< 12 April	14 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Dank55 per WP:CSD#G7 (one author who has either requested deletion or blanked the page). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John shegerian[edit]

Title's last name not capitalized

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S.O.Y Keita[edit]

The last AfD was eight months ago and the article is in the same shape with limited sourcing and a rambling, poorly sourced controversy section. I'm going to self-tag this with ((rescue)) as I think it has potential. BJ^Talk 23:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - There is no rationale advanced for deletion, only for article improvement. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nom is pointing out that the previous AFD's rationale is still relevant as the article is unchanged. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the nominator isn't advocating deletion based on the comment that it has potential. It's already tagged for cleanup. There is no deadline. And AFD isn't for cleanup. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep with no disrespects to the nom. That the article has not been improved since the last AfD is of a concern, but not a reason to return to AfD even if only to "encourage" improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems entirely notable. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be improved, not deleted. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Arguably meets, or is close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact S.O.Y+Keita%22 although not particularly impressive, indicates some notability. So does, to a certain extent, this "S.O.Y+Keita"&btnG=Search+Books Google Books search.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Union Flag. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher's Apron[edit]

Delete this is no more than an unreferenced WP:DICDEF, the author of which has reverted a number of times from a redirect - I think a redirect may be better, but if that's not an option, this cannot stand. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "I think a redirect may be better". We don't redirect nigger to African American, so why should an insulting term like this be redirected to the object of the insult? MidnightBlue (Talk) 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't because we have a sourced article there. We do redirect octomom to Nadya Suleman and Louis the Fat to Louis VI of France; and sometimes we redirectly obliquely such as Tricky Dick to List of United States presidential nicknames#Richard Milhous Nixon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making, or if you do, you would apparently think it alright to have Stupid Scottish Bastard redirect to Gordon Brown. The examples you give are not at all relevant to the current issue. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand to include history of the term and its usage. Failing that, Delete. MidnightBlue (Talk) 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is another redirect at Butcher's apron that should be dealt with in the same way as this one. MidnightBlue (Talk) 07:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be appropriate if this term were discussed in the target article, but it doesn't seem to be. FWIW, I could have sworn there'd been a discussion in the past about including nicknames like this in Union Flag, but I can't find it there. Shimgray | talk | 17:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - there's a discussion here, which suggests it was included back in 2005; some dipping in and out of the history of Union Flag finds it being added and removed every now and again. I'll leave a note about this discussion on the talkpage there. Shimgray | talk | 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Union Flag, with suitable, expanded discussion. Cnilep (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Cnilep. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Union Flag. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (withdrawn by nom) Cheers. I'^mperator 19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Arizona State Sun Devils football team[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE I'^mperator 23:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A football team can't fail or pass WP:ATHLETE as it is a notability guideline for people. Could you please explain why you think it fails WP:ATHLETE? Tavix | Talk 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally the entire team is composed of "athletes", whom each individually fail it. However, it also fails the general notability criteria. Cheers. I'^mperator 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then if any of the team members had articles, then they would fail it. The team as a whole does not fail it as it is not a person, but a group of people. Tavix | Talk 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article apparently is going to be about the 1997 season for the Sun Devils team that went undefeated in regular play and lost 20-17 in the Rose Bowl. The text says "The 2007 Arizona State Sun Devils football team represented Arizona State University in the college football season of 2007-2008. The team's head coach was Bruce Synder who was coaching his sixth season with the Sun Devils and 18th season overall. They played their home games at Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe, Arizona." All I can figure is that the author may have been upset while writing; Snyder, who was the coach in 1997, died yesterday, April 13, 2009. Generally, an article about the 1997 season would be kept as notable. Mandsford (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Userfy Compare the article for the 1996 ASU football team. These season articles are generally kept - and I agree with that typical result - but this article isn't ready for the mainspace, and the article can be easily recreated. (I don't agree with the nominator's rationale for deletion.) Townlake (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection, I also don't agree with my own rationale for deletion - keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. This article's problems are surmountable. Townlake (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually going to withdraw this article in light of Mandsford and Tavix's comments/explanations. Cheers. I'^mperator 12:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments at talk page, reopened :/ Cheers. I'^mperator 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri George Jan Pool[edit]

Working--but not notable--musician. Not a member of any well-known band, no significant solo works, and no claims or reliable sources attesting otherwise. Part of a walled garden created by one editor's sole contributions, including The McCartney Years (band), Out Of Thin Air (album) and London Music Award. CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I would like to officially add Out Of Thin Air (album) to this nomination. I had added a prod tag to it, but as User:MacGyverMagic has 'resolved' the tagging by redirecting it to Yuri George Jan Pool, it seems only fitting to make things explicit. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is not a walled garden. Enough outside references that are reliable as well as verifiable oppose this claim. The artist in question is in fact notable and significant with clear and easy to find press coverage in major newspapers and TV network(s) (also as referred to in the original article). In general, incorrect claims and no references are made by primary plaintiff to support his/her claim.

I am open to discuss any recommendations to improve the article.

Regards, Rickgalliard (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is in compliance with the following Wikipedia guidelines:

WP:BAND Article #12: "Has been the the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" Runtime 31:21 minutes, live broadcast on A-Channel on January 30, 2009.[1]

WP:NOTABILITY ""Significant coverage"" The sources address the subject directly in detail [2]

WP:NOTABILITY ""Reliable"" The sources indicated have editorial integrity, cf. the reliable source guideline as set out by Wikipedia (third party published sources); major newspaper.

This proves the article meets the above guidelines and should be kept live. Regards, Rickgalliard (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

' WP:BAND Article #12: "Has been the the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" Runtime 31:21 minutes, live broadcast on A-Channel on January 30'

Except that it's obviously a single local television station, not a national network, and there's no evidence of any over-the-air transmission, just an on-line video.

'Significant coverage"" The sources address the subject directly in detail'

Except that it's a single story from a local newspaper, its subject is the publicity stunt, and as it's only a few paragraphs in length it covers nothing in detail.

' The sources indicated have editorial integrity'

Except that that clause is irrelevant if there's no coverage that's applicable. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of this article is not yet notable. Fails WP:CREATIVE and therefore should be deleted. The article could be re-written and re-submitted after the artist has achieved major distribution and/or chart success. Esasus (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage in 3rd party sources, no awards, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC). TheAE talk/sign 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's the Hero[edit]

Delete I suppose its claim to meeting WP:BAND is that it has released a few EP's on a bluelink label - nominated below for deletion. Again, this is a band sourced to its own websites and shows no sign of notability once its label is deleted (and do EP's count?) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a search of Google News archives, and also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could not find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability (just a couple of performance listings in The Virginian-Pilot). Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul Erik. I could not find any substantial coverage by reliable 3rd party sources either. It fails WP:N Tim meh ! 02:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CLOSE, no prejudice to reopening, due to the differences between the articles. I've REDIRECTED Timeline of Star Wars Books to List of Star Wars books in the meantime, but that's not part of this closure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in Star Wars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter (second nomination)

Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (2nd nomination)

3 un-sourced, in-universe, non-noteable articles. There has been no "concensous" or "delete" decision in all the previous AFDs. While Star Wars and Harry Potter might be noteable, the timeline/chronology is not. This belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. The articles fall foul of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:SYNTH, WP:SIZE and WP:FICT. Dalejenkins | 23:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dates in Star Wars as regurgitation of in-universe plot summary Chronology of the Harry Potter series. Merge or redirect Timeline of Star Wars Books to List of Star Wars books (looks like the latter has make-believe dates in it, but I didn't look very closely to see an exact matching) -- transition into sortable table could allow for useful (yeah, I know: WP:USEFUL) way of presenting both real-world publishing date, make-believe event dates, sales figures, authors, etc. etc. --EEMIV (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, making things useful is generally a good thing. Utility just doesn't override the limits of Wikipedia's remit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three different articles, all with different but similar problems. I'm not sure bundling this AFD is a good idea. That said...
1. Chronology of the Harry Potter series is a huge pile of duplicative, excessive plot summary composed into an originally synthesized timeline. I'm reminded of the now-deleted Buffyverse and Metal Gear timelines, both meticulously researched but wholly based on primary sources. This one also has a bunch of OR compare-and-contrast between the movies and film and a list of OR contradictions, to boot. Meh. Cutting up a plot summary into many tiny pieces and arranging it in in-universe chronological order is not good encyclopedia writing, and this timeline should be deleted.
2. Dates in Star Wars is like the HP chronology, but worse. It's pretty much copied whole cloth out of Star Wars: The Essential Chronology (a licensed guide), with fan updates and annotations. Same problems, but with a massive cleanup job of figuring out where the heck all of these factoids came from on top of it. This is a mess, and it can safely be deleted as Wookieepedia has a better timeline anyway.
3. Timeline of Star Wars Books is a different but easy to dispose of. List of Star Wars books is essentially the same thing with more (but still insufficient) emphasis on real-world details. List of Star Wars books is even arranged the same way. Redirect this to List of Star Wars books. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split Afd per A Man in Black. That said, I am in favour of deleting all of them as in-universe and being shining examples of WP:PLOT, as for the Timeline of the Books, since it does include real world information, I would have no objections to it being redirected. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split Afd as above; these are too disparate to be bundled. JJL (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Thomas[edit]

One of many articles that has crept into Wikipedia on British prospective parliamentary candidates. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to candidates, and there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I42 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and Redirect to Twickenham (UK Parliament constituency). Two claims to notability, one which fails WP:POLITICIAN and the other which fails WP:BLP1E. It's possible she may pass notability if she's showed up in enough political stories (difficult to tell as she is buried under other Deborah Thomases in GNews), but this article is verging on an extension of her blog. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting background but apart from the BBC source, which is in any event an interview, there's a lack of third party sources to establish notability. Valenciano (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue for inclusion of this article and all other article regarding parliamentary candidates for reasons outlined here ZTomane1 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claims to notability are very weak. If she is elected, then she should have an article. Warofdreams talk 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any claim to notability is, essentially, WP:ONEEVENT. Failed candidates for political posts usually disappear back into obscurity, unless they're notable for other reasons. Running a campaign for a few months does not establish notability. Furthermore, the only independent source cited by the article is an interview with the BBC. This (interview) is not really a WP:RS since it's largely her own words and there's no indication that the journalist has verified any of the information. Pburka (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Sarwar[edit]

One of many articles that has crept into Wikipedia on British prospective parliamentary candidates. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to candidates, and there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". In this case there is some local interest but predominantly because of his relationship to the standing MP - but notability should be independent, not inherited. I42 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Whilst candidacy itself doesn't confer notability, the fact that he has secured a nomination in such a safe seat suggests that he has a prominent political career ahead of him, and that he's most likely going to meet notability as an MP next year. Combine this with the coverage he's managed to get (albeit with the help of his father's connections) and I think this just scrapes in. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article can always be resurrected if he wins next year. Wikipedia is famously not a crystal ball, and cannot anticipate the results of elections. —Wereon (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/o prejudice per Wereon. If he is elected, simply ask an administrator to restore the article or re-create it yourself. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Keep per Jmundo. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue for inclusion of this article and all other article regarding parliamentary candidates for reasons outlined here ZTomane1 (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of current notability. If he is elected, then he should have an article. Warofdreams talk 02:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm surprised that nobody in this discussions has talked about the 3 articles from the Daily Record and The Herald "that address the subject directly in detail" meeting WP:GNG. I don't know about the future but sources are available to establish notability now.--J^mundo 03:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the nomination: "In this case there is some local interest but predominantly because of his relationship to the standing MP - but notability should be independent, not inherited". I42 (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, notability is not inherited but established by independent sources.--J^mundo 20:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jmundo. Independant sources have established his notability. CanadianNine 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - safe seat, where the selection by the dominant party is the de facto election. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin String Quartet - tribute to PIXIES[edit]

The article gives information that could be in violation of copyright. It contains very little content and that minimal content seems unencyclopedic. It does not specify why this album is worthy of an entry and cites no references to external sources, meaning information cannot be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs) 01:35, April 13, 2009

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated four other albums by that tribute band a year ago. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Mezmerize. The same rationale holds true today as it is another album by a tribute band. Tavix | Talk 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: articles fails to assert notability, no awards, no charts, non-notable release. JamesBurns (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part of the Vitamin walled garden. A bunch of self-released tribute albums by a group with no set membership. Utterly non-notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Powell[edit]

One of many articles that has crept into Wikipedia on British prospective parliamentary candidates. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to candidates, and there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I42 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:POLITICIAN. Even the Guardian's biography could find enough about her to write a full piece, so pads it out with stuff about the constituency she might one day represent. Nev1 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 189 google ~~news~~ refs as Director of UK's main pro-EU campaigning organisation [3] and 40 google news refs [4] - MikeHobday (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Candidacy for the UK Parliament isn't notable, frequent media appearances as head of the most prominent pro-EU campaigning organisation of its time is. Might be worth re-writing the article to put the emphasis on the thing she is most noted for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue for inclusion of this article and all other article regarding parliamentary candidates for reasons outlined here ZTomane1 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - better claim to notability than most of the PPCs whose articles have been nominated for deletion. As former director of Britain in Europe she was sometimes quoted in the media, and her blog on the Guardian website gets some hits, but there seems to be very little coverage with any substantial information about her. As a result, I don't see the case for notability. Warofdreams talk 02:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BIO, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." As Warofdreams says, independent coverage is not substantial, but I'd suggest there are multiple independent sources. Perhaps we should focus on what "multiple independent" means? MikeHobday (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable non-elected candidate. If/when she is elected the article can be created. doktorb _words^deeds 05:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bonavia[edit]

Being a parliamentary candidate in itself does not make someone notable. There is nothing else that is notable and I cannot find third party sources about this person. Quantpole (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. I42 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I have long thought we should extend presumptive notability to main party candidates for national office in 2 and 3 party systems. We sometimes have accepted such articles, and it makes sense, for its only a few hundred people a year, and it would eliminate a lot of debate. There's always been local newspaper coverage if people try in print hard enough, though this is easier to do in the US than elsewhere at the present. weak delete in this case, because the next parliamentary election is not yet here, and I can see the argument for waiting till then. Similarly, I would not suggest extending it to candidates for a primary election until they win it. (or for state or provincial legislatures). DGG (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Rochford and Southend East. I can see an argument for changing the rules for WP:POLITICIAN (and other arguments against), but that needs applying consistently. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidate hasn't been elected to national assembly and frankly doesn't stand a chance of being elected there either at the next election. Whichever way we look at it he fails WP:POLITICIAN. As for the rules I think they're fine as changing them would introduce even more systematic bias than already exists but this is an argument for another place. Valenciano (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I worry the arguments presented here are political [amended from previously over-assertive statement], as many other biographies in Wikipedia are significantly less notable than a major party candidate for national office in an upcoming election, and receive nonesuch discussion. For full disclosure, I am the author of this article. This article does not endorse the candidate nor does it aim to disparage the competition. It presents a neutral biography. Furthermore the arguments for deletion in this discussion are a distortion of Wikipedia policy, and as such are simply not credible. Wikipedia's notability guidelines clearly state they are not firm policy as many on this page seem to believe see WP:BIO, but rather a consensus among the community. This article aims to establish a precedent of giving readers the ability to research a candidate as they would be able to an incumbent. Additionally, the WP:POLITICIAN that has been cited states that unelected candidates can be considered notable if given significant coverage. Refer to the added external links for a sampling of the coverage this candidate has received. His position as chair of the Young Fabians also gives him added notability compared to most candidates. ZTomane1 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own comment was not political and I see no evidence that any of the others were either. Attacking other editors is not likely to advance your case. WP:POLITICIAN is quite clear that candidature, regardless of party, is not in itself notable. Consensus is how policy is established and there must be exceptional circumstances - absent here - to override it. Neutrality does not trump notability. The majority of the external links are not independent of the subject; the remainder are not about the subject so confer no notability. This leaves only chairmanship of the Young Fabians - here I see no evidence that this has resulted in any of the requirements of WP:BIO, and WP:BIO1E would suggest that even if it had this would not warrant a separate article anyway. Your argument does not persuade me to change my !vote above. I42 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By stating that the comments are political I am not attempting to attack editors but merely raise a possible motive that may be fueling the discussion. I have edited my original comment to reflect that this is a concern. Additionally, I would use WP:POLITICIAN to promote the case that parliamentary candidates should be included in wikipedia. WP:POLITICIAN states major figures in national or first-level sub-national political races can be considered notable. Because the UK system does not allow people to directly vote for the Prime Minister, a member of parliament is the highest elected national office in the system. This being said, I think it is fair to say a major party candidate for Parliament is a "major figure in a national race." As for external links the additional ones provided are neutral and demonstrate the candidates stature within the local community. This candidate has received ample coverage in the local press, not all of which can be found with a simple Google Search. The very local nature of British Parliamentary politics make this a very grey subject, and my argument is that we should err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. I understand the need for censorship within Wikipedia, but I think this is a valid challenge that needs to be analyzed. ZTomane1 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored; censorship is not the issue here. Applying the Wikipedia guidelines equally to all articles is. If you want to discuss a particular policy, Wikipedia:Policy#Proposing_change_to_guideline_or_policy_status is the place to do it. I42 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship was the wrong word. I understand the need for oversight within wikipedia. Nevertheless, I am not proposing a change to the guidelines. Wikipedia's guidelines like any body of law is flexible and therefore open to interpretation. I believe the WP:POLITICIAN is accurate, I merely interpret it differently than some of those in this discussion and judging by the number of Parliamentary candidate articles popping up I would say so do others. I think we should consider the particular nature of the British Parliamentary system when making this determination, and judge whether candidates meet the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. I believe they do (see above argument). Provided articles are presented in a neutral manner, I see no reason why they should be excluded. Wikipedia notability is not a stonewall, it is flexible, and I think the parliamentary candidate situation poses an interesting challenge to this flexibility. ZTomane1 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use your common sense when reading Wikipedia policy. It's pretty obvious that the intention of the policy about major figures in national races was for elections to head of state or the equivalent, and attempting to re-interpret policies to mean something different is generally looked on dimly in Wikipedia. If you can find substatial coverage in local papers that goes beyond his candidacy, that might count, but it would have to be more than the odd quote in some newspaper articles. If you think you've got that, tell us and it might change the outcome of this debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anybody involved in this discussion actually wrote the wikipedia policy I think it is a bit presumptuous to make statements on the "obvious intention of policy." I believe that is the point of these discussions to reach a consensus on such issues. If that consensus is that this article does not reach notability standards, I will gladly and respectfully accept that. However I don't think any of us are in a position to comment on the "obvious" intention of policy. If the "obvious" intention of the policy was to refer to heads of state, then why doesn't that appear in the policy? As it is written, it is unclear, and therefore open to interpretation. I am not saying that I my interpretation is absolutely right. I merely aim to present an argument that may not have been considered by those who write wikipedia policy. The British system does not allow for the election of head of state, or for the Prime Minister for that matter. I would also add that Parliamentary candidates reach such a position by going through a rigourous selection process within the party. After such a selection they become the face of their party within the constituency they represent. This should be considered when judging their notability. ZTomane1 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability beyond being a Parliamentary candidate. A large number of people are Parliamentary candidates; most of them will not be elected. Most of them, whether or not they are elected, are not notable. If they are elected, then they should have an article. Warofdreams talk 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would point to following links as a demonstration of the candidates profile within his constituency. These links are in addition to the links currently found on his page. They are independent of the candidate, and originate from a reliable source, the constituency's local newspaper. The first article in particular demonstrates my above claim that PPCs are similar to elected in officials in that they act as the face of their party in the constituency they serve. The second article demonstrates that on national issues that have local importance, PPCs are often the first people the media contacts for the party's take on the situation.

Local speech discussed in the Echo

Opinion on bus passes

The following examples, while I realize do not reach the level of independence the above articles, in that they were written by the candidate himself, I do believe still hold some validity in establishing notability, as they were still published in an independent source, again the local paper.

Views on town pool

Views on airport

Views on housing policy ZTomane1 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any articles written about this person by 3rd party reputable sources? What has been presented so far is just this guys opinion on different things in the local paper. If that was the criteria for notability then we could create thousands of articles for people who have written into a newspaper or been quoted at some point. The Independent quote is a one-liner in an article mainly about Anne Campbell. There really needs to be more than this to establish notability. Quantpole (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would go further than Quantpole and say that if we added articles for election candidates who have been quoted in their local paper then we would have millions of articles, something which would seriously unbalance this encyclopedia and introduce further systematic bias. For Bonavia to be included we would need significant coverage in places like BBC, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Guardian etc etc and I just can't find any of that. We currently have seven references/external links the first, third and fourth are all from his local party website. The second and fifth again Labour party linked websites. The sixth a quote in a local paper about a local issue, not a significant mention and the last a brief quote in an article which is not about him.

So to sum up, the 'references' currently included are mostly Labour party linked sites, which would be at fault if they didn't try and talk up a candidate in such a hopeless seat. Valenciano (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 174A (Sullivan County, New York)[edit]

This is an article about a 0.09 mile county route. Rschen7754 (T C) 22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Obvious merge (which doesn't need AFD) to County Route 174 (Sullivan County, New York) (which should maybe be merged with the other Sullivan County segments of old NY 17, since the designations change at town lines). The writing is typical Mitchazenia: "By 1994, over four decades from the consruction of the interchange, Route 174A was designated on the westernmost ramp." It makes it seem like it was unnumbered before that, when in all likelihood it got the number when the interchange was built, and the only reason for the 1994 date is that that's the only available map. The sourcing is also typical Mitchazenia, mixing up the spans of the bridge over NY 17, which is state-maintained as a bridge over a state highway, with the ramps, to say that "the westernmost span [which means what? the bridge is north-south] of the interchange...was not maintained by the state". This is a horrible article on a horrible subject for an article (note: Google is incorrect; the two-way curving leg is CR 174, while CR 174A is only the one-way roadway to the north). --NE2 22:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing about the town lines are not completely true, CR 166 is disconnected from the rest - CRs 178, 179 and 179A does not change at a town line. As far as I am concerned you can merge it, but I will oppose merging 174.Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each 475 feet(.09 miles) of pavement is not inherently notable. Absent multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial or significant coverage, this bit of pavement seems to fail WP:N. An article about County Route 174 seems more than sufficient. Edison (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have went ahead and Merged it myself - per NE2 — master son^{T - C} 13:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with County Route 174 (Sullivan County, New York) per above. It's a common sense case – a suffixed non-notable route that only serves to connect another highway with its parent. I agree that this shouldn't have been brought to AfD, because it's not enforceable the way Rschen says it was. You can only speedy delete recreated deleted material, not resplit merged material, even if the merge was the result of an AFD discussion. -- Kacie Jane (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This route is way too short to have its own article (When looking at Yahoo Maps,I was stunned too see how short the road actually is. The residential side street I live on is actually longer than this route!) and the information would be better presented in the CR 174 article as this route is basically a short ramp to that route. Dough4872 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and CR 174 to a new section about the CR 17X series on List of county routes in Sullivan County, New York. The only thing that makes any of the CR series notable is that they were once part of New York State Route 17, and all of them share that history. I don't see any reason why they can't be adequately covered there as a group. – TMF 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into County Route 174 (Sullivan County, New York), per above. It really isn't worth trying to make a decent article about a 475-foot one-way connector ramp. --LJ (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum (album)[edit]

Unauthorized "audio biography" of the band System of a Down. Non-notable bootleg. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please clarify which criteria you are nominating this under. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether it is WP:Music#Albums or WP:BK, either way it fails big time the significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources test. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, no awards, no charts, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Kazakhstan relations[edit]

Entirely unsourced stub about a non-notable bilateral relationship. Relations between these two countries, rather far apart, are not extensive or otherwise rise to any level that would pass the general notability guidelines. The two countries have little impact on each other, and there primary contact seems to be at international hockey tournaments. Bali ultimate (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This looks like a salvageable article and I may have uncovered some sources, I am going to attempt to expand and re-write this article now. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- J.Mundo (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - I have updated the article substantially adding new references, new sections, economic and political relations and more please check it out before making up your mind. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 22:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Hardly the The Grand Alliance but it seems that WP:N is met. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst it's not the Triple Entente, it seems that Marcusmax's work on the article has seen that it meets WP:N. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources suggest these diplomats didn't visit Canada for the hockey. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good stub after update.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:05, April 14, 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Hardly Earth-shattering but at least someone has taken an otherwise cookie-cutter stub and made something weakly useful.--BlueSquadronRaven 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep very well referenced. Can we close it snowball keep now? Ikip (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Keep. Good work, Marcusmax. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GMCA[edit]

This article gives very little information on a subject which is not, in itself, worthy of an encyclopedia entry. The article is an orphan- thus connects to very few other websites, and, while it cites sources, these are not third party publications- i.e. they appear to be dependant upon the subject of the article. As such, the article fails to meet notability criteria in its present form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs) 00:54, April 13, 2009

Delete Individual MA program at a single college. The only thing distinctive about it is they chose an unusual name for promotional purposes--as the article itself says " similar to traditional MBA programs". The "references" re to two of the colleges only websites, and a directory. I think this could be considered eligible for G11, entirely promotional. DGG (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I concur with DGG on this one. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Crucified Soldier#Sergeant Harry Band. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Band[edit]

No content not covered in The Crucified Soldier or which could be covered in it, and little scope for any to be added. SGGH ^ping! 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Crucified Soldier if it can be verified that Harry Band is indeed the crucified soldier. If not, delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe anyone knows that Band was he, it is just a theory. From my reading it is not even certain whether there ever watch such an incident anyway. The article on Band only exists due to the theory, so I agree with the redirect. SGGH ^ping! 23:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Crucified Soldier#Sergeant Harry Band. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Esradekan. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. He is only notable as an alleged victim in an old urban legend. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC). TheAE talk/sign 20:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Full of Soul (Yarbirds album)[edit]

The article contains one sentence and a track listing, neither of which can be verified as the article contains no citations or references to external sources. Its only content is the track listing which constitutes little more than a list of links and whose origins are unknown- possibly in breach of copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs) 01:00, April 13, 2009

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, no charts, no awards, non-notable compilation. JamesBurns (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure if this meets notability or not, but the article should not be deleted just due to the comment about being an "inplausable search term". It is a perfectly valid and appropriate title per WP:DAB. Rlendog (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

140th Street Station (Cedar Busway station)[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, and even if it doesn't violate it, bus stations aren't notable anyways Delete Secret ^account 20:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it even exists, it is only a proposed bus station (but stations in general are not notable anyways). No sources, no indications of notability, almost no content. TJ Spyke 22:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. — Jake Wartenberg 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to come up with a good explanation as to why this station is any more notable than the park-and-ride lot at Interstate 394 and Hopkins Crossroad (as an example), or any other places where buses stop in the Twin Cities. Does anyone have that explanation handy? In fact, do buses currently stop at 140th and Cedar right now, whether someone has built a shelter there or not? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW, WP:HEY. Discussion was open for 5 days. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Miller (sportscaster)[edit]

Non-notable local news/sports presenter. Mikeblas (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG KEEP: He can be heard on 36 radio stations in Michigan, Ohio and Canada during Lions games and is watched in hundreds of thousands of homes on daily basis on WJBK (Michigan's highest powered FOX affiliate). He is also the host of a sports talk TV show, (the ONLY of its kind in Michigan). How aren't any of these facts "notable enough" in your mind? The millions of people who listen to him every week on Lions games and watch him every single day on TV in Detroit and Southeastern Michigan (the largest media market in Michigan mind you) would probably disagree with your un-notability claim, so would The Detroit Free Press (one of Michigan's largest and most widely read newspapers, if not #1) who gave him the "best local TV sportscaster award" in 2004. Notability is simply a matter of opinion (yours in this case, and so far, no one else's) and NOT a matter of fact. However, the fact of the matter is that the article is completely factual and well sourced. Saying a person isn't notable in my mind is a violation of WP:BLP. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that someone isn't notable is not a violation of WP:BLP. Although editors will disagree on what constitutes notability, statements like "notability is simply a matter of opinion" suggest that you are unfamiliar with the guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is notable, he might be local, but notable in Michigan. After doing light searching, I noticed there are other articles of Sportscasters around the U.S. that are notable to their regions as well. Quistisffviii (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Other stuff exists" isn't a viable reason for keeping an article. Local notability isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've checked out the article and it appears to be written well enough. As there is no notability criteria specifically for announcers/newscasters the only thing I can go off of is the general guideline for notability (received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). As of right now, the article only has references that go to non-independent sources. I did a little searching for news sources that show significant coverage but it's hard as he's often referenced but mostly for quotes which are taken by another writer. I haven't been around for a long time but I see a trend in notability discussion on news casters and news writers for the same reasons. I guess I would have to go with common sense (more gut more specifically) with this article and say that the subject is notable as I believe that any sports announcer/commenter of a major professional team (their main announcer) is inherently notable. If I had to pin a specific notability guideline on the subject, I would have to say point 1 of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography (person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them) for the Detroit Free Press award or point 1 of WP:CREATIVE (person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors). OlYeller^Talktome 02:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep with no disrespects to the nom, but WP:BEFORE might have indicated the notability you missed and others easily found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notable local sportscaster in Michigan and Ohio area does not translate into notable in Wikipedia. There appears to be no significant news coverage of him, although there are several passing mentions. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He's not local he's national via XM and Sirius Satellite Radio. Also all games can be listened to at WXYT-FM's website worldwide. He's also won awards in his field by his peers so is therefore respected and well liked and well known.TomCat4680 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TomCat4680 mentioned how large an audience he has. The opinions of hundreds of thousands of people, who believe the guy notable enough to listen in, are far more important than the opinion of a single reviewer in a major newspaper or magazine. He is notable for the same reasons bestselling novels are. Plenty of fans, means you don't need any third party reviews to prove you are notable. Dream Focus 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close request: Admin please close per WP:SNOW. Article has been substantially expanded since afd 5 days ago. I count 5 keeps to 1 delete (other than nominator's) at this point. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Mike's right; writes a mean class library, too. Local-notability? We'll have dog catchers in here, next. Nice that Dan has a dog :)
nb: TomCat canvased the ARS@WT:ARS#Rescue Dan Miller (sportscaster) please
Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Mike's" right? You know his real name? Really, you told your friends to come and vote your way "Mike"? Good job, maybe next we'll see your mom... TomCat4680 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third snowball close request. Why is this debate still open? Its been asked that it be closed to WP:SNOW 3 times now. There are 6 keeps and only 3 deletes in the 5 days its been open. and TomCat4680 (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Flynn (Parliamentary Candidate)[edit]

Person is not notable as per Wiki policy. Although this article is well written, Wiki policy on political candidature is to ensure that includes those who are elected at a certain level. This person is not. He is not an elected representative. The name of the article makes this most clear, indeed I cannot think of another biog article with the Parliamentary Candidate disambiguation. I nominate this article for deletion accordingly. doktorb _words^deeds 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, self-published sources. Can be recreated if he should win the election, but right now there's no way that he passes notability criteria. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected politician with no sigificant coverage that asserts notability. I42 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Southend West. No notability out of being PPC, one column written for a local newspaper is nowhere near enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue for inclusion of this article and all other article regarding parliamentary candidates for reasons outlined here ZTomane1 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of current notability. If he is elected, then he should have an article. Warofdreams talk 02:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by User:Nyttend. NOn admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turan KIRAÇ[edit]

Non-notable person; speedy tag contested with hangon tag I'^mperator 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted, the hangon does not replace the speedy tag (it's simply a request for time to explain why a speedy would be inappropriate), and this person was a clear example of what CSD #A7 is meant for. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thomas Pendelton. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Ink[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. Questionable notability. gordonrox24 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Pendelton, although I'm not 100% convinced that article would pass notability, either. It has a better chance than this one, at least. Tevildo (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thomas Pendelton. Tevildo said exactly what I was going to say. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncorrected proof[edit]

Contested ProD: Cleaned up and pruned a major WP:COI page that was basically comprised (four out of five paragraphs) of spam. Once the spam was removed, all that was left was a dictionary definition for what is likely a neologism. The term is only referenced in a couple of trivial sources (one of which is a dead link) and has been found in use by a single company. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not really a neologism, but definitely a dicdef. Tevildo (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've marked the reference link to 'myfirsteditions.com' as a dead link, since the site is not functional. This leaves us with just one link, to the privately-operated web site http://www.ioba.org, which is not a reliable source. The claim that it is a 'standard publishing industry term' is unsupported. There is no good evidence distinguishing uncorrected proofs from Galley proofs. The present article claims, without evidence, that galley proofs are unpaged, while our article on that topic does not say so. Why should we provide an article if we have no reliable sources to verify the definition? EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Uncorrected proof, Advance copy, and Galley proof. Leave two of them as redirects as they are probable search terms. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Galley proof, as they share many of the same information. Cheers. I'^mperator 19:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to a merge if no reliable sources can be found. Otherwise we are (potentially) just making things up. It's not so much a notability problem as a verifiability problem. Galley proof has problems as a merge target. It is completely unsourced! People would be better off using the dictionary. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we're saying Galley proof should go to Wiktionary? - 2 ... says you, says me 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Category:Book terminology looks worthwhile, and it does contain some longer articles that are more than dicdefs. But lack of sources is a problem! Maybe somebody could try using the 1911 Britannica to fix up those articles in the category that have no sources at all. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge What we really need is a new article specifically about book proofs in general, or perhaps printing proofs. These side terms can all redirect to that. Delete (until an appropriate article can be created) or merge (to one of the others along the same lines that needs improvement) would both be acceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider a merge per LinguistAtLarge. Here's a useful source that could help with all of the articles he lists, whether or not they are merged. JulesH (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While your link is interesting, it is just a blog posting by Matt Gerber. So it is not a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where this theory that blogs are never reliable sources comes from, it certainly isn't supported by WP:V or WP:RS. In this case, the blog is run under the editorial control of Tor Books, an imprint of Macmillan Publishers, and therefore is as a reliable source on publishing and science-fiction related content. JulesH (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an immense amount of material on the various stages of printing both currently and historically. Hoe to arrange them needs a discussion elsewhere DGG (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and move Galley proof, Advance reading copy, and Uncorrected proof should be merged under the title Proof (publishing) with redirects. There may or may not be sufficient referenced material in the future to justify separate articles. All of them seem more complicated than a dictionary definition and have overlapping definitions or loose definitions in practice. Drawn Some (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then let's merge. DGG and Drawn are correct; this topic as a whole is important enough. For now, I think Linguist's idea is best--one article and two redirects is an invitation to build the article; deletion is not. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in the Half-Life series[edit]

Entirely non-notable article about creatures in the Half-Life series of video games, with very few references. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this belongs on a Half-Life Wiki, merge the big picture parts of this article with Half-Life. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Articles don't have to notable. Half-Life is a notable videogame series and so are the creatures in it. The games have been reviewed by multiple critics, and that includes the creatures. The games themselves are acceptable sources for most of the information in this article. I created this article by merging several of the individual creature articles. And it doesn't belong on Half-Life wiki since that's a for-profit site. --Pixelface (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, articles have to be both notable and verifiable. Regardless of whether information exists elsewhere, it has to be directly cited in this article so the reader can verify it. If this cannot be done, reliability cannot be shown. Also, how does Wikia being for-profit affect the possibility of transwikiing? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article qualifies as a viable spinout article, so long as we expand it a bit. There is a multitude of source information: for HL1 and HL2, we have Raising the Bar; for the later games, we have the commentaries. I, however, disagree with Pixelface: articles do have to be notable. However, this is a spinout of an article with unquestionable notability and should be treat as such. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup first, with a possible consideration after clean of a merge with Locations of Half-Life if this can't stand on its own - as to create a "Universe of Half-Life" (or something like that first). I'm not sure beyond HL headcrabs what else here is notable, but as Spectre states, HL's pretty well documented to likely find something first. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm As an editorial manner, I would prefer a merge of locations and creatures to a 'universe' article, since the content could be better presented that way. From a notability/list standpoint....I don't know. You want a real doozy, try Headcrab. But even searching for that (the most 'notable' of the creatures from that series) gives us plenty of meat. News, Books (which somehow includes Maximum PC...a source that should rightly be in "news"), Scholar (yes, there are a few hits there!). Most of the coverage as it relates to the creature is tangential or trivial, but some is not and in aggregate, it is sufficient to have an article on the subject. I'm ok with effectively hanging the rest of the creatures on the hook of the headcrab to keep things sane. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. 129.1.26.23 (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond the Vortigaunts, headcrabs and the Combine (two out of three of which have been cleaned up), the Half-Life species aren't notable. I had enough trouble digging out information in relation to the Vortigaunts for Half-Life 1; sources don't cover the others beyond the three mentioned above in any detail that one could properly make a quality article/list out of. I oppose a merger with the locations article, that will make it a real pain to work with properly from an editorial standpoint. Redirect it to the series article if article history is of major concern, but otherwise get rid of it. This stuff is far better covered for fans over at the Half-Life wikia, no transwiki is needed. -- Sabre (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a start I've found no strong assertion of notability for these critters, in fact the only material I did find related to the human soldiers in the first games (not included here, dealt with in the game articles) and the headcrabs. The antlions are already covered as much as they need be, particularly in Half-Life 2: Episode 2. Players and/or commentators focus on particular enemies or aspects of play, so while 'put them together and make them stronger' works in a lot of subjects it usually doesn't in game sub-articles. What happens is you get enemies like the afformentioned Headcrabs, Vortigaunts and the Combine which get all the attention and the others wilt on the vine. The ones which get the attention get further updates and exposure, the rest get changed around to something else. That's what's happened with Headcrabs, it's what happened with BioShock, it's what happened with Resident Evil. For me these are all dealt with through what exists in the game articles, whether each critter is present or not, and if Sabre hasn't found compelling materials during his own research then that's further confirmation. Someone another 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pixelface. Creatures of this highly notable game are widely discussed; the fact that not all of them are independently notable is no reason to delete the entire list. JulesH (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All the notable creatures have their own articles - this list concerns the "rest", as it were.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't mean they can't also appear on a list. All of the people in List of heavy metal guitarists have articles; does that mean we should delete the list? Of course not, it's a useful navigational aid that shows us basic information about multiple related items and, where it is available, directs us to the source of further information, just like this article. JulesH (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but if not, Merge: Since some of the creatures have standalone notability, the franchise is notable, and the individual games are notable, I'm hesitant to support deletion. Therefore I would support either keeping this article, or merging it back into a franchise/game article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what sourced content there is with either the series article or to a "Universe"-type article and transwiki anything else, if that's possible. As I stated on the article's talk page, most of this is non-notable in-universe trivia and would have a better home elsewhere. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I haven't found many sources on these creatures other than what we already have in other articles. I greatly trust Sabre, too, because he did such a fantastic job improving the Locations of Half-Life article. That said, if there's no consensus to delete, I'd join ZXCVBNM, MASEM, Protonk, Jo7hs2, and Haipa Doragon in calling for a merge. Randomran (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. DGG (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as an alternative. Treating this as a list, I understand where Pixelface is coming at. It needs some cleanup, and if some creatures can demonstrate independent notability, then they could be spun out but mentioned here summary style. If that cannot be possibly be done, then I don't oppose a merge. However, outright deletion is not necessary here. MuZemike 15:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor character articles are often a good idea. If this needs to merge, discuss it at the talk page, not AfD. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Etheridge[edit]

Wow. This is arguably a WP:BLP violation, and it deals with a 12 year old. Wow. In any case, definitely not notable. Lacks non-trivial coverage from outside/third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being on a game show doesn't make you a child actor, we don't have articles on every child who was on Kid Nation or Double Dare. None of the film credits are sourced (in fact the film titles themselves are redlinked) and there's no coverage in third party, non-trivial sources. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, being a one-off contestant on a game show is different from being a panelist who appears across the whole of a season. 68.249.0.104 (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Actually, all the kids on that show are actors, and many have been in film and television before being chosen to be the "Fifth Graders". The films themselves can be sourced... so a "redlink" simply means that someone might decide to write an article... however, I have not found enough true coverage of her in reliable sources to indicate she might merit her own article... only a lot of WP:V that she is an actor. Does she have a cult following? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know that this isn't actually written in policy, but I think that we should set a much higher notability bar for articles about children than for those about adults. The subject, as she grows up, may well decide that she would prefer not to be a public figure, and we should not prevent her from making that decision by maintaining this article. I would also suggest that this discussion be courtesy blanked on completion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't see anything that violates WP:BLP, this kid isn't notable per WP:N or WP:BIO. An appearance on a gameshow isn't grounds for notability in itself, yet if that appearance generates publicity, that could lead to notability. I haven't found the publicity and/or commentary on her necessary for inclusion. Them From Space 03:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NB. This changed from "no consensus" following an appeal to my talkpage to review - in the cold light of day, this result better represents consensus) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009[edit]

Non-notable piece of legislation. No sources provided that show notability. In-process label has been in place for weeks and no changes have been made recently aside from adjustments to the number of co-sponsors. A Google news search [5] for the term turns up nothing that establishes notability. Even if the bill were to pass, since the Federal Reserve is already audited regularly [6], so I can't see how a bill that forces another audit(?) would be notable. Burzmali (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable proposed legislation. This has barely been proposed, barely sent to committee. As far as I can tell it hasn't even been assigned to a subcommittee yet. I know the Ron Paul fans really like to generate articles on every piece of legislation he proposes, but that's not a good enough basis to make this legislation notable. I would feel differently if this had actually made it through subcommittee and committee, and come to the House floor. List it on List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, and break it out into an individual article in the unlikely event that it someday acquires some notability. TJRC (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As this is clearly a merge comment in context, I attempted unsuccessfully to change the heading. If this is intended as a delete, the comment should be changed to be consistent with that. JJB 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Just to be clear here, what you attempted to change was another editor's description his own position. It's not a "heading." TJRC (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Notability research will be expanded here later. (Add: there are now 40 in-article sources, namely, 2 Fox News, 1 Politico.com, 16 newspaper sources (articles in 25 total local papers, only 12 being letters to editor), 5 established university papers, 1 international think tank, 1 Motley Fool blog, 9 aligned sources (the Fed, WND, CFL, Gambling911, Best, GoldSeek), and 5 appropriate SPS (govtrack.us, Congress). Similarly to my comment while "winning" another same-nom debate (NCDK), if 12 reliable editors publish topical letters on a month-old bill, their independent judgment has cumulative effect, besides the other sources.) However, I am not able to consider this nomination in good faith based on my comments at the nominator's immediately previous lost bid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Paul, where an editor was still hollering nonnotability after thirty reliable sources had been included. I am also wary of TJRC's suddenness to respond, his former PROD of this article, and what I regard as TJRC's poor merge of We the People Act. Nominator's link to Google vitiates the entire nomination, especially since redoing the search takes it up to a good mix of 50 sources including some significant duplicates [7]. Once again, nominator has failed to invoke any of the alternatives to deletion (editing, tagging, merging, discussion, RFC, transwiki, etc.), which is especially egregious because nominator is well-aware of a good potential merge target, Ron Paul bills. Nominator has also overriden the under-construction tag, even though edits have continued to this article more often than weekly (otherwise a bot would remove the tag). Nominator's history indicates a longtime unresolved content dispute in relation to Ron Paul coverage as documented here.

I accordingly request that the next administrator speedily close this AfD as "keep" under WP:DEL: Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. If this does not happen, I request that the admin ask me for further evidence of my charges. JJB 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC) JJB 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First, do not change another editor's !vote. Second, I will not apologize for my promptness in responding to the AfD. There's nothing nefarious in this. I have the article watchlisted, and I saw the AfD and responded. It's nothing more that that. I didn't have any hesitation, because I'd considered nominating it, myself. Third, I don't know what you mean when you refer to "TJRC's suddenness to respond in both AfD's." I did not participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Paul. In the meantime, please read WP:AGF. TJRC (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Refactored; I had conflated events. And wariness is compatible with good faith. JJB 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  - False accusations are not. Apology accepted. TJRC (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't worry, JJB's been accusing me of having an anti-Paul bias for closing in on a year now [8], I'm used to his remarks. However, normally he at least gives a reason to keep as well. BTW, I'm still waiting for 'insert name of nefarious Anti-Paul alliance' to send me that toaster ;) Burzmali (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - --RayBirks (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep No real stated evidence of notability yet, but it probably can be found. Possibly before the 7 days are up. But certainly not a bad faith nom, and therefore emphatically not a speedy keep. DGG (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JJB has revamped the page to include sources linked to blogs, letters to the editors of local newspapers and random people rating on the internet [9] to establish notability. I can't find a single one that satisfies WP:RS, never mind WP:N. As an aside, please don't just added every single hit you get from Google to an article, John. The fact that Peter Kolar thinks that the bill is a great idea and the local daily newspaper printed his letter in the mailbag section is not encyclopedic, nor is that "milpo", a blogger at the Moltey Fool's website whose profile includes "No personal info entered", demands that we support it. Burzmali (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As usual, your characterizations, picking on only 2 of my (first) 24 sources and neglecting article talk, fail to support your sweeping generalizations. JJB 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  - John, here is the breakdown as I see it:
    - [1], [6], [17] - GovTrack.us. - Primary Sources
    - [2] - Valley Advocate. [10] - Opinion piece in a source that doesn't satisfy WP:RS
    - [3] - Baraboo News Republic. [11] - Letter to editor
    - [4] - Los Angeles Daily News. [12] - Not available online
    - [5] - Federal Reserve Board - Doesn't mention bill
    - [7], [10] - WorldNetDaily - Not a WP:RS for anything concerning Ron Paul
    - [8] - Motley Fool - Not a WP:RS as source is an unidentified blogger
    - [9] - Best Syndication News - Not a WP:RS as it is a self-published source
    - [11] - Monroe News Star. [13] - Letter to editor
    - [12] - Auburn Journal - Not a WP:RS, unidentified blogger
    - [13] - Oakland Tribune. [14] - Blog, without significant coverage of topic
    - [14] - Augusta Chronicle - Article consists of comments from readers
    - [15] - Dothan Eagle - Letter to editor
    - [16] - Appeal-Democrat [15] - Letter to editor
    - [18] - Glenn Beck (Fox News) - Interview with Ron Paul, not independent (HR 1207 is mentioned only by Ron Paul), not significant coverage
    - [19] - Texas Straight Talk - not independent, Paul's own words
    - [20] - GoldSeek [16] - Not a WP:RS for much of anything, not significant coverage
    - [21] - Campaign for Liberty [17] - Not independent, RP's mouthpiece
    - [22] - The Appalachian (Appalachian State University) [18] - Student newspaper, not significant coverage.
    - [23] - Kansas City Star - No mention of topic
    - [24] - Student Life (Washington University) - No mention of topic
    - [25] - Gambling911.com - Frankly, I didn't visit this one, I highly doubt that they are a WP:RS.
  - Now, those are your 25 sources, please tell me which one you consider significant. Burzmali (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a point of order, if this is kept then shouldn't it be called the Federal Reserve Transparency Bill of 2009 rather than the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009? I'm more familiar with UK parliamentary procedure than with what goes on in the US, but I thought that the same distinction was made there between a Bill (proposed law) and an Act of Congress (legislation that has actually been passed). Phil Bridger (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've already given my delete !vote above, so this is just a comment, with further thoughts; this is pretty much my thought process that went into that !vote, but I think it's worth documenting in further detail. My thoughts here are pretty much geared toward U.S.-based congressional legislation, because that's what I know. Much of it would apply to state or local legislation, although I believe the bars in those cases will be substantially higher, since the such laws affect so fewer people than those enacted at the congressional level. I don't have enough background outside the US to comment on proposed legislation in non-US jurisdictions.

The noteworthiness or lack thereof of proposed legislation if problematic. Pretty much every piece of congressional legislation will get some news coverage. Newsworthiness is not notability, as that term is used in Wikipedia. It is not sufficient to have a list of pieces of news coverage and use that, in and of itself, as a basis to claim notability. Unless the proposed legislation has clear indicia that it is notable, it's really not worthy of an article. One good indicium is that the legislation actually passes. But that's not in itself even enough: Congress passes a lot of legislation that's not particularly notable. The fact that a bill does not pass is an indication that it is not notable, but it's not conclusive. The controversy over the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, for example, was so great that I think that it would have been considered notable, even if it had not passed.

This is somewhat applicable to proposed constitutional amendments, as well, except that because amending the Constitution is a pretty big deal, it's not that unusual for attempts to do so to be notable, even if the attempts are ultimately unsuccessful; see, e.g., the articles on the Bricker Amendment and the Equal Rights Amendment. Those amendment attempts are long-dead, but are still discussed today. Of course, for those two citable instances, there are a lot of amendment attempts that died and are not particularly notable.

It is worth bearing in mind here that Notability is not temporary: "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." As applied to this particular case, I really don't think that people will be talking about, or otherwise taking note of, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 after the sun sets on the current U.S. Congress in 2011.

My thoughts here are not limited to the FRT Act. We have other articles that I feel the same way about. As a specific example, we've got Patent Reform Act of 2005 (did not pass), Patent Reform Act of 2007 (did not pass) and Patent Reform Act of 2009 (still pending). I assume that the editors who created each of these articles believed that the bills had a pretty good chance of becoming law; I personally believe that the 2009 one will. But with the benefit of hindsight, it seems pretty clear that the 2005 and 2007 acts ultimately were not notable; and maybe the 2009 will turn out not to be as well. What's notable here is a topic like "proposed patent reform," which would discuss the various proposals that have been put forward, including these three acts (most of which duplicate each other, anyway). If the 2009 Act passes, then great, have an article on it that covers what it actually will have done.

In a similar vein, the FRT Act just doesn't meet the standard for notability. If there is an article on proposed economic or banking reforms, then a discussion of the FRT is probably worth including there; and as I said above, given the existence of List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, it's worth including there.

My general view here, to sum up, is that: 1) proposed legislation needs some actual indicia of notability to be notable in a Wikipedia sense; 2) newsworthiness can be almost presumed for proposed legislation at the congressional level, and is neither the same as notability nor in itself sufficient to confer notability, but it may be one factor; and 3) passage of the legislation is a strong (but not necessarily conclusive) indicium of notability. Applying this to the present article, I do not see that it meets these criteria for inclusion as an article. TJRC (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to comment. We're not a guide to the USCode, where it matters very much what passed and what did not; we're an encyclopedia covering notable things of the present and the past. Using your example, the history of attempts to reform the US patent legislation is of such importance to anyone who cares about patents in or out of the US (if only because US legislation has in the past bee on totally different principles from everywhere else), that every serious legislative attempt is notable. The current bill and the compromises in it and the debate over it and the comments on it, and the interpretations that will be made of it are very much influenced by the response to previous attempts. This does not mean that every attempt to pass legislation on a national level is notable. But the attempt is sometimes as notable as the actual passed Act--or even more so: the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment is even more indicative of American thinking of the period than it would have been if it had passed. And the debate can be more relevant than the bill itself, for either passed or failed. As for legislation under current consideration, the same guidelines as for any news story apply: is it clear yet whether it will actually be significant, & is the situation stable enough to write about?. DGG (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we include? At a national level for nations of which we have comprehensive coverage, we should include every piece of legislation of significant public importance or where there has been significant public debate-- and every attempt noteworthy for legal or historic or social reasons. Just the same as for all other public events. They're the basic part of political history, and need very detailed coverage. My caveat about nations for which we have detailed coverage, is that we should if possible cover the most important things in a country first, & it might not be wise to try from the start to be comprehensive. At a national level what don't we include: private bills, of course, and technical changes, and commemorations, and the like. Legislation dealing with special interest does get included if the special interests are significant, for we aim to be comprehensive.

This does necessarily mean separate articles. When there isn't that much to say, then combination articles are a good compromise, as everywhere else. it's the coverage that matters, not the division into articles.

At a subnational level, the number of people affected are smaller, and we therefore need a fairly high level of significance. But the significance can be outside the state as well, as a model for elsewhere. At a local level, I do not know how to handle this and other local matters--in principle, being not paper, we should be able to cover very minutely. In practice, its not where our efforts should be spent.

and the "very weak" in my keep was because I am not convinced of the significance of this rather routine piece of posturing. Number of co-sponsors is not decisive in the US system, especially for things where legislators will want to have something to point to for their core constituency. DGG (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Significant coverage in the press makes this worth its own article. Not even sure why it was nominated in the first place! Buspar (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is about newsworthiness, not notability. TJRC (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given its role in the recent Tea Party movement, that suggests it'll be undergoing some sustained support and a role in public discourse. So it's clearly notable right now and there's every indication it'll be newsworthy for some time in the future. At the least, this AfD is premature since this is a current developing topic. Buspar (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the numerous cosponsors, the bill has received notable coverage in the media, as indicated by the sources. The editorials are not trivial either—they show that the newspaper considered them worth publishing. --darolew 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a comment. The nominator stated: "Even if the bill were to pass, since the Federal Reserve is already audited regularly [19], so I can't see how a bill that forces another audit(?) would be notable." This indicates that the nominator does not actually understand the subject of the article. The act would require significantly more public disclosure of information than the current 'audits'. --darolew 20:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Find an independent reliable source that says that then, or even talks about the bill at all. Burzmali (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bad energy to nominate this during Tax Protest week. I'm adding a dozen more sources right now. JJB 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I'm keenly interested in Burzmali's latest response. JJB 19:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment- Still no notable sources. Burzmali (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This should be kept or at least merged with another article. THis Federal Reserve Tranparancy Act is mentioned in other wikipedia articles. This is very notable in searches and in our own wikipedia. J. D. Hunt (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While the article is not perfect it can be improved; the topic is one of the main themes that Ron Paul and his supporters are hitting on and I don't think anyone is advocating deleting the main Ron Paul article. 147.26.202.142 (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DASMUN 09[edit]

Non-notable student project per WP:NOTE, unreferenced MuffledThud (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like it's something made up at school one (or more) day(s). Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting project, to be sure, but not much different than thousands of similar projects conducted at schools all over the world. Not uniquely notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are lots of instances of Model United Nations around the world, and while the overall Model United Nations is notable, the individual examples are not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent of previous MUN articles being deleted. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer. GlassCobra 01:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrino Array Radio Calibration[edit]

Upon google search, doesn't seem notable. gordonrox24 (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to redirect to IceCube Neutrino Observatory rather than delete, as that is what it appears to be an element of (see: [20] here). Pontificalibus (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that.--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added additional text to clarify that this project is the new experiment replacing the older RICE project. This is the first article I've done, so I appreciate all assistance and advice. Thanks! --Smilemagician (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the article needs is references to validate the statements that are made, not more statements. The delete votes are coming because people can't find anything to back up the statements in the article. Looie496 (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ as a copyright violation of http://www.physics.ku.edu/facilities/rice/rice.html. (The db-copyvio tag has already been placed.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To meet both the letter and the spirit of U.S. copyright laws, we have to delete or hide copyright violations at about the same time that we find them ... but I don't have any preference how we hide them. I saw complete sentences that looked like copyvio all over that article, so I deleted, but I'll restore the article and delete most of the contents per request on my talk page; you all are welcome to continue to debate here what the final result should be. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the edits have now addressed the copyvio issues, I am changing my opinion from Delete to Keep. This appears to be the successor of a major effort to detect neutrinos and seems notable in itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as edits now show it as a sucessor to the Radio Ice Cerenkov Experiment, which is an assertionof notability but it does need references for this, so I added a refimprove tag in the hope they will be added in due course. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Copyright issues have been addressed. Issues of notability are subjective.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no copyrights problems, definitely notable.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conga (board game)[edit]

Unreferenced stub about one of hundreds of variations of Mancala. There's no evidence of this game being played outside of a small circle of Germans. See also de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/27. Februar 2009#Conga (Spiel) (gelöscht) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, no non-trivial third party sources. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a search for "Martin Franke" and "conga" in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but no sources turned up to help establish WP:N notability. Nothing on Google News either. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown. Edward321 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time magazine's "All-TIME" 100 best albums[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Time magazine's "All-TIME" 100 best albums

Like the article for All-TIME 100 Greatest Novels, which I nominated for deletion separately, this article does little more than offer a WP:DICDEF of the subject and has no real substantive content. Basically just says that Time magazine made a list of albums. The actual list of albums was removed by editors claiming WP:NOTREPOSITORY. If the consensus is that the list itself is indiscriminate information, I don't see how an article about the list can be anything else. It's certainly not useful. Chubbles (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these sort of lists are released all the time. Why should TIME's be more notable that it should have its own article? All the list deals with is a couple of people's opinion of whos album is the best. 20:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete This was based on the opinion of TIME Magazine critics Josh Tyrangiel and Alan Light. As they noted themselves, "We hope you'll treat the All-TIME 100 as a great musical parlor game." Somewhat interesting, but not significant enough for its own article. Mandsford (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no demonstrative notability, WP:NOTREPOSITORY. JamesBurns (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Places in the Wheel of Time series. Valley2city^‽ 22:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ten Nations[edit]

Fancruft Crashoffer12345 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - While I disagree with the nominator's assertion that everything in the article is "fancruft," (though I do thank him for his detailed explanation of his viewpoint, as his thorough and well-reasoned arguments for deletion are a credit to AfD), I do think that this article is unnecessary- all the material is covered in the Places in the Wheel of Time series article and does not need to be duplicated. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and Crashoffer, since you saw fit to delete and ignore my polite & friendly suggestion from your talk page, I guess I'll just address it to you here since it is also relevant to this forum. Just a suggestion, but you may want to take a look at this essay, especially the last paragraph. It may help if you're going to be nominating many things for deletion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is the sort of page to do on the dedicated WoT Wiki, and there is indeed an excellent page on there (as well as individual entries for each nation, the Trolloc Wars, the founding of the White Tower and other events of this period etc). There is no need for it on Wikipedia.--Werthead (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to the Places in the Wheel of Time series, which has all of this and more. It's a reasonable search term. DGG (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per DGG, for this one. It's a more obscure phrase from the series, and this is speaking as someone who's actually re-reading them at the moment. Unlike a lot of other key fiction aspects from the series (many of which's aspects are notable, as it's 2nd only to Lord of the Rings in sales) this one bit is not as integral. As for the mentioned "WoT Wiki" I have no idea which Werthead means, as there are several. The Wikia one isn't that great. This one, while simpler in "look", is far, far better in content. Doesn't matter, but just tossing it out there. Redirect. rootology (C)(T) 05:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Off-topic, but I was referring to the Wikia one, which has taken a bit longer to get off the ground but is now starting to come along nicely. I didn't even know the TarValon.net one existed.--Werthead (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This article is unnecessary, all of it is covered in Places in the Wheel of Time series, after all. I'm sure it's easier to find there, too. Randland is a fictional world, after all, so we might as well lump all the stuff that is not so notable on its own together to form a more complete picture of the world in a very popular book series. Still, no reason to call things "cruft", even if you do hate the topic. Mirithing (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Exactly as Mirithing said. Already covered in Places in the Wheel of Time series. --Pstanton (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Solarian League. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Frontier Security[edit]

WP:NOTE minor component of fictional work; no demonstrated third-party notability. John Nagle (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solarian League. Apathetic as to whether underlying content is deleted. I previously redirected and expanded the Solarian League blurb about this group; i.e. there is no content that requires merging. --EEMIV (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable, unsourced, trivial. see also. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references, minor component of fictional work. Only references in Google are to fan sites, Wikipedia copies, and dictionary sites. This stuff belongs on a fan wiki. --John Nagle (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Honorverse or Solarian League. Ikip (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely unourced and unsourcable essay on a fictional organization that serves as a plot element in sci-fi books. Inasmuch as its a significant plot element, it's already more than sufficiently covered in the wikipedia articles on the books themselves. This is just another trivial plot summary content fork with lots of fansite speculation thrown in. There are many fansites on the interwebs. Wikipedia should not be one of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and transwiki. Merge a summary to Solarian League, transwikify the rest to Honorverse wiki per my comments on the talk page of the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Pietrus suggests. There is no good reason for omitting major plot elements of major series entirely., DGG (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whatever book it first appeared in or to the list of organizations in said universe, merge only verifiable content.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Solarian League. Debresser (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge proposed and ready to carry out. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion especially:
You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of organizations. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with John Nagle above - more nn in-universe content. Eusebeus (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Nyttend CSD G3. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trent O' Trent[edit]

Non-notable, no hits on Google. Crashoffer12345 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find nothing also; it could be totally made up for all I know. Cazort (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 blatant hoax, if this had anything to do with Total Drama Island I'm sure there would at least be an IMDB entry. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article's author (Doofania) has been blocked indefinitely for creating hoax pages and sockpuppetry, and it seems like most of his contributions have been speedily deleted already. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as G3. Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balmora[edit]

Pure cruft. Unimportant, non-existent town. Nominate for deletion, but if not deletion, then merge with whatever game it belongs to. Crashoffer12345 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although my first impression was to immediately say delete, I did a search and found that this town is actually mentioned in reliable sources: [21] I still don't think it's notable, if anything, most of the content should be deleted and it should be merged into the page for the game. Cazort (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excruciatingly unimportant, merge any relevant information to article on the game. WPISNOT a video game guide. -Drdisque (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and deletion are incompatible. If you believe part of the info should be merged elsewhere, the history of the material cannot be deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the game as a plausible search term (as per the source found). Has not gained enough attention to be covered separately. (Merge anything verifiable if it fits). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, I also say Redirect. Cazort (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete this is basically a copy-and-paste from [22], as indicated at the bottom of the article. Whether this is considered copyrighted text (speedy) or not is one thing, but this is in-universe and excessive for a general encyclopedia per WP:VGSCOPE. Someone another 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a game guide, no need for a separate article on this fictional town. The game has an article.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete. Extremely minor fictional location, nothing worth salvaging anywhere in the article, Wikipedia isn't a gameguide, certainly no coverage for the town anywhere in a reliable source, etc. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if my house is there, this article is still a game guide lacking any notability in the real-world . Them From Space 04:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Shugo Chara!. Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shugo chara doki[edit]

Complete mess of an article, is this is for real at all. Crashoffer12345 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shugo Chara!, the actual series article where Doki is also covered without the really bad blog-post writing. This one doesn't even really need an AfD and could have been dealt with just like that.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shugo Chara!. This is a continuation of the Shugo Chara! anime. The more correct name with capitalization and punctuation, Shugo Chara!! Doki—, is already a redirect to Shugo Chara!, so this probably should be too. I think the content of this article is all original research and/or redundant with List of Shugo Chara! characters, so none of it needs to be merged. Calathan (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). No prejudice against recreation once production begins. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv (film)[edit]

Explicitly fails WP:NFF. Due to possible, unforeseen issues with budgeting, scripting, and casting, all future films are recommended to be deleted until the movie enters into actual production. BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow return per WP:NFF once principle filming has been confirmed as sources indicate that this particular film is still in pre-production. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The film isn't in production; and, as per Wiki rules, shouldn't have its own article.-Yellow Coyote (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is based too much on rumours and is not yet started filming, thus breaking inclusion rules for films. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom (operating system)[edit]

This article is based exclusively on the information which comes from one source, its author Dmitry Zavalishin. There is no any indication that this OS is really exist, and there is no proof that it will be available in future. It looks like hoax or at least it is impossible to distinguish it from hoax. The same article on the Russian wiki is already proposed for deletion. RedAndr (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There are various articles about it, but they've all come through the one from the Register, which is linked in the article. Whilst I'd say the Register is a good source, it all seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL to me - yet to be released, still in progress. Whilst it may be notable in the future, there's a bit too much speculation here for me to think keep... Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the source says it's still being created. Too much speculation to have an article at the present time. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vaporware, so WP:CRYSTAL applies. The Register article is a good start, but until there's actually released software there's very little to talk about. And given the high proportion of OS projects that never actually see a release, now is too early to have this article. JulesH (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already deleted by User:Toon05 WP:CSD#A7 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic XI[edit]

No context or evidence of notability through reliable sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Total lack of context... a football roaster for what? - 2 ... says you, says me 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A1 per 2. I _think_ it might be from a video game, so a redirect might be possible, but it's not worth an article in its own right. Tevildo (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica–Serbia relations[edit]

Bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Latvia relations for recent precedent), and nothing in particular sets this relationship apart. The two don't even have embassies with each other. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these two tiny countries do not have a bilateral relationship that would make a separate article on that relationship sufficiently notable for inclusion here -- to whit, there are no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any detail -- just mentions of brief meetings between ministers, exchanges of pleasantries and the like.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One country isn't even represented by proxy in the other, the other has one in a different country. No notable connection between the two compared to any other random pairing (and this one is pretty random!). Does not justify its own article. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a google news archive search and couldn't find any evidence of a meaningful relationship between these two countries. Cazort (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails my new standards. No details, no cites, no embassies. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:N standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does this really deserve an article, I can almost bet there are no embassies of either country in the other country. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mon - If one country doesn't have an embassy in the other, and the other's embassy is in a different country, then it surely can't be notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snowball in Jamaica. Although Jamaica and Serbia are well-known separately for tourism and genocide, respectively, they're both relatively small countries, and it's unlikely that there would be any cooperation between the two on anything. Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DitzyNizzy, more or less.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:24, April 15, 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia–Singapore relations[edit]

Bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Latvia relations for recent precedent), and nothing in particular sets this relationship apart. The two don't even have embassies with each other. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these two tiny countries do not have a bilateral relationship that would make a separate article on that relationship sufficiently notable for inclusion here -- to whit, there are no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any detail -- just mentions of brief meetings between ministers, exchanges of pleasantries and the like.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a quick google news source and was unable to turn up any evidence that this is a notable relationship. Cazort (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Cazort Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The link provided gives no details towards making this a notable relationship. A further strike is added by neither country being represented in the other one. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another example of two random countries that do nearly sod all for each other, not even having ambassadors in their respective countries. No notability here. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another ridiculous attempt at random country X with Y article. Serbian Ambassador in Jakarta (Indonesia) is also accredited to Singapore. Singapore is represented in Serbia through its embassy in Paris (France) says it all. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). No prejudice against recreation, if reliable sources are found and added. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Montenegro relations[edit]

Bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Latvia relations for recent precedent), and nothing in particular sets this relationship apart. The two don't even have embassies with each other. That Australia has recognised Montenegro is noted at Foreign relations of Montenegro. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these two tiny countries do not have a bilateral relationship that would make a separate article on that relationship sufficiently notable for inclusion here -- to whit, there are no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any detail -- just mentions of brief meetings between ministers, exchanges of pleasantries and the like.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Tiny"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I am in complete agreement with Bali Ultimate's comments. Cazort (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to re-creation - almost no factors per my standards, but the Australian government website indicates that could change soon. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The "tiny" one that covers a whole continent. —llywrch (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement with the previous comments. Except for the "tiny" wisecrack -- that's not a nice thing to say about Montenegro! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More non-notable Australia–Foobar relations. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to make this a notable relationship. (And to bali ultimate - do some research: Australia's the sixth-largest country on Earth.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another mass-produced stub saying nothing, certainly asserting no notability as one country doesn't seem to have an embassy in the other, and the other's is in a different country. Non-notable in every sense. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, except for the "tiny" (WHAT!!!) I agree with the nominator.--Aldux (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Luxembourg relations[edit]

Bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Latvia relations for recent precedent), and nothing in particular sets this relationship apart. The two don't even have embassies with each other. And not that visits alone would make for evidence of a notable relationship, but the first, by Luxembourg's figurehead monarch, was not a state visit, while the second took place because Luxembourg happened to hold the rotating EU presidency that month, not out of any special love for the Grand Duchy. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these two tiny countries do not have a bilateral relationship that would make a separate article on that relationship sufficiently notable for inclusion here -- to whit, there are no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any detail -- just mentions of brief meetings between ministers, exchanges of pleasantries and the like.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Australia isn't exactly a tiny country. You may want to be more careful with copy/pasting a comment across multiple discussions. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CMT i took great care. Australia is something like 55th in terms of population. To be clear: There is no encyclopedically notable relationship between Oz and luxembourg.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously you didn't take enough care or your judgement is terrible. 53rd (from over 208) and over 20 million people is not a tiny country, even if you ignore geographical and economic size. You may be surprised to know that perhaps that residents of one of the larger English-speaking nations (even by population) may appreciate articles on their foreign relations in the English language wiki. Your comment above is one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I have seen here in some time. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaahaaaaaa I think he lost his spine! LOL 123.211.169.175 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've got your knickers in a twist over my use of the word "tiny." At any rate, to be clear, "tiny" in this instance is not important to my argument/opinion. I believe China-Luxembourg relations would be equally non-notable and deletable (per: non-notable bilateral relationship). Not all such relations are non-notable -- it doesn't get much tinier than East Timor or the Solomon Islands but Australia-East Timor relations or Australia-Solomon Islands relations are highly notable and would make fine topics for an article. Hopefully someone will write those (and hopefully it won't be just another time-wasting content free stub).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per my new standards. High-level state/foreigh minister visits; embassy on one site; not-so-tiny countries. Both are long-time allies of the United States. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've explained, those were not state visits; it only happened that World Youth Day was in Australia that year, and that Luxembourg was holding the EU presidency that month. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both are long-time allies of the United States. so? why is that a criterion for notability of an article? LibStar (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am open to the possibilities of these articles, I don't see this particular criterion as meaningful DGG (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed, change to weak keep. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The "tiny" one that covers a whole continent. —llywrch (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable. By the way I'm also from that tiny country - we manage to squeeze a few Wikipedians in there. Murtoa (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More non-notable Australia–Foobar relations. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to make this a notable relationship. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable relationship. The "High level visits" are staged events anyway in the world of diplomacy and in one case are by figureheads anyway. Nothing notable about this "relationship", either inherently or in actuality. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. Ikip (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The relations may be low-profile, yet they deserve an article nonetheless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:19, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Any third party sources to construct an actual article out of this would bolster your argument. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't seriously expect me to personally find sources for any of the thousands of unreferenced articles in Wikipedia which may just as easily end up on AfD instead of being given a chance for expansion? I am not saying the article does not need to be referenced; I am saying that whatever little information that's already in there is a sufficient starting point for further work. Hence, "keep".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:25, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
    - Actually, seriously, that's what he (and most of us) expect. It's been here for four months. No one can find anything. You apparently can't find anything (or say you can't be bothered trying to find something, but you have a "feeling" that someone else later will be able to find something. Or something. It's hard to keep up). To be clear: This topic has not been shown to be even potentially notable via a reliable, indepenendent source. If you don't have such a source to provide, either for the article or here for our perusal, then you must accept that your argument will carry less weight.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am fine with that; thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Not sufficiently notable, I'm afraid. - Pointillist (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'd love to say keep, but honestly, no good argument has as yet been provided.--Aldux (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C.Krishniah Chetty & Sons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/C.Krishniah Chetty & Sons

No indication of notability. I can't find anything on a English language webtrawl that would show much notability, most things seem to be press releases, which aren't independent. --Ged UK 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm thinking probably delete on this one~~. If the claims (140 year old legendary jewelry company ... patronage in the Royal families ... finest jewelry deigns in the world) in the lead paragraph are true, you'd think there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of sources, spanning decades, that would verify and show notability for this company. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Phil Bridger was able to find sources where I wasn't. While still not very significant coverage, it's enough for a weak keep from me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But would you expect those dozens or hundreds of sources to be readily available online? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually it turns out that there are dozens (if not hundreds) of sources readily available online. I've added some to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by content and sources added by User:Phil Bridger. Nice rescue! Abecedare (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 15:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships in the Honorverse[edit]

A list of fictional objects that is not established as notable via any reliable source independent of the subject findable by me. It's little more than a fan-site collection of the names of ships that have appeared in a work of science fiction. There are many articles on the plots of the books themselves; ships that are important plot elements are mentioned in those summaries. The internet is filled with fansites; wikipedia should not be one of them. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, in this case, frankly speaking. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, no significant external sources have been cited that discuss these ships. The only source cited is a genre fan coffee table book. LK (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who puts it well. I reviewed these all year ago; things have gotten worse, not better. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Honorverse. Ikip (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
specifically Honorverse? Seems like a poor target. Jack Merridew 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (ships are quite crucial in this series) but definitely transwiki to Honorverse wiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No meaningful real-world information. --EEMIV (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Honorverse wiki 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability asserted, completely fails WP:NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn fancruft per WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Cassette (Regina Spektor)[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS, unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being non-notable and failing WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. If there's only one copy in existence then how is it different from any old mixtape? Eddie.willers (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No external sources provided that even verify the existence of this tape. In any case, not notable per WP:MUSIC. LK (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator, and no "delete" recommendations. See WP:SK — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C-evo[edit]

Tagged on and off with notability/verification concerns since May 2008. I don't think this passes the notability guidelines (WP:N). One review at VictoryGames, but that site seems a mess and I'm not conviced that it qualifies as a WP:RS. Web search shows plenty of user-generated content at various directory sites but I can't see anything that solidly hits WP:V. If one good item of coverage turns up, I can support a merge with Civilization II, per WP:N footnote 4. Marasmusine (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found a few reliable third-party sources with enough information to write a non-stub article. I've done a rudimentary job of adding them, but someone should go ahead and expand on them based on the verifiable facts that are in these different sources. Randomran (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Eurogamer mention, if a little short. What is the extent of the coverage in Civilizations: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases? Marasmusine (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randomran. Good job on expanding and cleaning up. Matt Deres (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added by Randomran establish notability. LK (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I withdraw my nomination. People seem happy with the amount of coverage now presented. Marasmusine (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possible hoax. Certainly unverifiable BLP. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John W Kirby[edit]

Cannot find any sources, either it's a hoax, or a non-notable unreferenced WP:BLP MickMacNee (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nomination. Even if the article is true, it is not written in an encyclopedic manner. The fact that none of the sources or external links mentions Mr. Kirby is a serious verifiability problem. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of references and promotional tone suggest this is a vanity autobiography. No evidence of notability, no sources to verify content. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suspected hoax, utterly without verification or sources, and being, indubitably, an excellent example of WP:Vanispamcruftisement and WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. Two further confirmations:

the SPA author's only other contributions are insertion of Kirby's name into other articles. In LDV Group Limited it is claimed that he "has made many submissions" to the LDV blog, ~~but a search of that blog for his name gives nothing~~,

The author's comment below is correct - the search function on that blog doesn't work, and there is indeed a "John Kirby" who has made several posts. However that does not confirm any of the article's claims. JohnCD (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the enormous list of his charities has been copied verbatim from here - the web-site of a Nottingham bar.

JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been labelled a SPA, but in fact it is just that I am new, I have ideas for other articles. I have met John Kirby, and in fact he donated to me an old laptop, when I searched for him on the net I could not find him so I ask people who know him, for information, prior to writing I looked at information on over thirty individuals on Wikipedia, and carefully drafted what to say and followed the layout used. As a newbie, I am unable to upload, but I have newspaper articles from 1994, page 3 of the Folkestone Herald and Copies of Bus and Coach week, which have clear information to back up this information.

As to why I wrote the piece, well, two reasons, first, in the difficult financial times we find ourselves, for someone to survive a bankruptcy, when there was a stigma attached, because of poor payers, to come back and still do good, might encourage someone else.

The second, his views on politics, race and religion, the acceptance of all without question, is in my opinion a great trait.

As to somebody searching on LDV, type in any name and it does not work, but open and read the Home and the Open Forum, and you will find loads, and they are well-researched pieces.

As to the list of charities, well, that is because he was connected to SKIN Bar and those are the charities he supports though all of his enterprises. There is not a single charity on that list that has not had a cash donation in the financial year Apr 6th ’08 to Apr 5th ’09 from John Kirby personally, I know because his secretary showed be all the receipts whilst he was out.

I now think I have done John a disservice, the page which I thought would be good, now suggests it is a hoax, and not truthful, so I would sooner see it removed than harm him, but I stand by it, and wholeheartedly, think it is an inspirational story. ProfPenguin (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible speedy delete, as entirely promotional, based to some extent on the above comment. DGG (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short to the point[edit]

Delete. Future film festival, no independent references, notability not established, fails WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources provided or found. Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to abide by WP:CRYSTAL. Article may be of use in future once subject notability has been established wrt wiki standards. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow back once the festival actually gains enough independent coverage to pass the inclusion standards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even a film festival, just a website calling itself an online film festival, which case it fails WP:WEB too. -Drdisque (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G12). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeplessness when a new baby arrives[edit]

An essay packed with WP:OR. Ironholds (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a copyviolation, used to spam link to a website/company for which the author has a COI. Sppedy tagged as a copyvio. I42 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and let's not lose further sleep over this WP:OR. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:CSD#G12). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary H. Wright[edit]

This article is about a character that appeared in only one episode of a television series. It depends on only one source, which isn't cited and is problably unreliable. Also, merging the article appears to be useless, because the character is insignificant. Gary H. Wright fails to be notable enough to have it's own article. Thanks.--Music26/11 10:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for an utter failure to establish notability, even within the universe of the show the character appeared in, and for being a weak attempt at cashing in on Obama-ness. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for being non-notable and have its entire contents copied from the one source that is provided. Sarilox (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Cut and pasted right off of tv.com? Diagnosis is plagiaritis, discharge patient with suggestion to check in at Wiki. Mandsford (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete seriously a speedy deletion or prod may have been more appropriate. How does a minor character who appeared in one episode of House deserve an article of his own? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God In Fiction[edit]

Aside from being mistitled and listing the Bible and the Koran as fiction, this is a non-notable list which is unsourced and primarily original research. It also contains phrases such as, "God is an idiot." ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whether or not the Bible and The Koran are works of fiction, or factual records is open to debate and down to personal interpretation, and if God was depicted as an idiot in one work, then there's nothing wrong with the article stating this, as long as it can be sourced. The article as it stands is pretty poor, but I feel that an article which discusses the depiction of God in films and literature could be written which would have encyclopedic value. The current article barely scratches the surface.--Michig (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For example, see Thou Shalt Read Our List Of Top 10 Film Portrayals Of God, In Rewind from MTV, this BBC news story, and the book The hidden God by Mary Lea Bandy & Antonio Monda.--Michig (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC) The depiction of God in film has also been the subject of another published book: God in the Movies, by Bergesen & Greeley. As you can see from this listing from IMDB, there are plenty of examples that can be cited of the depiction of God.--Michig (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I am in agreement with the nominator in regard to the list's lack of references, OR aspects, and concept of what constitutes fiction. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So am I. But none of those criticisms of the current article are grounds for deletion since none of them indicate that a good article can't be written in its stead. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my "Delete" input since the current article is a completely different offering at every level. My initial input belonged to something that no longer exists. As for the new article, it is clearly a work in progress and it deserves to grow -- I will gladly add to it. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve into a properly-sourced well balanced article, per my comments above and the available sources noted.--Michig (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See Cultural depictions of Jesus for an idea of the possibilities for this article.--Michig (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with the nominator that the article should be retitled. "Cultural depictions of God" would be a better title, and the Bible and the Koran should be removed - to state here that these are either works of fiction or works of fact would violate WP:NPOV.--Michig (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely if we retitle the article as you suggest then it can include both of those without making a judgment on their veracity? Whether the Bible is fiction or not it's surely a cultural depiction of God. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a retitled article could and should discuss the depiction of God within those works, as they have a clear influence on how God has been depicted in cultural works, e.g. the depiction of God as an old man with white hair and beard can be traced back directly to certain passages in Leviticus. It would be interesting to know where the 'traditional' western image of God originated and how that depiction has altered over the years.--Michig (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "God" figure is represented in so many ways by different cultures and religions and is so pervasive in the arts that no single article can possibly address the subject. I42 (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a reason to have no article at all? Surely having a 'cultural depictions of God' article with links to other more specific pages on specific cultures and religions is better than just removing it entirely. No single article can possibly address the whole of science but we can probably agree that's no reason to delete that! Olaf Davis (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Michig provides several decent sources which demonstrate that either 'God in Fiction' or 'Cultural representations of God' is a notable subject. I have a slight preference for renaming this to the latter and leaving a redirect. All the deletion rationales (except I42's, which I frankly don't understand) address problems with the current version of the article, which is not a reason to delete a notable topic. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination seems to suggest that parts of the article was found to be offensive. While I agree that it's inherently non-neutral to claim that the Bible or Koran are "fiction", there's nothing there that can't be fixed by editing. God does in fact appear as a character in many, many works of fiction. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have made some suggestions for improving the article at Talk:God In Fiction. --Michig (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, POV. Also, most novels of a certain type at least mention God or religion in passing, so this is probably unmaintainable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. A potentially encyclopaedic topic that could certainly be improved along the lines suggested by Michig. Tevildo (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing no more. I predict a replay of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrayals of Mormons in popular media, although with fewer delete opinions to turn around this time. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - However bad the article is, the subject is encyclopedic. God knows it's going to take a good deal of work to make it any good, but, hey, that's true of a lot of religion articles. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All reasons given for deletion are based on the current state of the article, not what the article could realistically become. WP:DELETION requires us to consider the latter, not the former, before deleting an article, and I see no reason any issue with this article cannot be fixed by editing. JulesH (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, this can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, good god. There is a topic lurking here, that would require a lot of tracking down of scholarly sources and quasi-scholarly sources (i bet The Atlantic has had an article on something like this in the past 10 years). But as it stands now, this is an original essay with no guidelines available to us to decide what due weight should be. There's that weird list of bullet points about one minor author's "directives" about writing about god in fiction, but why such weight for that minor personage? The current article is a piece of junk and needs to be at least stubbed. But why keep a stub waiting around for that 1 in a million editor who's going to devote major research to examining this concept appropriately, and then defend the article from the inevitable cruft accretion ("Hey, my favorite Larry Niven sci-fi novel talks about god, let's put in 500 words about that!").Bali ultimate (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a shambles - and unfixable POV: "even the humourous portrayals of God are rarely irreverent" says the article - if a few people are killed over cartoons of a prophet, one might imagine what religions which forbid depition of the deity (Islam and Judaism, to name 2) would think of that statement - isn't blasphemy irreverence in overdrive? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all POV is fixable. The only issue is "Is this topic encyclopedic?" The content can always be cleaned up. — Reinyday, 03:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep absolutely notable topic, AfD is not for article cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is encyclopedic. Europe22 (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep God saw the article and that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the first day of AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep magnificent rescue by Uncle G, with some help from fellow mortals. He's better at it than the rest of us, but we too can learn. DGG (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is demonstrated to be notable through the reliable sources used as references, and it is suprisingly NPOV for a religious article. The article isn't perfect, but its a lot better than it could be and there is valuable sourced information here that belongs under this topic. Them From Space 07:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep be demonstrated notability. WP:CLEANUP is not a matter for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in popular media/culture articles as inherently unencyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Kinghorn#Education. Trend of the discussion was pointing towards merge and redirect, and speedy deletion is called for under CSD G12 because entire article was a copyvio of the school's webpage. Orlady (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinghorn Primary School[edit]

Contested prod. Contester stated schools are always notable. I disagree. Nothing asserts the notability of this primary school Computerjoe 's talk 09:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "They have achieved two eco-schools green flags." might be a claim of notability if it's a rare occurance among primary schools. But either way, we shouldn't worry about notability just yet, let's first see if it's verifiable. (I'm still trying to figure out why some people consider high schools more notable when primary school is what molds someone in who they are). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- J.Mundo (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is verified. Let's start with that problem before we get to the whole "notability" argument. JBsupreme (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no problem. Verification is easily established.[23][24] TerriersFan (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mgm's comment above. This claim of notability is enough for the school to warrant an article. The information about the eco-green flags can be verified by the Eco School's website. Cunard (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? No, it is not. It absolutely is not. We require non-trivial coverage by third party publications. Require. JBsupreme (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://www.fife-education.org.uk/Ecoschools/greenflag.htm. Five paragraphs about this school's "green achievements". It's certainly a third party publication. Cunard (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it isn't. It's the education service's website. Computerjoe's talk 20:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The website is not produced by this particular school; it is produced by Fife Eco Schools, which gives "green" awards to a number of schools.
        http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/atoz/index.cfm?fuseaction=facility.display&facid=F60150F2-E4A6-4206-BC822F37DF2D78F6 is the school's website. Cunard (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That organisation doesn't actually award eco school awards. I suspect that body's similar to a British LEA.
Merge to Kinghorn: I don't see this being significantly different from any other primary school, and the standard procedure is to merge nonnotable schools. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kinghorn-- I found this news article about the school, I'm willing to change to keep if more sources can be found. --J.Mundo (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kinghorn#Education - not quite enough for a keep but certainly no basis for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/redirect to the destination identified by TerriersFan. Article is a copyvio of this website. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no predjudice to undeletion if non-trivial sources can be found Fritzpoll (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Bakshi[edit]

Non-notable poet. Claims notability but no sources are provided. Google only returns 7 results for "farooq bakshi", including this article. I've also checked the awards but none of them appear to be notable, and they don't provide a list of winners anyway. Laurent (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott ^Weave 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author dr farooq bakshi is a notable poet of urdu laguage in the indian state of Rajhasthan. he has immensely contributed towards the development of urdu language in the non-urdu speaking parts of india ,particularly rajasthan. his works are regularly published in all major urdu newspapers and magazines in India. Google doesnt return many results for his name because a lot of urdu newspapers and magazines in general do not maintain websites and the language itself is under represented on the web. the reason why google only returns 6 results for "farooq bakshi" is not because he is non notable but because indian scholars of urdu language are grossly under represented on the internet in general and of rajasthan in particular. also many news papers and journals of urdu in india do not maintain website where their works could be accesable. dr farooq is the poet who has left a lasting impression on the promotion of urdu language in rajasthan. One his awards is a Rajathan urdu academy award which is an annual award given for signifacant contribution towards development of urdu language. Rajathan urdu academy is body constituted by the state govt for managing affairs of urdu language. i will personally try to provide sources confirming his accomplishments. --218.248.32.114 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would tend to believe, however the problem here is that one of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. If nobody can verify any of your claims then we may have a problem. To be honest, I'm not sure what's the policy in that case - a more experienced Wikpedian than me may be able to help, possibly on the help desk. Laurent (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The BBC is one of those sites that made lots of efforts to offer Urdu contents and news. Please can you check if you can find something releated to Dr. Farooq Bakshi on it? If so, please can you post the URL here? The url: http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/ Thanks. Laurent (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia must stand by it 'verifiability' policy, no argiung upon that. but the i wish to raise a bigger issue here. that whether mere non existence of online information upon a particular topic or a person would make it unnoteworthy?. whether prior existence of online information is a sine qua non for being considered "genuine"?. Are you willing to accept citations and refrences of books,journals and news papers which are not available online? the problem is that large parts of the developing world is still beyond internet where the primary source of information is still printed ! if wikipedia overlooks this problem then i belive its too "elitist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.244.42 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes we are willing to accept print/ non-online sources, as we should - at least in theory. In reality, sometimes you have to fight harder to get print-only sources accepted, but it should be done. Now the question is, can you add the sources you say exist to the article? LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User:Laurent1979 sent me a message on my talk page regarding the person in question. Just by googling the person in question's name, I was able to find two English language sources (see here). I am sure that there are more sources in Urdu and Hindi which I would recommend 220.225.244.42 to search for. I will work on improving the article later. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Anupam. The two sources are about the same event though and his name is only mentioned once (without more details) so I'm not sure that will be enough. For example, he doesn't allow us to verify his biography or that he is the president of Anjuman-e-Taraaqi Urdu. As mentioned by LadyofShalott, it would help if 220.225.244.42 could provide the references of the journals and newspapers he mentioned. Laurent (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles you provided are not from non-trivial sources. While I am not aware of this person or his influence, a google search of the subject's name (in quotation marks) brings up 9 results. Perhaps there is information in non-english sources that can be given to prove notability, but the translation necessary to make that information verifiable to English-speaking editors on the English wikipedia would take an overwhelming effort. At present, there is no way to verify any of the information on the page, and due to that alone, the article can not claim notability.Mrathel (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - English-language sources are not required for notability or verifiability. There are people on here who read Urdu and Hindi who should be capable of verifying any sources in those languages if they are provided. Of course, 220.x does need to provide them... LadyofShalott ^Weave 18:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment well i was more or less suggesting that if the sources were to be presented by someone with the capability of translating the information to the extent needed to verify notability, then it would be alright, but that information would have to be able to be verified by someone other than the contributer. I am not sure of the actual WP policy regarding other languages and was only making an educated guess as to how the process would work, but at present there are no primary or translated sources provided that can verify that the subject meets notability.Mrathel (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO in a verifiable way. A grand total of ZERO hits on Google Scholar, Google News, Google Books, and WorldCat. The English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources, ideally sources that are widely available to the participants in AfD discussions. Otherwise we may fall into the trap of having to lower the standards of notability for lack of verifiable sources of notability for certain subjects. In my opinion, it is not good practice to justify a keep recommendation based on the assumption that sources of notability MAY or PROBABLY exist, for this or that subject, but are not currently available. As for their language, it certainly does not have to be English.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete- yes i will add those print resources , but ill require some time for that. as far as verifiability is concerned , the best person would be somebody related to urdu languange in rajathan.--220.225.244.42 (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The best person for what? To provide a source? To do translations? Ladyof Shalott 13:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Bulacan Factory Explosion (Santa Maria, Philippines)[edit]

Delete. A tragic incident, but lasting notability is not established. Fails according to WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews unless it can be established to be noteworthy on at least a national level. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may not be the Triangle shirtwaist fire, it's apparently being investigated as criminal negligence in the deaths of 13 employees. "Task Force Probes Bulacan Killer Blast". Mandsford (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The main statements of WP:NOTNEWS are that Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article, which doesn't really apply, and breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information, which guides us to incorporate recent developments into the article rather than giving them prominence. WP:N is the basis that should be used for article creation. I am of the opinion that freak events with death tolls above a few people are automatically notable, so long as we have the reliable sources to make an article or addition to an existing article. These events are used as examples to change safety regulations, are something people remember (and fear, especially factory workers in Asia; a large population), and are unexpected enough that they don't get relegated to statistics like Gang violence (unless we want to merge it all into an Industrial Detonation in Asia article). It has significant, independent, reliable coverage at the national level [25] and was printed by global news outlets including Aljazeera [26] and the Wall Street Journal [27]. Habanero-tan (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:NOTNEWS also states "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". There is no indication of historical notability at this time. Alluding to changing safety regulations is just an example of WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not historically notable? Habanero-tan (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because history is not determined in 11 days. Only time will tell whether the event has historical notability. For example, did it definitely lead to a change in safety laws? Is there a national monument erected on the site? Is the media still referring to the incident after 6 months, 12 months? WWGB (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move to WikiNews I have changed my vote to agree with the criteria in this essay: Wikipedia:News articles#Criteria, which this article doesn't yet meet. Also, I saw how many articles were made about news events during a few months, and that fine line between what to keep and what to delete shifted in my opinion. I also learned that this explosion was caused by an overheating broiler, which isn't a terribly freak event. Boilers, which are similar to broilers in that they have fire and can explode, have historically lead to many factory deaths. People can always search through Google News or Wikinews to learn about factory accidents; they wont be forgotten (which was my worry in my initial argument). Habanero-tan (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent statement by Habanero-tan of the correct principles for this sort of article. If serious national newspapers cover it substantially, it has lasting notability. DGG (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the explosion that woke me up early one Sunday morning a few years ago but didn't actually kill anyone is considered notable then I don't see why a much more serious incident in the Philippines shouldn't be. And please don't scream WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The point is that nobody would dream of nominating the Buncefield article for deletion, so let's apply the same standards to incidents in non-Anglophone countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Philippines is an Anglophone country. --seav (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. That depends on your definition of "Anglophone". I meant that most people in the Philippines don't have English as their native language. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Ring ring ring Anglophone User:Carlos Santito (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.40.217 (talk) [reply]
Keep Definitely a keeper, as explained well by Habanero-tan. The weakness of the criteria applied by the nominator in his misunderstanding of NOTNEWS can be easily grasped by the fact that the same could be said of any article on a current event, including a hypothetical WW III, because even that one would in his view be CRYSTAL.--Aldux (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is now 12 days after the event and media interest and coverage seem to have ceased [28], suggesting that the event is unlikely to meet any historical notability provision (per WP:INFO). WWGB (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 can't read properly close. BJ^Talk 10:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Documentation Centre[edit]

Apparently doesn't exist (otrs:2009040610033304). BJ^Talk 08:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could elaborate a little? I cannot access the OTRS link. There is quite a lot of google hits for the name. --Soman (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...there is no non-governmental organization called ‘Human Rights Documentation Centre’ based in Delhi, India." "An organization called the ‘Human Rights Documentation Center’ did exist in the United States until 31 August 2005 when it was wound up. It is now defunct." BJ^Talk 10:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And their homepage is a subpage of hrdc.net. My bad. /me facepalms. BJ^Talk 10:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. statisfies notability. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irene barberis[edit]

Doesn't seem to offer any notability. Repeated recreation following removal due to copyright violations. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable improvement since proposal, copyvio+norability issues resolved, so it's a Keep from me now. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated through independent referencing, fails WP:ACADEMIC. WWGB (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work in a museum [29] and a number of museum group shows. Meets WP:CREATIVE.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep per Ethico. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now the article has been edited, as Oscar shows in the diff above. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, the article is bare bones and still needs work...Modernist (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability and admitted sourcing issues. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Scherer[edit]

Seemingly non-notable person. The article is being used as a coatrack for the also non-notable website. BJ^Talk 07:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I havn't followed wrestling for years but I know who he is. colorblindpicaso (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Canuck85 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep subject does seem to be well-respected within his field. The main problem is it's a pretty small field which doesn't lead itself well to third-party sources (some of the problems for more famous wrestlers and sourcing also have this issue). DSZ (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Leiter[edit]

Non notable academic autobiography. Has published papers around fringe theory of MECOs, but fails WP:PROF himself. Verbal chat 13:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was incomplete; I have added the AfD notice to the article and transcluded it in today's deletion log. I take no position at this point on the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Apologies!Verbal chat 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - well-sourced WP:BLP, appears to meet WP:PROF, see Google Scholar. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the GS search -- but I don't see why you conclude it supports keeping the article: his work is not apparently widely cited. Moreover the references in the article are simply to his own papers, which does nothing to support the notion that they have had an impact. Is this the best we have? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the case for WP:PROF in the Google scholar results, and the coverage of him in the article from The Age cited as a source is trivial (he's merely quoted as "a scientist on the team" and the article makes clear that someone else led the research. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is not easy to tell just what Leiter's position is--the HCO web site does not include him, but the SAO has many senior staff who are not part of that department, including Schild, and others of similarly great distinction. His first publication was a letter to Nature in 1969 [30] from Boston College; his latest is 2008, from Harvard/Smithsonian and one listing him at Marwood Astrophysical Research Center, Charlottesville; [31] his current bio entry in ADS is U Texas.[32] , but he is not on their site. Considering the dates, I imagine he is a very senior research associate. He has been coauthor with a number of very important people in addition to Schild. The degree of responsibility such people have can, in my experience, be very great indeed,regardless of formal position. It is hard to imagine why he should be coauthor with different HCO/ASO people over such a length of time otherwise. Yet none of the papers is heavily cited. Puzzled. Some personal contact with someone who knows about things there might help.DGG (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Nomoskedasticity and David Eppstein. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that he does not meet notability criterion per WP:PROF. Pushes fringe physics, hence his low citation counts even thought he's been around for a while.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per Bearian's search; I appreciate what DGG is saying, but I figure it means one can spend a long time doing work that doesn't have much of an impact, and longevity itself is not notability, nor is seniority necessarily notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, the discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents - Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not as a separate article, except for some highly notable ones (e.g. the Springfield Interchange near Washington, D.C.).

This does not deserve its own article. There are sections that could be removed from the Highway 401 (Ontario) article - such as section 10 and 12 - if this article were merged with that one. Some of that information is superfluous as well. Rschen7754 (T C) 05:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to highway article, per nom. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Works better as a standalone list, would make the highway article far too long. Jenuk1985 | Talk 06:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interstate 10 in Texas, Interstate 5 in California... the headers on this article take up too much space, and the speculation about an extension to Michigan doesn't belong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obvious candidates to be split into similar articles. Jenuk1985 | Talk 06:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its about time that a new precedent is set, its common sense that in longer articles, the exit lists should be split into new articles. Jenuk1985 | Talk 06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at first, I thought this should be deleted but... this is a viable spinout article. I can't see the H-401 article being split up into by county articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am with Sceptre on this one. On its face it should be deleted but it is a subarticle serving the purpose of reducing clutter within the parent article. JBsupreme (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The precedent the nom points to is mostly to do with individual articles on each exit on a highway - which is indeed excessive. To me, the logical way to mention exits on a highway is via a sourced list in the main article, or, in the case of long highways like this with lots of exits, via a split list article to keep the main article a reasonable size. Individual exits do not need articles, but a summary of them seems fine. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid spin off. The main article lists the biggest/main exists, this list gives complete information. I personally dislike articles on roads, but if you're gonna have them, you should be comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As an aside, what policy is actually being given for deletion, all the nominator has cited is a page of common outcomes (as the page is correctly called), not really a valid reason. "Precedents defined here should be used with caution — using this essay as the sole argument in an AfD is disputed at best" Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having just a table for an article makes for a very poor article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 15:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of "List of.." articles out there, many of which have made it to featured list status, why should this be an exception? Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. A separate article is an indiscriminate collection of info. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please explain which bit of Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information actually applies here? Further more please explain how this page is actually indiscriminate? Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a random list of exits. Having the exit list on the route article connects it with something that is notable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you aware of what "random" (and "indiscriminate") means? --NE2 20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing new to support deletion/merging since last AfD attempt. Merging exit list (33kb) into the main article (66kb) would result in excessively sized article (about 100kb). Dl2000 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reduces clutter in parent article, and is referenced to reliable sources. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Exit lists for a highway should be a part of the main article and not a separate, unnessecary list. Dough4872 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this given as a guideline? At the moment it is an appropriate split from the main article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CRWP calls for exit lists to be included in the main article and WP:ELG says nothing about separate articles for exit lists. Dough4872 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The parent article is 68KB long, this article is 33KB long, merging the two together will create an article that is about 100KB long, well into the guideline for splitting articles at WP:SPLIT. Seriously common sense should be applied here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the articles were merged there would be some duplicated info that could be removed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I am getting the impression you feel that articles should never be split, and if extra information needs to be added, then tough? Thats not how WP works. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Articles should be split only when necessary. This is not one of those cases. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read Wikipedia:Splitting. --NE2 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the list is so long. Since the nominator doesn't want this deleted, why was it taken to articles for deletion? --NE2 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is enforceable. ((merge)) is not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A merge result from an AFD is no more enforceable than any other merging method. The only "enforceable" outcomes of an AFD debate are keep or delete, anything beyond that are merely suggestions on that course of action to take beyond the debate. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not correct; the article can be summarily sent back to AFD, and any recreations of the article can be speedy redirected / deleted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think that's correct; can you provide a citation to policy? --NE2 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:CSD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which of those pertains to merging? --NE2 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a logical extension of it; see also ((afd-mergeto)). --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe to you it's a "logical extension", but enough disagree that you'll have to ignore your logic. --NE2 22:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have always considered it advisory. It can sometimes be pretty strong advice, not lightly disregarded, as when a discussion and the closing makes clear that if its not going to be merged there will be strong consensus to delete when renominated. DGG (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The exit list is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, so deletion is not an option, and merging would make the Highway 401 article obnoxiously long and would probably end up being worth of a split. Either way, we at USRD are going to have to figure out what to do with long exit lists in articles. But for ease and sanity, keep this. --MPD^{T / C} 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atle Bakken[edit]

NPOV, unsourced, unverifiable. Bdb484 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would appear to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO (section 10) if his claims of writing for Martin the TV show but 15 minutes of searching turned up no evidence of such. Also, no evidence that he shares in any of the Grammy award credit for an Andrae Crouch song. Fails WP:COMPOSER. Article definitely too much of an advert and not NPOV, and no value added by c/p from his own website. JCutter (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE : A simple search in the ASCAP ACE database would have verified Bakken as a composer of the TV series. Nelior. Please do your research properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelior70 (talk • contribs)
Delete: trivial coverage, unverifiable claims, WP:COI, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also worth noting: This page has been deleted five times previously for copyright violations, as well. The author now claims that the original copyright holder has given Wikimedia reprint permissions. —

Note : Deleted only because writer does not know how to respond within the difficult and arkaic Wiki system, but knew how to resubmit article. Nelior70.

Bdb484 (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion indictates that this is an individual of marginal notability. On the basis of this, and in line with Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion, the result is deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Stephenson (producer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Subject requests deletion (otrs:2009032610018134). No personal opinion. BJ^Talk 05:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable and article isn't defamatory. -ClockworkLunch 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep This person is both a notable producer and founding member of what appears to be a notable band. He meets inclusion criteria. Did he request deletion because he came across a vandalised version? -= Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion request was not specific to vandalism. BJ^Talk 22:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources provide mainly trivial coverage of this person. We should have more sources that cover him in-depth, which would allow us to make the article into a proper biography article. Otherwise, this article should be deleted. --Aude (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marginally notable, requests deletion, not enough information for an actual biography. لenna vecia 04:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of narrow elections. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of close elections[edit]

This article is unsourced and unneeded because wikipedia has List of narrow elections. Any information not on the "narrow elections" list, such as Todd Thomsen's election, should be added and the "close elections" article should be deleted. BBiiis08 (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. 1) When material from this list is incorporated in the other, the GFDL requires the relevant history to be preserved 2) It's a bad idea to merge unreferenced material 3) The title is a reasonable alternative for the phrase "narrow elections". Those are the three reasons I support a redirect, but not an immediate merge. If a merge were to occur anyway, then deletion is the wrong follow up. (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom et al. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete close is inherently subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if you define what "close" means-- (from List of narrow elections) "This is a list of narrow elections at national and state level that have been decided by a margin of less than 1 vote in 1000 (a margin of victory of less than 0.1%)". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom MikeHobday (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya Fluorspar Company[edit]

Queried speedy delete db-corp. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say the topic is quite notable and the article definitely needs a little work. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base that opinion on? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs and external links have now been added. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the information I could find was written by the company itself and was not independent. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ? The Firebird investment news was carried by over a dozen news sources including Reuters. --Mr Accountable (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability as per WP:CORP. What have they done to merit inclusion? Eddie.willers (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ? WP:CORP, first paragraph: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major industrial company in Kenya. By now, the article has also sufficient sources. Julius Sahara (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major continental Fluorite producer, well Cited, Well written. Good Cleanup folx. An excellent start to a possible new :Cat Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why is it that African subjects seem to be held to so much higher standards of notability? Would anyone have even considered nominating for deletion a European or American company with this amount of coverage in books? Shouldn't we be trying to broaden our coverage by encouraging articles like this rather than just concentrating on getting articles on subjects of interest to young college-educated Anglophone male computer geeks? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - exceptionally well referenced stub on notable Kenyan company. Great work Mr Accountable and Julius Sahara. Shouldn't we have list of systemic bias related deletions? That might get more eyes on articles like these than just the country specific deletion notices. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Long Island[edit]

Reference (that isn't shown because there is no references tag) states that all the information is "taken directly from the Long Island wiki page", meaning that this page is redundant. No pages link here. Ian Weller (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless (unless it is expanded) Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant duplication and most likely not the best choice of material to spin off to bring down the size of the Long Island page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adds no new understanding or information to subject covered by parent article. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it could possibly be expanded; not a POV fork. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator's reason no longer applies. Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos[edit]

This type of AFD has gone on more than a few times. There is a list of internet phenomenon. A list of youtube videos fails all of the WP:LIST criteria Shadowjams (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is Already turned into a redirect by User:Patar knight. --Ian Weller (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punahou Circle apartments[edit]

Obviously there has been some coverage of this apartment building in the media, and WP:BUILDING apparently recently failed as a guideline so we don't have specific rules for these kind of structures, but as of right now I think this does not meet WP:N. I would say the coverage of these apartments to date is "trivial" not "significant," and essentially all of it relates to speculation about making it a landmark since Barack Obama once lived there (a Google News search for all dates on "Punahou Circle apartments" without "Obama" reveals no hits at all).

The sources linked in the article (I did not bother cleaning this up since I'm putting it up for AfD) suggest that it will be some time before any decision is made about this building getting landmark status. If it does eventually, and even more so if it becomes something more akin to the Lincoln Log Cabin State Historic Site, then we should likely have an article on it. For now all we have is speculation and the knowledge that an American president once lived here, but I don't think that's sufficient for an article at this time. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am pretty sure that it is debatable that the fact that the President of the United States of America lived there as a child would make this structure notable. It's novel, but to me, there is also a similar issue I saw with Salt lake eagle gate apartments, which was deleted a bit ago, despite a citation that several presidents of the LDS Church lived there during their tenure as president, owing to proximity to the temple there in SLC. In any event, I'll change my mind if the actual structure that another president lived in as a child is similarly endowed with landmark or pending-landmark status. (The Nixon Library doesn't count - the library is notable unto itself and has the birth house relocated.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar with that AfD, but from how you describe it, it only had one citation mentioning former LDS presidents and didn't seem to have been the very in-depth subject of multiple independent sources as this property has. Besides, as much as LDS presidents are important to LDS members, the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, is by far a different level. --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's debateable as to how far that can go, Oakshade, but I figure this - the LDS presidents are, generally, notable enough to all have their own articles here on WP. I'm with BTP on this one - if it becomes a landmark, then most certainly a keeper - but first it has to get there. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is the very in-depth subject of multiple reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Many more sources not listed in the article have been written about it, internationally no less.[33] WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply as the location is already notable regardless if an agency or two designates it "historic". --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to specific sources which provide "very in-depth" coverage? And by "very in-depth" I mean going far beyond simply pointing out that the apartment building is being considered (maybe) for landmark status. There are a bunch of articles that mention that, but having an article solely on that basis would be a classic violation of WP:NOTNEWS. And I think WP:CRYSTAL is relevant here, because if the building was ever made a landmark then we'd have to think about it very differently. Right now we don't know whether that will happen or not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have a different definition of "very in-depth", but multi-paragraphed reporting, interviews and analysis easily satisfies my definition of "very in-depth". Perhaps you missed the point of my argument, even without official "landmark" status, the building satisfies WP:NOTABILITY. WP:NOTNEWS applies to "persons and events". The childhood home of the most powerful person in the world is not a person or event. Besides, even in December and without any discussion this might be an official "landmark", it was already a tourist attraction.[34] We're well beyond crystal ball speculation as to the notability of this location.--Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see "multi-paragraphed reporting, interviews and analysis" about this apartment building? Seriously, can you provide links to articles that have that? And again I mean about this apartment building itself - not a story that just mentions it and the connection with Obama. I mean articles that talk about its history, architecture, residents, etc. etc. Everything I've seen is a variation on "Obama lived here once, it might become a landmark." I can't think of anything else we would put in the article at that point and that ain't enough. And the policy I was referring to, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," is not just about persons or events, obviously. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need the articles copied and pasted for you? Click on them and you will read very in-depth muilti-paragraphed articles about this building. This alone is in-depth reporting, interviewing and analysis about this building. More here. You seem to be under the strange impression that because they focus on the building's Obama history, that somehow means the sources only provide trivial coverage as you mentioned in the nom comments. "Trivial" coverage is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as a "one sentence mention." The coverage of this building is extremely beyond the scope of "one sentence." --Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need anything copied and pasted, obviously, and let's please try to avoid getting snippy. You still are not providing multiple links to articles as I've asked. This is a very standard request in AfDs, not something to be annoyed by.

In the above comment you provided exactly one link to an article (one which I had already seen incidentally, or something similar - I really have read about 10 of the sources that come up on Google News and they all say basically the same thing). Besides mentioning Obama and the landmark issue, here is the sum total of what it says about this building: "There are 96 units in the Punahou Circle apartments Obama lived in with his grandparents on the tenth floor in a two bedroom unit that's about 1000 square feet. They initially were in a one bedroom unit, but then shortly moved into the larger apartment." I believe the entire article (which is a transcription of a 90 second local news story) is exactly 15 sentences long which is not even remotely close to in-depth reporting - it's basically a press release which is kind of how the news report reads.

If we used this source (or similar ones) to build our article on this apartment complex, we would be able to say that it has 96 units and that Obama lived there on the 10th floor. Do you honestly believe that's worthy of a Wikipedia article? I'm asking in all seriousness because I truthfully don't see what you have in mind here in terms of turning this into an encyclopedia entry. Again, if you could link to other secondary sources that actually cover this building itself in some detail—or at least explain what you think will go in this article beyond "Obama lived in this building"—that would be helpful. I'm not trying to pester for perstering's sake, I just don't see any in-depth sources as you keep suggesting.

Finally, and not incidentally, you are reading WP:N incorrectly I'm afraid. Obviously you're looking at the first footnote there, which notes that a "one sentence mention" is "plainly trivial"—i.e. if something only receives a one-sentence mention then it's trivial in the context of that particular source. This is not remotely to say that 2, 8, or even 15 sentences automatically denotes "significant" coverage. In point of fact something could be covered in hundreds of news articles and still be "trivial" by Wikipedia standards. You have not at all demonstrated that this apartment complex has received non-trivial coverage, but I could still be convinced if you provide some actual evidence for that. Again I've looked and not found any. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming the coverage is about attributes of the building, but it's about the Obama connection. That's why it's notable. A place can be notable for any reason, whether it be the architecture, history or anything else. Your interpretation of WP:NOTABILITY to somehow mean that coverage of "hundreds of articles" on a topic could still be "trivial" is unique to say the least. For your request for actual links to "multi-paragraphed" articles on this topic, I actually did provide them above, but here are some individually.
[http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94294 "What about the hospital of his 'birth'? Hawaii moves to make Obama childhood home national landmark"] (25 paragraphs)
"Obama's childhood home may become landmark" (13 paragraphs)
"Obama's Childhood Home Could Become Historic Landmark" (roughly 8 paragraphs (15 actually, but they're rather short), plus a 1:52 video)
There are more articles but I'm too tired to cut and paste them. But anyway, the claim that these are one sentence "Obama lived in this building" sources is opposite of reality.--Oakshade (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no, my interpretation of WP:N, as you say, "to somehow mean that coverage of 'hundreds of articles' on a topic could still be 'trivial'" is not at all unique, that's the policy. When Barack Obama spends 12 hours in Turkey, there are hundreds (thousands) of articles about it. We do not create an article called "Obama's 12 hour trip to Turkey." When Kanye West writes a blog post about a South Park spoof of him there might be hundreds of articles about it. But we don't write an article called "Kanye's Blog Post About South Park." This is what we mean when we say that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. In my view you have not remotely demonstrated that the level of reportage about the Punahou Circle apartments rises above that of any other flash-in-the-pan story unworthy of encyclopedic coverage. The sources you provide are all variations on the exact same theme, and showing that 200 papers/local TV stations have said the exact same thing is just not evidence of significant coverage.

Having said that, I thank you for tidying and sourcing the article. In my view that's just about exactly as long of an article as we can have on this, and it's based entirely on sources that are essentially identical and which ascribe no significance to this place other than the fact that Obama lived there and that it might (or might not) get historical status some day (incidentally one of the other articles mentions multiple other places that Obama lived in Hawaii - this one just happens to be receiving coverage at the moment). For you that's enough for a Wikipedia article, but I see a permanent stub (unless this actually becomes a historical landmark - that would be a different situation) that does not pass WP:N. Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree, so hopefully some other editors can weigh in here and swing the debate one way or the other. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing "Kanye's Blog Post About South Park" with this location is comparing apples to oranges and seems very much a red herring argument. This location isn't an "event." I think the childhood home of the President of the United States is notable and in this case, it has received in-depth coverage by many sources. You seem to be attempting to redefine WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "trivial." While it used to define it at a "passing mention or directory listing" (obviously the coverage this building has received is extremely beyond the scope of "passing mention or directory listing"), it now only provides one example of what is considered "trivial" and that is a "one sentence mention" in a biography of a different topic. The coverage is far beyond a "one sentence mention" and is actually the primary subject of multiple independent sources. If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "trivial", you need to make your case in its talk page, not push an agenda on a specific AfD. If you think that simply being the childhood home of Obama and nothing else is "trivial", that's fine but it is not in any manner WP:NOTABILITY's definition. --Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF a bit will you? I'm not "pushing an agenda," or trying to change WP:N via an AfD (???), and claiming that is quite beyond the pale. I've don't believe I've ever edited that policy page and have nothing to do with how it is worded. We are reading/understanding it quite differently, obviously. I continue to think your view of what entails "significant coverage" is inaccurate, for reasons I have already expressed and will not repeat. I certainly have not accused you of pushing an agenda or trying to redefine our core policies: I just strongly disagree with your interpretation as you disagree with mine which is often par for the course in these kind of discussions. I think we can leave it there without impugning one another's motives. Finally the distinction you keep making between "locations" and "events" is odd in my view. Yes, this is a place, not an event or person, but it is beholden to the same rules when it comes to notability. Like events, places can be covered in a one-off manner (as Kanye's blog post has been, hence the analogy) that does not warrant wikipedia coverage and that's what I'm arguing happened here. Okay NOW I'm done discussing this (I lied earlier apparently). Apologies to the closing admin for all this verbiage, though I do think the issues under discussion here are semi-important. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What do we need for significant coverage besides articles written about it by several newspapers independent of each other? If this reaches NRHP status (that will be a few months from now, if it gets it), it will thereby be made notable, but as is I see it being a little past the minimum simply for its coverage. In case you're wondering, it's altogether likely that this will receive NRHP status: although I can't speak for the homes of many recent presidents, I know that the Bill Clinton Birthplace was listed little more than a year after his inauguration, and it's already a National Historic Site. In short: don't worry about it being a permastub. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets NRHP status then it's a different story as I've said. It doesn't have that yet and obviously we are not a crystal ball, so the fact that it's "altogether likely" that it will receive a special status is neither here nor there at the moment. Incidentally it's one of many homes Obama lived in in Hawaii, and it's not his birth home. If it ends up as a landmark it's easy to recreate the article. But would you agree that if it does not end up with NRHP status then we should not have an article on it? If you take that view then I think the only thing to do is delete it for now since we just don't know what will happen (maybe eventually his birth home will get landmark status instead and this building will not, who knows). Finally, and I'm really finding it troublesome that a couple of experienced users are missing the boat on this which is why I'm weighing in again and then I swear I'll shut up, "articles written about it by several newspapers independent of each other" does not a subject for a Wikipedia article make. Right now this is a one-off news story (Obama lived here, it might get landmark status) being covered exactly the same way by a number of outlets akin to the way in which hundreds of papers will print an AP wire story. We cannot, right now, turn that into an encyclopedia article. If later we can, great, but let's wait until then - this article simply jumps the gun, and our policies do not encourage us to keep it around under the assumption that the subject will later take on more significance and receive more in-depth coverage. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has been covered by reliable media. It is logical to assume that this place's notability will continue to growth due to the public's fascination with presidential homes. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am not going to get involved in this debate except to note that apparently (or at least according to my understanding of the facts, anyway) the article was created with a sock puppet account and the original account has been banned from editing Wikipedia. Not exactly sure where this info fits in the grand scheme of things.....
--NBahn (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator. I moved the page as suggested. I'd recommend Bigtimepieace promptly put in some of the good content he found. DGG (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Bamberger[edit]

The article makes a claim of notability, that the subject's work has appeared in anthologies of best sports writing. This means that the article cannot be deleted under CSD criterion A7. However, a quick google search actually doesn't turn up much on this person, so I'm not sure if the claim of notability is true. Danaman5 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks like there might be a conflict of interest with the article's creator.--Danaman5 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A little more due diligence on the part of the speedy delete requester and the AfD nom might have saved us some time. The guy has indeed written multiple books, the latter of those two having been reviewed positively by both Publisher's Weekly and The New Yorker per Amazon. He also wrote what appears to be a pretty sycophantic book about M. Night Shyamalan, though the New York Times reviewed it. Plus he clearly does write for Sports Illustrated and other sporting-type publications so he would fit well in this category. The current article text is a copyvio so I'll quickly but inadequately fix that, but aside from that I don't think we have any problem having an article about a guy who has written multiple books reviewed in multiple publications and who writes (or wrote, I'm not sure) for the most well-know sports magazine in the U.S.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to remove the copyvio material and included cites to a couple of reviews of his books. Assuming we keep this it should probably just be moved to Michael Bamberger since he seems to go by that name sans the middle initial, but I guess we can wait on that until the AfD runs its course, or someone can go ahead and move it and make Michael F. Bamberger a redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have looked more carefully and seen those things. At least it didn't get speedy deleted.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Palmer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article is obviously not encyclopedically written, but aside from that, I don't think the documentary about this man provides notability to him. Perhaps an article could be written about the documentary, but it would have to be done so from scratch, so there's no point in keeping this here. Note that the previous AfD was about an article on a completely different topic (a puddle in Ohio). Chick Bowen 02:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that a person was seen in a television documentary does not convey automatic notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's sad, he got conned, he was on TV, but that doesn't make him notable. JohnCD (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modepalast[edit]

Advertising Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - If reliable references can be found, it could be a worthwhile article. While it is likely advertising, it doesn't scream POV to me, it doesn't say its the premier show, or attempt to overtly promote itself aggregiously. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have removed the opening times from the article, the only content that could be said to be promotional. I don't feel up to reading German at the moment but those that do may want to look at these potential sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there are a lot of international fashion events far more prominent than this one w/o articles of their own, Phil Bridger's link does lead to some sources that appear to meet significant coverage criteria (after a Babelfish translation). Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some significant coverage outside of industry announcements can be found. Without coverage from outside the industry, this doesn't seem any more notable than your average trade show. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no such requirements in the policy for reliable sources. A source can still be independent when it's from the industry the show belongs to. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my concern is with the notability of the article, not RS. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--seems notable enough, esp. after Phil Bridger's search results. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move. Move MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edith McAlinden[edit]

This article about a murderer fails BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. The event in question, a triple murder, has only recieved sensational rather than encyclopedic coverage, which is required per WP:NOT#NEWS. That policy states that Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events...Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. The article itself reads like a newspaper clipping, as it only states sensationalist facts and does not analyze the importance of the person in relation with the rest of the world. I haven't found any sources to adequately document her in an encyclopedic manner. Furthermore, this article violates WP:BLP1E, which states Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry...If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. Per both of these policies, this article should be deleted. Them From Space 02:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak move to House of Blood murders and rewrite to cover the event. It seems the event has been a recurring item in the news, and as such probably meets the "historical notability" threshold. 2004, 2005, 2008 (More in Gnews) Note: I'm pretty neutral on this, since the news coverage sounds rather like a tabloid and not encyclopedic (See Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move & Re-write as per LinguistAtLarge. This article is primarily concerned with the event rather than the individual and, as such, displays tendencies to mislead. I would argue that the event may be notable but its individual participants are not. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested Triple murders are notable, but the article needs to be written appropriately. Fortunately, there is a good title to use. When I came here 2.5 yerrs ago the consensus seemed to be just shifting into the position that single murders were not notable, but double ones were. I think we now expect a higher body count. DGG (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar of Fire (novel)[edit]

Seemingly non-notable book and article referenced only to a science fiction website. Suggest delete, or merge with author article Myosotis Scorpioides 01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per copies in 612 libraries. Also, please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fledgling Jason Steed -- while this is a good-faith nom (thanks to the book largely predating the web), it skirts the edge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Note: Sarek is a significant contributor to this article. What are you trying to say with the Fledgling link? That he nominated this because you nominated that? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re: significant contributor - yes, sorry, I should have mentioned before that I created the article and have been the primary contributor. One of the other editors in the AfD has been banging the "why did he nominate this article when this book is so much more notable than the one he created an article for" drum. I find it interesting that this AfD was created shortly after the other one was closed as delete. However, as I said before, I don't consider this a bad-faith nom -- if the sourcing was easy to find, I would have added it myself by now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright.
    - Follow-up question: what do copies in 612 libraries have to do with WP:N? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Satisfies threshold criteria for WP:NB, though it does not suffice to indicate notability by itself. I've added a ref to Booklist -- I intend to continue looking for reliable sources over the course of the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, apologies; I was not aware of the threshold criteria. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WaPo coverage, which was trivial to find with Google News. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't cite that one in the course of the article because all I could get from it was "highly acclaimed", not by whom or for what. Thanks, though. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author, published by a well known publisher. Reviews by NESFA and Booklist establish notability. JulesH (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To early for Snowball keep? per evidence above. Ikip (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, far too early. More sourcing would be nice, if anyone has hard-copy reviews that never went online...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, note that there is no such thing as a "Snowball keep". There's a WP:Speedy keep, which doesn't apply here. The WP:Snowball clause says something else entirely.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These[35] may help. -- Banjeboi 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administrator please note this page has went through major development since it was nominated for deletion. Revision at the time of this message:[36] Ikip (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons mentioned above, it is obviously notable enough to have an article. Dream Focus 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable book by notable author the article could do more to establish this though. (perennial problem!) :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a published book and it seems pretty notable. There are reviews from well recognized sources. Quistisffviii (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment close snowball keep? Ikip (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, no such thing as "snowball keep". Where's the fire?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Opps, posted twice sorry. I wrote good answer, but it was deleted with technical difficulties on wikipedia. I believe in snowball keep :) Ikip (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep WP:BK subject of published works pohick (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable book - and I've added a brief synopsis with ref if that helps Thruxton (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per notability and reviews New England Science Fiction Association & Kirkus et al. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Taylor (golf)[edit]

Compact said: missing notability. I see neither a participation in one of the bigger tournaments nor another achievement that could distinguish him. Phoe (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be an entirely non noteworthy former college golfer. _wjemather ^bigissue 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently was on a college golf team many years ago... can't find anything saying the team or player won anything of national significance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Musker[edit]

Smells like a hoax. I found completely no mention of this guy on Google, save Wikipedia mirrors. tempodivalse [☎] 01:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Article is largely a duplicate of Charles Ferguson Smith, about an actual U.S. Army general. Rklear (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, "This page looks like a carbon copy of Charles_Ferguson_Smith" appears in a edit summary from 8 April 2006. How did this survive for so long? Rklear (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clear hoax and GFDL violation. The article creation [37] was copied from Charles Ferguson Smith at the time [38] with the name replaced. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, per Tempodivalse, Rklear, and PrimeHunter. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per ^^^. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Blatant misinformation. Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kustom[edit]

The article's claim that the subject is a professional wrestling champion is not confirmed by a Google or Google News search. Does not pass WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Two kids having a laugh at Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Backyard "wrestling" in no way establishes notability. It does, however, establish a few things that WP:CIVIL prevents me from mentioning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. This is vandalism, not a good faith attempt to contribute. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) blatant misinformation. Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Van Raven[edit]

The article's claims that the subject is a professional wrestling champion is not confirmed by a Google or Google News search. Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Backyard "wrestling" is most definitely not worth including in an enyclopedia. Easily fails notability requirements. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Two kids having a laugh at Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. This is vandalism, not a good faith attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Brown (martial arts instructor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was a previous no-consensus close in February 2008. Some weak sources were found in the AfD but there's no conclusive evidence that they provide notability if indeed they're reliable sources. He's the author of one book, a senior instructor of a redlinked school and trained in a redlinked art. There doesn't appear to be a good merge target and he does not appear to meet notability guidelines. StarM 00:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the same reason as last time: author of a notable and well-reviewed [39],[40],[41] and recognized and quoted [42] book. Recognized expert [43] on a narrow subject. JJL (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is by the 'board member' of an RPG - may or may not be a reliable source. I can publish book reviews, but it doesn't establish notability for the author. This doesn't appear to go anywhere, nor does this. The journal review and quotation might be an RS if it's independent. It appears to have an ISBN, but is it a scholarly reviewed journal? if it is, is that one thing sufficient to establish notability. Just my .02 StarM 02:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment hmmmm, I didn't re-check my links. Another review from a web source is here [44]. Citations: [45]. JJL (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be a notable martial arts instructor by any means. JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as leader of revival of English Schole of Fence. jmcw (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment independent reliable sources, please? His own company's web page is neither. People can make many claims, that's why tey need to be independent. StarM 12:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Senior Cup[edit]

The article contains no content worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. It is one sentence long and, while that sentence is referenced, it gives barely minimal information on the subject so it is with regret, that I state assert that it is not worthy of an entry in wikipedia, at least in its present form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs) 00:16, April 13, 2009

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a definition and one additional piece of information (current champions). That's a valid stub in my book. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this looks to be a well-established cup competition; on Poole Town's list of honours, they were runners up back in 1891! Article certainly needs expanding, and needs some more third-party sources, but should be kept. Giant Snowman 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there are also 21,500 Google hits for 'dorset senior cup'. Giant Snowman 14:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with all above. Although not much at present (I was the creator), it has the potential to become a good article. See articles in Category:County Cup competitions for examples. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above opinions and would like to opine that this page be kept. 173.73.58.160 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Senior county-wide competition that has been going since 1887. - fchd (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gallifrey. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasterborous[edit]

The article is review- like in nature and contains information that is neither encyclopedic nor referenced. It contains no citation to reliable third party sources and reads like a combination of a review and a fansite, neither of which are appropriate for wikipedia. Information given is also disjointed, disorganised and poorly formatted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs) 00:31, April 13, 2009

Merge with Gallifrey Sceptre ^(talk) 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gallifrey. All the information in the entry is trivial and merging the lead sentence makes no sense when it doesn't fit the tone of the target article and misses sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to Gallifrey. Speculation shouldn't be merged, and the Doctor Who media where this constellation is mentioned serve no more than a ref in the Gallifrey article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Henchmen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The AFD process was not completed and I am therefore bringing it here. This article was deleted after an AFD in 2007 and the only new google hits for Lil Henchmen that I can find are 1) he was allegedly slapped by Tony Yayo (this is not mentioned in the article) and 2) he was "co-signed" by Sean Kingston, although there are no explanataions of what that means. Certainly his portfolio of work (=0) looks particularly thin even by Wikipedia Music's standards. This article has been twice speedied and each time the tag was removed by a non-administrator. The previous artice was speedied and prodded multiple times until removed by an AFD debate noted for significant conflicts of interestPorturology (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The pages I found in the Internet have nothing to support his notability. - NY Daily News 1 2 --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time judging the sources so I won't be adding my vote, but the IMDB page [46] for this kid might be relevant (although it's not reliable enough to be included) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fairly certain that is his father's IMDB page Porturology (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is the father, because he was directing a film in 2005 when this kid was 13. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for utter failure to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC, for violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and bad-faith removal of previous AFD tags. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is all about his musical ambitions and shows no notability at all; the references are about an incident where he was allegedly assaulted; one of them says "none of this has been confirmed by anyone involved" and the other is a year-old report that his mother has filed a civil suit about it. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did extensive research on Google hits for both his given name and alias, and found that most are blogs concerning the assault, or pages that refer back to this wikipedia article as a source, or to other pages similiar to this wiki article. (Those are also slated for deletion.) I can find no support for any collaboration, any credit, on any released recording. I believe that the blogs and other pages are nothing more than trying to establish credibility of having a music and/or acting career, when in fact, there is none. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus has been clearly established; as such I am closing early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Paraguay relations[edit]

This is another of the bilateral relationship articles mass-produced by User:Groubani without attempting to demonstrate notability. A Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources on the relationship between the two countries other than routine government websites and some material on an eccentric Australian group which started a settlement in Paraguay in the 1890s (which is already covered in the New Australia article). The Australian Broadcasting Corporation also doesn't have any stories on the relationship between the countries in its online news archive. Moreover, neither country currently has an embassy in the other and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's website states that 'Australia's positive relations with Paraguay are modest' and that there's only about $2 million per year in trade between the two countries. As such, this bilateral relationship does not meet WP:N Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to List of sovereign states there are 203 countries, giving rise to over 41 000 articles of the form "X–Y relations". There is nothing in this article to suggest any particular notability in this pairing. WWGB (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only 20,000 articles, since if there is an article on "X–Y relations" there would not (it is to be hoped) also be an article on "Y–X relations". . .Rcawsey (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another entry in the seemingly endless chain of whimsical pairings of countries with very minor foreign relations. Does not meet WP:N standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one of those Country X-Y relations articles that fails notability standards. tempodivalse [☎] 01:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know you guys are going to kill me but, this one is a bit reminiscent of the Australia-Uruguay article I have been reworking over the past day. You might want to take a bit of a ~~look at this article on an Australian colony in Paraguay dubbed New Australia~~. This might mean these countries share some kind of relations even if they are from the 1800's. I am searching for sources as well for other things such as trade agreement etc., but have not made up my mind on keeping or deleting. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My fault the nom already mentioned that, sheesh all this work I have done today has worn me out, so per nom I go delete. --Marcusmax(speak) 02:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my new standards. No factor exactly fits. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established or demonstratable.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no real notable link between no countries, Paraguay doesn't even have an embassy in Australia, it uses its Japanese embassy to cover Australia! which says something about how important Paraguay sees Australia. http://protocol.dfat.gov.au/Mission/view.rails?id=158 LibStar (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Australia's embassy for Paraguay is in Buenos Aires (the capital of Argentina), and Paraguay's embassy is in Tokyo (the capital of Japan). That's the wrong way of showing that a "relationship" is notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two non-resident ambassadors do not make a notable "relationship" between any two countries.--BlueSquadronRaven 14:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the closest place to Canberra Paraguay can find to operate its relations with Australia from is Tokyo (4947 miles away), then we should attach about as much importance to the relationship as they do. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Nikou[edit]

The references serve to prove OpenGate Capital's notability, but not that of Andrew Nikou. We need secondary coverage of Nikou himself to prove his notability. Also, the article borrows heavily from his company bio. JaGa^talk 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I find very few mentions of him using Wikipedia reference search, mostly quotes from press releases. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 8 April 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) 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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