:Somali scientists; they're all up for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Before i make my case for Ali Said Faqi i would like to note that I have looked around at the scientist pages of other ethnic groups and 60 peer reviewed papers is not common at all, if we at wikipedia.org are setting a bar/treshold at what can be considered notable then let's make sure these same bars/tresholds don't shift along ethnic lines, how are the following scientists more notable than Ali Said Faqi?:

I'm sure i could find more if i did a thorough search but i believe that's not neccessary because i think my point is clear(unless there is a special criteria for Somali researchers only that i'm not aware of?). Here is why i believe he should have his own entry and this is not exclusively related to Science:

Besides his contributions in scientific journals which have been cited in several books, he also Co-authored: Zonal recovering in equatorial sandhoppers: interaction between magnetic and solar orientation
He is a prominent member of the Somali Studies organization and has been chairman several times.
During his stay at Allergan Pharmaceuticals he was a senior scientist dealing with global entities:

MPI RESEARCH hires Dr. Ali Said Faqi, a well-known and eminent scientist.
MPI Research is pleased to announce the addition of Ali Said Faqi, DVM, Ph.D., D.A.B.T to our scientific staff as Director of Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology. Dr. Faqi recently came to MPI Research from Allergan, Inc., where he was responsible for monitoring internal and outsourced toxicology studies, and for the preparation of regulatory documents for submission to worldwide agencies in compliance with ICH, FDA, CPMP and other guidelines.[11]

Is a Adjunct Professor of Biological Sciences at Mpi Research Inc
Is a independent scholar on non-scientific issues and has written dozens of papers on Somali issues which are circulating in Somali scholarship, the most prominant example being: An Urgent Need for Environmental Protection Policy in Somalia(Ali S Faqi 2007)

For this reason i believe the deletion of his entry is not justified --Scoobycentric (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not considered a good defense to point to unrelated articles to argue against deletion. Since anyone can create an article, existing articles do not necessarily meet criteria for inclusion either (See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). As for the examples, Marcela Contreras holds a senior government position, was given an award by Queen Elizabeth, etc, she's hardly comparable. Some of the other articles you cite may in fact be reasonable candidates for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it was less about pointing fingers and more about how emulation is common on wikipedia because when a wiki-editor makes a new template or an article, the person observes and studies existing templates and articles and tries to emulate them, as i have done with these entries about Somali researchers. Fair enough regarding Marcela Contreras --Scoobycentric (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Scoobycentric's detailed justification above, the article seems worth keeping. Faqi is clearly notable. Middayexpress (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which conditions of WP:PROF does he satisfy, and if so: can you provide reliable sources for that? -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment His notability is twofold, first as a researcher and second as a independent scholar, this i have demonstrated in that very elaborate post further up the page. I also found out that citability through systems such as H-index and G-index could be used in arguments against deletion - Ali Said Faqi's H-Index level at QuadSearch:

H-INDEX (Hirsch Number): 11. Egghe's G-INDEX: 19 Maximum Cites: 82 Total Cites: 438, Total Articles: 52 Cites/Paper: 8.4230 -[12]

This level is higher than many other scientists currently featuring on wikipedia(but i won't mention them per Hairhorn's advice about pointing to other articles in discussions) --Scoobycentric (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I have about the same indexes, but I am far from considering myself notable. -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Crowsnest (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's a risky argument. Someone might well try to write an article--it's happened before. People are not very good judges of their own notability.DGG (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching Quadsearch in categories of Medicine, Biology, Chemistry I get 43 papers with 368 cites and h = 9. Respectable but far from notable. In view of discussion above-delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Ali Faqi is not just a scientist but also an expert commentator on Somali politics. He regularly partakes in reconciliation and development conferences alongside other notables such as James C. Swan, theDeputy Assistance Secretary of the African Affairs from the US State Department Bureau of African Affairs. Mr. Francois L. Fall, the UN Special Representative for Somalia and the head of UNPOS, and David Shinn, the former US ambassador to Ethiopia. That only adds to his notability; it doesn't detract from it. Middayexpress (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable secondary sources proving that he is notable in this respect? I cannot find them. Notability cannot be inherited from relationships to other notable people. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is noted as an independent scholar. He has contributed on the subject of Somali politics and Society[www.somalistudies.com/etc/SSIA_Edited_Program_6_8_07.pdf](page 8) --Scoobycentric (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That shows he was one of the contributing participants of the conference. It does not show his notability as an expert commentator on Somali politics. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link I cited in my earlier comment clearly describes him as "an expert commentato[r] on Somali politics". Middayexpress (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep What h index notoriously does not do is indicate the distribution. 8 papers with 8 citations each is an h-index of 8; 1 paper of 8000 and 7 of 8, is also an index of 8. Looking at the actual counts here from Scopus, the most cited papers are 83, 42,38,36,34, 33, 21, 18, 16, 15, 14, and the actual h-index is 13, not 8. There can be name problems with non0Euriopean names .DGG (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good point here. Scopus or WoS will be more accurate than GS in this field. Non-European name will be no problem as he identifies himself as A S Faqui which will cause no difficulty. Nonetheless, notability WP:Prof is not obtained and Keep will have to be other grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The deletion arguments pointed out issues with the notability of this band which wasn't addressed by those saying the article should be kept. When we discount the distracting votes made by possible SPA, the keep arguments stand considerably weaker. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Erotica

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

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

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

Non-notable band with only very limited coverage Passportguy (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails Wp:Band, Wp:Notability, and fits Csd-7--SKATER ^Speak. 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. It might be an A7 candidate, but it's not clear to me that it is. Hairhorn (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have every intention of making every improvement necessary to adhere to no less than the minimum quality requirements that Wikipedia has set forth. I will be maintaining and updating the Sonic Erotica entry as time progresses. There is an enormous amount of data that is being compiled regarding this subject and I respectlfully request your indulgence as I "muddle through" that while learning how to better use Wikipedia.

Thank you.

--Mirror Man (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: With all due respect to TexA.N.S., how did that band meet Wikipedia standards of qualifaction? I'd like to better understand by comparision.

Thank You, --97.67.12.10 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Question. --Mirror Man (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you , read WP:MUSIC, it lists what makes bands notable for inclusion. Also, I almost thought this article was going to deal with actual erotica of Sonic the Hedgehog (my mind is totally in the gutter). ~~But anyway, A7 for failing WP:MUSIC criteria for bands.~~ The sources on the talk page may cut it, so I withdraw my !vote for now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Members of the band are notable and its worth including for its role in those developments and music history. In other words, these participants make the band notable, even though in and of itself, is marginal. This is discussed on the article talk page. (and before anyone jumps all over me, if Tina Turner and Jerry Garcia were part of a band with limited notability, it would still be worth including because of that history). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not True, Scars on Broadway Was a band that featured Daron Malakian A famous guitarist, and it was deleted and redirected to him. The Article was recreated once the band became more active. The band could be listed on the notable peoples talk page.--SKATER ^Speak. 15:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny Ten Pound Hammer! LOL. No, the Sonic Erotica that I speak of has nothing to do with any sort of pornography or sexually explicit materials. No hedgehogs (or otters)either. Thank you for your reconsideration. Alsom for notoriety, member Mike Meengs was with the band TexA.N.S. which spun off to form the band, Tool. Mike went on to form other projects. One of which was Sonic Erotica with lead vocalist, Brian Stevenson. Sonic Erotica was recognised and given airtime by 98 ROCK (WXTB-FM) a Clear Channel Communications station. Mike Meengs then went on to form LVX Nova, an ambient jazz group that was signed by Miramar Productions and received airtime on MTV/VH1. Brian Stevenson performed with Mike on the LVX Nova debut album.

Thank you Childofmidnight. Well put. --Mirror Man (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mirror Man! I found a Sonic Erotica CD on ebay in Pennsylvania! --97.67.12.10 (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PhilKnight's justification for deletion, "trivial coverage" is opinionated. Although something may appear trivial to him, may not be to others who have experienced this point in Tampa Bay history.--97.67.12.10 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — 97.67.12.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I agree. "Trivial Coverage" is an opinionated statement. I am to understand that Wikipedia is to be an accumulation of human knowledge. Not a global popularity contest.--Reapers Lullaby (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)— Reapers Lullaby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- The central criterion which governs whether a subject deserves an article is called the General Notability Guideline. This states that a subject is sufficiently notable to have its own article if there is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The google news search that I've linked to indicates the coverage is trivial, not significant. PhilKnight (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd hate to break it to you Phil but your interpretation of the link you've added is just that, YOUR interpretation. I agree to keep Sonic Erotica. Obviously this in not a band of international notoriety but clearly they have achieved (at least) local celebrity status. We shouldn't try to erase local or regional historical events just because we may have become desensitized on a global level. Clearly, Sonic Erotica has impacted lives and has influenced many people even after over a decade has passed since they've dis-banded. Whomever started the Sonic Erotica entry, is obviously trying to make that point as well. Keep it. Who does it hurt?--DoomsdayDevice3D (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)— DoomsdayDevice3D (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

By the way, Criteria for musicians and ensembles: MY interpretation of this criteria, Sonic Erotica and/or members meets no less than numbers 6, 7, 9 and 12!--97.67.12.10 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you provide evidence of these claims? PhilKnight (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question PhilKnight, Much evidence has already been provided at the external links I've already provided. And there are still more to come. Have you reviewed each and every single one for yourself? Your question however has posed me to ask, "Can you provide evidence to the contrary"?--Mirror Man (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! It's about time someone out there recognized these guys! Who knows? Maybe these guys will get back together because of this posting and even donate towards Wiki! I hear that Brian Stevenson has got several projects including something called TripKit [13].--97.89.112.126 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the only links that seem to be out there talk about people in other bands who were "previously with Sonic Erotica" - there doesn't seem to be any reliable, third party discussion of the band itself, which would make it difficult to write a meaningful article without a heaping helping of original research or primary sources. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Third party discussions are available for others to see for themselves and are and will continue to be provided. That is as long as others such as ESkog don't take it upon themselves to delete that information to help justify their own arguments.--Mirror Man (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC) — Mirror Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This has gotten me curious and I've found many third (and fourth) party references towards Sonic erotica throughout multiple internet search engines. Although this band hasn't existed for what appears to be at least a decade, it still has achieved a regional "notoriety" and should be recognized accordingly.--Mindmachine (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC) — Mindmachine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

New users have a right to express their opinions.--97.89.112.126 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New users absolutely have a right to express their opinions, but if someone creates an account solely to !vote on an AFD, that should be noted and taken into account by the closing admin. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Points to Hammer for making me laugh. However, the article needs a serious cleanup and improvement in sourcing before I'd lean to keep it...not to mention the notability issues.Tyrenon (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would be more than happy to oblige on the "clean up". Perhaps you can offer some specifics? I'm still trying to gain a "feel" for this and some constructive criticism is always appreciated.--Mirror Man (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC). I'm currently studying other bands' wikis for format references. I intend to change band promo photo to a less "in your face" size. And I'm meeting with the former band mates on an individual basis for further recounts.--Mirror Man (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way. To the other anonymous and non-anonymous "voters" as it were that want to see these gentlemen recognised, I thank you. I believe it's understood that it is not a democracy here however, I do appreciate the support.--Mirror Man (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alim Ahmed Fatah

I have great doubts about notability. In Google News, only one reference to a source of unknown reliability shows up (WardheerNews, also in the article). I am also unable to verify the inventions and awards mentioned in the article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Criteria of Notability:

1 The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

Dr Alim Ahmed Fatah qualifies, as his peer reviewed research is evidence of this[14]. Under his auspices the self adhesive postage stamp was invented[15] and www.pnc3.org/TPN/1993/may-93.pdf

2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Dr Alim Ahmed Fatah qualifies, as he been recognised with several prestigious awards such as the Zappert award and Gold Medal for Distinguished Service, Leadership and Accomplishments from the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce[16](though i'm currently unable to verify the first award in other sources other than Wardheernews, however i doubt a professional academic such as Dr Alim Ahmed Fatah would lie about receiving a prestigious award in a interview with a popular Somali news website)

3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

Dr Alim Ahmed Fatah qualifies as he had/has leadership rolers in the following entities: The American Chemical Society (ACS), 2) the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 3) The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), The American Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), 4) The Interagency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability (IAB), 5) The American National Standards Institute’s Homeland Security Standards Panel (ANSI-HSSP), 6) The National Organization of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCCHE), 7) The British Standards Institution (BSI)

4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Dr Alim Ahmed Fatah qualifies see points 1/2/3

5 The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

I'm not aware of wether Dr Alim Ahmed Fatah in his long professional career has ever served as a professor but from his interview with Wardheernews i can only deduct that he is at times a teacher.

6 The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

See point 3

7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

See point 1

8 The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

Does not qualify

9 The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Dr Alim Ahmed Fatah has co-authored and written chapters in many scientific books[17] For this reason i believe the nomination for deletion is wrong! --Scoobycentric (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. First of all, he's not an academic, so it's already reaching to apply the academic notability criteria. As with the other Somali scientist entries, many of the accomplishments claimed are requirements for the sort of career they're following; a "scientist with peer reviewed publications" isn't more notable than "a scientist" because - at a certain level - they refer to exactly the same group of people. Hairhorn (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article comes off as more of a resume. Cool, he developed the self-adhesive postage stamp. Great. Where does he fall into WP:N, and particularly WP:BLP? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No he did NOT invent the self-adhesive postage stamp. Re-read the 1992 patent. Drawn Some (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Independent reliable sources do not exist to provide in-depth coverage necessary to establish notability. They should be in English since his education and career have been at English-speaking schools and in English-speaking countries but if there are references to establish notability in Arabic I will reconsider my opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hairhorn - again I disagree, not all researchers receive awards such as the ones given to Alim A. Fatah or else these awards would mean nothing as everyone would have them, clearly that's not the case and the fact that he received them is a sign of recognition for his contributions.
Dennis the Tiger - the article currently might look like a resume this however doesn't mean the the article would remain static forever in this form.

Granted, but it appears that there are other problems that have been pointed out. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn Some - actually nobody said he alone invented it but he was the project leader during the development of this particular stamp. The lack of indepth sources is not evidence of non-notability as the section Notability Fallacies of the article Arguments to avoid in Deletion discussions highlights --Scoobycentric (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the patent, it isn't FOR the invention of the self-adhesive postage stamp, team or solo flyer. It is an invention for what looks like a particular configuration. It is a minor patent. Many scientists have hundreds or thousands of such patents. The problem with this fellow is the lack of sources. And lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources is PRECISELY what makes him non-notable. Drawn Some (talk)

Comment I found this [18] (maybe someone already mentioned it?) I'm not sure on this biography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the criteria for notability have been met, as amply demonstrated above by Scoobycentric. He has also already mentioned that Wardheernews source, which, incidentally, does indeed state that Alim Ahmed Fatah "has developed among other things the currently popular self-adhesive postage stamp." I'm not sure why no one else picked up on this except for ChildofMidnight. Whatever the case, there clearly is no legitimate reason to delete this article. Middayexpress (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wardheernews source, Fatah has also won the Team Leadership Award for Environmental Achievement from the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture as well as the Gold Medal for Distinguished Service, Leadership and Accomplishments, the latter of which was awarded by the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce and apparently constitutes "the highest award given to U.S. Civil Service". I fail to see how that too is not notable. Middayexpress (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight - yes that source is where i orginally got my info from because any person that reads that interview will clearly process that this individual is a notable person worthy of a entry on wiki.
Drawn Some - clearly you know more about patent systems and how it works than me so i wont argue with you on that but again Alim A. Fatah is a important person as this following source showcases:

Dr. Fatah is recognized for leadership and foresight in establishing the Critical Incident Technologies program at NIST to address the Nation's need for a suite of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives (CBRNE) protective equipment standards, and for positioning the government to respond when the need was most urgent. Dr. Fatah's program has created much needed standards and guides to enable state and local first responders to accelerate upgrading their capabilities to respond safely and effectively to terrorism and other incidents involving possible CBRNE threats. - National Institute of Standards and Technology

hr.commerce.gov/Practitioners/PerformanceManagementandAwards/ssLINK/prod01_001298

How is he not notable when the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the US holds him responsible for the advancement in standards and guides used to combat terrorism based on his research and leadership?--Scoobycentric (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So either show significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources OR give a reliable source to verify that he was awarded the "highest award given to U.S. Civil Service". Drawn Some (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. That quote again was from this source. Middayexpress (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn Some see page 29 --Scoobycentric (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The highest award for US Civil Servants is the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service, at least according to wikipedia and other sources. And Google searches for "The Gold Medal for Distinguished Service, Leadership and Accomplishments" [19] and related searches only bring up hits for the interview with Dr. Fatah and the wiki page up for deletion. He may have some claim to notability, but much of it is unverifiable. One interview on a web page is not enough for verification. Hairhorn (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Medal for Distinguished Service, Leadership and Accomplishments from the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce --Scoobycentric (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That award is the highest departmental award. It's like employee of the year for the department except two dozen people get it so it's more like employee of the twice-a-month staff meeting. It's not the highest civilian award. Honestly, I don't like these exaggerations regarding inventions and awards. Wikipedia editors may be easily fooled in clumps of two or three but we are a pretty tough bunch to fool en masse. Drawn Some (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wardheernews.com is not a reliable source. The "Articles" section states:

"We welcome the submission of all articles for possible publication on wardheerNews.com. email your article today

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WardheerNews"

So it does not have the editorial screening and verification of a reliable news organisation.

Even worse is the "Forum" section (shown on top of the referenced page http://wardheernews.com/Wareysiyo/April_06_Wareysi_Alim.Fatah.htm), which page is blocked for viewing by my browser (Firefox) as an attack site, i.e. trying to install programs on my computer for phishing or other harmful intents. So forget about this one. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wardheernews is a reliable source and it does have editorial screening. Here's what it states on its "About us" page:

"WardheerNews is a Somali Web Portal, intended for the Somalis in the Horn of Africa and the world at large as well as other interested individuals and organizations. It is designed to provide reliable up to date news reports, studies and analysis on current issues and problems of concern to the Somali people encompassing political, social and cultural fields.

Accordingly, WardheerNews's main mission is to produce and print for wider dessimination , articles and commentaries of high journalistic standard that are fair, objective and free from extremism, bias or external influence.

At this historic occasion of launching this important web magazine, the editorial Board takes this opportunity to extend warm compliments to all associates and readers of WardheerNews and invite them to submit their views, comments and analysis on issues of special concern to the people of our region. We urge them all to use WardheerNews as an appropriate forum for exchange of information, debate, discussion and interaction.

Thanks

Editorial Board

November 23, 2004 "

The interview in question was conducted by Wardheernews itself. This is why the question asker's handle bears the WDN acronym i.e. because he works for Wardheernews as a member of its staff: "Wardheernews takes this rare opportunity to recognize Dr. Fatah's achievement in his professional field and presents him to its readership. Mr. Ahmed A. Hassan conducted the interview for Wardheernews." The article is therefore not an op-ed piece. Also, though I'm not sure why Firefox is preventing you from accessing the site (its not blocking it for me, and I'm also using Firefox), Wardheernews is not a spam site. It's actually a very respected online news outlet where scholars, intellectuals and others in the Somalist and Horn African community regularly premiere their works. Its articles are also cited and republished by other renowned news organizations (e.g. this article by Johann Hari in The Independent). Middayexpress (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crowsnest Middayexpress is correct, Wardheernews is one of the most respected Somali online news outlets, see these quotes from the San Diego Tribune article: Disseminating Somalia news through Web site is brothers' mission by Peter Rowe:

They are not alone. On the Internet, there's no shortage of media outlets peddling news from Mogadishu, Hargeysa, Berbera and other cities and villages on the Horn of Africa.
"But a number of these Web sites are clan-based, so they're tilted to one side," said Abdullah Said Osman, Somalia's last ambassador to the United Nations (1984-1991) and now diplomat-in-residence at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. "In my opinion, Wardheer News gives an unbiased, reliable reporting of events. That's what makes it popular."
---

These days, Wardheer News is well beyond "Wow!" By April, traffic had increased 10-fold. This month, they were on track to draw more than 1 million visitors.
---

"This is a site where intellectuals can debate issues," said Abdiweli Heibeh, a San Diego police officer and an occasional Wardheer News contributor.
The site's news stories are supplied by an eclectic array of sources, from Al-Jazeera to the Pentagon, from London's Daily Telegraph to Agence France-Presse. This comprehensive, open-minded approach appeals to Mohamed M. Garad, a retired diplomat whose career included stints as Somalia's ambassador to Nigeria, Uganda and Qatar.

Wardheernews is a reliable news outlet.

Drawn Some nobody here is trying to fool anyone, you can read our claims in the links provided therein. I find it interesting that you would downplay the importance of that particular medal, when it comes from an institution that oversees the Economic growth of the United States which in the last election was a pillar in the campaigns of any competing candidate, i refuse to believe receiving a Gold medal from this same entity is the equivalance of me receiving a 'employee of the year' award at my office job. --Scoobycentric (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally unclear to me what a site's traffic statistics have to do with is reliability. I would say, from what I see on the internet: it has nothing to do with reliability.

Further, quotes from some individuals do not provide evidence whether Wardheernews belongs to the "…reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.…" as defined in WP:Reliable sources. -- Crowsnest (talk)

Comment Another point is that the article in Wardheernews (apart from the reliability of this source) is an interview, so it is a primary source. While the notability guidelines, see WP:GNG requires: …"Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.… -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have already demonstrated that Wardheernews is considered a reliable news outlet condoned by a variety of professional and non-professional people/entities. Wikipedia policy makes it clear that one can use primary sources if the sources are considered mainstream and reliable, Wardheernews qualifies for both:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. - primary source.

In the Somali world Wardheernews is the equivalance of the Daily Telegraph and those interested in Somali issues either contribute to or reference this same outlet--Scoobycentric (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crowsnest i just noticed that you removed the Wardheernews reference because you believe it contained malware, but no such thing occurred when I, Childofmidnight and Middayexpress visited the same link. I would like to ask those engaging in this discussion to click on the link and see if the same problem happens to you or wether its just an individual case. If it's the latter then i will reinsert this reference --Scoobycentric (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable primary sources can be used additionally in an article, but the bulk of the sources should be secondary, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Notability is based on secondary sources, see my comment above.

I still have the same problem concerning the "Reported attack site" warning with the "Forum" link above the interview in Wardheernews. Perhaps some more people can try, and report whether they find problems. If not, the link can be re-inserted. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This discussion is a mess regarding lay-out. Please adhere to Wikipedia:AfD#How to discuss an AfD: only use bold very sparingly, use a bullet to start your contribution and indent according to which contribution you react to.
Regarding his function at NIST: I can nowhere find he is "head of International relations at the National Institute of Standards and Technology" as claimed in the article at this moment, with a citation to page 15 of http://www.eeel.nist.gov/oles/NIST-Law_Enforcement_Tech_Partnerships.pdf for verification. This document, from 2001, says on page 14 and 15 that Alim A. Fatah is a staff member of the Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) within NIST, with Kathleen Higgins as its director, and that at that time he is one of the program managers. It says about him: "The manager of the Chemical Systems and Materials program, for example, also serves as OLES' International Relations manager." In the 2007 document http://www.eeel.nist.gov/oles/Publications/Office_of_Law_Enforcement_Standards.pdf on page vii it is said he is Program Manager: Public Safety and Security Technologies; and nothing any more about International Relations. -- Crowsnest (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Crowsnest a Program manager at OLES is also known as the Head of a particular department(in this case A.A Fatah is Program manager of International relations) this is clearly explained on pg 12, i quote: For each project, OLES starts by identifying both a program manager within it's organisation( the head of one of it's five core programs) and a principal investigator.(NIST & Law Enforcement pdf). Alim A. Fatah is manager of two of the five core programs, which is emphasized on page 14 of the same document. I have corrected the statement accordingly(he is head of I.R at OLES not NIST, this however does not diminish the importance of this position, as you can read on their website's mission statement[20]) --Scoobycentric (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is this? An attempt to keep the article by information overload and argument exhaustion!? The subject should be commended and, I hope, is getting paid royalties for the inventions, but passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have doubts as to the accuracy of the article. The conduct of its proponents has been questionable. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comments: How is providing elaborate evidence for your case against deletion an attempt to overload/exhaust or worst 'questionable' conduct? I'm being told he doesn't pass WP:PROF/BIO but nobody elaborates where/why he fails?, i'm disappointed with that, this shouldn't be a 'vote' only with a few cryptic sentences accompanying it. Point by point i have addressed the requirements of WP:PROF and several times i have had to re-iterate a point already answered, giving me the suspicion none of the sources i have provided was actually read. Secondly reliable sources have been dismissed because of the 'proponent for deletion' unfamiliarity with them, which i think is unfair, the equivalant would be for me to dismiss the 'Hindustan times' serving predominantly the Indian community because i know nothing about it.--Scoobycentric (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the Hindustan Times either, but 10 seconds of Googling tells me it's a major print newspaper in India, not a webpage-only news site with user-submitted content. I don't think sheer unfamiliarity is the problem here. Hairhorn (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You turn things around here: it has to be established that the subject of the article is notable. Nobody has to prove on which points he fails notability. The burden of evidence lies with the editor(s) who include material, see WP:PROVEIT. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source confirming he won a prestigious award has been provided, a reliabe source confirming he is the head of two important positions at OLES(NIST) has been provided. The subject is included in a book entitled Muslims in America by Amir Muhammad, this has also been picked up by several Canadian magazines namely Ottawa's Muslim link(page 10)[21] and United views(page 15)[22]. None of these sources have anything to do with Wardheernews(whose reliability has been proven further down below with the promotion of this outlet by several important scholars and political scientists in their research and books) --Scoobycentric (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC

You cannot be serious about this: "Did you know's" in two Muslim magazines as a proof he invented the self-adhesive stamp. As shown by Drawn Some, see [23], forget the self-adhesive stamp regarding notability.
And also forget about "head of two important positions at OLES" (Office of Law Enforcements Standards), being one of the four program managers in a small department within NIST with a staff of nine people (2001), 18 people in 2007 (see page vii of this NIST document). This position, in its own, does not provide notability. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: If several sources (two of them quoting a book and the other an interview with the subject in question) claim he invented the self-adhesive postage stamp than i don't see why i shouldn't use it in the article. If i were to investigate this said claim myself and reported the results, this would be Original research which is not allowed, even if it proves the claim or discredits it. The right avenue would be for me to specifically highlight which sources say what. Another book Stamps: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases‎ has a section on the ATM dispensable self adhesive Postage stamp, where the subject is also credited. And why should one forget about his position as a high ranking member at OLES just because of the low number of staff, when they are an intregal part of US defense against domestic chemical/biological and nuclear warfare?:

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Radiological, and Explosive (CBRNE) Threats
NIST measurements and standards help the nation detect chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) threats and prepare to respond to a possible CBRNE attack. The NIST Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) works with federal agencies to evaluate technologies used by the emergency responder and criminal justice communities. OLES works with industry and the emergency responder community to develop communications standards to help emergency responders from different communities and agencies work together effectively at a disaster site. OLES standards help protect emergency responders and enable them to do their jobs more effectively by certifying the performance of protective gear such as body armor and hazardous materials suits. After the attacks, NIST accelerated development of a series of Emergency First Responder Equipment Guides, in conjunction with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). NIST also accelerated work with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the U.S. Army Soldier Biological and Chemical Command (SBCCOM) to develop the standard for Self Contained Breathing Apparatus to protect emergency responders.[24]

Alim A. Fatah was honored with an award for his contributions in this sector see my earlier post( 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)). Why is his position and this particular department being downgraded when it's clearly not unimportant or non-notable?. --Scoobycentric (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One google books search verifies the respect and notability of Wardheernews amongst Somalist scholars and scholars whose research is related to Somalia[25], an alert by one member regarding potential malware(some anti-spyware softwares are highly sensative to legitimate innocent ads) is not sufficient(i'm dissappointed nobody honored my small request in reporting back wether they suffered the same as member crowsnest) --Scoobycentric (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the interview in question isn't "user-contributed". It was conducted by a Wardheernews staff member (as I've clearly already explained above), which is why its questions are signed "WDN". There is also nothing "questionable" about arguing for the preservation of an article that one knows does not fall under the deletion criteria. In fact, that is what WP:DP expressly instructs editors to do. It also specifies that the discussion process is "not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." Middayexpress (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue with the Wardheernews interview is that it is an interview, which is not a secondary source as required for establishing notability, see my post of 09:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC). So also if this would be a reliable source, it is still of no use with respect to establishing notability. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autolect

Prod contested with the explanation, I dont care if you erase this info. It still wont stop us from placing our artist and music. Everything was done correctly! Indeed, everything was done correctly, except for one thing: the author forgot to check whether the subject meets the minimum notability standards laid out at WP:BAND. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one independent reliable source given to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drawn Some.Tyrenon (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bajaj Super

no assertion of notability. Vespa knockoffs, even ones manufactured illegally, are not automatically notable, and no other notability has been asserted. Ironholds (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe Bajaj Super is iconic, made in it's 100,000's maybe even millions. I'm the owner of a Baja Super and only created this entry as a growth seed for further information. I'll be adding to this article as I find more information out about this scooter.

There are entries for 100's of other scooters - why should the Baja Super be any less notable than them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.105.13 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it till the article can be improved with coverage from newspapers etc. The article is not worthy in its current state. Corpx (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if reliable sources can be cited for the info) and redirect to Bajaj Auto for now. More information can be added about the scooter there just as well as it can be added to a separate article, and it can be easily broken back out into a separate article when and if there's enough information to justify that. (As for the other scooters, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because some scooters are notable doesn't automatically make every scooter notable.) Chuck (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other Bajaj cycles have their own articles (see list at Bajaj_Auto#Motorcycles). Here are some reliable sources that mention the Bajaj Super:[26] [27]. A Google news archive search finds a slew of sources: [28]. Priyanath ^talk 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google throws up a few news hits for the Bajaj Super (just ignore the ones on theft of the same). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing not notable about a scooter millions use across the globe Wikireader41 (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Russell Agency

fails WP:ORG. The only coverage is one piece in a local journal and one piece in another local paper that is aimed at a company the Russell Agency works for. Ironholds (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an advertising agency; all of the stated coverage is local. Does not meet the business notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet even my requirements :). Not a nationally known agency AFAICT. Collect (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Just for the record, Dream Focus was right that it was not an obvious G4 candidate Fritzpoll (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings and Roads (Air Gear)

Totally unsourced, written in-universe, and I doubt any sources exist to establish real world context. Nothing more than various fans collections of plot details. Ridernyc (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also as I suspected it was already deleted once before. Ridernyc (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as recreation of an already deleted article. --Farix (Talk) 12:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect The whole set of Air Gear related article is a big mess. This one has the least legitimacy in the lot. Notability not asserted, in universe, not verified with citations & references and probably wrong article name. However some elements of this article should salvaged as the regalia represent a big chunk of the plot in this manga. --KrebMarkt 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous AFD had three people say delete, and it got deleted. The history of this article shows it has been edited by a lot of people over the past months. The title of the article is the same, but the article is not identical to the last one deleted. Just clarifying that, since I removed the speedy delete tag for that reason. The article doesn't need any references outside of its primary source, by the wikipedia law of common sense. Does anyone doubt this is a notable aspect of the popular fictional series Air Gear? Dream Focus 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edited by a lot of people yet not one bit of real world context or references. Ridernyc (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When there is no subject specific guideline to fall back upon, WP:NOTE takes precedence. But even policy on verifiability requires that a subject must be covered by a reliable source independent of the subject, such as the work itself and author. As for your removal of the speedy tag because it was not word-for-word identical, that's full of it. If the article is substantially identical to the previously deleted article, it qualifies as a speedy deletion candidate. And the only one who can judge that right now is an administrator. But from what I remember of the previous article, they are substantially identical. In fact, this can be confirmed by visiting the Internet Archives (archive dated October 11, 2007, original article deleted on December 7, 2008). For that reason, I have restored the speedy deletion tag. --Farix (Talk) 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through that, and don't see how you could say its the same article. They list the same kings and roads, obviously, but much of the text is completely different, a lot of things added that weren't there before, and some chunks near the end not there at all. Stick to the AFD, since its here now, and stop trying to speedy delete things. Dream Focus 21:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability establishable through realityverse reliable sources that discuss this fictional thing. That many fanboys without a grasp on our notability requirements have edited this article has no bearing on its merits.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional concept(s) lacking any real world notability and more suitable for a specialized wiki Corpx (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally in-universe fancruft. Fails every draft version of WP:FICT which requires some kind of real-world significance backed up by independent and reliable sources. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (closure at nominator's request [29]). ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Northrup

Relationships do not confer notability. Ex-wife of a notable person. No achievements of her own, awards, fame, nada.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)......(fixing for original nominator [30], no opinion implied by me Drawn Some)[reply]

Keep, amply satisfies WP:NOTE: has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. See results in 40 books, 23 news articles, 7 scholarly sources, as well as additional sources in other archival news databases. Cirt (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than satisfies notability. I have also started an ANI discussion about this user. Considering the recent CoS ARBcom I find this nomination in bad faith. Ridernyc (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO independent of infamous hubby. Drawn Some (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. S. M. Sullivan appears to be confused about what notability actually means on Wikipedia - it's not about who a person is, per se, it's about how much coverage the person has had in independent secondary reliable sources. Cirt's citations above demonstrate that Sara Northrup does indeed qualify. She was not only L. Ron Hubbard's second wife, she was also the girlfriend of the occultist Jack Parsons and a significant figure in the occult movement in southern California in the mid-1940s (to the point that Aleister Crowley felt moved to denounce her). I'll have a go at expanding the article - there is certainly a lot that could be added. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely rewritten and expanded the article, which is now at Sara Northrup Hollister. Notability should certainly not be an issue now! -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am rescinding my delete as non-notable vote. Great job, ChrisO! S. M. Sullivan (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Spine

Non-notable musical artist. Speedy contested bye editor whose first and only edits were to remove the CSD. Ridernyc (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily passes WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not arguing, but can you point out what exactly passes WP:MUSIC Ridernyc (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

covered in multiple, reliable sources independent of the article topic would be me paraphrasing. See point 1 of WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I see are blogs none which I would not consider a reliable source. I also can find no reliable sources on Google. Also checking last.fm I see total of 68 plays over the last 6 months for this artist who has no description. Ridernyc (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Tripwire ones are certainly reliable - blogs, yes, but blogs published at a reputable website. Sort of like an opinion piece in the NYT is reliable because it's published in the NYT, while it wouldn't be considered an RS on say, blogspot. I'd say fork/knife probably counts as reputable, even though it is a blogspot site - taking a look at the bands they've interviewed they must have some pull. BTR, imo, also probably passes. Ironholds (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Not yet notable. A few online mentions isn't enough to establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. لenna vecia 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous blog mentions imply notability within the indie rock community. Djd1219 (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source I could find that *might* be considered reliable is this and that is not enough. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. The primary sources I find are blogs, and the only coverage in reliable sources really isn't "substantial". Per ThaddeusB. Jamie^☆S93 22:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Malta relations

Independent sources dealing with bilateral relations between Cyprus and Malta in a non-trivial manner do not exist to establish notability for this topic. This article was created without any real content by a now-banned editor who created thousands of such random x-y intersections between countries. No prejudice at re-creation at a future date if bilateral relations develop between them. Am requesting full deletion with no merge or redirect or disambiguation stub left as this is a highly unambiguous phrase and an unlikely search term. Drawn Some (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Drawn Some (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your nomination already counts as 1 "vote". LibStar (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I feel very strongly about this one. No intent to deceive! Drawn Some (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of coverage in multilateral and EU context (since both were new entrants to EU) but a real lack of coverage in bilateral sense. [31]. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asdide from island status, precious little between them. Collect (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These countries have ten bilateral agreements with each other per the source provided on the page. Obviously there is room for development. Deletion of informative sourced information is not the answer.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources may NOT be used to establish notability, for obvious reasons. Do you have any independent reliable sources showing in-depth coverage of the topic? Drawn Some (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's very old history here. The Knights of St John had a long history on Cyprus before retreating to Malta, and even then they were a major force in the Mediterannean. The current article may not reflect this, but the subject is unquestionably notable. Ray^Talk 21:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of development. It mentions a connection from the 16th century, and "Malta pledges support for Cypriot reunification" (hasn't every country made some sort of statement regarding Cypriot reunification?). The Knights of St John mentioned in the above comment were thrown out of Cyprus, and ended up in Malta in the 16th century (that's the full extent of the connection). No sources discuss these relations. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there is scope for expansion from this stub. The countries are Mediterranean islands, both are former British colonies, and have both now joined the EU. Their shared history and common situation means that they are often mentioned in the same breath, e.g. [32][33][34]. Hansard might hold some useful information of their relations, especially pre-independence:[35]. There have been bilateral meetings between the presidents, both before they joined the EU and after. Fences and windows (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral meetings:[36][37][38][39][40]. They signed a cooperation protocol last year:[41], and their diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv and Ramallah are housed together[42], showing a fair level of cooperation between the two countries. Fences and windows (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the official view of the bilateral relations, in an exchange between the president of Cyprus and the new Maltese High Commissioner to Cyprus in January:[43]. Excerpt:"Diplomatic relations between our two countries were established on 13 September 1972 when the first High Commissioners from both sides presented their credentials. Since then these relations were always at a very high level and always dynamic. In fact, the bilateral agreements that were signed by both countries over the years are a proof of this dynamic relationship. The latest agreement signed last year concern the protocol on Reinforced Cooperation between the respective Ministries of Foreign Affairs that was followed by the diplomatic premises of the Republic of Cyprus in Tel Aviv and another Memorandum of Understanding that concern the representation of the two Governments to the Palestinian Authority. Other agreements deal with tourism, health, medical sciences and pharmaceutics, telecommunications, double taxation, cultural and scientific cooperation, combating terrorism, illicit drug trafficking and orgnanised crime, home affairs, promotion and reciprocal protection of investment and merchant shipping. The State visit to Cyprus by President Fenech Adami in June of 2007 together with other bilateral exchanges enhanced further our diplomatic, political, economic and cultural relations." Fences and windows (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - long, historical relationship. In addition to the sources listed above, there is also a book here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ah yes, THIS pairing really does matter. As per Fences: historically and currently of strategic importance in the Med. especially re the shared military links with the UK and potential future similar-nation-cliques within the EU Sorry, I've no sources I can lay my hands on immediately (got to go soon - on the night shift) but even with my rather basic knowledge here I am sure there is plenty to build on. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This pair does have a unique history that can be documented. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote the nomination "if bilateral relations develop between them" is about as clear as case as can be imagined of lack of judgement in a deletion nomination. Two island nations in the Mediterranean are exceedingly likely to have interacted frequently over history and in recent times as well. The sources bear that out. DGG (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unimpressive so far. Yes, Malta supports Cyprus' reunification -- like just about every other UN member. Yes, the Knights Hospitaller were associated with both places; do we not cover that there, and does this have anything to do with the Republic of Cyprus or the Republic of Malta? Yes, an article exists on Cypriot and Maltese EU accession - but deals with their relations with the EU, not each other. Yes, officials in both countries are aware the other one exists, and have held meetings (as one might expect for two EU members)...and? Do those meetings have any relevance in this context? Have scholars or even journalists actually studied "Cyprus–Malta relations" (for the countries that gained independence in the 1960s, not polities extant many centuries earlier)? No. Thus, delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia–Sweden relations

whilst the countries have embassies, it's a rather empty article in its current form. Search of Swedish govt website doesn't reveal much. same deal with Malaysian foreign ministry. neither does google news search, only really multilateral and sporting relations. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A brief look around the website of the Swedish Embassy in Kuala Lumpur suggests that there is content to go in this article, especially concerning trade relations. Compare also the Malaysian point of view here. I think it is also significant that in 2008, the National Day of Sweden was celebrated in Malaysia. I could try and create at least a worthy stub article later. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 08:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, those are primary sources and while they could be used to verify information, they cannot be used to establish notability for a topic. Drawn Some (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Embassies routinely host functions for their national days and this wasn't a widespread celebration! Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to tentative delete. Other sources suggest the trade links mentioned in above sources are not that significant. See here and here. Not sure about diplomatic relations, but I have not yet found anything bilaterally significant Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 09:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant material. Combination and permutation of nations. Collect (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress these non-notable relations in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need another article randomly pairing countries. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of development. No sources discuss these relations. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some notable material concerning trade and a hostage crisis involving the Charge D'Affairs of the Swedish Embassy in Kuala Lumpur in 1975 with 3rd party cites. Relations between these countries have existed for 50 years. Expand, don't delete.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These countries also have bilateral agreements in place.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and are they the subject of significant coverage? LibStar (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each individual fact doesn't requires significant coverage, just the article as a whole. And by now you know that Wikipedia defines significant to mean that each fact has a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of this page User:Aiman abmajid was not notified of this Afd by User:LibStar when it began two days ago. I have alerted him per WP:CIVIL.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on additional information. It is verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the existence of bilateral agreements - primary sources - cannot be used to validate the notability of this relationship. We need in-depth coverage in third-party sources. As that is lacking, delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

treaties between nations are intrinsically notable in real life, and should be so considered here, they are about as big a deal as one can get, short of making war. DGG (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really: treaties' importance still needs to be validated by secondary sources. For relevant ones, that's never a problem; copious sources exist on Jay's Treaty, the London Naval Treaty, and so on; for irrelevant ones, such as, well, the Malaysia-Sweden double taxation avoidance agreement, secondary sources don't deem them noteworthy, and neither, per WP:PSTS, can we. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are relying on the strawman fallacy once again, can you please avoid it during discussions. One or two references in 10 does not make the whole article not-notable. Your strategy is to denigrate the weakest reference and use that as a rationale for deletion of the the entire article. There is a reason it is called a fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again: treaties' importance still needs to be validated by secondary sources, which has yet to happen. Instead of pumping trivia into the article in a desperate attempt to demonstrate notability, how about finding independent sources that actually deal with "Malaysia–Sweden relations"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, the sources are independent and secondary. They are from the UN[44], the EU[45], and a book on bilateral investment treaties[46]. You might want to redact your false statement above.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. Mere treaty texts are primary sources, regardless of who happens to republish them. We need secondary sources to validate their relevance to the article topic ("Malaysia–Sweden relations"), else we breach WP:PSTS and WP:SYNTH. For example, Jay's treaty: a study in commerce and diplomacy‎ deals with Jay's Treaty, The ABM treaty: to defend or not to defend? deals with the ABM treaty, The Pinckney Treaty: America Wins the Right to Travel the Mississippi River deals with Pinckney's Treaty, and so forth. Now, I don't expect a full book to have been written on every treaty. But a journal article, a newspaper article, or even a paragraph in one of these has yet to emerge on such documents as the "Malaysia-Sweden double taxation avoidance agreement". Well, if no academic or journalistic attention has been paid to it, why should we? We shouldn't: see WP:PSTS and WP:SYNTH. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the third source again. Also, the republishing of a primary source material by an independent authority on sources of that kind would certainly qualify as being the dissemination of information by a secondary source.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third source tells us nothing whatsoever about "Malaysia–Sweden relations" - merely that the two parties signed a treaty the wording of which happened to be used as an illustrative example in a book about bilateral investment treaties. But you see, the context in which that treaty is mentioned is procedural requirements of bilateral investment treaties. If you want to cite that book in a section of an article on that topic, by all means. However, the book has nothing whatever to do with the foreign relations of either Sweden or Malaysia, and the way the article currently cites it is abusive and devoid of contextual relevance. And once again, no matter how authoritative the disseminator may be, mere republication of raw treaty text, without a scholarly or at least journalistic filter to ascribe contextual relevance to that treaty, is meaningless and inherently bound to breach WP:SYNTH and WP:PSTS if used. (Sure, the treaties exist, but do we have the slightest inkling why they may be relevant to "Malaysia–Sweden relations"? No, no secondary source, not even the ones reprinting them, tells us that.)

Ultimately, the problem here is a refusal to abide by these policies: refusal to understand that policy requires sources discussing article topics as such, not something which one Wikipedia editor tells us is relevant to a topic he may have invented altogether; refusal to write articles on topics whose notability is immediately apparent, rather than requiring one to patch together disparate bits of trivia in a desperate attempt to make it seem that way; refusal to acknowledge that neither documents (no matter who reprints them) nor media reports never noticed by us outside this series of nonsense articles can ever substitute for actual treatment of a topic by reliable secondary sources (regardless of the sleight-of-hand which pretends otherwise), and so forth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if the article was called "Malaysia–Sweden really really important relations". Then we would need a source to tell us which facts are only "important" and which facts are "really really important". But the article is called "Malaysia–Sweden relations" without any modifier. The guidelines that can be used are in the Department of Foreign Affairs for each country, they seem to do a good job of keeping track of them. Google News archive tells us what the media felt was important enough to record. Pick up any almanac and thumb through it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiring and tendentious. Find secondary sources actually discussing "Malaysia–Sweden relations", not what you think those may be. And certainly not what scraps of media coverage you happen to pick up. Where notable relations exist, reliable sources don't hesitate to cover them. Where they don't, one is forced (well, you are; I prefer not to abuse the notion of what an encyclopedia is for) to scramble for trivia to fill the void - trivia that would never be picked up outside this series of nonsense articles, and that you really should stop cluttering up the project with. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I find your counterarguments equally "tiring and tendentious". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a major trade partner is notable, and there seem very good references for that. That part alone is enough to justify the article. DGG (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to define "major" and produce independent sources attesting to the notability of that? Mutual trade flow in 2006 was roughly $1.6 billion; for economies of $400 billion (Malaysia) and $350 billion (Sweden), that's hardly very much, and given the lack of validation of the number's importance by secondary sources, irrelevant. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't require a specific number of dollars to be traded to be notable. It only requires that independent reliable sources report on them. That has been met. Note that Wikipedia reports that Steve Jobs makes just $1 a year in salary at Apple. The dollar amount isn't important. The question is: is some number being reported in a reliable source? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable independent source on the article topic; that has yet to be met. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of multiple non-trivial treatments of this relationship in reliable independent sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific number of references, some magic number you are looking for? Wikipedia only requires two references to be notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that only two references are needed for something to be notable? I've never seen anything like that anywhere in a guideline or policy or any other expression of consensus. In fact, the requirements are both not that specific as to number and much more demanding: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Drawn Some (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep in consideration of the major improvements since the article was first nominated. Its now well sourced and nicely encyclopedic. Nice work under pressure as the clocks ticks to zero. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; good work. Informative, verifiable, referenced. Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep cramming unencyclopedic trivia into it if you must, keep plastering this page with "rescue" messages if you will, but this is not an independent topic, nor an intelligent article. The only matter of encyclopedic interest is that the two countries have some sort of relationship - if this is a matter for special focus, it can be summarized into one sentence in a more generic article. The "rescue" attempt and the votes claiming it has done something for the article are blatantly dodging the point. In short: this article was unnecessary to begin with; expanding it has turned it into a rant, whose only purpose is not to add the relevant info, but to add info that would make the article look relevant! An interesting illustration of Postmodern textuality, but one of the worst possible ways of pulling out the impression of an encyclopedic article. Dahn (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya, I hate rants too. But remember "trivia", your new talking-point is subjective, and isn't a Wikipedia Pillar like Notability and Verifiability. The first line of Wikipedia:Five pillars reads as follows: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." You may denigrate an almanac as a book of trivia, but Wikipedia "incorporat[es] elements of ... almanacs". Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you keep repeating that marginal interpretation as fact, and applying it to your conclusions. The rest of your speculation I should disregard altogether: as you have done me the service of noting, WP:N is a cornerstone, no matter how we try to dance around it. The claim that it doesn't apply here because you can read these articles like an almanac, and the whole set of implications you constructed on your own for that theory, are not the stuff of a constructive discussion as far as I care. And, again, the point is not even about trivia and its relation to wikipedia in general, but about using trivia and trivia in an attempt to validate a topic on which nothing can be found but trivia. Dahn (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, an almanac, is an almanac is an almanac. It is the number one pillar of Wikipedia:Five pillars. Deriding something as trivia is purely subjective. To me sports is trivia, to another, it is worthy of an encyclopedia. If a computer program can't pick trivia from fact, then it only exists as a personal subjective choice. A computer can objectively determine something is a fact if it appears in Google News. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have said I am familiar with this contrived theory of yours about how the five pillars would supposedly override WP:N for the purposes of keeping these articles around. The notion that one could use computers to differentiate trivia from fact (as if anyone would challenge that these are "facts", as if that were the point of this conversation), and your suggestion that you are able to determine what Google news should lead to new articles (with the immediate and absurd consequence that any fact reported in the media on that level could become an independent topic) are forms of special pleading, and the rationale moving between them a non sequitur. And, once more: I'm not using "trivia" to deride something - I'm using it to define something, so please don't put words in my mouth. Also, defining something as "trivia" is not as exposed to your relativism as you would have us believe. Tis is not about the way a person relates to info - i.e. "To me sports is trivia, to another, it is worthy of an encyclopedia". It is about the contextual importance of the info - i.e. not about "sports", but about certain aspects of sports - even if you were to judge sports not worthy of inclusion (and I won't even debate that), certain events in sports are and will be less important than others, to sports itself. That is the nature of the debate beyond the faux relativism of your analogy. Dahn (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another collection of the usual unremarkable state visits and treaties that make up an article that doesn't assert a claim of notability on the topic itself, through sources covering the topic as a whole or of anything other than individual events. This article is made even more laughable in its attempt to be something it isn't by the inclusion of the Swedish and Malay translations of the article topic in the first paragraph. Not even an almanac would be so lacking in information. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And this fails WP:N as no one (including myself) has yet been able to dig up evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, viz. a random assortment of various trivial facts masquerading as encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had commented at the beginning of this discussion and it is now time to render an opinon. Despite the wordy discussion and the strident calls of "keep, keep", no one has been able to show significant in-depth coverage of the subject of the article, "Malaysia-Sweden relations", in independent reliable sources. That is the consensus of the standard for inclusion here at Wikipedia and the editors trying to make a fascinating collection of trivia into a notable topic have failed to show sources to meet that standard. Drawn Some (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no definition of trivia. Calling information trivia is just a way of deriding what doesn't interest you personally. It meets every standard of notability and verifiability. While the sources may not use the word "relations" in the article, the Wikipedia article is about the concept, not word. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article has been expanded, the reliable and verifiable sources satisfy anyone's reading of the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As far as I can tell, not a single keep vote was based in policy...and the ones that quote WP:EPISODE failed to give evidence for how these lists met it. Smashville^talk 14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes

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

I am adding the following, for the same reason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Scapillato

Everyone so far agrees, a borderline notab case. What does the community think ? Triwbe (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is borderline unless one radio interview is considered sufficient to cast doubt on his non-notability. Drawn Some (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it took 38 hours for an admin to decide on a WP:CSD#A7. --Triwbe (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a radio interview would probably make an admin decline a speedy and appropriately so. Drawn Some (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources for a BLP? THen no blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bali ultimate. لenna vecia 21:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the radio interview would be a valid enough source to escape speedy oblivion, but it doesn't meet the expectation of substantial coverage strongly enough to escape AFD. Delete; no real notability demonstrated. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Group B

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sasae tsurikomi ashi

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Additionally, WP:NOTHOWTO.

Nearly identical to this debate and therefore subsumed into it are the following:

Okuriashi harai, Kouchi gari, Tsurikomi goshi, Uki otoshi, Soto makikomi, Kane sute, O goshi, Deashi harai, Ushiro goshi, Tai otoshi, Kata guruma Tyrenon (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article; the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. It would be helpful if 'subsumed' articles were linked here and not listed separately elsewhere--very confusing. JJL (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search that took all of two seconds satisfies WP:N Vodello (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Reply. First of all, the confusing-ness was a result of me bumbling with the controls, so to speak. Second, if the basic throws are notable, would it not be better to have a single article entitled "Basic throws of Judo" and put those which qualify there as opposed to spreading them over 10 or 20 pages?Tyrenon (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no worries about getting used to the controls! There is already List of Kodokan Judo techniques, but for the major throws of this major sport this is a reasonable breakout from there; cf. Pitch (baseball). JJL (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okuriashi harai

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Additionally, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kouchi gari

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Additionally, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsurikomi goshi

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Additionally, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uki otoshi

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Additionally, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soto makikomi

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Additionally, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and this seems like a well-documented technique used in a highly notable sport. I see encyclopedic value, sufficient notability.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Soto%20makikomi

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Soto+makikomi — Rankiri (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O goshi

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Also, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. This may be the most well-known of them. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination for which the nominator has been banned from AFD. The topic has good notability as the article already contains sources and more are readily available. And there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger into a more general article about judo. The nomination is mainly an expression of personal opinion as it provides no evidence to support its assertions. It seems that none of the sensible process described at WP:BEFORE has been followed - no discussion, no tagging, nothing more than a cookie cutter, drive-by. The discussion should be closed immediately to spare us unnecessary drama and wasted effort. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jujutsu. Short descriptions of every known move are not needed as separate articles, and would be far easier for readers to find in a main article. BTW, NPA should be observed. Collect (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced as a Judo technique and one of the bread and butter moves of the sport, equivalent of not having an article on Forward pass. --Nate 14 81 11:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deashi harai

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Also, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ushiro goshi

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Additionally, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tai otoshi

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Additionally, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kata guruma

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Additionally, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Group C

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uchi mata

Martial arts move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page.

Nearly identical to this debate are the following:

Utsuri goshi, Seoi nage, Harai goshi. Hane goshi, Yama arashi, Tomoe nage, Ippon seoi nage, Elevator Sweep, Morote gari, Ō guruma, Katate Hazushi Ni, Ryote Hazushi, Morote Hazushi, Momiji Hazushi, Ryoeri Hazushi, Yubi Tori Hazushi

Tyrenon (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utsuri goshi

Martial arts move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seoi nage

Martial arts move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant, widespread technique. JJL (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harai goshi

Martial arts move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hane goshi

Martial arts move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yama arashi

Martial arts move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports.
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoe nage

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morote gari

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ō guruma

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic throws of Judo, an Olympic sport, are highly notable. They have been written about extensively. They should be treated as are tactics/techniques from other sports. JJL (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O goshi. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as copyright infringement, another text lifted from The Practice of English Language Teaching by Jeremy Harmer. There was a reason why it seemed to read fairly well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Describing language

OR or advertising essay, same issues as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The world of English. Sandstein 05:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads as original research. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and/or essay. JIP | Talk 06:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recognize that this is a new contributor, and we want to welcome you to Wikipedia. There are lots of policies that govern the content of articles, and I'm not sure that this page could be changed to fit the format. To explain the statements above, "original research" means making an article out of one's own observations, rather than reporting on the observations of others. It is one thing to say "Jeremy Harmer cites, as an example..." and another to say, "For example...". In addition, encyclopedic style is to be used rather than essay style. Although essays can be more colorful than a straight facts, the object is to write for a reader consulting a reference book. The writing style can be fixed, but I feel that the topic (describing language) is still too broad to be covered usefully. Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or at least userfy for the moment. The content of this page is already superior to what we have now at spoken language. The fact that this text is English centered is not a serious flaw; you'd expect the English Wikipedia to use English examples. There's the germ of a good article about linguistic competence and performance, and the contrasting communication strategies of spoken versus written language here. Nor is this strictly unreferenced; the text mentions authors and literature. I'd be happy to scratch the current spoken language article and replace it with a version of this text, but I'm not sure if that would raise WP:GFDL issues. At any rate, this title probably ought to redirect to descriptive linguistics. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of The world of English, an article created by the same editor, were found to be a copyvio of [53]. Could somebody check whether this article is a copyvio too (unless the editor is Jeremy Harmer, in which case it is patent OR)? I don't seem to have the correct Flash player to view that content. Sandstein 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Oceania

Oceania is far too broad a geographical region to write a useful encyclopedia article on all local manifestations of racism. On the macro level, very little has been written about racism in Pacific Islander cultures. There are a few good sources available [54] on Racism in Hawaii, but this has nothing in common with other western societies such as Australia and New Zealand. Ottre 04:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and split. There is nothing linking racism in, for example, Fiji, New Zealand, and Australia. What’s the common thread? “in Oceania” is just made up for convenience. Where is a reliable source on "racism in Oceania"? Far more sensible would be to put these into separate country articles. On a related note, such country articles (ie, Racism in Australia need to cover broad strategic topics rather than become a list of events of alleged racism – but that’s another point and not the topic of this AFD. Thanks for taking the initiative Ottre. --Merbabu (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and split per Merbabu Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since Racism in Australia is already a topic, and the article says next to nothing about Racism in Fiji, the author might want to drop everything except the parts about Racism in New Zealand (which this redirects to. Many of us think of Oceania as the place that had been fighting a war with Eurasia until 1984, then started a war with Eastasia and had never been at war with Eurasia. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created this article out of a larger one - racism by country or something. Also similar ones for most other continents. Antarctica is really a hotbed for racism, what with hitler owning the south pole and all. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rm content about Australia and Fiji, and move to "Racism in New Zealand", where the content might be improved and referenced.-gadfium 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a coatrack article written to enable editors to express individual opinions of single isolated events. Its also a topic of borderline original reasearch as there isnt any sourcing to demostrate that the concept exists outside Wikipedia. Gnan garra 10:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split into respective articles. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Racism in New Zealand, removing the extra material. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deudonic War

Looks like a hoax. Searching via Google and Google Books gives zero related hits for the word Deudonic, searching for the numbers given in the infobox or the names of the commanders gives also zero related hits. If confirmed that this is a hoax, please someone permanently block the creator of this hoax article. Stepopen (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without some evidence it happened, it needs to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can you explain to me exactly what gives you the right to request a permanent block on another user? Shnitzled (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can help us out here and point us to the source of the article you created. The book, the newspaper, the documentary, the journal article or the webpage that is the basis of your information on this war. Regarding your question, why those who damage Wikipedia by creating hoax articles should be blocked should be obvious to you. Stepopen (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well look at you, you been here since only the 15th of May, and yet you still think you can march around the place like you run it, demanding people to be blocked! Get over yourself, you'll only piss even more people off. Shnitzled (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume that your (non)-response means that there are no sources and that this article is indeed a hoax. And do not vandalise again my user and my talk page. Stepopen (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to hell, stay there, don't ever make contact with me again. That is my response. You make me slightly sick to my stomach. Shnitzled (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shnitzled Stepopen (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, you found ANI, would you like a medal? Shnitzled (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smells like a hoax to me. The details are inconsistent: the text claims that "less than 50 men on each side" were involved, but the infobox says that over a thousand men were on each side; the text says that there were "3 minor battles" in "24 to 48 hours", but the infobox says that there were only two generals, one on each side. (A single general could hardly fight three distinct battles with the same army in the space of 48 hours!) Also, "Deudonic" looks like a takeoff on "Teutonic", which is a term used for the Germans - yet no Germans were involved in this war. No sane historian would use such a confusing name for such a minor war! Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you no imagination, are are you devoid of that as well? The main war lasted between 24-48 hours, those minor battles were unplanned, they happened almost by accident, so no generals would have been there. Shnitzled (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were no generals there, then why are a "Francois Majeus" and "Jose Almada" listed as the commanders? (Never mind, you're blocked so it hardly matters.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have heard of this before, I'm sure of it. Also, Stepopen, stop acting like you are important, you are the sort of person who needs a slap, hard, in the face to teach you your place. U_(ser)N_(ame)I_(n)U_(se) 06:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. This editor has not contributed anything since months, and all edits before were related to Shnitzled. Stepopen (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3, the only Ghits are Wiki related. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax, no Google hits [55]. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Watson

While there is a claim to notability, the claim feels like a tall tale and has no verifiability. Tyrenon (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was managing director of Celador (WWTBaM parent) once, but I can't find any reliable sources on him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claims are true. Google News has a lot of hits too. The article looks really weak for a subject with credible references. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's a Keep, with some editing required. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've just added references; I didn't know of this guy until this AfD, but this is definitely not a case of A tall tale that has no verifiability. Whether the subject is notable per WP:BIO is debatable, but the nomination statement is incorrect, there were three claims in the article, and it took less than two minutes to verify those through Google news search. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff gave a source with detailed coverage, and his google news search shows quite a few more, like this one: [56]. The articles seem to emphasize his unique abilities as an individual and depict him as a powerful and rather charismatic manager--as opposed to just mentioning him in the context of one notable position or another. I'm not quite sure on what grounds you're arguing that he's not notable. Cazort (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why anyone is having trouble finding references, there are plenty of reliable sources providing in-depth coverage and establishing his notablity. I added a couple of them. Drawn Some (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree, it was very easy for me to find sources and I found many, and the sources are reliable and have detailed coverage. This seems an extremely clear-cut case to me of a page that could easily be improved. Something being a stub is NOT grounds for deletion, and this seems a classic example of a page that should not have been nominated. Cazort (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yet another violation of WP:BEFORE. Coverage of this person is in-depth and independent of the topic. Easily passes WP:N and WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion. Granite thump (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the obvious notability. I note that this was nominated 2 minutes after creation, and seconded, by an editor about whom I'm fast losing my capacity to assume good faith, 5 minutes later. How could anyone claim to have followed WP:BEFORE in that time? Nominations like this just waste the time of editors who want to discuss articles about which there is room for discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nominating an article within 3 minutes of creation might be justified in special cases, such as articles qualifying for speedy deletion, but not in this case. Cazort (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A good reason to absolutely require WP:BEFORE. DGG (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Arcuri

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

The result was speedy delete. per CSD G7 - author blanked. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna vyas

not seeing much notability here. Most of it is "got non-notable award X!" and "applied for notable award Y!" Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no primary claim of notability here. It's established clearly that Krishna is/was a student at Pikeville High School and the University of Kentucky, that he performed well in his classes, that he performed research at university, and that he participated in a number of extracurricular activities. However, none of these establish notability. Simply piling up a stack of personal accomplishments results in a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petition to Keep This individual has an article written because he is an accomplished writer and model. Several other title-holding individuals of subjective importance have been presented on the site as well. For example, pageant winners for 'special awards' [57] and several authors with non-notable publications. [58] is nothing more than a simple biography, whereas this article is expounded upon by several notable publicized references. Furthermore, several models with not-so-extravagant histories have been presented on the page as well. [59] did in fact discover something, but this individual has published articles regarding discoveries on the microscopic level.

This individual has also demonstrated a sense of compassion and meaning to advocacy programs and has as many credentials as other authors [60] [61] and scholars. Several articles [62] have also included male models of relatively minor importance. I believe that this article fully deserves recognition and publication as a source to others since this individual has several regional, state, and nationally-important titles of significance, along with filming a documentary. Just because an individual effects change at a state and regional-level and makes a discovery of a trend in the molecular world as opposed to the macroscopic world does not justify a rejection of 'questionable' notability.

Hmm...interesting. It seems like making discoveries has no credibility according to Wikipedia...bye-bye Nobel Prize Laureates! A model that has a brain and does good work...I see PLENTY of these articles online...Miss USA, some random politicians and business owners. I'm not for sure about the sources of the article, but if they are reliable, I would advocate keeping this article. Seems like discrimination to publish one renowned model or scholar and not another. phsozzyosborne_{(&phsozzyosborne;)} 010:02, 2 June 2009 — phsozzyosborne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comparing this guy to a Nobel laureate? Nice. The articles on other people are included because they pass the inclusion criteria. This one does not. If you have such a problem with a deletion, get this article up to the required standard. Ironholds (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the pic with this guy grinning with his hand on the head of a blind person in a hospital bed, it is perhaps unethical and definitely in poor taste. Drawn Some (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey everyone, sorry to edit this again. Hopefully I don't lose everyone's comments by accident. Regardless, as I understand, placing the hand on the head of an ill-one in some cultures is considered a mark of respect. For example, smiling in some cultures is considered rude (Saudi, especially) and touching the feet of one's elders is considered respectful to some east Asians I believe? I agree the photo could seem controversial, but so could wearing shorts in the Middle East...just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phsozzyosborne (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree. Given this chap's self-promotional ways that image is really unethical. I'll see if it can be speedy deleted. --17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong Note & Strong Delete User:Oa012585956 has removed two delete votes and the reasoning: Rev history. I'm unable to revert the edit, and I don't want to add other editors' votes back in, so if someone in the know can take care of this, it would be good. Needless to say, I'm a Strong Delete because in addition to being non-notable (my earlier reasoning, since deleted), this is now COI & vandalism -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Wikipedia is not your school yearbook. I have seen a lot of pompous wierdos at AfD but this one takes the cake. Two of his references are photos of himself!!! LoL!!! --Deepak D'Souza 11:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for putting my vote back. Needless to state the obvious but let me put it on record: Phsozzyosborne is a sockpuppet of Oa012585956 --Deepak D'Souza 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's "weirdos", but try to be more dignified. Hekerui (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No doubt, the boy has a bright future and he is already a notable figure within the four walls of his school. Salih (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability with regard to WP:BIO. Hekerui (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Speedy per A7 surely? Where are the indications of importance or significance? ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per above. Fails WP:BIO. A Google search returns no reliable sources, while a Google News Archive search returns results about other people who share the same name. Furthermore, none of the external links/references in the article are reliable, independent of the subject, or cover him in depth. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - grade A for effort, maybe scrapes past WP:CSD#A7, but not notable in Wikipedia terms. Deepak D'Souza puts it best: this is a school year-book entry, not an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey everyone, sorry to edit this again. Hopefully I don't lose everyone's comments by accident. Regardless, as I understand, placing the hand on the head of an ill-one in some cultures is considered a mark of respect. For example, smiling in some cultures is considered rude (Saudi, especially) and touching the feet of one's elders is considered respectful to some east Asians I believe? I agree the photo could seem controversial, but so could wearing shorts in the Middle East...just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phsozzyosborne (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin This is an admission of sockpuppetry, the rev history shows that Oa012585956 did the deletions, but now Phsozzyosborne claims it was him. - SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the clarification, but more than one individual may use a single computer, and more than one individual may contribute his or her own opinions. Again, I'm sure there are controversies to why many singers are important to humanity; I think that these helpful, but unjustifiable comments are only subjective reasons. I don't believe the value of a human life can be determined solely by a few individuals. I personally believe every individual who has produced a song is eligible for submission into an encyclopedia, but this individual has written and published; furthermore, this individual, along with others who will be submitted similar articles in the near future, may or may not necessarily deserve credit, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the individual has served as a reference and is research-worthy. Subjective opinions as to whether they are valuable is a mere opinion...everyone has one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phsozzyosborne (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry! One last rebuttal; Google is not the only search engine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phsozzyosborne (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Han shot first

AfDs for this article:

Entirely original research, sourced only to a personal website, a primary source, a blog, and two pictures. Pictures. The print sources seem to be only trivial mentions as well, and the rest of this article barely deals with the term itself, but rather the changes made in the film that led up to the phrase's coining. Either delete or merge to the film. Last two AFDs were mostly WP:ILIKEIT from slobbering fanboys, or people who claimed there were sources when there aren't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the last AfD in 2007 (with a keep result), I (now) agree with the nominator's assessment of this article and the previous AfDs. A few months ago, in response to an invalid speedy and then prod, I made a good-faith effort to find additional sources, and couldn't. I thus redirected it to List of changes in Star Wars re-releases#1997 Special Editions (Theatrical, Laserdisc and VHS). Although this redirect was undone, I didn't press the matter at the time, since it wasn't high on my priority list. That said, unless someone presents evidence of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, redirect to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Special Edition (on review, I'm not a big fan of the list to which I originally redirected this article, although re-redirecting there would be better than keeping this article standalone). —TKD [talk][c] 03:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming that at least some of the paid sources that LtPowers found really are substantial, I'm fine with keeping this standalone. (I am assuming that they are; just providing a caveat that sometimes an article can be more or less useful than preview might suggest.) —TKD [talk][c] 07:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. Not really worth an article of its own. JIP | Talk 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:IINFO. This is unecyclopedic trivia Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge the information to other places. Those last two AfDs were dubious at best. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see.
1. I've found a Toronto Star article that references it, although the full article is hidden behind a paid archive. Google's excerpt from the article says "So it was funny that I'd be sitting in a New York hotel room a few years back, pressing a reluctant Harrison Ford on the issue. I wanted his opinion on the ...".
2. Here's one from the York (Pa.) Daily Record, again hidden behind a paid archive. Google's excerpt: "In the original, Han shot first. This change has sparked the greatest outcry among fans, and even T-shirts exist with the now infamous decree, 'Han shot ..." Looks like that one is very relevant.
3. This one is a little weaker, but it does show that the phrase is commonly used as a shorthand reference to all of the Special Edition changes.
4. Wired references the phrase without explanation, assuming it to be understood.
5. Oooh, here's a good one. The Google excerpt says: "Soon, a "Han shot first!" counter-movement was formed, which culminated in artist Scott Kurtz's popular t-shirt with the phrase. ...". Looks like it'll provide a nice reference for the t-shirt creations.
6. This review of Serenity references the phenomenon, with only minimal elaboration, trusting the reader to get the reference.
7. Found a quote from a dead link credited to PlayStation Magazine: " ... a fact that will enrage the 'Han shot first' crowd, which believes that the 'new' versions of the films are something of a desecration of the original ... "
8. And one more hidden behind a paid archive from the Brisbane Courier-Mail: "To acknowledge the fuss (and make even more bucks out of the whole situation), Lucas is releasing ``Han shot first" T-shirts in tandem with the new DVDs. ..."
That looks like a fair amount of notability there, and that's even with weeding out most of the "just uses the phrase" items. (Yes, I included a few that "just use the phrase"; I'm not suggesting that they be used as references in the article, just that they demonstrate (limited) notability. The other references are much stronger.) Keep. Powers ^T 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope#Special_Edition or Han Solo. List of changes in Star Wars re-releases might also be appropriate, but it's such a random, half-assed list of marginally sources information, I hesitate to shovel any more content into it. --EEMIV (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The sources brought up by Powers demonstrate enough notability that deletion should be off the table. If a merge is warranted (which I don't think it is, but that's for consensus to decide, not me), then that discussion should take place at the appropriate venue. The fact that Lucas himself even acknowledges it doesn't hurt either. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Anyone know if that pic with Kelly Hu is legit? It says it was uploaded by Hu herself! Ryan4314 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LtPowers. It's got enough separate RS coverage to keep its own modest article. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Powers; not only notable as a fanish topic, but as a demonstration of how reality changes and people deny those changes. htom (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jabba and notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Powers, although I should point out that Han didn't shoot first. He just shot. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is this verifiable as people have demonstrated above, but the content is far more than random trivia. I tend to want to delete random trivia, but this ties into social/ethical issues, which is why I think it's valuable and encyclopedic, as a page in and of itself. Cazort (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i recognize it's a lost cause, but this is beyond embarrassing.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is beyond embarrassing, anyway? Mortification? =) Powers ^T 02:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If making Wikipedia embarassing is a cause for deletion, shouldn't you start by removing the "edit this page" button? We'll never be respectable as long as we have that thing around. :) --Kiz o r 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LtPower's sources show notability and verifiability, though it would be nice if someone would integrate them into the existing article. If merged (and I really prefer keeping), I'd go with Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Special Edition, as this is easily the most controversial and probably the most notable change in the re-releases, unlike most of the fairly trivial items in the list article. BryanG (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the perseverance and diligence of Powers. Notability has been established. Now perhaps WP:CLEANUP might get the sources into the article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources, satisfies WP:N and WP:V. Did the AFD rationale have to be so condescending? BTW, as much as WP:ILIKEIT is a bad keep rationale, your nom reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Vodello (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My nom was more "If it's notable, then how come nobody was arsed to add the so-called sources that they claim to have found, leaving the article a piling heap of [bad word]?" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was the "slobbering fanboys" bit that might have set a poor tone. Powers ^T 19:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Disruptive and uncivil repeat nomination per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominations made by different editors more than 12 months apart are hardly disruptive or uncivil. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is clearly uncivil, as noted by other editors above. It is also disruptive in that the proper preliminaries have not been followed - no discussion on the article's talk page, no attempt to clarify what the nominator wants done or find good alternatives to deletion, no effort to research the matter. As the matter has been at AFD before, it is especially important to take such steps so that the discussion does not simply repeat the previous ones.

Keep You can see George Lucas wearing a T-shirt that says "Han Shot First", and he did change it back, in response to fans, on May 18 2006. This is a notable event. More references should be added to the article. Keep, don't delete, don't redirect(delete but preserve the history as if that matters), and don't merge(delete most of the article and copy over a small token bit). Powers find is great. Dream Focus 10:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by LtPowers. Granite thump (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Powers' sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Classic WP:BLP1E Fritzpoll (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Jaffiol

Not notable. WhiteCat (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not all passengers who missed or didn't get on this flight will become notable. This is ironic, not encyclopedic. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 03:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is ongoing news and created an outrage in France as the couple used their influence to gain a seat. Wisdomwiki (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_{Note: Keep comment above is from articles original author. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete per nom; this is news, not encyclopedic --mhking (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ; They were closely related to the accident (more then others). If this would be a reason for deletion we might delete 50% of Wikipedia. Engerim (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quit making up statistics and using WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's not helping your cause. Tavix | Talk 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merits a paragraph in the AF 447 article Far Canal (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If they are not notable persons already, then the fact that they missed an airline flight does not make then notable. This is worth, at most, two sentences within the AF447 article. Sacxpert (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge WP:BLP1E? Missing a flight, no matter how notable it may may be, does not merit an article. A sentence in the main AF447 article should be plenty as I see this has been mentioned in the media. Tavix | Talk 05:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no redirect either), two lines within the AF447 article would suffice, the rest of their story while interesting, isn't for an encyclopaedia. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of people don't make it to flights at my work, and if something happens, they say they are not meant to be on there... But they won't say that if the plane made it to the destination without any problems. So I think's it's rubbish, it's personal feelings, and should not be a Wikipedia entry. Otherwise there would be lots of other stories - like 911, Earthquakes, flooding, car crash, Final Destination, Final Destination 2 (movies) etc etc. Yonny19 (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEEVENT at best. Drawn Some (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge a sentence or two into the article on the flight. No need for a full fledged article, but some mention wouldn't be out of line. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't on the flight either. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ONEEVENT. So the guy got a brief mention for missing a flight that crashed. Big deal. Reso lute 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete through one-event and not news. The creation of this page was ridiculously inappropriate. If the person proves notable several years later, it's fine to recreate it. Don't create stuff like this right as events are unfolding...it's just very bad practice. Cazort (talk)
Keep This man is a member of 2 medical academy in France, his wife is vice mayor of a major French city, he wrote several medical book and is university professor. It may not make him notable in the USA, but he's notable elsewhere. Instead of loosing your time deleting entry, try to find good data and contribute to pages.Steeven.eleven (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response to the new user comments from Steeven.eleven (created today, first and only edit is this AFD comment) I would like to point out the fact that his membership in the medical academy is only mentioned in passing (a fact of his job) and that his books are not discussed in this article. Furthremore, his wife doesn't make him notable. If you can improve the article based on his notability (not that of his wife or of the flight he didn't get on) then please do so. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 02:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Steeven.eleven (above) has been indefinitely blocked as a Sockpuppet of Unbordel (below) -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article needs further improving of other topics related to this professor. I suggest to set it to stub instead. Unbordel (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: striking duplicate vote. Tavix | Talk 19:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Not a notable person.InfiniteHunter (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cause if you delete it we will recreate it!!! Vive la France!!! Just kidding. Really the guy is not a small person in the french science world. You can search his name on Google. I think in english speaking countries he is not noteable but would you delete Marco Polo because of that? Jeromeplacec (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marco Polo IS notable in English speaking countries. As with ChildofMidnight, I too didn't get on the plane, largely because I had not gone to Brazil in the first place. English speaking bias? Well, there doesn't appear to be an article about him on the French Wikipédia. He is listed in http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_nationale_de_m%C3%A9decine as one of the 130 membres titulaires, of whom only 19 have individual articles. As to his two listed (here) publications, I do not doubt they would be of value in the field of obesity and research therein. They are not in the generally notable category, so far as I can see. If they are decided to be, then we may expect a flood of articles based on every possible subject of scientific and medical research. Peridon (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I want to make room for everyone who got a lottery ticket that only missed by one number, or wore the same shirt as the first recovered body. Notability can't rest on superstition although if a passenger made a specific unusual claim about why he

missed the plane, you could build a reasonable case for being psychic or something that may be notable. Paranormal is not inherently bad but post hoc selection bias and statistical inference problems come up in many fields and I think this is what is pushing notability in this case. Nostradamus maybe notable for missing a plane, especially since they didn't have any when he was alive LOL, but otherwise "stuff happens." Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dozens of people miss every flight, or fail to book for it. Lucky, but not notable.--Dmol (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blackest Night. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackest Night: Batman

While it's more than likely the series will be published, all that is a slight re-work of the solicitation copy and guesses about the storyline. Delete for now and wait and see if this actually needs to be split off from Blackest Night. J Greb (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I really do not think you should delete it because some information has already been put on it and if you delete it where will all this iformation go. I mean if you delete this page then you will have to put all the information in the Blackest Night section. If you do that it will look akward without a Blackest Night: Superman, Wonder Woman, and any other tie-ins so you should just make a page for all the tie-ins or you should just make a section for all the news about the tie-ins. But if you keep a seperate article on the tie-in's it will keep the Blackest Night article from becoming crammed with information that is not relating to the main story. Also you should have a page about tie-ins because you never tell how the tie-ins affect the main story, but with a tie-in page you can tell it's story and how it ties in. This did not happen with the Battle for the Cowl page and I was wondering how the tie-ins really tied in. So if you keep a tie-in page separate you can keep all the information that will not affect it the main story. If you keep it separate the main article is less crammed and will not include information belonging to an issue seperate from main issue. --Schmeater (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information that is lifted from the solicit, an unsourced guess from a site that host both reviews and message boards, or the coda from Blackest Night?

Realistically, Blackest Night should be worked through before sections get split off. And that article should be based on:

The real world information supported reliable, verifiable, and properly referenced cites and
Minimal plot elements from the issues that have been released. Released, as in after the on-sale date. Not based on solicitations, early shippings, or fan speculation.

Setting up "bleed off" articles at this point is "crystal balling" in a way - it is assuming that an article will get too big (file size wise) too quickly with material that cannot or should not be trimmed out. This may happen. May. But we are not there yet.

As for the "Battle for the Cowl" situation - frankly it's going to depend on how the "Blackest Night" article is handled. From what has been seen with similar articles, the push back against insistent page-by-page plot regurgitation has been to take a hard line at "just the minimal of the core story". But again, we're borrowing trouble - "This could happen so have this article now." which essentially invited the bloat to be here.

And one last thing... Notability. It has to be shown that the tie-in is notable in and of itself to justify an article. Right now the notability resides with "Blackest Night", the tie-ins don't have their own.

- J Greb (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Blackest Night. It may be this will get enough attention to warrant splitting it off - coming off Batman RIP and linking with the big GL storyline, there seems a lot of interest in this from the fans, but it is unclear if this works out or not on the basis of one solicitation. It seems best to have a section on this and take it from there. (Emperor (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Then add the plot for the tie-in's of Battle for the Cowl on it's page and all this info comes from newsrama and IGN. The news on it is accurate. If you really want to know this is an aftermath to Battle for the Cowl not Rip so add it there by adding a Blackest Night section in the Battle for the Cowl page. IF you merge it with Blackest Night page make sure that you have info on the Battle for the Cowl page and in Blackest Night page have info on all it's other tie-in's. --Schmeater (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete the article but you have to merge it somehow into Battle for the Cowl since it does split off from there and does tie-in into Blackest Night. So if you do delete it merge it with the Blackest Night page and the Battle for the Cowl page. Put all the info in Blackest Night. In Battle for the Cowl put down something like this "One of Dick's first major tasks is to defend Gotham from an army of zombies including his biological parents the Flying Graysons." Then at the bottom of that part put down something like this "For more information on this see Blackest Night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeater (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uh-uh

Big uh-uh

This topic belongs nowhere near the articles for "R.I.P." or Battle for the Cowl.

What it is related to is "Blackest Night". It, along with the other three similarly named minis have been touted as "How the rest of the DCU deals with 'Blackest Night'." That is the only article any aspect of this should be folded into, if the aspect isn't there already.

Also:
Plot summaries should not be based on solicitation text. Even if that text has been posted places other than DC and Diamond's web sites.

Wikipedia is not a shill or a new organization. Articles should not exists or be used to hype a comic or to "break" or spread a "hot news item".

Just because other articles are structured poorly, incomplete, or contravene guidelines does not excuse or justify this one. The issue at hand here is if this article meets the standards or breaks them.

- J Greb (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong,Wrong,Wrong. This Blackest Night: Batman is about Dick Grayson's version of the brave and the bold, he teams up with Deadman. Also stating on DC the new Batman will face the dead. As long as it states new it will have a slight relationship to Battle for the Cowl. In fact in December or January in a Batman issue new is probably not even going to be there meaning the whole aftermath of Battle for the Cowl has finished. IGN also stated that this is related to Battle for the Cowl and that this will be the new Batman's first major task. So if you understand there is a link between comics even if it seems as if there is not a relationship. Look at Final Crisis Martian Manhunter died. In this Martian Manhunter is coming back as a Black Lantern. You could even include that somewhere in the Final Crisis category because, it is a big deal. Here it is even bigger since people want to see adventures of the new Batman because of Battle for the Cowl and they want to see Blackest Night. So here is a link. Once you find a link between two major comicbook characters you need to find out which one comes out first and how it ties in. Here Battle for the Cowl leads into Blackest Night: Batman and Blackest Night: Batman ties in Blackest Night. So if you understand delete the article but you have to merge it with one of these articles. If you do merge it with Blackest Night and on the Battle for the Cowl page go on aftermath and put down something like this "This limited series leads into the limited series Blackest Night: Batman which ties into Blackest Night." or just put something down like all the other issues in the aftermath section and say who it will star who draws it and writes it. Then put down the link to Blackest Night page. So if you are going to delete this article, you have to make the link between Blackest Night and Battle for the Cowl. Personally to avoid something like this I would just leave the article alone because you have somebody like me saying that you can but you have to make a link between two articles it derives from or you have to combine those two articles just to get something good. But Blackest Night is not a total part of the aftermath, just Blackest Night: Batman, and Blackest Night: Batman is a big part of Blackest Night, and Battle for the Cowl does lead into it because it uses the word new. So delete it if you want to but you have to make the link or I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeater (talk • contribs) 02:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't answer I'm afraid I've won the article will stay, you will lose if you don't answer soon. --Schmeater (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, a note has already been left on your talk page pointing out you don't "win" by another party here going quiet[63]. Beyond that, it isn't a good idea to post what comes off as a goading taunt within the AfD[64] much less on the talk page of another participant within the AfD[65].

As for the rant above the goad... minimal points:
Not everything published after it is part of Batman: Battle for the Cowl. That article is irrelevant to the existence of this one.

Arguing about what is essentially sucesion boxes for stories is something to do somewhere else. Not as a means to keep this article.

Both the above also go for cross linking BotC and Blackest Night. That is some thing to be hashed out on those two articles and the presence or lack of such a link is irrelevant here.

The relevant things here are:
Is this topic in and of itself notable. At this point it is not.

Is there a justification for the content fork this article represents? To date there is not.

Is the content covered in the parent article? As much as is proper, yes.

- J Greb (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once more wrong,wrong,wrong. If IGN confirms that Battle for the Cowl leads up to this it's most likely true. If DC confirms this it is true if you call yourself a comic expert you out of most of people should know that if the comic book's publisher confirms that there is a link it means that there is a link. First of all if you do delete this article, you have to make the link more clear it's a big link. If you don't wan't to then do not bother deleting it. Battle for the Cowl has more in common than you can think with Blackest Night. Just because you claim yourself to be a comic expert does not mean you can think a link is weak. It is not ! Answer to this quickley this time before the ninth or tenth or you will lose and I will win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeater (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably still going to be deleted, but I cleaned it up considerably and used only verified information, removing the speculation about Bruce Wayne's body. At least if it's recreated this would be a good starting point. --CmdrClow (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for helping if you find out any new information please add it. You do know that I asked you to choose whatever side you want. Anyways it seems it will get destroyed but there is to much information here that they will have to delete it. --Schmeater (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I mean theres to much information here that they will have to merge it.--Schmeater (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to blackest night, no reason for wp:folk at this time. Schmeater should also read up about AFD and general wiki policies - his comments here are rude and based upon a lack of understanding. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Loose (Marc Mysterio song)

Fails WP:NSONGS, because none of the charts are notable charts (some on WP:BADCHARTS, others just plain unsourced or non-notable). Article has fake references, such as http://lescharts.com/showitem.asp?key=332098&cat=s, which is to a legitimate chart, but for a different song. Efforts to redirect the article have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The song has its notability established... FDR is THE national radio chart for Ukraine... The FDR Company, in addition to servicing all of Ukraine's Radio Stations with new music available for airplay, tracks the spins of those stations and charts accordingly. http://fdr.com.ua/ The Mix FM Chart of Cyprus is considered the Pop Radio Chart of Cyprus whereas it is the only top 40 radio station in Cyprus with 2 stations on each coast... Let Loose was in the top 100 songs of 2009. The above user, for reasons only known to himself, has apparently declared war on this artist and is vandalizing edits on various pages pertaining to him and has failed to note any knowledge of the music business, internationally, and is also belittling the importance of these countries overseas which simply shows a lack of knowledge of the industry. As an industry professional, I vote KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable song, no sources. And watch the bad faith accusations, anonymous one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the article has already been up for deletion and deemed within the scope of wikiproject songs see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Let_Loose_(Marc_Mysterio_song) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean much really. I've seen hoax songs tagged with that template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you tell us, then, what is the National Radio Chart of Ukraine Mister? It is FDR... Same for Cyprus on Mix FM. End of discussion.. Notes the notability... If necessary, I'll go through google cache to locate it.... The FDR Chart is cited within wikipedia, as well, in other articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have certain standards that charts have to meet, and the FDR chart doesn't seem to meet them. I'm sorry if you hate our rules, but you have to abide by them. It shouldn't be cited in other articles, we just haven't gotten around to removing them yet. And for God's sake, sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, its the national chart for Ukraine... Period... Just because you arbitrarily don't recognize Ukraine --or understand it -- doesn't mean that it doesn't meet wiki standards... It is the billboard equivelent for the country of Ukraine.This should be the money link right here: http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=11180 Of course, your comments may be based that you don't think Ukrainians are relevant... If that is indeed the case, you are far mistaken since its one of the most culterally rich places on this earth (and population of over 65,000,000). This song spent 12 weeks on its top 20 dance radio chart... Its documented...~~again, vote KEEP.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review this page to learn of notable charts that are recognized in the industry (and this will serve as dispositive for the cyprus issue whereas let loose was ranked #53 as top 100 songs of 2008 for the country on Mix Fm - the only top 40 pop network in the country)http://www.lanet.lv/misc/charts/ It further supports legitimacy established by the previous post of FDR and FMC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:This is a case of a fanatic trying to set up a page and seeing the amount of false information concocted (shudder) I strongly suggest Delete. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...here, all the way down here...not notable, did not chart in reliable charts. That deletion might risk disenfranchising 65 million people is a risk we'll have to take (thanks, Tom Robbins). Drmies (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability established. Agree with TPH and Legolas above. - eo (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from article creator about FDR/Ukraine and MixFM/Cyprus charts

'Keep: I have checked the wiki good charts... There ARE NONE AT THIS TIME FOR EITHER UKRAINE OR CYPRUS.

Additionally, Superstar and Grammy Nominee StoneBridge had the song charted as one of the top of 2008 (see, http://www.megamind.se/page.php?id=2859_.

This discussion could very well hinge upon as to whether or not FDR is an official chart of Ukraine and/or if Mix FM Cyprus is recognized as an official chart of Cyprus.

Neither have been identified as bad charts and no other charts from these countries have been identified yet. FDR Chart was even noted in the Kylie Minogue article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_(Kylie_Minogue_song)

I suggest that we place a hold on the deletion discussion of LET LOOSE, until reaching such conclusion.

To do so otherwise would be arbitrary and capricious whereas its a matter of first impression, that is, is the FDR Chart an official airplay chart for Ukraine? Is Mix FM Chart an official airplay chart for Cyprus in light of the fact that its top 20 is considered to be the top 20 of Cyprus internationally, as well as the fact that it is the only FM Network in the country that is Pop based and covers the whole island??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FDR stands a chance: I've been frustrated in my efforts to verify its legitimacy by the language barrier, but it may be legitimate. The Cyprus chart is a single vendor chart, so it's unacceptable by definition. There is no obligation to recognize a chart for every country: there isn't even an accepted chart for each of the 30 IFPI countries, much less the other 210 smaller ones. There isn't a recognized chart for my country (the Netherlands Antilles), for example: the only published chart is from Dolfijn FM on Curacao, and that's another single station chart. The only reference I've found the FDR so far is from top40-charts.com, but we don't accept them as a reliable source either.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So if we agree that FDR is a legit chart, then we can close this discussion...

As I mentioned, FDR acts in a similar way as Billboard... It distributes new music on cd each week to all radio stations: http://fdr.com.ua/compilation/d/402/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as new music videos to tv there.

Then, based on the amount of spins accrued, it compiles national air play charts:

http://fdr.com.ua/chart/dance/

On the other hand, Mix FM is the BBC Radio 1 of Cyprus. They are THE station and promoters that bring in all the big talent to the island. When Europe makes its combined chart for top 40 across Europe, the Mix FM top 20 is considered THE chart for the country. Let Loose not only went top 20 there (#2 actually, behind Madonna 4 Minutes), but it also made the top 100 songs of 2008... Not a fringe charting...

I think what we are going to resolve here is that the status quo is acceptable, that is, that This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia.

I suggest that the user Kww does a google search on the title as well to see how wide spread it is, in fact.

I'd alternatively note the Stonebridge Charting Support as well simply in support of ""KEEP"" since the above user called me a fanatic or whatever, that is, just to note that the most famous club/radio djs also were playing this track and charting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source that shows that FDR is anything other than a single network in the Ukraine. So far as I can determine, that is what it is. We don't allow single vendor charts. I haven't "agreed" that is legitimate for use, I've said that I'm still looking.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FDR is NOT A NETWORK..

FDR does not own or operate any radio stations... Rather, FDR distributes new music each week from Record Labels Around the world to ALL and I repeat ALL radio stations in Ukraine.

It additionally compiles National AIR Play Charts based on the amount of plays the songs get on all of the radio stations each week.

This is the same exact thing that Billboard does in USA.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I have said this now for the 5th time mate.

"In cooperation with FDR Radiocenter, Top40-Charts presents the Ukraine Chart

Based on airplay data from 170 radio stations, the chart is published on a weekly basis, every Wednesday.

FDR also publishes Rock and Dance airplay charts."

see: http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=11180

(as a footnote, I'd note that we accept the info presented on what FDR is from the top40-charts article, not any top40-charts generated charts. I don't think its ever been in dispute that the factual info describing the charts on there is incorrect) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that top40-charts.com says is acceptable. Nothing. Can you provide any other source about FDR? I haven't been ignoring your statements, I've simply noted that top40-charts.com is not a credible source for anything.—Kww(talk) 19:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you spoke Ukranian, you would be able to understand it just fine... Or, if you were in the music business, and had knowledge of Ukraine, Russia, and CIS Countries insofaras music business...

I can attest to what they are saying on the charts based on a compilation of 170 stations is accurate.

I think that your read that NOTHING from that top 40 site is acceptable is not terribly accurate since they do contain many accurate things on there.

I'm not going to spend hours on this. I do have a life, lol...

Either learn to speak Ukranian and verify it yourself, or let it go...

I can email an artist from there who would be able to locate some web links... Again, this seems to be a witch hunt on your end. No offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FOUND THESE OTHER LINKS ALL NOTING FDR TO BE OFFICIAL CHART OF UKRAINE:

http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Were_a_Boy *** CHECK THIS ***

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Brave_(Jennifer_Lopez_album)#5.

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1540179

http://www.escforum.net/forum/showthread.php?p=977348 (NOTES IS THE ONLY OFFICIAL CHART IN UKRAINE)

http://www.flyzzza.com.ua/news_2008.html (IN UKRAINIAN)

http://www.sunriseelectro.com.ua/news.htm

http://www.escforum.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1323223 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, other Wikipedias are not reliable secondary sources, and nor are Wikipedia mirrors. MuZemike 00:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just went through all this mess and did research. It appears that FDR is not only the official combined airplay chart for 170 stations in Ukraine, however, it is in fact the only chart.

To call this chart a 'crap chart' would be tantamount to disenfranchising some 65,000,000 people that live in Ukraine... Thats more than Benelux + Canada in population combined...

The country may still be developing and, moreover, may not have the media power that they do in USA, but its still a very large population that supports music.

I vote Keep based on the circumstantial evidence here and the lack of any dispositive evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.152.29 (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Transporter 3. Remembering that AfD is not a vote, and that I have discarded those votes that only make sweeping statements about the nominator and not the article, as well as those that only refer to the frankly bizarre and unenforceable "free pass" this article was supposedly given, here is the analysis of the discussion. The arguments for retention are mixed - some say that more time is needed to establish notability, or comment that notability is not temporary. Perhaps unwittingly given, but these are arguments in favour of deletion since to need more time for sources to emerge suggests that notability is not yet established, and WP:NTEMP can be overruled if consensus on her notability changes. In this case, in the absence of compelling arguments about why this individual is notable, the argument against retention seems dominant. However, as required by our deletion policy, I will set up a redirect to Transporter 3 and preserve the underlying history in case her notability is later established. Feel free to discuss this at my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natalya Rudakova

AfDs for this article:

It has been longer than six months since this actress's appearance in a movie, Transporter 3, and yet, no new information has come to light. The article does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. She has dropped off of the media's radar, she doesn't deserve an article for being in a lead in a single movie. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transporter 3; lead in major movie but falls short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Why would you nominate this for deletion rather than trying redirecting it? Surely deletion can't be preferable to a rd for the lead actress from a major theatrical release? JJL (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- more than adequately meets notability and verifiability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Only one notable role, might as well redirect to the lone film in which she starred. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the close of the previous AfD: "This article gets a free pass for at least 6 months." It hasn't been a full six months since then (23 December 2008) yet. I'm not particularly convinced of this actress's notability any more, but I believe this nomination jumped the gun. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not get a free pass, no one has that kind of power here. And it has been seven months since the article was nominated. Do I need to list them?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You first nominated the article on 27 November 2008, the day after her movie opened. Seven months from then would be 27 June 2009. The second nomination occurred on 18 December 2008, when her movie was still in the top 10 at the box office, and was closed on 23 December 2008. In the closing of the second nomination, the closing admin wrote, "The result was Second consecutive Unambiguous keep; renomination of a unanimous keep within a month on grounds that notability must be renewed by the subject of the article on a continuous basis is to be discouraged. This article gets a free pass for at least 6 months." Maybe the closing admin didn't have the authority to give the article a free pass for six months, but if he did, the six months wouldn't expire until 23 June 2009. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or possibly Keep: I really don't see why the nominator is so hell-bent on trying to get rid of her article... Although she doesn't really meet WP:ENTERTAINER, in which would lead to redirecting her article. I think this could also be kept because it has proper referencing. As a side note, I'm catching vibes from the nominator that leads me to believe that some editors think this article is on a deadline with phrases like "It has been longer than six months..." and "She has dropped off of the media's radar...". Please remember that notability is not temporary and there is no set time that this article has to be perfect. Tavix | Talk 05:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one film so far, but given the time it takes to make a film this is not really surprising. There is no deadline so leave it alone and if in a year's time she has done nothing else then I have no problem with a redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read both past deletion discussions and there seems to be an overwhelming consensus to keep. I am in agreement with this consensus. The same person has nominated this article 3 times and I think that this is non-constructive and wasting editors' time. I would be open to a merge discussion but there's simply no reason to use the deletion process. If you want to merge, the best way to do this would be to pare down the material to include only tightly-sourced information. If the article is then too small to warrant its own page, then merge it into the movie. Cazort (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is the fourth time the same editor has nominated the same article for deletion. He is just doing it because he doesn't like me, and I created the page. I've created some other pages also, and I'm afraid he's also going to try to delete those just because he has an agenda. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you dare accuse me of being agenda driven, I suggest you take it back now, or cross out your post. I've nominated this article as it has been seven months since the other nomination, and yet the actress has not gained any new media attention, and she still fails WP:ENTERTAINER, a single lead in a single movie does not make a person notable.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But why wouldn't you just redirect it? It's a plausible search term, and rds are cheap. How could 'delete' possibly be the right answer here? JJL (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I just do that now and withdraw this AFD?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how this article is on its way for a fourth consecutive keep after four failed deletion attempts all by you, how can a redirect be seen as anything but an attempt by you to circumvent the "keep" vote and get rid of the article? Doesn't it also seem a bit strange that within a day or two of me returning to edit things after being away for months you also decide to attempt deleting this article? Come on, people aren't that stupid. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of full 'keep' votes so while I think a withdrawal in advance of a WP:SNOW close isn't a bad idea, redirecting is probably an editorial decision to be made on the article's Talk page. But in any event, outright deletion would be much less preferable than a rd. JJL (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A SNOW keep is totally inappropriate, considering the large number of delete !votes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved comment, Daedalus969 continues to misrepresent the amount of time since the last nomination, and seems to be very prickly with Jayhawk. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suspect issues between the two editors. Perhaps Daedalus969 should step back from this process. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lead in a notable film. If this person is NN someone else would have nominated this article. I find it strange that one editor seems to be determined to delete this article despite 2 other AFD's closed as keep.Ridernyc (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FRECKLES. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ~~Keep, her freckles are indeed thoroughly verifiable and sourced.~~ Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - And I only say strong because the keeps are literally turning into jokes. Of the serious ones, WP:TEMP does not apply. If someone is clearly notable for something, it doesn't expire. That's what temp is about. This person, however, is not notable. She does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER, which reads Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. She has not had significant roles in multiple notable films. She's had a significant role in a film. The previous admin close giving a "free pass" is not appropriate and bears no weight on this nomination. The article should have been deleted to begin with. We don't keep because she may become notable later. So delete until she's notable~~, merging any relevant info into the movie's article~~. لenna vecia 17:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia, the word freckles in my post was a straightforward metaphor for notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, your vote followed a joke vote referencing a user essay on how hot people are always notable. Maybe you should present some reason as to why you believe the subject is notable, rather than rely on an essay about hotties. Because, as it is, she's not notable. لenna vecia 14:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My now-stricken comment was referencing a reliable source, Roger Ebert, commenting on on her freckles; he did rather wander off-topic in Julianne Nicholson’s direction. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't delete and merge because it destroys the history needed for GFDL reasons. But you can redirect and merge. JJL (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Thank you for pointing that out. I re-read the article and see nothing worth merging, so I've struck accordingly. لenna vecia 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Jennavecia. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLead in a notable film, which was only relatively recently released, and considering how long it takes to film a movie, she could have another one on its way down the pike already. Its not like the bandwidth on this article is gonna break the project, so why not keep it around for a while longer.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Repeated bad faith nominations. seicer | talk | contribs 04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination. Article has 7 sources, isn't that enough to prevent any more bad faith nominations? ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy hell. To the closing admin: Weight the arguments, don't count the votes. This is ridiculous. No, seven sources is not enough to prevent deletion. We don't have a criteria about number of sources. Lead in one film released today, last week, three months ago, last year, in 1984, it doesn't matter. The criteria is multiple, and one does not meet that requirement. And, again, WP:CRYSTAL. We have nothing showing she's slated to be in another movie and, even if we did, it's not notable until it's released. Therefore, we don't keep an article on a non-notable living person. We have more BLPs than we can maintain as it is. لenna vecia 13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have more BLPs than we can maintain as it is has no sway as a deletion argument. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Are you seriously saying I haven't presented a deletion argument? This from the admin who voted keep as a joke? You must be kidding me. Hey, Gwen, how about you present an argument to keep, because you haven't, while I've based my argument on notability standards. Pull it together. لenna vecia 14:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't joking. Later, I said "We have more BLPs than we can maintain as it is has no sway as a deletion argument." Nothing more, nothing less. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is "Its not like the bandwidth on this article is gonna break the project, so why not keep it around for a while longer." Which is what I was responding to rather than presenting further argument to delete. However, as a BLP it is completely relevant. We don't have the resources to keep up with the maintenance of all our BLPs as it is, so it definitely matters in cases of people, such as this one, that clearly fail to fulfill our inclusion requirements. لenna vecia 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be careful not to get too strident. But your point is extremely well taken. Triage, the concept that we must prioritise our resources and efforts if there is a scarcity, applies here. WP is clearly unable to effectively deal with the BLP problem, and has been for a long time. With that as a given, we should be prioritising which BLPs to keep. One event folk such as this actress seem to fall into the "not a priority, so don't keep" category under that analysis ++Lar: t/c 14:35, June 4, 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I never said "Its not like the bandwidth on this article is gonna break the project..." Meanwhile I've no worries about your take that the topic isn't notable. I agree it's a bit on the edge of notability, which is one reason why I threw in the metaphor. AfDs often carry sundry outlooks on notability, that's why we run them. Thanks for your input here, a closing admin will at the very least see that this is no speedy keep. (more after ec) I also note that another editor thinks that the BLP space/volunteer time is indeed a resource which calls for quantity management which, regardless of any take I may have on it now, hints that this topic could do with more discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in response to the AFD overall. The quoted comment is from Heironymous Rowe. I responded to several "arguments". لenna vecia 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Heironymous Rowe? Like I was meant to be up to speed on that? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd read the arguments I was responding to, you would have been up to speed. If someone is responding to a comment you didn't make, someone else probably made it. لenna vecia 22:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was, in my view, questionable in terms of timing, although I'm willing to not go so far as to call it made in bad faith, under WP:AAGF. I have so opined at AN/I. But a bad nomination, done for the wrong reasons, can nevertheless bring attention to a thing that needs rectification. In my view, after having thought about this a while, I think, per WP:BLP1E this should be turned into a redirect to preserve attribution, with substantially all the content merged into the "one event's" article. If at a later date this actress does additional movies or other notable work, and more well sourced material becomes available, the redirect can be undone and the article revived. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should seriously consider merge/redirect. But not in this discussion. I think far too often, AfD is used for what should be a merge discussion. I even think bold moves of merging an article yourself without discussion are often preferable to opening an AfD, which is a waste of time. Cazort (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this were before the AfD was raised, a bold merge/redirect would be an excellent approach to addressing the issues. But with the AfD in progress, and with it not yet clear what consensus is, doing so might be viewed as in contravention to the emergence of a consensus. Better to let the AfD run and see if consensus ends up in this spot. Would the Keeps consider this approach satisfactory in this case? ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the freckles are not that convincing; a merge for now would be fine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator appears to be racist against Russian actresses. Favortie (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of bovine excrement. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment See Cow patty bingo. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why do you keep trying to delete this? Granite thump (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the issue. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you addressing? If it's the nom, they have imposed a break on themselves for a few days. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing Granite thump, whose comments are directly above mine, and whose comments I correctly placed my comments beneath. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't have asked if it all made sense to me! What issue is it you want Granite thump to address? This appears to be his or her first posting in this discussion. So your comment, directed at them, doesn't make sense. But it kind of does if you were agreeing with them, and in essence addressing the nominator. Appreciate any clarification you can bring to this because I remain confused. Perhaps I'm the only one, dunno. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granite thump's comment addresses the nominator, and makes no argument about the subject matter, which is whether or not Natalya Rudakova's article should be kept. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete BLP1E applies; there are no sources ABOUT Natalya Rudakova here. Any close under policy but Delete or Redirect is invalid here. rootology (C)(T) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, WP:ENT(c3) applies; Natalya has made unique contributions in the field of acting by playing the part of a “super annoying bitch”. Favortie (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a fair number of those. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire. BLP1E does not apply as that is for low-profile people whose part in an event is incidental. Entertainers are a different class of people altogether. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why we have a notability guideline specifically for them. It's WP:ENTERTAINER and, as pointed out, she fails to meet it. لenna vecia 04:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The essential difference is that low-profile people do not warrant any coverage here because they are unknown and have no notability. A one-time star with substantial notability, however, does not warrant deletion because their name is a significant search term and there are notable things to say about them in the context of the production. Organising this material is a matter of normal content editing and deletion has no part to play in this. Per WP:BEFORE, 'If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.' Colonel Warden (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LORDY Like a side of ham in the oven she had freckle but is not the most worthy of an entry - merely an oft repeated anecdote of discovery at the hands of a hair dresser watcher! Ruminate and drop the fragments into the little grinding machine, grinding machine. Hellboy 2 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)— Hellboy 2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hellboy 2 (talk · contribs) is about to be blocked as a SPA troll per [66] Pedro : Chat 20:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As everybody points out, time has no meaning here, we don't care if the media no longer cares (proof?), and we don't care if 6 months has passed. BLP1E is beyond irrelevant. So we get to WP:ENTERTAINER. And what a rubbish guideline that appears to be, and it is only a guideline at that remember. If the lead actress in a Hollywood movie does not meet the guideline, the guideline is obviously wrong. Closer, ignore the Defenders of Living People, use your common sense and ignore this flawed guideline. She's notable. There is also a high probability that there are foreign languague sources as well I would have thought. MickMacNee (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "BLP1E is beyond irrelevant" ?? ^{[citation needed]} ++Lar: t/c 17:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - in the context of it being claimed it is relevant here, yes, it is wholly irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Strikes me as pretty relevant, and since this is a BLP, the onus is on you to show it isn't, not vice versa. Please read it again. Then come back and explain why this person is notable outside this event. "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources."... please provide the persistent coverage. IF this actress does another work, and there is persistent coverage, sure, give them an article. Until then, merge the entire contents to the movie article and leave a redirect. Why exactly is that not acceptable? No information is lost but the job of watching for vandalism becomes marginally easier, with one less article to watch. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is not relevant because she is not low profile, and she is not overly seeking fame through Wikipedia, nor is she wholly undeserving of notice for doing one truly low profile thing. If the crux is whether being the lede in Hollywood movie is trivial, I'm confident I have that beaten on pure common sense grounds, whichever way the debate goes. If your only justification for deletion is to have one less article, but keep all the information, I just find that bizarre. I echo the comments then made by someone else about all these 1 event footballers and their team articles. There is no editorial merit in having a biography existing as a sub-section of a film article. To illustrate how bizarre that is, this article has more references than the film. I know that's not particularly important to the BLP focussed people, but it's still really bad in general, if we are trying to stuff one article into the other on grounds of general notability. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check WP:MOVIE. Every movie isn't notable, why should an actress with only one credit? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's MOVIE got to do with it? We are talking about a lede in a hollywood movie, that is one big credit. You tell me why it shouldn't be notable? MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're asking the close to just ignore the guidelines and policies you don't like and base the close on your personal feelings. Interesting request. Haven't seen that one before. لenna vecia 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has only asserted it breaks a guideline. Thus, I am well within my rights to point out that in this case, slavishly following a guideline is nonsense, when it is so clearly wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When they change the rules about athletes so that they at least come close to matching the other notability guidelines I might consider changing my mind. But so far every argument for deletion of this article would also delete 90% of athlete articles on Wikipedia. It's time to get the notability guidelines in line with each other. Ridernyc (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly agree that guideline needs work too. Many of the victims at User:Lar/Liberal Semi are athletes who perhaps should not have articles. However WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for a keep. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, more a case of contradicting and ever changing guidelines, the notability guideline are in an almost constant state of flux trying to represent consensus, this consensus is mostly gathered from AFD debates. I predict just like good old WP:FICT once enough people notice articles being deleted the guideline will be contested and will once again swing in a more inclusionist direction. I try to make my AFD votes based on policies rather then the complex, ever changing, and contradictory notability guidelines. There is a reason WP:N is a guideline and not a policy, there is also a reason that it states this right at the top of the page "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." In this case my common sense tells me that a lead in major motion picture is clearly notable. Ridernyc (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guideline. — Jake Wartenberg 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources cited to establish notability, hence keep. ddima .talk 01:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. Fails notability as discussed above. Deletion will likely lead to recreation by some stray fan. Therefore, redirect on Transporter 3 and put a lock on it until such time as notability is actually achieved.Tyrenon (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag with Merge to Transporter 3. The fact that this was put up a 3rd time to make a point (or for whatever reason) aside. It's been refused deletion twice at AfD. If an actress makes it to the top of her profession, and actually gets to "play in the game" as it were - that is notable. Transporter 3 has made over 30 Million dollars, it's not a home made web-episode. As far as the WP:ENT argument? I see it as a case of the guideline failing the article rather than the article failing the guideline. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? That essay? Nicely written essay, but still a one sided essay. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fails in the sense that we strive for consistency across the 'pedia. I also remember the phrase "preserve information" from our Editing policy. Now, that said, I can't find enough information at this time to build much more than a start-class article. C-class at best. The WP:RS sources aren't the best, but they exist. Better to merge with Transporter 3, preserve the information, (and redirect "Natalya Rudakova"), then if Rudakova continues with her career it can be spun out at a later date. — Ched : ? 04:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decide for yourselves. Either ENTERTAINER trumps WP:N, then delete. Or, if general guideline prevails then keep. It's quite simple. Hundreds of sportspeople are routinely deleted regardless of references, so I presume the former is de-facto standard. Not that I like it (on the opposite), but that's the way it is. NVO (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Haskins

The primary claim to notability is that this person was a radio personality at WMUB for 17 years. Even if this is true--and I can see no sources showing that it is--that doesn't necessarily merit an enclopedia article. More importantly, note that the only two external sources (see [67] and [68]) make no mention of Haskins' radio career, and I suspect that they pertain to unrelated people named Jim Haskins. All in all, this appears to be a mistake, a hoax or an inside joke. Also note that the author of this article has been behaving strangely and insinuating misleading links to the Haskins article into inappropriate places (see [69] where Mr. Napkin Dance Party inserts Haskins's name into a sentence, whose source does not mention Haskins and [70] where he edit wars with User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back over whether to include a pointless Jim Haskins link in the Radio personality article). The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case any one cares, I found a page about the real Jim Haskins (the WMUB guy). I still don't see why he's notable, but I'll leave that for you to decide. In any case, he is certainly not the Jim Haskins from the AgriBusiness Communication Group or a financial advisor at Tucker-Haskins.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable host on a local station, just like thousands of others without articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are many people by the same name with lots of media coverage, a search for "Jim Haskins" + WMUB yields scant coverage: [71]. Cazort (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and merge~~ ~~relevant info into WMUB~~. Sources don't support claim, so just delete. لenna vecia 17:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important radio personality for all of southwest Ohio. Due to the nature of radio broadcasting web-based sources are hard to come by to to support claims of notability, but transcripts of WMUB broadcasts clearly show Haskin's wide influence. His recent termination from the radio is notable as it is just another example of the Greater Depression. His work outside of radio, while somewhat less notable, is important to document as it enables a broader understanding of the stories included on the radio. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3CX IP PBX

Non-notable software. Article only has one RS, couldn't find any other. BJ^Talk 02:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this software is notable, since the software has many references to it from other websites, substantial forum traffic 78.158.130.237 (talk)

He're are a few more 'RS' including ZDnet, tucows 5 star, hak5, Windows IT pro.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13] 88.203.110.127 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article is written like an advertisement and original creator has a WP:COI. Needs independent rewrite with objective tone. Comments above are from newly created WP:SPA accounts. Some assertions claimed in the article come from citations that simply quote the company's CEO, hardly an independent, reliable source. Calltech (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Mohan

A part of a series of articles on a singer and all her albums. The artist does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO with no significant coverage of her or her albums. The current sources in the article are all online music stores that are not reliable sources. I could locate only a couple of mention of Uma Mohan in mainstream media (e.g., [72] and [73]) but those were trivial mentions in reviews of multiple artist compilation albums. Also see related AFDs 1 and 2. I am nominating the artist's bio. separetely so that it can be independently evaluated and since I suspect there is at least a chance that this article (unlike the albums) is worth keeping. Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Note that there are several other persons with the same name) Abecedare (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC as no non-trivial mentions seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable Niteshift36 (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. Hekerui (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Ward3001 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never heard about her, which sate is she living in ? Steeven.eleven (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)— Steeven.eleven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is only for American singers. Unbordel (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:Unbordel has been blocked for 72 hours as a sockpuppet of User:Steeven.eleven, who has been indefinitely blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Unbordel/Archive. Priyanath ^talk 16:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wish her the best, and I'm sure her songs don't "sound that bad", but neither makes her notable. Priyanath ^talk 03:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei–Russia relations

a real lack of coverage of any bilateral relationship, only multilateral coverage. there's this visit by Putin but that was for an APEC summit. and the Brunei sultan made a visit in 2005 but both these articles don't make notable relations for an article. I suspect most relations happen in a Russian-ASEAN context. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress these non-notable relations in the detail required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a close call again -- I wish we had some more to Keep. Collect (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of this article, User:Russavia, has not been notified by User:LibStar of this Afd.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of sources that discuss this subject.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of sources that discuss this subject, add the {{Unreferenced}} template and keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:51, June 2, 2009 (UTC)

But there are no sources. Unsourced, unverifiable articles are a bad thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked all possible places where sources might be available? Have you looked for sources in Russian? In Malay? Just because you can't find any does not automatically mean there aren't any, which brings me back to my original point—tag the article as unreferenced, give it reasonable time, then think of deletion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:11, June 2, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A quick search shows that there are plenty of sources available (I've just listed the top ones).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:17, June 2, 2009 (UTC)

Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of development. No sources discuss these relations. The links from Ëzhiki appear to be news stories about political visits, with no assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The news stories are all based on totally unnotable events, have no base in reality, cannot serve as a starting point for further research at all, and do not demonstrate that more sources do exist out there. I hope that's not what you were trying to say?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:14, June 3, 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Ezhiki's links provided on the talk page providing information regarding the first visit to Russia by a head of state of Brunei in 2005. The start of bilateral relations with the Soviet Union also marked an important turning point for Brunei's foreign relations. Relations exist, are notable and have been independently verified.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations do exist but are they subject to significant coverage to satisfy WP:N? simply having relations is not the same as notable relations for a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see "significant" coverage, yes. Multiple independent reliable sources in books, news, and government public relations coverage. I also like the picture of the two leaders meeting. We might have different ideas of how significant coverage has to be to pass the test but this actually looks very significant to me. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that there are additional references per LibStar's request. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing, as will always or almost always be the case with major nations--even in their relationships to minor ones. Time to require nominators to back up their assertions that there are no sources. DGG (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - true, relations exist (as, in any case, List of diplomatic missions of Brunei will hint), but have they actually been covered in depth by multiple independent sources? No. Rather than keep around a topic invented by Wikipedians in breach of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, let's abide by policy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous argument in another debate was that the topic of bilateral relations was using the information from a government website, and that was your excuse for deleting it there, now you are switching to saying the concept of bilateral relations is original synthesis. Which is it, it can't be both. It is a standard article covering the same topics that LibStar writes in the articles he has created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Government sites can't be used for documenting relations of those governments, per WP:GNG. "Brunei–Russia relations" as a topic hasn't (as far as we can discern) been covered in depth by multiple, reliable, independent sources, again per WP:GNG. No inconsistency there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one resident ambassador, relations only 22 years old, and a handful of summits. Earth-shattering... NOT! --BlueSquadronRaven 04:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable, based on synthesis of material gathered together with the editorial purpose of making this article look like it covers something important. Dahn (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much information is going to be found in publications such as this, this, and information which is so far provided in the article provides a basis upon which an article can be built once someone is able to access offline sources. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russavia.Biophys (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Entertainment

Non-notable venture which only staged two events (and according to article one had an audience of 50! The only reference of any substance that I can find is their press release in the Herald) dramatic (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability found in my search.--WillC 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the original Pro Wrestling Entertainment promotion was hardly notable, the Pro Wrestling Entertainment faction in Impact Pro Wrestling certainly had a notable presence in IPW (which is New Zealand's biggest professinal wrestling promotion) with one of their members having a stint as (kayfabe) IPW Commissioner. Unfortunately there is no Wikipedia article about IPW, but if there was one then this article could be merged into it.118.93.84.144 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this promotion didn't even last a whole year, and I couldn't find any third party sources to help establish notability. Nikki♥311 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was first written in late June last year. Why has this lack of notability suddenly become an issue now?118.93.84.144 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as probably not meeting the notability guideline in Feb 09. Probably, nobody noticed the article before then. Nikki♥311 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from April to August? MPJ-DK (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and probably a conflict of interest. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable promotion. Afkatk (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If IPW isn't notable, then neither is this. Rick Doodle (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hopefuls

AfDs for this article:

Won a marginally notable award (Minnesota Music Awards) but no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've located additional reliable sources and added them to the article, and it now satisfies the general notability guideline. –Megaboz (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The multiple non-trivial sources that Megaboz has added demonstrate that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Chants of Ganesh

Part of a walled garden of articles on Uma Mohan and her albums created by user with possible COI. While the artist may be borderline notable (I found her name mentioned as a contributor to some compilation albums e.g., [74] and [75]), there is no indication that the albums themselves are notable or meet the standard of WP:NALBUMS. All articles are unsourced and the content is purely promotional, with redflag claims such as, "The Mantras in this album are extremely effective and are a proven remedy for bodily diseases. The vibrations of these Vedic Chants set right all the functions on a cellular level- harmonizing food, body and creation.". Also see related AFD on another album and on Uma Mohan. Abecedare (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS as artist herself seems non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pretty borderline, but I'm going to have to agree with the Hammer on this one. Tavix | Talk 05:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable albums. It’s a little surprising that the user was able to create such a nice walled garden without anybody noticing it. Salih (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No notability is shown. Priyanath ^talk 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This could be the prototype for WP:NFT. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slapper (game)

A game created by the article's author. Obvious WP:N problems. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, WP:NFT Delete. 69.212.21.116 (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete please:: The article explicitly states that the game was invented by the author and makes no claim of notability. Locke9k (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty obvious one too as per WP:MADEUP. Tavix | Talk 04:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy speedy delete No need for AFD. Vodello (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete (possible WP:SNOW), but please don't dilute the speedy criteria any further. CSD A7 specifically says "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves" -- none of which is the case here. If you want to be able to speedy any article that doesn't claim notability, bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Powers ^T 12:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "I made this up one day and it are be fun" doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. Wow, Wikipedia is 'awesome'. Get common sense out of here! It's diluting the guidelines! Roarrrrr!!!! Vodello (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aid financial group

A Google search for this company only turns up self-promotional press releases on for-pay news wires. A Google News search turns up nothing. Does not meet WP:RS and WP:CORP standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article merely seems to inform readers about when and where the company was founded. It does not seem to be an advertisement of any kind. --Fxtrade25 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does this very brief article not establish notability (Google News recovers only false hits), but it tiptoes around what they actually do: it's only in the last line that they're a debt consolidation business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, this. WikiBreadheads might have them. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man Luen Choon

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Man Luen Choon

Advertisement Altt311 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well-reference. The article is useful for students who like to learn chinese history and modern art painting basics. The resources can add more details of painting techniques plus artists' history. Margarettk (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed all the puffery and irrelevant materials. The question remains of whether the articles in the "External links" section are sufficient to establish notability. A lot of them read like advertorials to me ... cab (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Seems local interest. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. If this store with its history and community involvement were in NYC there would be no question about notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:RS standards. Spammy language can be rewritten. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The puffery (eg the 'Promotion...' para) has to go, of course, but subject appears to be an established player on the HK retail business and art scene. The WP:RS requirement is just met IMHO and I think it may be worth someone who knows how to put out a shout to any Hong Kong wikiproject here - see if anyone can source more (eg. non-internets) information. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deleted as a blatant copyright infringement, CSD G12. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorn Food Products India Ltd

Title is for a company, but the article is about a food preservation process. I'm not really sure what the ultimate point is. Maybe saying that the company uses the process? We already have an article on Flash freezing. So, if it's for the company, it says nothing about the company, let alone it's notability. If it's about the process, we already have that article elsewhere. TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Threeasfour are immoral people. Don't support them. Adi, a member of the trio is a child-abuser now celebrity. It's time we ask people to be more open about their past. This people are dancing with pedophiles. I will not sit back and let this happen folx. How about you?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just want to point out that I (and other admins) tend to ignore comments that something is "clearly (not) notable" (delete as applicable) - try to indicate why this is your opinion - it is unlikely to be obvious to me what your reasoning is Fritzpoll (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threeasfour

And AsFOUR, and assorted redirects linked to/from the articles and their talk pages, and File:Threeasfour logo.gif. Advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section on why the designers are notable, "Museums and Recognition", with numerous references. manas 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas17 (talk • contribs)
Keep - Not a fan of advertising articles, but this one's got WP:RS under google news. Some are from a fashion industry mag - Fashion Wire Daily - but others are from newspaper mentions, like the Toronto Star. I think that's barely enough. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious advertising, as well as notability problems. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources seem trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having items used in exhibitions is NOT the same as being held in the permanent collection. Drawn Some (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They do have permanent collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art -I have added references to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas17 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as work is held in museums. It would be absurd to say that a painter whose work was held by or exhibited by the museums that have exhibited their work wasn't notable. It's not like it's minor galleries, these are the premier museums with collections that would include such work. I am surprised I never heard of them. Drawn Some (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find plenty of news paper sources, and one coffee table book. It is not extremely advertising-like either. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some more secondary sources focussing on them rather than mentioning them in passing would be good, but there's a lot of press coverage, even if the bulk of it is (unsurprisingly) in the fashion press. I found what looks like a more indepth article, but it isn't free:[76][77]. Here's some online fashion spreads:Style NY Mag Vogue WWD. Fences and windows (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rescue by Drawn Some. Granite thump (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G12: 1:1 copy from source with incompatible license (CC 3.0 BY NC). So Why 06:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The world of English

Article reads like an essay. Much original research and parts that sound like advertising for the book the article starts out talking about. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought --mhking (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per above, completely violates WP:NOT in terms of original thought, not to mention notability issues. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as above. Unsourced, no context, original research. Possible copyright violation? Liberal Classic (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a note: simply failing WP:NOT or being original research does not make this a speedy candidate. Which criteria would this go under? I agree that this should be deleted, but being speedy deleted is a little over the top. Tavix | Talk 04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy. It's a very nice essay, but it's not what Wikipedia is here for. To answer Tavix's question, it falls under WP:SNOW.Tyrenon (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow isn't a speedy criteria either. I see that this was eventually G12'd though. Tavix | Talk 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copyvio. It's a near-exact copy of the first chapter of "The Practice of English Language Teaching". So tagged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist naturism

The topic is not notable, possible neologism. A Google search finds nothing except few other wiki pages. There are several sources used in the article but they are either not reliable (for example first, most used source is an article from regional Spanish anarchist periodical) or are used in OR fashion. In short, here is nothing that suggests notability or availability of reliable secondary sources. -- Vision Thing -- 19:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

Keep Zazaban (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please elaborate on why you think the article should be kept? --Cast (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move Looking over the article, I fail to see what makes Solidaridad Obrera unreliable. Several other sources seem to be instantly reliable on their very face. Of those which I would agree to consider unreliable, I think statements citing them could simply be deleted, and the article would remain largely intact. Further, I don't think this is an article about a neologism, but rather on the intersection of "Anarchism and naturism", and so it should be moved to that name space. In that sense, it is no different than the article on the historical intersection of Anarchism and Marxism or Anarchism and nationalism. --Cast (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Solidaridad Obrera is an extremist, questionable source. Other sources are of the same of worse quality. In the whole article there isn't one reliable secondary source about anarchist naturism. -- Vision Thing -- 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you explain in what way it is "extremist" or "questionable" in this context? I can understand that it's editors carry a minority point of view, but how does that make it any more extremist than, as just one example, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. --Cast (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Most of the article's references link to unreliable sources like personal webpages and essays. Some of the Spanish papers could turn out to be more useful but I'm having trouble parsing any relevant information from their Google-translated versions. Considering that an expanded Google search shows only 26 results and no signs of notability or verifiability, I have little choice but to lean toward deletion. — Rankiri (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Moon

Non-notable internet game. Speedy declined. TexasAndroid (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Unnotable fan made game, violates notability guidelines, and possibly COI. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable, and somewhat illegal. Ansh666 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I think the now-defunct Pokemon test applies to this. Kind of because it's also Pokemon-related, but also because there could be a list of these somewhere (e.g. the Pokemon games for PC page). Ansh666 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 04:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this should be deleted BECAUSE, it is consistently being vandalised, blanked and people are using it to advertise. So it should be protected? Wouldn't you agree? After all, it is very informative (other Pokemon articles should be written on the other online games) and I found it helpful. After all, there IS an article on Pokemon PC games.

IF it was advertising, there should be NO pokemon articles at all: wouldn't that be advertising for NINTENDO? Having a Wikipedia article for WIKIPEDIA would be advertising as well? It's not spam! Pokemon fans would come onto Wikipedia for the whole point of learning about Pokemon, not to listen to ridiculous ads. It's about US not THEM! And I see that BEFORE the vandalism, someone actually marked this article not as spam.

Again, if another more “important” article was vandalised, would that be deleted? Are we saying that less important articles don’t matter? No, and according to Wikipedia’s policy just because vandals damaged an article, it shouldn’t be marked for deletion!

Should we think that the creator of this article is a spammer because someone ELSE came on and linked it to a fraud website? Absolutely no. As the community of Wikipedia, we should support our user community, and not be swayed by the careless actions of others interested in only their own benefit. Let’s be a team and stop that vandalism!

By That Anonymouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.34.123 (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pokémon_Moon&action=history We can see here: Shadowjams- requests for speedy deletion Graeme Bartlett- Cleans and not spam IP 117.194.4.239 vandalises this article Tpewebmaster vandalises this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokémon_games_for_PC Article for Pokemon Mmos Therefore they are NOTABLE, but they have taken vandalism precautions (because we can see that 117.194.4.239 spammed AGAIN and afterwards they prevented vandalism). PLUS "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks." So not spam

Keep Being illegal or a COI is not a reason to delete. However I found a lot of Google hits on many different web sites including game review places. This suggests that it is notable enough to have an article here. I declined deleting it as a spam, and considered that more debate was needed before eliminating because of lack of notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable. It is a Pokémon MMORPG. If we let this slide, then alot more will be made. Most of which will be made by some sort of staff member of the project. Which is against guidelines. --Blake (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly under Speedy A7 - web content with no indication of importance. Web search for "Pokémon Moon" shows a mire of forum and blog chatter. Perhaps Graeme can link to some of the reviews that he found. Otherwise, I can't see any indication of it passing the general notability guideline. Marasmusine (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I could not find any reliable secondary sources that can display any notability of this MMO. I'm not even going to address the fundamentally-flawed argument above, as no-one here even mentioned spam as a reason for deletion (However, I do agree with Graeme Bartlett's reason for declining the speedy). MuZemike 17:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources as stated above. On another note, vandalism is not a valid reason to delete an article unless there are no non-vandalous edits in the edit history. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails pretty much every test at WP:N and, as stated, vandalism is evidence of vandalism, not notability. ~ Amory (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Abutbul

Contested prod. Although the player is proffesional he has not played on a fully professional level per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and he fails WP:Athlete. Article does not show that it passes WP:GNG, but if it can be shown that he does it should be kept. Rettetast (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Rettetast (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league. No other claim to fame, so also fails WP:N. Giant Snowman 10:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ATHLETE and has played in a fully professional league despite that some people are ignoring the sources provided in fully professional leagues and have decided to remove it based on their personal feelings. -NYC2TLV (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the IFA designates Liga Leumit as a fully professional league, it also does the same for Liga Artzit, the third tier. In reality, some clubs in Leumit have attendances that barely make it into three figures (I have been at Maccabi Be'er Sheva games in Leumit where the crowd was 50 at best). Clearly these clubs cannot generate enough income to be fully professional, so I assume the "fully professional" thing actually refers to them being semi professional (players who receive some payment, but not all their income), as opposed to amateurs who are not paid at all (I think a similar issue was raised with the Turkish third division in the past). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment doesn't пﮟოьεԻ's statement involve assumptions? You can not base a deletion or removal of content based on your own assumptions. -NYC2TLV (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's based on experience of watching the leagues in question. I've seen more fans at matches at the 10th level of English football. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait a minute, so your experience going to Liga Leumit matches trumps mine as a supporter of Hapoel Ashkelon F.C. growing up? Every player in that league has a professional contract aside from youth players in the army. Number 57, you are acting as though you are the sole authority on Israeli football. -NYC2TLV (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, since I don't know Hebrew, like probably a large majority of users here, can you please give us translations of reliable sources declaring the Israeli 3rd tier is fully professional (not semi-professional). If you can find even more sources, possibly in English, it would be appreciated. In addition, if the subject fails WP:BIO or WP:N I think he is not notable anyway. Thanks. --Angelo (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Angelo- We are not debating the third tier of Israeli football, we are debating the second tier. The provided sources by the Israel Football Association define the top three tiers as professional. -NYC2TLV (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, I don't understand Hebrew, like at least 95% of editors around. I have tried to translate that source using Google Translate, but I see no mention of what you say. Please provide an alternative source in English or alternatively translate the source quotes you are referring to, per WP:NONENG. --Angelo (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Liga Leumit players are fully professional plus this guy played in the top tier for FC Ashdod in 2003-2004. Just need to find the statistics.SpeechFreedom (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Player is proffesional and he has played on a fully professional level per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and he meets WP:Athlete. Article does shows that it passes WP:GNG and as such this discussion should be closed. -NYC2TLV (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the FIFA document now used as a source in the list, Liga Leumit does appear to be fully professional. If this is true, he meets WP:ATHLETE. Bettia ^{it's a puppet!} 09:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bettia. matt91486 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring the WP:ILIKEIT comments, consensus is for deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Culture

nn website Exleops (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — Exleops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Sources cited all fail WP:RS quite dramatically. DreamGuy (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article author has made a comment, but he made it on the talk page of the AfD instead of the main page. I repost it here as a courtesy only, I am not entering the debate. Paste follows below. Hairhorn (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why the page for Spectrum Culture is now up for possible deletion. I know it is the only article I have written, but I took my time to make sure the information was accurate. I have references wherever possible. The site has only been around since October, so there are no secondary sources as of yet, but as it grows over time they will be added. I believe Spectrum Culture is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. If not for the increasing number of hits it receives each month, it also has Hold Steady keyboardist Franz Nicolay as a contributor. I know it doesn't have the influence of Pitchfork or the history of Tiny Mix Tapes, but both of those sites started out small and have grown into the great sites they are today. Why shouldn't Spectrum Culture be afforded the same? DreamGuy, I ask of you, what exactly needs to change on this page to allow it to stay up?Joe hockey14 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

- - Sorry, I wasn't quite sure where I should put this. Thanks HairhornJoe hockey14 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I go to this site all the time. I don't why sites similar to it are listed on wiki and this one should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.180.57 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — 67.170.180.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep If bobdylan.com thinks it's significant enough to cite, that's good enough for me. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been to Spectrum Culture before, and I don't know why a Wikipedia entry about it should be deleted. It seems to have useful information about the site as well as citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.231.105 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)— 66.122.231.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment I don't usually relist articles twice with this many !votes but IMO more input is needed from experienced editors based on our inclusion guidelines. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the subject fails to meet any of the criteria outlined by WP:WEB. None of the 13 references listed on Spectrum Culture help to establish notability. The three objections above me are all WP:ILIKEIT votes that hold little value under WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. No relevant Google News results[78][79]. A Google search for "Spectrum Culture" shows no apparent signs of notability. More specific Google searches like "Spectrum Culture" Portland OR Harris OR "Tiny Mix Tapes" OR Nicolay -wiki -facebook also show no relevant results. — Rankiri (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - seems to be a non-notable website. References are of low quality. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thee Swank Bastards

Non-notable band CTJF83Talk 00:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Doesn't assert notability, although I lol'd at "Drums: Some random guy hitting stuff". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
db-band/A7 speedy deletion. I was annoyed at the external link that turned out to be a porn site that started spawning windows (which I've deleted), and the other links don't establish any more than the article, or the 12 Google archives links to local newspapers. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the appropriate BJAODN page.Tyrenon (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Very likely A7. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merging may be appropriate, but that's an editorial decision beyond the scope of this AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Jacobite Party

AfDs for this article:

I'm proposed this article (and several others) for either deletion or for merger into a list of small British third parties. My reasoning is that there are a decent number of minor parties which while not notable enough to merit their own page (for having contested very few elections and/or effectively having acted as the electoral vehicle for one or a few candidates) may be notable enough to mention on here. This is in part a result of there being a 'grey' area between clearly non-notable parties (those that never ran for any office) and notable ones (Labour and the Tories come to mind), and there being no clear guidelines; it partly results from the ease of party registration in the UK (and a few other Commonwealth countries).Tyrenon (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - frivolous party which has succeeded only in getting a very small amount of press attention. A Google News search turns up five or six articles with some information about the party (basically noting some policies), but given that the party doesn't really aim for any real world achievements, I don't think that's enough. Warofdreams talk 09:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable as demonstrated by the search above. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a minor party article. Few people will find this article under this name, and in a group, some might even read about it. There are dozens of such parties which have existed, to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Collect, I accept that there will be dozens of such parties, and I do not see why that make them the less notable. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and just the place for this. War of Dreams comments that the article should be deleted because he does not think the party will become a major factor in the world, but wedon;t go by the plausibility of the politics. NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Party (UK)

Another of many parties I feel should be removed for non-notability or merged into a single article on such minor parties.Tyrenon (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although not electorally successful, they do seem to have received a reasonable amount of press attention at the time. I've just had a very quick look, and have found this summary in Schnews, and this mention from the NME. They also featured in an article in The Independent (see [80]), although I don't have access to the full text of that. Warofdreams talk 12:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Schnews is a small, weekly local publication that has much more of the feeling of a newsletter; I'm loath to consider coverage from a local paper as such on its own to count as notability. The piece in The Independent is more substantial, and seems to be the most mainstream of the papers. As seems to be turning into the standard I like to apply, I'd be more comfortable with another mainstream source or two giving a full story (or a good chunk of a decent-length story) to it.Tyrenon (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not rescue this article, in my opinion. They are a novelty party with no notability or notable electoral history doktorb _words^deeds 23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination talks of merger and does not seem to have considered the sources. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I must say that I find the sources to be quite lacking. One is the party website (almost never an indicator of notability) and one is a single mention in a fairly local website. I don't think that's sufficient.Tyrenon (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another article at the Guardian [81] plus 2 small articles from The Sun. In their entirety "Biz Bitz The Sun (London); Apr 28, 2001, FATBOY SLIM has agreed to play a benefit gig for wacky new political group The Free Party. The DJ will be spinning tunes on May 6 at Brighton's Concorde 2 for party members. The Free Party recommends drinking "strong lager all night long" while its "foreign policy" centres on "how to make a Cuban cocktail." and "Tax on chavs The Sun (London); Apr 23, 2005; DJ Fatboy Slim is backing a group of joke politicians in the election. The Free Party vows to tax Chav's favourite Burberry and calls for poker to be taught in schools. It has two candidates in the star's home area of Brighton and Hove.". That article would suggest they had candidates in the 2005 elections as well as 2001. Tassedethe (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly sufficient sourcing to show notability; we are not supposed to judge political groups by the quality of their politics. DGG (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I've had second thoughts about this. There is a consensus to merge this article but it's unclear which article is to be the target. Since there's no consensus to delete this article, I think it's best to close this discussion as "keep" and let the editors hash it out on the talk page. The only difference between this and a "merge" close is the absence of a big purple tag on the page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work Less Party

The party has recieved minimal press coverage in and around Vancouver. Other than this, the party is most notable for the sheer lack of votes it has recieved. Because of the lack of substantial coverage outside the immediate vicinity, the fact that nobody of note appears to be attached to it, and the fact that they seem to have only nominated a single candidate for Parliament, I think the party badly fails WP:N.Tyrenon (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Work Less Party of British Columbia. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this information when there is a better place for it. WP:N is not Wikipedia policy, and is not supported by many Wikipedians. Ground Zero | t 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ground Zero. Not entirely sure why these are seperate to begin with. I'd sargue that Work Less Party is the better location for it though. Artw (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - there are now several references to establish noteability, for those that support that guideline. I agree with Artw this article is the best one to keep, if the decision is keep I'll happilly merge Work Less Party of British Columbia to this one. I guess the rationale for seperate articles was that ones for the provicinal party , the other for the seperate, I will make the distinction clearer if the merge goes ahead. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment At this point a consensus to merge exists but further discussion is needed regarding what to merge into what. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion as copyright violation; also POV fork and likely created by a sock of a banned user. Recreated as redirect to Northern Cyprus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus

Technical nomination. Tagged {{db-hoax}} by Tasoskessaris (talk · contribs). The connotation of this username, and the fact this user also used the same tag on Portal:North Cyprus leads me to believe this is a WP:POV nomination. Despite the issues with the article, which are quite real, I am neutral, even leaning towards keep. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I suggest you refrain from obnoxious, WP:AGF defying personal attacks. If the connotation of my user name disturbs you obviously have not bothered to google the title of this ~~hoax~~ before you made your spurious personal attack just so as to exhibit your personal prejudices. Delete ~~obvious hoax~~. or Redirect to Northern Cyprus. Dr.K. logos 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I was assuming good faith on the tagger's part and I re-tagged for a second. Either way, this article surely needs to be split up if kept. 268 KB is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry TenPoundHammer that you feel I acted in bad faith. But do zero (0) google hits mean anything to you? We have an article on Northern Cyprus. ~~There is no such thing as the Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus. Only Wikipedia is the victim of this hoax currently. Just google this and you will see.~~ I guess being Greek is a handicap in these situations because everyone assumes bad faith. Too bad. Dr.K. logos 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Just google it" is reason enough why this article cannot be speedied (which does not mean it cannot be deleted). Speedy deletion, with regard to hoaxes, is for cases where one sees no reason to even bother with a Google search. It wasn't just your nomination of this article that led me to assume bad faith on your part here, but mainly your speedy nomination of Portal:North Cyprus, which I have seen first. If anything, that could have easily been moved or redirected to its proper name. You seem to me like a good editor overall, just don't let emotions take over your sense of constructiveness. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This has nothing to do with emotions. It is simply not good form to assume bad faith on the basis of ethnicity, so I just reacted to that. It was ovious to me from the beginning that this article was a hoax. I did not have to google it. Maybe I was wrong in assuming that everyone would understand this point. Just redirecting it would not be sufficient because vandals may revert it from time to time. Also as you see with google no such entity exists as the "Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus". So a redirect would be pointless. As far as the portal as I explained on your talk page it is an attempt to rename Northern Cyprus to North Cyprus, a proposal which was rejected at Talk:Northern_Cyprus#Voting_for_Moving_the_Article_To_North_Cyprus. On retrospect I admit that the hoax tag on the portal was a bit of an overkill but at the time I did not think to move it to the proper name, because I was coming from the opposite direction that you were. I was coming from the "Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus" article which I tagged as a hoax and when I saw the portal, created by the same user as the article, with more POV propaganda on it, I thought it would be better to just delete it and start from scratch. Dr.K. logos 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tasoskessaris, where are you finding zero Google hits? I found more than zero. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) My bad. But even so, what difference does it make? Total 255 hits. If you subtract Wikipedia mirrors, blogs and other non WP:RS sources, some of which redirect to Northern Cyprus, you will see this is just another term for Northern Cyprus, which already exists as an article here. So this is just a POV mirror of the "Northern Cyprus" article with information starting from prehistory so as to imply that this entity existed thousands of years ago. That's simply ridiculous and an obvious weasel way to insinuate historical continuity through the ages. Dr.K. logos 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I have just about had it with this debate. If you think this is a bona fide article just keep it. It is not worth the innuendo and bad faith I have witnessed in this discussion just because I happen to have made the mistake to edit under my real name and not under an undetectable nickname. If you seriously think having this article in Wikipedia serves Wikipedia well, go ahead and keep it. Dr.K. logos 01:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After I did some more checking of the Northern Cyprus article it turns out that:

In 1975 the "Turkish Federative State of Cyprus" (Kıbrıs Türk Federe Devleti) was declared as a first step towards a future federated Cypriot state, but was rejected by the Republic of Cyprus, the UN, and the international community. After eight years of failed negotiations with the leadership of the Greek Cypriot community, the north declared its independence on November 15, 1983 under the name of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

So I stand corrected. The name "Turkish Federative State of Cyprus" or "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" is not a hoax. So I was wrong to call it a hoax and tag it as a hoax. But I did not do this out of bad faith or POV. In all honesty, I had never heard of the "Turkish Federative/Federated State of Cyprus" before and that "Neolithic age-1571" section just didn't do it for me as far as this article's credibility goes. Regardless, this article is not needed because it is already covered in Northern Cyprus. So at best it should be redirected, or if is de-POV-ed sufficiently, parts of it may be useful for background history of the Cyprus crisis. Dr.K. logos 03:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BLP1E, a person notable only for one event, and lacking reliable sources to meet the primary notability criterion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Carey Bt Mohd Johari

Prod contested, so here we go. Single event notability as a contestant on Malaysian Dreamgirl. No hits on GNews, Google search gives this page as the top choice and the show wiki page as second, Malaysian Dreamgirl website as third, nothing else. No references in the article either. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be known for a single media event but the article is unreferenced. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per wp:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. لenna vecia 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close, vote stacking by blocked user. BJ^Talk 09:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Music Tour

Basically A concert review listed as an encyclopedia article. This is better off on a fan site. Soprano90 (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup The article certainly has issues, primarily that a large section is copyvio from [82] - hence reading like a review. It looks like the subject would fulfil the criteria for an article though, not sure what the actual rationale for deletion is? WP:NOT? Paulbrock (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the copyvio. What's left is not great, but similar to many other concert tour articles that just have a set list and tour dates. Sometimes they get deleted, sometimes they don't. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dam I least I did the best I Could I created it for others to know about lil waynes tour oh well Silvermen 09:16, 27 May 2009

Delete. The only sources I found for any type of coverage on this tour was on MTV News and the Jam! review. There were other sites I found, but they just reiterated MTV. Therefore, this is a non-notable tour. — Σ xplicit 06:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I can identify countless more sources using Google News, mentioning aspects of the tour, guest performers, reviews etc. Per that, I think there exists significant coverage to keep this article. Regards So Why 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've seen the concert in my hometown of Las Vegas in March, but some songs he performed are not included in the setlist and songs are on the setlist that he did not perform, not to mention many of the cities he performed in are missing including my own city. I Suggest deleting the page and making a new article on Lil Wayne concerts or just blanking the page and start from scratch because the damage done to this page is beyond repair. It will take some time to clean it all up. Soprano90 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then why don't you get the references and the works for it then I worked hard to get the refernces for this Article this aint easy to do I did what I could besides where can you get the refernces for it Just add more dates to the list. If you know them and know what songs he played add them lots of my edits have'nt got refernces used.Silvermen (talk) 8:00, June 2, 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On The Grounds The Page Is Very Sloppy And Soprano90 Did Say He Saw The Concert And Much Information Is False. "The page is damaged beyond repair" Line Cracked Me Up But I Do Agree, I Think This Article Should Be Gone Until The Right Person Can Make A Good Debate About It Being A Wiki Page. Oh, And The Creator Of The Page Seems Like A Real Sissy Lol, I Know It Has Nothing To Do With The Discussion But I Couldn't Help Myself :) DeletionMojoMan (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Enterprise Party

I'm proposed this article (and several others) for either deletion or for merger into a list of small British third parties. My reasoning is that there are a decent number of minor parties which while not notable enough to merit their own page (for having contested very few elections and/or effectively having acted as the electoral vehicle for one or a few candidates) may be notable enough to mention on here. This is in part a result of there being a 'grey' area between clearly non-notable parties (those that never ran for any office) and notable ones (Labour and the Tories come to mind), and there being no clear guidelines; it partly results from the ease of party registration in the UK (and a few other Commonwealth countries).Tyrenon (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no impact, and no press coverage (other than two brief paragraphs in this Sunday Herald article). A Google News search may suggest more coverage, but this is simply a large number of comments from a party member on articles on the Scotsman website. Warofdreams talk 09:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a field where we should be especially reluctant to judge that borderline notability = non-notability. Accepting every the nomination says, the conclusion I draw from that statement is that this and all of the other articles referred to should be kept. DGG (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge As creator of the article (a long time ago) I'm fairly agnostic about it. The party did exist and fielded candidates, so it would be a shame to lose information about it, but it probably doesn't merit its own article -- would say that merger into a list of small British parties would be the best solution. Mendor (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Naked News.Kyle 1278 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Sinclair

No notability outside Naked News, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Naked News. No estabilished notability for own article Paulbrock (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect per Paulbrock, appropriate in this case because the material is at least partially verifiable and she was the first newscaster for the show. Drawn Some (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per Paulbrok. --Kyle1278 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and re-direct. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Detete - Single source does not establish notability. Relevant information already present in the Naked News article. لenna vecia 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Party

AfDs for this article:

This is another of the raft of minor parties that I'm proposing for deletion or merger into a list of minor British political parties and deletion. The party appears to have been a flash in the proverbial pan; it ran two candidates on a single occasion and then deregistered; therefore, it seems to have been the vehicle of one or two people to run for Parliament who got little notice and then disbanded.Tyrenon (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - didn't achieve anything of note, no real press coverage (just a couple of paragraphs in this BBC News article). Warofdreams talk 09:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They've only had two people run for office, getting almost no votes, and then voluntarily deregistered themselves three years ago. Not notable at all. Dream Focus 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just running candidates is enough to make a political party notable. We have enough space to cover them all.DGG (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Relevant Google findings:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/magazine/3369463.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1456783/Its-Your-Party-and-you-can-log-on-if-you-want-to.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article1045496.ece — Rankiri (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warsame Ali

Non-notable academic, does not meet WP:PROF. Assistant professor at Prairie View A&M University whose research and awards don't seem particularly distinguishing. The only references I can find are his resume and his profile on the school's website. — jwillbur 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dr Warsame Ali is a notable academic

He has co-authored several peer reviewed articles about scientific research and innovations he has worked on, which has been funded and used by well known Technology hubs such as NASA[83]. This same research has also appeared in important journals such as the International Journal of Modelling and Simulation[84] and the Journal of Psychopharmacology aswell as in books such as Behandlungsleitlinie Schizophrenie [85]
His award from the NTA research organisation qualifies the criteria of receiving honor/recognition on a national level.
The awards he received from the University he currently works at showcase he had a significant impact in the area of Higher Education
He is a member of highly prestigious scientific organisations such as: The Scientific Research Society and the American Society of Engineering Education.

This alone should be sufficient for him to feature on wikipedia.org but i will go a step further and cement my position by highlighting his immense contribution to the Somali American community and why he is definitely a notable person:

He is Co-Founder and President of the Somali Community Development Association Houston
He is Co-Founder and President of the Multi-ethnic Community center of Greater Houston
He is Co-Founder and President of the Somali Development Foundation

Clearly this individual has made an impact in many people's lives wether in the academic arena or his career as an activist, because of this information i believe he deserves a page on wikipedia.org--Scoobycentric (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the things listed are laudable, but none of them pass the threshold of notability. You say he's "co-authored several peer reviewed articles ". But this is simply one of the requirements of keeping your job as an assistant prof at a research university; any assistant prof who couldn't get a peer reviewed paper in print would be quickly out of a job. Similarly for the funding he may have gotten: if wikipedia listed all the academics who received grants, it would be less like an encyclopedia and more like a resume hosting service. Hairhorn (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Hairhorn, all of the things i have lised do meet WP:PROF and his academic career is not the only thing that qualifies him as a notable person, he is a well established activist in the Somali American community and mind you the Somali American community is a bi-lingual community(make sense since they live in the US) which means Warsame Ali is important to a significant number of English speaking people and hence why his inclusion on the english wikipedia is legitimate. His academic and activist life makes him multi-dimensional and therefore he easily passes the treshold of notability. --Scoobycentric (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He might be notable inside the Somali community; I haven't addressed that because it's not relevant here. He's a low ranking professor at a minor university: Prairie View A&M has only 4 doctoral programs. In order to be noteworthy he's going to need more than a couple publications and membership in academic societies that anyone with a relevant degree can get into. As a suggestion, maybe you could write a "Somali academics" article or something similar, and perhaps mention some of the scientists you've made entries for. Hairhorn (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His notability in the Somali community is relevant here, as were are not engaging in a debate about wether to excl./incl. Dr Warsame in a 'list of scientists' no this is about the complete deletion of his entry on wikipedia. Secondly if Praire A&M is such a insignificant university why then should we bother with a article on it? Your suggestion is an interesting idea but i remain unconvinced that there is a case for a complete deletion of Warsame's entry --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it's true that any academic worth his or her salt should at least have a peer-reviewed paper in publication, the fact that Ali has also received a national level award and founded several apparently prominent organizations clearly indicates that he is not an ordinary academic and thus qualifies him as notable. Per the lengthy explanation above by Scoobycentric, I agree that notability has been reasonably established. Middayexpress (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search of Google Scholar shows papers with 4, 7, 1, 0, 0, 0 cites. This is a total failure to satisfy WP:Prof. Notability will have to be argued on other grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- He is founder and President of several important organizations such the Somali Development Foundation which is responsible for the reconstruction of Somalia's educational sector, the most prominent example being the University of Gedo --Scoobycentric (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that the "Somali Development Foundation" doesn't even have a webpage? Their first Google hit is a press release from 2 years ago. Hairhorn (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as a scientist. Also the Somali Development Foundation does not appear to be notable: a Google News search gives three hits of which one is relevant. -- Crowsnest (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable, as i said before because it's responsible for several major projects in Somalia, the most prominent being the University of Gedo. I'm also suprised that there is currently no website for this organisation but this doesn't take away their positive real life contributions wether in reconstruction in Somalia or organising major conferences in the Somali diaspora --Scoobycentric (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but it does affect verifiability, and prompts real doubts about notability. These are more relevant to the current discussion than whether their work has been worthwhile or not. Hairhorn (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, however there is both literature(English/Somali) and pictorial evidence that verifies SDF as an actual existing entity responsible for the aforementioned important projects and conferences involving former prime ministers, professors and prominent members of the Somali community[86][87], in my opinion this has to count for something. --Scoobycentric (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this press release for a conference that was to feature "distinguished guest speakers from the United Nations, United States-State Department, community leaders and other expert commentators on Somali politics", including "James C. Swan, Deputy Assistance Secretary of the African Affairs from US State Department Bureau of African Affairs. Mr. Francois L. Fall, UN Special Representative for Somalia and the head of UNPOS, David Shinn, former ambassador of United State to Ethiopia, Dr. Ali Bahar and Dr. Ali Faqi, expert commentators on Somali politics and The chairman of Somali Development Foundation Prof. Warsame H. Ali." I doubt the UN & US government would be involved with the organization if it were non-notable or with Ali Faqi, another of Somali scientist whose article is also up for deletion under this same non-notable charge. Middayexpress (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only confirmation of this event is the press release itself, which has a number of spelling and grammatical errors (eg: "Deputy Assistance Secretary of the African Affairs"). There is no news coverage before or after that I can find, even from unreliable sources. Many of the claims in the three "Somali scientist" articles have turned out to be grossly inflated. Hairhorn (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of his role in the higher educational system of his country, one of the criteria for academics, not all of whom need be researchers to be notable. DGG (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Warsami Ali is listed at the beginning of the article as an assistant professor but later as professor in his CV (which will not download). However the web site of the university http://www.pvamu.edu/pages/2613.asp lists him as assistant professor. There is no indication or source of where he obtained his Master's and PhD degrees. The University of Gedo does not appear to have any staff or students yet and appears so far to be a virtual university. A questionably sourced article that is difficult to verify as noted by Hairhorn; an assistant professor with a low publication record in a low prestige institution--my recommendation to delete remains unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Animal Rescue

Unclear notability. Speedy declined due to Google news search. Google news doesn't have anything for these three words together that refers to the company. A wider google search reveals some references but the top ones are press releases. (Addition: Some references to a local newspaper that lists volunteer efforts http://www.newsobserver.com/print/wednesday/city_state/story/337337.html) Can't find independent sources of WP:RS. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find directory entries and event announcements like adopt-a-thons but no coverage about the group. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without sources there can not be an article.Northwestgnome (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Cudlitz (scientist and inventor)

I can find no indication of notability either in the article or by searching. He's listed as having three patents, but with no claim that they're more significant than thousands of others; the only other claim to fame in the article is having worked on various engineering projects, but none give the impression of being major enough to confer notability just for that.

The links in the article are to self-published websites or don't give significant coverage. The only other sources I can find are this obituary and this article, which seems to be quoting his opinion about something rather than covering him in any depth (though feel free to correct me if you can get through the NYT paywall). Olaf Davis (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single obituary in a local paper isn't enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any notability Corpx (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubble Jumper Music

Non-notable label. Only ever had one artist on the roster. No news hits whatsoever. Was founded by that act's then-manager, so may be worthy as a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the label is not notable. PK T(alk) 19:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Harbord Village. Consensus and policy dictate a merge - this means it cannot be deleted for legal reasons, but a redirect should remain in place. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lippincott Street

Same reason as Homewood Avenue Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. As a Toronto native, can you elaborate on what Toronto streets do you consider notable and why, what makes them notable (apart from plain conformance to WP:N)? This might save time on future AFDs. NVO (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider Toronto streets as notable regarding both history, traffic, architecture, and significance. Homewood Avenue was deleted because it lacked much notability outside of the immediate area. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, a street doesn't deserve an encyclopedia just because it exists; the article needs to demonstrate that the street has a social or cultural context that extends far beyond the boundaries of a single city. As a general rule, that will usually mean that nothing below the level of a main thoroughfare should have a Wikipedia article — which is not to say all main thoroughfares are necessarily entitled to articles, either, but only that very few streets below that level should have them. Though obviously there are going to be exceptions for lesser side streets which have world-famous TV shows named after them, or were the original nexus points of major civil rights movements, or something of that ilk. For what it's worth, there's a user essay at WP:50k which should help: For every 50,000 people in a city or town, there is probably one road or street prominent enough for a Wikipedia article. Although it's unofficial and not at all a hard and fast rule, it is a useful metric nonetheless — while there's obviously a lot of subjectivity to ranking them, you should be able to make at least a plausible case that the street in question could qualify as one of Toronto's 50 or so most important and notable roads. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the one bit of referenced content to the article on Harbord Village. - SimonP (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to be anything more than a typical small street, and typical streets aren't notable. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Most of the "streets in toronto" need to be deleted. Absolutely no notability and WP is not a list of streets Corpx (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced history to a relevant article (perhaps one on the local neighbourhood), and delete the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That relevant article suggested by SimonP is Harbord Village. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstrated notability outside its own neighbourhood. And I'm speaking as a Torontonian who lives within reasonable walking distance of it. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Silverman

Prod was deleted, so here we go. Too many Larry Silvermans are alive or have lived, but I haven't been able to find any sources for this particular one, except the Pittsburgh Pirates staff page which has his name on there. He is also listed (no profile) as adjunct faculty on U Pitt-Law page. Search for the full name of Larry Allen Silverman was negative. Doesn't pass WP:BIO SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Working for the Pirates doesn't make one notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending lack of coverage Corpx (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor established. لenna vecia 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Millis

The author (and primary editor) is identified as Dmillis, rendering this as an autobiography with slight self-promotion. Digging for news articles about this person revealed one false positive and nothing else. Alexius08 (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google Books and Google Scholar instead. I found several books and a patent. Notability is still uncertain, though: the patent is obscure and many of the books appear to be self-published. Hairhorn (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found links on Google Books and Scholar, but I've yet to find evidence they're about the same person... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Niteshift36 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Reads like an autobiography, notability issues, as well as likely COI. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Association with a few notable people and inventing a couple of patent-worthy inventions is not the same as notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.windowsnetworking.com/news/WindowsNetworking-Readers-Choice-Award-IP-PBX-Servers-3CX-Phone-System-for-Windows-Apr09.html

[2] ttp://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/3cx-free-sip-softphone.asp

[3] ttp://www.voipplanet.com/solutions/article.php/3789951

[4] ttp://www.revision3.com/hak5/WiiHax

[5] ttp://www.smithonvoip.com/3cx-review/

[6] ttp://www.msexchange.org/resource/3cx/ip-pbx-faqs/configuring-exchange-server-2007-unified-messaging-with-3cx-phone-system.html

[7] ttp://www.tucows.com/preview/505609 (5 tucows stars)

[8] ttp://www.voipsupply.com/3cx-enterprise-edition-3cxpsent-32sc (leading voip store)

[9] ttp://www.itreviews.co.uk/software/s589.htm

[10] ttp://bink.nu/news/3cx-launches-new-ip-pbx-for-windows-3cx-phone-system.aspx

[11] ttp://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/software/applications/soa/3CX-Phone-System-for-Windows/0,2000065797,339286202,00.htm?feed=pt_enterprise

[12] ttp://windowsitpro.com/Windows/Articles/ArticleID/98321/pg/2/2.html

[13] ttp://processor.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles%2Fp3043%2F11p43%2F11%5F%5F%5F12p43%2Easp&searchtype=&WordList=&bJumpTo=True

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]