< 16 April	18 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 delete. One (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Chuana[edit]

Non-notable band. They seem to have self-published some music, and played in front of audiences, but that's about it. No major tours, no media coverage, no reliable sources whatsoever apparent from their meager google coverage. All sources given are to unreliable sources (including the band's official website). The article itself describes the band as being active "on [the] underground". And that means - dun dun dunnn - that no reliable coverage is likely to exist. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the request for deletion of this article here is only a mirror of the request on the SK-wiki [1] and the CS-wiki [2], where you coould get the feeling of watching a war. Probably the author did something that does not fit the admins and his article is to be deleted. For the SK-wiki and CS-wiki the band is relevant. Regards, 217.83.49.239 (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. That band is unknown and nonnotable and not fulfill requirements of encyclopedic relevance in (and for) both countries, Czech Republic and Slovakia; based on the current status of voting it seem like that article will be deleted at both wikis.-- Jonesy22 ^talk 13:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not true. It seems that article will be kept at Czech Wikipedia, some new source were added. --Dezidor (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only "third party" sources I see added were this and this (I'm ignoring the webzine, as that would never be an RS under en.Wikipedia standards). Now, I don't know what the Czech standards are (nor does it make a difference), but those would be considered trivial listings and don't establish notability, as far as the English Wikipedia's notability guideline is concerned. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable band at all.-- Jonesy22 ^talk 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable band, all studio albums selfreleased per MA. Vasiľ (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, absence of reliable sources even in the Czech and Slovak language. The article was deleted and re-created on Slovak Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are third party sources in the article at Czech Wikipedia. --Dezidor (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 15 years, 4 albums - Jedudedek (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does that ("15 years, 4 albums") prove the notability? --Vejvančický (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No jelikož angličtina není má silná stránka, tak nezbývá než to napsat česky.

Kapela imho splňuje podmínky encyklopedické významnosti a na internetu je dostatek zdrojů toto potvrzujících. Máme tu dva zdroje, které označují kapelu za undergrundovou legendu [3], respektive veličinu [4], pak je tu rozhovor pro Korzár a recenze na poslední album. No a kdyby to nestačilo, je tu přinejmenším ještě recenze alba Again With Hatred české thrash-metalové kapely Shaark, která je dle recenzenta jen o chloupek lepší než slovenští Maria Chuana. No a na závěr ještě od stejného autora recenze již zmiňovaného alba.

Jedudedek (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I'll try to translate previous Czech comment: Maria Chuana is notable also for English Wikipedia, since there are several sources proving its notability. Two sources ([5] and [6]) call Maria Chuana an underground legend. Furthermore, we have an interview with them here, and also a review of their last album. Maria Chuana is mentioned also in the Again With Hatred LP review of the Czech trash metal band Shark. The same author on the same website reviewed also Maria Chuana's last album here. - End of translation. If I'm wrong, please correct me.--Vejvančický (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still opposing, since the sources and coverage are trivial in my opinion. In that case we should have thousands articles for thousands of Czech (or Slovak) bands with similar "notability", and that's inadmissible for Wikipedia, IMO. Notability guideline for English Wikipedia is here, check please. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted on the Slovak Wikipedia. There is, however, continuing discussion (and almost war :)) between fans, members of the band, former manager of the band and editors of the Slovak Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:28, 23 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) 01:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey Harmony Chorus[edit]

I almost speedied this as blatant advertising, but am going to give it the benefit of the doubt seeing as it's been up for three years without any apparent objection. This appears to be a fairly blatant attempt to use Wikipedia as a free web host; I appreciate that "won the gold medal at the UK Championships" is an assertion of notability, but I'm not convinced this isn't a "small pond, not a big fish" situation. Google appears to bring up nothing other than false positives, Wikipedia mirrors, and their own website. – iride scent 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have cleaned the hype/ad content out of the page. However, though various awards are cited I have no basis on which to evaluate them and I have been unable to source them. At present, the lack of reliable sources sounds the death knell for this page. I am happy to reconsider if significant sources can be added. TerriersFan (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. The UK champs appear to be no a notable competition as there does not appear to be any coverage of their win. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG notability criteria by several miles. Kbthompson (talk) 08:37, 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 keep both. One (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Antilles – United States relations[edit]

Bilateral relations are relations between states. The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are not states; under international law and Dutch law, they are part of the Netherlands. The United States also recognises this (eg, [7]). Thus, since the two are not states, and since the Netherlands is responsible for their foreign relations, the articles should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Keep both There are other types of relations than diplomatic. This is a distinct political and economic entity, so we should WP:first see what we can find before nominating. Going by the sources, if the USDept of State considers them appropriate for a full entry, perhaps we should. Or are we a more reliable authority?DGG (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - this is very similar to Bermuda-United States relations in which Bermuda, an overseas territory of the UK shares very close ties to the US. In this instance even the bermudan currency is pegged directly to the USD showing that the territory does not have to be independent to prove its relationship. In the cases of the two Caribbean islands up for deletion, it should be noted they are greatly affected by US tourism, and us businesses. So basically just deleting for the purpose of deleting is not productive in this situation. --Marcusmax(speak) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say we should delete for its own sake, but because the two aren't independent. Also, couldn't we cover these relations with a section at Netherlands – United States relations? - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see where you are coming from, but it should be noted that not all relationships are completely political, and these are probably a good example of that. Compared to our typical "x-y articles" United States relations are much more complex the country literally maintains relations with every type of government including territorial. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, but I just have to wonder where this slippery slope ends. The US has lots of trade ties to Quebec: Quebec – United States relations? The Balearic Islands depend heavily on British tourism: Balearic Islands - United Kingdom relations? So does Acapulco on American tourists: Guerrero - United States relations? The US has a military base on Diego Garcia: British Indian Ocean Territory - United States relations? Heck, British Columbia and Washington have a long border and intricate commercial & cultural ties: British Columbia - Washington relations? Personally (and I recognise other participants don't (at least not yet) share my viewpoint), it seems to me that since only states can conduct foreign relations (indeed, foreign relations are inherently a state function), such articles should be restricted to them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, that restriction would be in error, as any nation may conduct relations with any geopolitical unit with which it desires; including Quebec, Acapulco, and Diego Garcia; as Wikieditors we must conform to the political reality around us, working to improve the nomenclature and phraseology that we use, without allowing it to limit our coverage of the world that exists. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at the embassy level, though. Each state that has embassies has just one in every country. The rare exception is where one state recognises part of another state as independent and sets up an embassy there (eg, Kosovo), but that's the exception to the rule. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, no, not at the embassy level. It is the consulate level instead. Which, actually, is technically at the embassy level in that the embassy manages the consulates. Try http://www.usembassy.gov/ and view the total of over 30 consulates the US alone operates in Canada, Mexico and Brazil. Searching 'brasil consulates' the first page yields Houston, Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, that doesn't mean that Brazil has relations with Texas or Florida, but merely a diplomatic presence subjected to the ambassador in Washington. I know the Antilles and Aruba are somewhat of a special case (far away from the mainland, and autonomous), but their foreign policy is still run from Amsterdam, and there is but one Dutch relationship with the US, not three. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, Brazil does have relations with Texas and Florida. And maybe Gujarat and Osaka. The government of Texas has direct official contact with the government of Brazil. The consul general in Houston would be able to work independently of the busy ambassador in Washington if her or she was working on some complicated oil delivery contracts' tax issues or something like that. Much like the produce department guy in a supermarket does his job without waiting for directions from the supermarket manager. Thinking on how ambitious and powerful a young career diplomat should be, I wouldn't think they would be sitting around their office waiting for the ambassador to send them an email. In the case of Dutch Antilles and Aruba, the consul general or post director would be looking out to effectively represent the interests of the Antilles or Aruba to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the government in Amsterdam, and the more he or she can do to create some local motion, the more he or she has accomplished. If the established Dutch foreign policy is not serving the people of Aruba, there would be a potential schism in that foreign policy. Leading to multiple Dutch-USA foreign policies. And in the case of US foreign policy being represented as a single set of policy platforms, I am sure that competition within a sitting administration and especially competition between Republicans and Democrats can really make a foreign policy environment seem more like quicksand than like solid ground. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are proposing is an unmaintainable web of content forks. Yes, consuls do have limited autonomy, but a) what they do is not terribly notable, and can easily be noted in higher-up articles; b) if they do exercise too much autonomy and diverge from their state's foreign policy, they are bound to be dismissed. - Biruitorul ^Talk 12:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry its taken me so long to reply, but if you look at Aruba for example it is a Constituent country of the Netherlands, basically meaning it is part of the Netherlands but at the same time has its own political body, and rules and regulations. this type of thing is very similar to places like Scotland, England, Wales etc. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or Puerto Rico. --Mr Accountable (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand that. And I understand that Aruba is not as innately part of the Netherlands as The Hague or Rotterdam, and that it has special consular interests that do not apply on the Dutch mainland. Nevertheless, as the US government itself notes, "Aruba conducts foreign affairs through the Kingdom of the Netherlands, whose embassies and consulates issue visas for travel to the island". Similarly, while the government of Scotland has significant powers, all foreign policy is conducted from the centre in London. Likewise with Puerto Rico: not a US state, and distinct in many ways from the mainland, but with foreign policy exclusively made by Washington. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in agreement with DGG and Marcusmax. This is not one of those whimsical X-Y relations articles where it seems the countries were pulled out of a hat. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as non-controversial. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Hooray, someone finally nominated a couple of these articles that have the United States as one of the X-Y nations. Biruitorul is entirely right-- Aruba is not a nation, and the Netherlands Antilles is not a nation. No matter how autonomous either place may be, no matter how many American tourists go to Aruba, no matter whether the State Department has a branch office on a Caribbean island... the U.S. does not make an end-run around the Netherlands in order to enter into agreements with these two parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We might as well have an article about Puerto Rico-Russia relations. Frankly, these articles suffer from the same deficiency that the Groubanis do... a directory of offices and personalities, with no actual evidence of a notable relationship... except that Groubani knows the difference between an independent nation and a dependency. Mandsford (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An idealistic view of foreign relations; the Machiavellianism that can be so important in foreign relations work is a very good reason for all these articles to exist. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least Machiavelli knew what he was writing about. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How can a country have relations with something that is not a country? It would be one thing if the Antilles claimed independence, but since they don't make any attempt at independence, there's no way that they can have foreign relations. We need (perhaps we already have it, I don't know) an article on United States-Netherlands relations to cover this topic. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, this (also noted below) says the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles are different countries--the source is the Dutch government. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to nominator for alerting me. Sure, the Antilles are part of the kingdom of the Netherlands, but they are also separate in some ways. I don't to make this another list of one news item after another, but I think there are plenty of those ways besides the merely diplomatic. First of all, the Antilles do really count as a country--as in that the Antilles, Aruba, and the Netherlands agreed in 2001 to join in combating terrorism, which would be strange if the Antilles were a province or even a state (in the US-way) (see [8], esp. "De drie landen binnen het Koninkrijk...," "the three countries within the kingdom"). Second, the Antilles have their own flag under which ships can be registered--such as the freighter attacked by Somali pirates in January (who will be prosecuted, incidentally, in the motherland), reported on here, par. 10. And even financially there is a difference between the motherland and the Antilles, since the latter are a tax haven ([9]); why the Netherlands are not, I don't know.
Again, an expert on Dutch law will know this better than I do, but the above three sources suggest that there's enough 'difference' to warrant the US dealing with the Antilles separately, at least in some matters, and the struggle against drug trafficking is only one of those ways, even if that is ratified by the Dutch Eerste Kamer--see here, and this site mentioning Aruba and Curacao as "Forward Operating Locations" (in the same breath, even though officially they are different entities). So I say keep. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that keep both--I hadn't even seen that Aruba was also on the chopping block. What goes for the Antilles goes for Aruba as well, even more so since Aruba is "more" of an independent country. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 22 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 as a blatant hoax. There are absolutely zero hits on Google outside of Wikipedia mirrors. This was obviously made up by the creator and only substantial editor to the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nousics[edit]

Apparently either a hoax or an incredibly obscure neologism by an incredibly obscure "philosopher"; I'm leaning toward the former. Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any online or book sources talking about it. Therefore, it seems to fail WP:N. It's not notable, if it's even an actual field of study. Tim meh ! 23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; once you remove the blatant original research on bioethics, what you have left fails WP:NOTDICDEF. Considering there's no apparent sources out there, there's no way to rescue this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elwedritsche[edit]

This article contains no references to establish notability, this lack has been noted on the talk page and through a reference request template for some time, and I can find no supporting references in a web search. It seems likely that the topic is not notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke9k (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added two citations to the article to verify and show notability. There are dozens of books in a Gbook search under both names of this creature: Elwedritsche and Elwetritsche. There are also hits in Gscholar for both spellings of the term. This book in German starts off a chapter with "Elwetrittchologie - Das Wissen um die geheimnisvollen Fabelwesen", which, loosely translated would be "Elwetritschology - The study of the mythical creature". Dewiki has a much more extensive article on this subject than we do, and I must add that their inclusion criteria are somewhat stricter than Enwiki's are. Overall, this easily meets notability guidelines. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above added templates. It always gets me when articles get nominated for deletion as non-notable when one (interwiki) click away there is a host of sources. Fix it don't delete it. Agathoclea (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The searches linked by LinguistAtLarge (even ignoring the Wikipedia mirrors published by Icon Group International) show plenty of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are available to establish notability. Hopefully somebody will translate the article from the German Wikipedia. --J^mundo 19:50, 23 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 Desperate Housewives episodes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Business (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

An obvious notability failure. The article lacks any sources (entire plot is pasted straight from the ABC website) and the only reason it still exists is because there are other Desperate Housewives episodes articles. This one has no significance whatsoever. -- A ^talk/_contribs 22:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this a G12 (copyvio)? Graymornings_(talk) 22:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe it is a good idea to single out one episode to present the issue. A more compact policy is needed for those, to decide when an episode is notable and when not. While I agree with you that not every episode deserves own article, you may want to check what happened when I did something similar: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary School Musical. Obvious no consensus on what is notable but I haven't yet decided to make a push to make a better policy. So I'd say it's better to withdraw this nomination and start a discussion elsewhere. Regarding the plot copied from ABC, this may be a copyvio issue and that's somethig else (should be removed for sure). --Tone 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone is right -- nearly every episode of this series has its own article, and this one doesn't seem substantially different from the others. "Other stuff exists" may not be a reason for keeping an article, but the discussion on whether every DH episode needs its own article should most likely take place on the talk page of List of Desperate Housewives episodes, not on this deletion discussion. We do need to remove the copyvio, though. I'm not sure which parts of it are copied (intro, summary, notes) and where they're copied from, so I'm not going to take a crack at it myself, but someone with a bit more knowledge should remove this stuff. (Or does ABC ever allow the use of their material for press/informational purposes? Maybe we ought to check this out.) Graymornings_(talk) 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that at least 10 or 20% of the separate episode articles are copyvios--but also that at least half of the one paragraph descriptions in summary lists are. I will say this for ABC, that at least the grammar is correct, though I think the prose pretty monotonous. But there's something else--when somebody writes either the real article on the episode, or the summary, they can now refer to the ABC article for the motivations of the characters. That's usually a weak point, because that part of the plot does need some secondary sourcing. The producer's own description would seem reliable for that.DGG (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Desperate Housewives episodes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect and only bring these things to AfD if the redirect is repeatedly reverted, please. Be WP:BOLD! :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 24 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. One (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

States that have explicitly recognized the Republic of Slovenia[edit]

This article got deleted before in a bit different form, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of states that formally recognise the independent Republic of Slovenia. The rationale for re-nom is pretty much the same, it's useless, nobody can say it is complete and it can easily be covered by Foreign relations of Slovenia or History of Slovenia or such. And unlike entities like Kosovo, nobody really challenges existence of Republic of Slovenia. For other cases, we have List of states with limited recognition that is a FL and short and informative enough. Tone 22:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There aren't any states that don't recognize the Republic of Slovenia. It's a pointless list. Tim meh ! 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slightly odd creation. Slovenia is universally recognised, its not like a Kosovo/Taiwan/Israel situation. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dlelete. Slovenia is universally recognized. Useless article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc Strange. Slovenia's independence is uncontested. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - pointless list, as it is uncontested, so merge the useful content and cites into Foreign relations of Slovenia. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearian. A list of the first states to officially recognize Slovenia may be useful, but not an article such as this--Dans (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List may be useful to Slovenians. Also date of diplomatic relations may be useful. Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:12, 22 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) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Harris (AIO)[edit]

Does not explain why subject is notable, no sourcing. TheAE talk/sign 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage on this guy; the more famous actor keeps popping up though. It fails WP:BIO. Tim meh ! 23:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a tiny page with no sources and no notability mentioned. Smartse (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I've added IMDB link and one ref, but the claim, that he is co-creator of Adventures in Odyssey is the only fact available online. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:37, 22 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. One (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations of The Lord's Prayer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Translations of The Lord's Prayer

Except for the first two paragraphs, which are already present at Lord's Prayer, this article contains no encyclopedic content, but rather only source material. Source material (provided it is verifiable and not copyrighted) belongs at Wikisource, not Wikipedia; any of these translations that are unverifiable or are under copyright protection belong neither at Wikisource nor at Wikipedia. In short, while some of this material may belong at Wikisource (and Wikisource already has translations of the Lord's Prayer into many of these languages), none of it belongs at Wikipedia. —An gr 21:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the nominator.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —An gr 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —An gr 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say "Merge" back to the Lord's Prayer, but it looks like the only relevant content is content that was copied directly from there. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is definitely Wikisource material. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the material (not just some of it) on some Wikimedia project, e.g. Wikisource. Fg2 (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with keeping all of it is that a lot of it may well be copyrighted. Any translation done in the latter three-quarters of the 20th century or in the 21st century is likely to be copyright-protected. Without definitive source info for these translations, we have no way to know. —An gr 08:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate those concerns on avoiding a copyvio, but Jesus required that the copying of the Lord's Prayer and all translations -- even before the GNU license was created, ("Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"). Of course, citation to a verifiable source (in this case Mark 16:15, KJV translation) is encouraged. Mandsford (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is writing an encyclopedia and Wikisource is compiling a free library. Neither project is engaged in proselytism. —An gr 05:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we've stopped talking about copyright violations. Mandsford (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the nominator's observations are succinct. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this didn't exist elsewhere on Wikisource or a non-Wikipedia source; and if I believed that the translations were made by people fluent in many languages instead of repeating the same "International Consultation" template (all these years, we should have been saying "Save us from the time of trial" and not the incorrect "lead us not into temptation"); then I'd mourn for the erasure of this 100KB+ article . While an encyclopedia article should be interesting, it is even more important that it should be reliable. Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 69.19.244.199 (talk · contribs) was there before you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as wikipedia is not a source repository -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 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. One (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dori Monson[edit]

Non-notable local radio announcer / talk-show host. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Proxy User (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not familiar with this radio host, however, (1) hosting a weekly broadcast heard on 46 radio stations seems notable, (2) while I realize this is an AOD for "Dori Monson", by process of comparison, deleting the article of this radio station's apparent cornerstone host while leaving up articles about other hosts on this same radio station would leave wikipedia unbalanced. Bluecanary99 (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ENTERTAINER does not necessarily cover radio personalities in any particular way. Neither does any other WP:N guideline specifically. Monson is not notable on a national or international level, but within the Pacific Northwest, he is one of the most notable radio personalities. Eauhomme (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This indevidual is no more notable than any of the 1000's of other non-notable local radio personalities that are not listed at Wikipedia because they are non-notable. There is nothing in particular about Mr. Monson that causes him to rise above the rest who are not found at Wikipedia because they are non-notable. WiccaWeb (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Not much esle to say. Non notable in the extreme... Arty Ziff (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question While I have no issue with your Delete vote, I have to question what about "As of winter 2008 it was the highest rated talk radio program in the Seattle-Tacoma market." "In 2008 Monson was nominated for Radio & Records News/Talk/Sports Local Personality Of The Year" and "Since 2002 Monson has hosted... a day-of-game broadcast carried on...a network of 46 radio stations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and British Columbia" makes someone "non notable in the extreme"? Between a nationally known talk radio host like Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh and a non-notable single-station host with a 2am call-in show, there's a line somewhere. Where is that line? Eauhomme (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't want to admit it, but most talk show hosts are notable. --Clark89 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Major radio host, and the sources are reliable and published. TheAE talk/sign 04:11, 24 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) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let You Go[edit]

Article fails to demonstrate the notability of its subject, and was previously deleted via prod for the same reason. Khalfani Khaldun 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why it fails on the notability? It's a single that will be released in the future... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas tkof (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article... a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Khalfani Khaldun 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:CRYSTAL. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.

Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't receive any award, it still didn't chart anywhere, the cover wasn't leaked yet. The only reliable source able for me is iTunes, but you do not accept it. So the only proof to date is the music video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas tkof (talk • contribs)

And that is precisely why it should not have a Wikipedia article. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines that we have been linking, specifically WP:N, WP:NSONGS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks! Khalfani Khaldun 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability yet to be demonstrated, WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 10:53, 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) 14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Non-charting song, didn't win any significant awards and lack of coverage from reliable sources. — Σ xplicit 05:14, 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 Speedily deleted as copyvio. Non-admin closure. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davonte Suarez[edit]

I prodded this, and the prod was removed by an IP editor. Nominating for deletion because I feel this article fails various Wikipedia guidelines and policies relating to biographies of living people, such as notability, reliable sources, etc. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the above reasons.

Speedy Delete as a copyright violation of http://www.myspace.com/desstarr09 - now tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy ledder[edit]

High school athlete doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. JaGa^talk 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet the additional criteria for WP:Athlete. Additionally gnews and ghits reveal nothing amounting to significant coverage yet. He exists, and he's fast, but not notable.Horrorshowj (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good luck on his athletic career. When he gains significant coverage in reliable sources about his career, then would be the appropriate time to create an article about him. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 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 already deleted, already discussed in the last AFD. chaser - t 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Ascentive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contains Malware links and is unsafe.. SparksBoy (talk) 20:31, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direction of Management[edit]

Direction of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. No notability. No googlebooks mention. Does not meet any criteria for inclusion. Wikidās ॐ 20: 03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - some sort of internal political feud among the Hare Krishnas, apparently. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability, in-depth coverage by independent sources. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)d[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:45, 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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube fame[edit]

Bringing this to AfD after a lengthy discussion at the article's talkpage. First of all, the title of this article is a neologism: while the words "youtube" and "fame" come up next to each other a lot in a Google search, that doesn't mean it's a new proper noun; it's just a common phrase, like "birthday party". So even if this were kept, it should be moved to a more general term like "internet fame" or "internet celebrity", and not be youtube-specific. But I, and several others at the talk page, think all the content here can be moved into related articles such as viral video or List of internet phenomena#People (given that most of this article is just a list of examples anyway). While the nominator claims that the article has unique information that can't be merged to those other articles, I don't see what that information is. More input is needed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism of a topic already well covered by other articles, such as viral video, which the term could redirect to (or just plain YouTube for that matter). DreamGuy (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, although I don't think this is even a term. Redirect to YouTube, but rescue anything useful and put it in viral video. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Google search [10], [11] and potential wikilinks [12] indicate this article is appropriate and needed. A rename or move doesn't require an AfD. I'm going to call for UN intervention and blue helmetted Dutch special forces to defend this new entry from the deletionist forces. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said in my nom statement, abundance of ghits doesn't prove that this is a "new word" rather than just a common phrase. "Pepperoni pizza" gets way more ghits than "youtube fame" ([13][14], compare *29,400 to 5,980 without quotes, 104 to 96 with quotes—and that's google news, not google web), but it's still a redirect. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you have this entry redirect? Pepperoni pizza is one type of pizza. YouTube fame doesn't seem a clear type of anything, but if there were an article on "Internet fame", I suppose it could be merged there. Of course merges don't require AfDs. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merges and redirects don't require AfD, but they require a consensus that the article itself does not belong. Since there was no consensus at the talk page, I had no choice but to bring it here. If consensus here is to delete, we can implement that by redirecting or merging, which in this case is basically the same as deleting. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Viral video or List of Internet phenomena. Dlabtot (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Internet celebrity which currently redirects to List of Internet phenomena. The phrase "YouTube fame" is like calling facial tissue Kleenex. Fame from the internet is a notable concept, but should be housed at a generic location.--kelapstick (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter that facial tissue and Kleenex are two different articles? Should square milk jug be merged to milk jug? When will it end? Is nothing sacred? What? Where are all these voices coming from??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kleenex is a company, facial tissue is a product made by many different companies. Square milk jug specifically was the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, and is therefore notable independently of milk jug. YouTube fame can be a generic term for someone who rose to fame via some form of internet video sharing/viral video, not necessarily YouTube, the end result is them being an internet celebrity. And nothing is sacred and it will never end :D--kelapstick (talk)

Keep I am always inclined to keep articles. Just because a few editors aren't interested in a topic doesn't mean that the article has no merit. I can see mass potential in this article. No need to delete at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism, coatrack. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- Even I was surpirised by the media coverage, Google News Results and Wikilinks. As far as a move to internet fame, what else on the internet even comes close to comparing with the attention meritted through Youtube? A once in a blue moon blog that... no; and even that isn't attributed to nearly any one person. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my response to ChildofMidnight above regarding the meaninglessness of ghits. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, content fork, original research, synth, no reliable sources that establish this as an encyclopedic topic... I'm sure i could come up with a few more if i put my back into it, but that seems sufficient.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's wahat I'm talking about; why doesn't anybody improve the article at hand? Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is just concerned with the title and suggests moving the content elsewhere. This is move/merger not deletion. I favour merger with Internet celebrity as suggested above and shall revive that article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the existence of List of YouTube celebrities, since it wasn't mentioned previously. --Raijinili (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So do you think the content of this article could be merged there, with the intro of this article going into the intro of that list? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. The article in question also talks about people who try to get famous on Youtube, so it wouldn't be an actual merge. Split-merge into both the celebrities article and the Youtube article is a possibility. --Raijinili (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or Criticism of YouTube? After all, it's all negativity on that page. --Raijinili (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Dutch bluehelmets are not going to come out for this AfD, especially since, duh, they can't smoke weed here, and there's no extra pay for entering a danger zone. But "YouTube fame" seems to me to be more than a random pairing of words; the plethora of hits in Google News (I don't care for the regular Google web search) has convinced me that this is a concept of sorts (though <insert deity>! I wish it wasn't). CoM, Daniel Christensen, where's that stash of Northern Cali at? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said above, "pepperoni pizza" gets more google news hits than this does, but that doesn't mean it's a noteworthy concept worth writing an article about... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I saw you said that. I don't care for Google hits; Google News is much more relevant--and there you get 103, and I get 149. Moreover, the hits in Google News are often in reliable resources and clearly, in my opinion, establish the term as a "YouTube fame." Now, what does pepperoni pizza have to do with any of this? Drmies (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you're confused; I am talking about Google News hits, not google hits. And I got 29,000. The link is above (#4). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My apologies: I'm comparing apples with pears--that's "pepperoni pizza" for all dates, 29,000 hits; "youtube fame" for all dates, 149 hits. Still, how does that apply here? I don't see how "YouTube fame" is discussed as just a subset of "viral video" the way "pepperoni pizza" is a kind of pizza. For starters, "viral video" refers to the spreading of a video; "YouTube fame" refers to the effect of YouTube exposure. You'll also see, in your Google News hits, that "pepperoni pizza" delivers mainly mention of pepperoni pizza, whereas the YouTube hits talk about the phenomenon itself. That's notability. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Neologism, but notable one with enough sources to demonstrate notability. The term has been used in a number of places and by a number of reputable organizations. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask where you have seen it? I spent a lot of time searching for it, and all I could find is examples of the two words used together, but not coined as an actual neologism. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to viral video. SunCreator (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references actually are about the phrase itself, they just use the phrase. Therefore, if anything I would suggest an entry in Wiktionary, rather than here. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What is the purpose of Wikipedia if only strict Bitannica-like ancient information is allowed. Isn't this supposed to be a little bit liberal? Isn't the whole idea of Wikipedia to stay up-to-date and even a little controversial? 192.156.234.170 (talk) 19:21, 23 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. Both sides have made excellent arguments, but neither seems to establish definitively whether six is significant enough to include a cutoff at that level. Summary of "delete" !votes: Six is just an arbitrary number; the relevant information is already included at List of Academy Award-winning films. Summary of "keep" !votes: The arguments in the beginning were largely based on WP:USEFUL or WP:NOHARM. However, at the end, users made strong arguments referring to the consensus on the talk page to have the cutoff at six, as well as the inevitability of a cutoff for any list of "notable" things. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards[edit]

Delete - list has a completely arbitrary inclusion criterion. Nothing to indicate that the topic of the list, Films that have specifically won more than five Oscars, is the subject of reliable sources that establish its notability (and before the deluge of links begins, I am very aware that "films that have won a lot of Oscars" is certainly discussed in reliable sources. That isn't the question. The question is whether winning more than five is). The list used to be for films with eight or more Oscars and was changed to the current six. There has been subsequent discussion about reducing the threshold to five, further demonstrating the utter arbitrariness of the subject matter. Why six and not eight? Why six and not five? Why five and not three? There are hundreds of films released every year that are eligible for Oscar consideration. That any film wins even a single Oscar is extraordinary. That a film won six rather than five or three or whatever arbitrary number someone settles on is trivia. Otto4711 (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep that is absolutely no reason to delete the list. Six is an arbitrary number? Well, we have plenty of lists that have a cutoff to keep it from being too long. If you want, we can get to work and make this a list of all those with two or more or even every one. As far as I know, there are no other lists that include the big winners at the Oscars, so it is necessary to keep this widely-reportred information. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, there is already a complete list of Oscar winners. There is also List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees which covers most of the same territory as this list (although it needs a great deal of work). Otto4711 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that the existence of other possibly bad lists does not serve to support the existence of this list. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Five list is not even comprable to the number won. List of Academy Award-winning films would only be any good if it is changed into a sortable table, which I could do, the only problem being its immense length. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Nothing special about the number. As the nominator pointed out, why not a list of films with 5 Oscar wins or 8 or 7? I mean, the 1 and only source used in the article even uses films with 5 Oscar wins. As for other articles listing winners, I guess you missed List of Academy Award-winning films (which includes every film that has won an Academy Award and how many nominations they got). So this list is redundant of that too and thus another reason to delete. TJ Spyke 19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, which states everything that's wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
Keep. The use of an arbitrary cut off point in such a list is standard practice. See, for example, List of oldest people and List of tallest buildings, both of which also have an arbitrary cut-off point, and are generally considered acceptable articles. The reflection of the cut-off point in the name is unusual and may enhance the arbitrary feel of the list, but a simple rename to List of films receiving the largest number of Academy Awards would solve this issue. JulesH (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful to have a select list, and the number has to be set somewhere, & gives a suitable short short list. Useful is enough of a reason for a list. Sourcing is trivial: counting to 6 is not OR. DGG (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being useful is not a reason to keep a article (see WP:USEFUL). Do you have another argument to keep it since that was your only reason? TJ Spyke 21:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reason enough for a list of notable things. DGG (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—As the number of awards handed out is also arbitrary, I don't see a cut-off value of 6 as a significant issue. It has clearly been chosen to keep the list size manageable.—RJH (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:USEFUL: "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject" TheWilyFox (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it's not useful at all and is covered in more detail at List of Academy Award-winning films. Care to try again? TJ Spyke 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's useful precisely because it has more detail than List of Academy Award-winning films. Is there a size limit to the table format? TheWilyFox (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That list is absolutely not in more detail because it does not clearly show those that won the most. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It does if you click on that little arrow next to "awards". If you can actually make a table out of the big list I agree that this one will be redundant. TheWilyFox (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, if you are making a big table, can you please go with the highest common denominator and include the extra information that this one has? TheWilyFox (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was saying that List of Academy Award-winning films does not have more detail; there are no little arrows there. I have started to tableize the list at User:Reywas92/List of Academy Award-winning films. Can we please put the deletion on hold until I get that done? I will add that further information and perhaps take that huge list to FLC. I just hope sorting won't be impossible with over 1000 films total in the table. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above users. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you admit it's not useful and already covered at List of Academy Award-winning films. TJ Spyke 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nominator. There is no explanation why six is a significant level for the number of Academy Awards that a film can win before its Oscar sweep is considered notable. Furthermore, List of Academy Award-winning films puts the subject in proper perspective by comparing them against the other films that won fewer Oscars. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right in the second part, but I only see that valid if the full list is sortable. Let's make a deal: I'll start tableizing from the top and you from the bottom and soon enough this six and up list will be redundant. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (just wait until tabelizing is done) Once the trivial matter of tabelizing the existing list of Academy Award winners is completed, it's no longer neccesary to have an arbitrary cutoff. That list has far more information in it and when it is done, it's also easily searchable. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over the years, this article has gotten more high-tech-- it's a sortable table today-- but it still doesn't tell us much. I can see, at a glance, that Ben-Hur won eleven Academy Awards. I just can't tell what the other ten of them were for. Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you could fit in five more columns for each of the big five. You'd only need a yes or no in each box. TheWilyFox (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides encyclopedic details on the subject. Unless we list every film that has ever won an Academy Award, any cutoff can be called "arbitrary". Alansohn (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already do list every film that has ever won an Academy Award. Otto4711 (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why not 6, 5 or 10? Where did the number 6 even come from? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no doubt about the amount of coverage devoted to winning large numbers of Oscars including "sweeping" the Oscars. The only thing at issue is what number should constitute the cutoff for what is considered "large". That is a discussion for the article talk page and not a topic for AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And exactly that has indeed already been discussed at the article's Talk Page ... not only once, but twice. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Merge Winning a large number of awards is indeed notable, but perhaps not notable enough for a separate list. Thus, my personal preference would be to have all the content in one article - List of Academy Award-winning films - with a table at the top for films that won the most awards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its handy and easy look at. Oniongas (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article should be kept, for all the reasons already mentioned. The issue of what to use as a cut-off point had been discussed at the article's Talk Page. See Talk:List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards#Cut-off point at 8 awards ... and ... Talk:List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards#Move cut-off point to 6 awards. Also ... please see my Comment immediately below. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: The original post of the nominating editor (Otto4711) is utterly ridiculous. Every list has a cut-off point. Obviously. We can ask why the "list of oldest people" cuts-off at age 100 and not at age 99? There must be a cut-off point at some point. And the cut-off point in this list is not arbitrary. As the Talk Page discussions of the article indicate ... reducing the cut-off point would essentially double the size of the list ... thus, diluting its value. Winning a "lot" of Oscars is clearly notable. Picking the number 6 (instead of 5) makes a great deal of sense and is hardly arbitrary. The logic goes like this ... if I must spell it out for you ... "Very few films in history (namely, 34) have won a lot of Oscars (where lot is defined at 6 or more). However, quite a large number of films, relatively speaking, have won 5 Oscars. In fact, if we factor in the winners at 5 Oscars, we double the size of what the list would be at 6 Oscars. Hence ... winning 6 is quite a feat and quite notable ... relatively speaking, winning 5, not so much." Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Lean towards delete Why six? I see in the article's talk page that the number has changed over time. If it's an arbitrary number than the list should be deleted, but if its notable in external sources as some sort of magic number indicating something special (as opposed to listing 5-and-up or 7-and-up) than it should be kept. Currently there's no discussion that shows why 6 is that magic number. As a second proposal: getting rid of only the winners of six would produce a list of 25. Then, the list could be renamed to reflect something like "top 25 winners at the oscars". This is another arbitrary number, but its more round and seems a much more suitable cutoff place. Them From Space 23:29, 24 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 03:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burlodge[edit]

I declined the speedy, another admin speedied, then agreed to AfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dank55&diff=284429461&oldid=284295674). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A fair number of hits in GNews, but at a quick glance they all seem to be incidental coverage of the company. For me, the deciding factor is that this article is the remains of what was a very spammy original article, and there does not appear to be any prospect of this ever growing beyond a stub. If anyone is serious about rescuing this and making a proper article, I will reconsider. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria for WP:CORPORATE. Burlodge is a very large, international company that is notable in its field. I have found multiple independant references using simple google search [[15]]. Untick (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Google hits aren't reliable, and of the reliable ones, most only give a brief mention of Burlodge, which isn't enough for notability. Can you pick out 3 hits that establish the importance of Burlodge? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that challenge: An industry website says: "The Burlodge Company has been around for the last 20 years and has offices in Canada, USA, England, Belgium, Italy and a very good network of distributors..."
A distributor site calls Burlodge: "...one of the world leaders in equipment for the regeneration and distribution of meals in hospitals, schools and other institutions."
A California county board reports: "Burlodge USA, Inc., (Burlodge) was chosen and considered sole-source as they are the only provider of a retherm meal delivery system that can provide food service by cafeteria, family or individual tray methods."
Sounds significant to me. BusterD (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (assuming accuracy). It is a poor articleon a (probably) significant company. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per WP:CORPORATE. BusterD (talk) 00:08, 25 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) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purkey[edit]

Delete Page is a biography of a non-important family. Does not need a wiki page and there are no cited sources to demonstrate the importance of inclusion on wikipedia. Werecowmoo (talk) 13:39, April 17, 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I'm confused; why are you bothering to nom this while it's prodded? Kingpin13 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, was unsure which was correct because the deletion instructions are slightly confusing to me. I was the one who did both tags. If one way is more correct than the other, please feel fre to correct me.Werecowmoo (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I have replied on the user's talk page :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BLP violation renmoved. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no meaningful sources HeartofaDog (talk) 16:47, 23 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 per WP:CSD#G12. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerly Lyngdoh[edit]

Possible hoax / unverifiable. Direct rip of metro.co.uk - a non-reliable source. Courageousrobot (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G12 copyvio from here, so tagged. JohnCD (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to note that even aside from the copyvio aspect of this, a similar article Brooke Greenberg was deleted with the rationale 'per WP:BLP' which leads me to believe that this article probably would have problems even if re-written. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:25, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anatropi (TV series)[edit]

Delete no sources, no notability, the host isn't notable, we don't know whether this is some local cable talk show or anything by context. one liner. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you "don't know whether this is some local cable talk show or anything by context" then how did you determine it wasn't notable? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not for lack of notability, but a lack of content. Basically a substub. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable television series. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:55, 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) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kibzai[edit]

Delete no indication that this political tribe of Balochistan is notable. No sources. Speedy had been declined, so I bring it here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (lacks content and context - CSD A1 & A3) For all intents and purposes, the article is speedy deletable gibberish. It doesn't even have a full sentence. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete also. no content. untwirl(talk) 19:50, 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) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna J Watson[edit]

Non-Notable individual. Article claims notability is based on unremarkable, self-published cartoons with no news coverage or Google hits. Author pointed to non-existent awards in a college magazine in a month the magazine was not published. No award exists for author. The site author points to as controversy is based on website, "...created by a group offended by the use of religious tradition in her cartoons." Site has no content and was created at the same time as the Wikipedia article. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've deleted this article via PROD before; it has previously claimed that this person won the Reuben award for best cartoonist when it is well documented who the actual winners are. It also included other claims that various groups of people were up in arms about the cartoons this person has created. As far as I've ever been able to tell, this is a non-notable person who has created non-notable cartoons and the rest seems to be an attempt at promotion. Rnb (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Valley2city^‽ 05:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom Public Library[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Although this article does cite two newspaper articles, it does not assert that there is anything notable about the subject. The articles are about the local politics surrounding funding to expand the library, not about the library itself. It is hard to imagine that this stub could be built into a respectable encyclopedia article. ike9898 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:N. South Bay (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator here: I didn't realize this article had a deletion discussion less than 6 months ago with consensus to keep. I move that this AfD be speedily closed (and kept) as I nominated it without checking the history carefully enough, and there's no reason to believe anything has changed since the last nomination. ike9898 (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is nothing to prevent a merge with articles on other libraries in that county. What has happened since the last nom is that most of the content was properly removed as copyvio, and I dont think there's enough left to warrant a separate article. DGG (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with DGG, there's no evidence of independent notability. There are ghits and news hits, they appear limited to the following: 1) library closure notifications 2) events at the library and 3) voting issues, none of which establish notability for the library. StarM 00:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do local sources count for WP:N or not? anyway merging sounds good. TheWilyFox (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The Folsom Public Library would have been immortalized in song, if "I checked out a book in Reno..." had worked as a lyric. Mandsford (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —StarM 03:02, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agrovet Market Animal Health[edit]

nn company article fails wp:corp Oo7565 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – obviously notable major corporation. I've already issued a final warning to the nominator, who despite repeated warnings is continuing apparently going through Special:Allpages tagging articles for deletion for spurious reasons. – iride scent 19:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep of bad faith nomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:57, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Institute for Future Studies[edit]

No third party references have been provided in order to prove this subject's notability Oo7565 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Note the preferred English name is African Institute for Prospective Studies.1 Founded by the UN, it collects several notable academic institutes at the University of Kinshasa, publishes books, and organizes conferences. Individual institutes, such s the Centre d'Études Égyptologiques C. A. Diop grant degrees. I'll continue coming up with refs, but Congo is not the most wired place, and the University has not been well funded since the 1990s, making electronic sources hard to come by. The article itself is not an article, but a half translated brochure. I'll tear it down as I find sources. T L Miles (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an obviously notable organisation. I've already issued a final warning to the nominator, who despite repeated warnings is continuing apparently going through Special:Allpages tagging articles for deletion for spurious reasons. – iride scent 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep of a bad faith nomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:59, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Econoception[edit]

Contested prod. Neologism. Single source. One google hit. Possible COI (see OE username). Wperdue (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms - and per WP:NFT, the article admits the word was "first coined" only yesterday! JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - only two Google hits, one of which is this article. . .Rcawsey (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyright violation from http://www.econoception.com/ and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from his comment on the AfD talk page, that website was set up by the author after he input the article and found it was likely to be deleted, so I don't think it is a copyvio. Tag removed. JohnCD (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - in which case the author is in violation of copyright as the material sports no GFDL license or credit to Wikipedia. But in any case, I still maintain deletion is in order as original research amongst its many problems. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations, if you contribute something you wrote yourself "you retain copyright to your materials. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like." Yes, it should certainly go, but I don't think it's speediable. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Oops! You are right! I stand corrected. But it's still a delete. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Nobu[edit]

Underground DJ/ musician that appears to fail WP:MUSIC. A Google news search turns up one possible reliable source here, but the mention is trivial. Speedy declined in Oct '08. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 16:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found his MySpace. Good music, but that's it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:21, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omegle[edit]

nn chat website Gaikce (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not nn at all.[16] - filelake shoe 14:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not entirely sure that a chat site with 3700 users is notable enough for a wiki article. Fol de rol troll (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't think you understand entirely what notability is. It's determined from availability of sources, not how many people use it. And if you google news search it, you get quite a few sources. Also, that's not "3700 users", that's "3700 users online at any one time". - filelake shoe 09:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:SPAM. South Bay (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this article in any way spammy? It's not written in a promotional tone, and hasn't got tons of external links. And even if it did, there are sources, it could be rewritten. - filelake shoe 09:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not just another chat site, it's the first to not use identifiers for users - simply "You" and "Stranger". It's revolutionary! ... okay, maybe not, but it is definatly different than most if not all the others - and 3,700 users in under a month from release is quite a respectable feat on its' own., 8:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete. It was a fad that had it's time in about a weekend. There were various articles and I saw lots of hype amongst forumers but it's over now. Everyone tried it those first few days, realised how it worked, appreciated it and moved on. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 13:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could use a little fleshing out, which I will take a stab at, but I think its significant enough to have an article. --Milowent (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what I see a are lot of "Website of the Day" type coverage. It seems to me that this puts this into the category of a news item and with it launching only recently, there's no indication that coverage will be sustained to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I understand Whpq's concern and would agree, if all these News hits were in response to a press release. However, this appears to be genuine word-of-mouth, giving the coverage a bit of extra weight. If no-one is talking about Omegle in a few months time then yes, perhaps another AfD. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is substantially different from other chat sites, although the article definitely needs improvement. Kak Dela? (talk) 14:29, 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 Speedy delete and redirect to Joystick.

Arcade sticks[edit]

nn neologisms Gaikce (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to joystick as that seems to be what the article is talking about. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend merge to Joystick. Junk Police (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. The advertising, for a company whose name I'll leave blank so as not to further the spamming, is about as subtle as a kick in the nuts-- "The leading manufacturer of Arcade stick parts are thought to be _______, due to their precision and responsiveness." Mandsford (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) as an attempt at spam as Mandsford indicated above, checking out the creator's other contribs makes this more damning. MuZemike 13:12, 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 to WFMU. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Music Archive[edit]

nn website. launched April 10, 2009. Gaikce (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WFMU, who created the archive. Would make for a good section in that article, but its completely non-notable on its own. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect as a plausible search term into WFMU#Free Music Archive. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:49, 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 speedy delete - copyright violation. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.B. Gaynor[edit]

Prod contested by author without fixing the issue or discussing on the talk page. Prod rationale by James R. Ward (talk · contribs) was: "The subject of this article does not meet the notability criteria set forth in WP:ENTERTAINER." I also agree, delete. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Insufficient refs. avail. to establish notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - as a copyright violation of this site [17]. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:44, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark-Paraguay relations[edit]

No embassies, no historic ties, on opposite sides of the world - the usual trivial bilateral relationship. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a policy or guideline for "Relations of X and Y" is very much needed. There is no evidence here of any relations between the countries at all. JJL (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Foreign relations of Denmark doesn't mention Paraguay; Foreign relations of Paraguay doesn't mention Denmark. So what purpose does this article serve, bearing in mind WP:NOT a directory (of embassies or anything else)? Rd232 ^talk 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another laughable random combination with no evidence of relations. non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 24 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 (non-admin closure).--Giants27 ^T/C 19:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Brandstatter[edit]

Unremarkable local (American) football colour commentator. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP. Just like I said at Dan Miller (sportscaster), He can be heard statewide on not one but 2 teams radio networks (Detroit Lions and Michigan Wolverines football). Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean no one else has either. Notability is simply a matter of opinion (so far yours and no one else's opinion), and NOT a matter of fact. He passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography because he has a TV show on not one but two national channels Fox Sports Detroit and Big Ten Network (in that channel's case nationwide in both the U.S. and Canada, 2 of the most populated nations in the world) and can be heard on over 40 radio stations in 2 states and Canada, and nationwide on Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio, as well as overseas on the Armed Forces Radio Network. All games are also broadcast worldwide online. How isn't that notable? TomCat4680 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article subject clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography. Which of the two listed criteria do you believe applies here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Read my comments again. He can be heard and seen weekly in millions of homes. He also played on one of the best American college football teams in the late 1960s. Just because you're British (I'm assuming so anyway for how you spelled color) and haven't heard of him, doesn't mean no one else has.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of what you have written relates to the specific criteria in the guideline you referenced in your vote. Please read what you linked to. Which of the criteria do you believe applies? I'm not trying to badger you, but I don't think you are basing your voting or editing on WP guidelines and policies, so I'm asking you to look again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I disagree, he has written 2 books and can be found in hundreds of newspaper articles. He is also 2 time president on an organization of his peers (The Detroit Sports Broadcasters Association), all 3 proving both Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography (person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them) and point 1 of WP:CREATIVE (person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors)
        You chose to cite Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography in your keep vote. The two criteria mentioned are "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" and "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". I think we can agree to ignore the latter. The former criteria says nothing about being mentioned in books or articles - it talks about awards, specifically notable awards. Which notable awards has the article subject won or been often nominated for? It's not a trick question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: President of the Detroit Sports Broadcasters Association, a democratic group of his peers. He was voted in. I think that's quite an honor. Give it up, you're not winning this argument. Admin, can I get a close per WP:SNOW? TomCat4680 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's simply not a notable award or honor. "Notable" here means notable in the WP:NOTABILITY sense. I know you think this is an argument, but I'm just trying to show you that your vote is not based on the guideline that you yourself offered. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be a notable broadcaster. The creator is encouraged to avoid casting aspersions on other editors, however. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I'll behave. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 238 google news articles in which ~~many~~ some of these articles have Jim as the central topic of the article, also mentioned in 20 google books. Ikip (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just as soon leave this alone, but since there seems to be some canvassing going on, I'd like to point out that the assertion that many of the articles have "Jim" as their subject appears to be a gross inflation, based on my viewing of the search results. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I changed it to "some", on further searching these articles, I realized that only the first 15 have Jim in the subject. Is this agreeable? Ikip (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion mentioned on: Talk:Rich Rodriguez, Talk:Bo Schembechler, Talk:University of Michigan, Talk:Michigan Wolverines football, Talk:Detroit Lions Radio Network Ikip (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administratior please note this article has gone through extensive improvements since the original AfD nomination. Including several more sources, etc. Ikip (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep He has enough news coverage to meet all requirements for an article. Dream Focus 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though not FA quality, subject is notable and the article has improved. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Brandstatter has been a major figure in Michigan football over the past 30 years. Cbl62 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep of the markedly improved artcle. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Exactly, why is this discussion still open? It was prematurely afded (and before that speedy afded). I never said i was done with it before this nominations. There's an ongoing discussion about this kind of thing at WT:BLP. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close request: Admin please close per WP:SNOW. 7 keeps to zero votes for delete besides nominator's. TomCat4680 (talk)

Make that 8-0. Any body else? The snowball is melting fast...TomCat4680 (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO, sources noted by Ikip. Strikehold (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:SNOW. Discussion unlikely to change, but may continue for another 12 hours before WP:STICK applies. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with concern I can fully see why nominator originally nominated this article. Subsequent improvements have helped. I am extremely concerned with WP:OWN and overall attitude of the the original editor (I hate to say "creator") - please WP:AGF that nominating editor believed they were doing what was best in their opinion for Wikipedia. Please, also respect process - "rushing it" does little to help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with bwilkins. I have advised Tom that his comments hurt him the most. In a positive turn of events, he struck out one comment, and I hope he refactors out (deletes) the rest. Ikip (talk) 08:15, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bid4mybiz[edit]

Non-notable company using Wikipedia to advertise. The two references are press releases. JaGa^talk 15:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page certainly has an advertising tone to it, and the creator has this page as his only contributions, suggesting an advertising account.--Iner22 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Written like an ad. The alleged news coverage consists of copies of what appear to be substantially identical press releases without bylines, which are neither reliable nor independent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Straightforward spam, speedy delete per WP:CSD/G11 TurningWork (talk) 16:56, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Taylor (footballer)[edit]

Prod removed by IP without providing reason. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Stu.W UK (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further sources are found indicating general notability Camw (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care for WP:ATHLETE, but this one appears to fail WP:N by a mile, so a clear Delete from me. - fchd (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another youngster awaiting for a debug that might happen, or might not. --Angelo (talk) 08:37, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negush uprising[edit]

Obvious POV fork of (part of) the article Greek_War_of_Independence#Macedonia. The information is repeating and describes a single event not notable of a separate article. Plus, it was represented in a rather peculiar way, not backed up with any reliable sources (I've searched for such in both Latin and Cyrillic). And anothe plus - it was most probably created and maintained by socks of indef-banned User:Cukiger. Laveol ^T 20:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this is a very misinformed and ahistorical article, which twists events in unacceptable fashion. Constantine ✍ 11:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The locals call it Naoussa uprising and it is an event of the Greek war for independence. The town of Naoussa it is called now "Η.Π. ΝΑΟΥΣΑΣ", "H.T. of NAOUSSA" by the locals, which means Heroic Town of Naousa. That means they know what their grand grand fathers did and why. There is no "Naousa uprising" but "Greek uprising" for them. There is not, also "Negush" but "Naoussa" for them. So, there is no Negush uprising because there is no Negush and there is no uprising, too. DELETE IT NOW before I get ungry and write an article about "My PC Room Uprising"...Chrusts 12:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

Delete, this is a pseudohistorical article. Jingby (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - there's not much out there, but I found this Macedonia in World War II: Debar and the Skanderbeg Division. Tales of an Old Partisan: An Interview with Metodija Markovski that verifies it happened. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? Jingby (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm serious, see WP:AGF. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per above. Todor →Bozhinov 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I proposed to Talk page, to Greek War of Independence, as it seems to be a part of Greek history. I do not see any reason for deletion of an historical event, even if it was missinterpreted in the page itself. So redirect to Greek War of Independence and fully-protect move.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Constantine. Wouldn't object the adoption of Balkanian's proposal.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:16, 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. Having X number of subscribers on Youtube does not make you notable. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Lewis[edit]

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

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

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

Minor YouTube celebrity that doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC despite a few vague claims to notability. Speedy and then prod both removed, bringing here for discussion. Black Kite 15:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has almost 13,500 subscribers on YouTube and is a legitimate presence in the YouTube Community. Please don't delete her page!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.138.134.192 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)— 198.138.134.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
She may not meet all of the musician requirements, but I think the page should stay up. She seems to fall more under the category of youtube/internet-in-general celebrity. She is about as famous as and similarly notable for the same things as, say, someone with a popular video blog. And, most of the people I associate with knows who she is (I did not introduce them to her work, and we in no way know her personally). Ana The Person (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good reason for this page to be deleted. If something as dated and inane as Disco Duck deserves an entry, then Molly certainly does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.180.59 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) — 24.192.180.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe you should actually read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since it does acknowledge that "OTHERSTUFF" can set a legitimate precedent. Certainly the argument that Molly Lewis may meet the criteria for internet celebrity rather than musician may have merit in light of the existence of things like the Elf Sternberg page and other Usenet people pages. Maybe the problem with this page isn't its existence but its categorization. --Mr. Scholarly Guy (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have read the guideline, but I think the legitimate precedents it is talking about are referring to something very different from Youtube personalities (it mentions articles for Mace Windu if there is one for Yoda, and for episodes for Star Trek and the like). I agree that WP:MUSIC is not the only guideline this article may fall within; the other obvious guideline in this case would be WP:WEB, which it also fails. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also see no reason for deletion here. Molly Lewis is definitely noteworthy as an excellent example of the new breed of YouTube celebrities. I've seen much less important/significant articles on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.245.112 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) — 64.122.245.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I further insist on the notion that this page should not be deleted. Molly has MP3s available for sale on her website [18], has performed on stage in front of large audiences with Paul and Storm and Jonathan Coulton, made an appearance at an event hosted by John Green (author), and is part of a compilation album [19] put out by DFTBA records. There are nearly 13,500 people (a number that grows on a daily basis) that actively display an interest in what Molly does, and a page on Wikipedia will do nothing but help those people find more information about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.165.244 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC) — 68.1.165.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Can you explain how any of what you have mentioned above applies to WP:MUSIC? Not signed, no significant coverage in third-party sources. Wikipedia is not advertising space, and your argument (as far as I can see), along with those of the SPAs above biol down to WP:ILIKEIT, which doesn't fly at AfD. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are all aware that Wikipedia is not "Advertising space" and it is completely illogical to use it in such a way, the only way to find this page on Wikipedia, is by typing in the subject's name, therefore anybody viewing this page already knows who she is. Anybody who does type her name in, just wants to find out more about her, and this article allows that.
Comment - I have added the "Not a ballot" template, as the article is linked from the subject's Twitter page , so we can expect a lot of SPA supporters. JohnCD (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:AGF I think you are being unfairly dismissive of people such as myself who have registered because they have taken an interest in this issue. Everyone has their own particular starting point. --Mr. Scholarly Guy (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails every aspect of WP:MUSIC and WP:WEB; number of Youtube hits or subscribers is utterly irrelevant. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And why exactly are those numbers irrelevant? It's a direct representation of how many people are interested in what she's doing, and it's exactly what makes her notable. There are several thousand people that view content of hers on a consistent basis, and I really don't see why that's something that shouldn't be taken into consideration. Molly's notability comes in different forms than the norm, and it shouldn't be looked at as worthless simply because it doesn't fall under any specific category. 68.1.165.244 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the contrary, the notability of this individual must be established according to existing guidelines. Feel free to point to whichever guideline that states Youtube hits (or Alexa ratings or whatever else) establish notability; I cannot see one. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're missing my entire point. By the very definition of the term, a guideline is something that is not absolute. The guidelines for WP:MUSIC were selected to be guidelines because, in most cases, they are how musicians gain popularity. It is not set in stone that those are the only ways a musician can possibly rise to popularity. Molly releases songs and information on Youtube, and as of this writing, her musical content - between montages of mini-covers (as in, small pieces of various songs put together into a single video), full covers, and original songs - has been viewed no less than 1,386,864 times through Youtube. If she were to release an original song via Youtube right now, 13,673 people would be notified of it, and just in case you didn't believe the claims that her numbers grow on a daily basis, that's a number that was below 13,500 when the debate over this article began. How can you look at those numbers and simply say "Nope. Not in the guidelines. I don't care about it."? 68.1.165.244 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC yet. Quantpole (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. doesn't meet notablility req for musician. references are youtube links, amazon.com pages, and no significant coverage by rs.untwirl(talk) 20:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Youtube links and Amazon pages are not the only references there are, there are also references to Ukulelehunt.com and Jonathan Coulton's official website. She is signed to the independent label DFTBA records, and she was included on a compilation album (this is a requirement for WP:MUSIC). She is also in the final round of the Song Fu competition, this may or may not be classed as a major competition, but please note that the competition has been running for several years, and it has had a great deal of not only notable, but relatively famous people in it (Neil Innes, Jonathan Coulton, Garfunkel and Oates, Paul and Storm). As has been said before, because she became famous through Youtube, her claims to fame are unorthodox, but they are genuine none the less.Captain Fishy (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Captain Fishy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Ukelelehunt.com is not a reliable source. DFTBA is not a notable label. Song Fu is not a major competition. The compilation she appears upon is one released by DFTBA and therefore intrinsically non-notable. The article still comprehensively fails every criterion for WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you care to explain how you know that DFTBA Records is a non-notable record label? (I am aware that it does not appear on the list of "Notable Record Labels" on Wikipedia, but that list is hardly comprehensive.)Captain Fishy (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That will be the absence of third-party coverage of the label, and the absence of a roster of notable artists. I believe the guideline is WP:CORP. I got a paltry 1000 Google hits ofr the company name. Incidentally, I note that Molly Lewis is not listed on the label's official website, under the heading "Artists", presumably because she is yet to even release a record. Blackmetalbaz (talk)
Comment I have just updated the page to include information about one of her cover songs being mentioned on the official website for the UK mainstream TV channel "Dave". Captain Fishy (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote count, but even so you are only supposed to say "Keep" or "Delete" once. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I know that it isn't a vote count and I was just stating my opinion, I suppose I just misinterpreted the rules. Captain Fishy (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Yintaɳ 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly, Molly is notable according to tens of thousands of youtube subscribers. I would be curious as to how many hits this particular entry has received. How many people have recorded songs about Wikipedia itself? Seemingly, it behooves this site to keep this entry up, if nothing but to continue to self-promote. Not to advertise for a teenage internet phenom, but as to remain a modern and legitimate reference. If internet celebrities are not included in your internet encyclopedia, then perhaps you should go back to hardcover and collect dust as the original but now archaic encyclopedia that Wiki has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointerb (talk • contribs) 21:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — Pointerb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There are three pages of Molly Lewis (sweetafton23)videos and videos of covers of her songs on NME.com. NME.com is the website of the popular UK music magazine "New Musical Express", better known as "NME". http://www.nme.com/video/search/sweetafton23 They have been publishing since March of 1952. This is the "Rolling Stone Magazine" of the United Kingdom and they think that Molly Lewis is notable enough to devote three pages to her on their website. Analoguemagazine.com, presents Molly's cover of Britney Spears' "Toxic" and says of Molly, "Here’s one from Youtube yuke genius sweetafton23." http://www.analoguemagazine.com/the_blog/toxic-friday/#comments Istardom.com lists Molly Lewis as the 1,008th most famous musician on the internet. http://www.istardom.com/index.php?star=Sweetafton23 Aol Video has ten pages of Sweetafton23 vidoes, videos of others covering her songs and related videos. http://video.aol.com/category/sweetafton23 She has played with Jonathan Coulton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRpKDBLehJI&feature=player_embedded and has played at author John Green's book signing in Seattle. Molly Lewis' star is on the rise. If her page gets deleted it will only have to be reposted at a later date. Ronnisim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnisim (talk • contribs) 16:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — Ronnisim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Analogue Magazine's listing is just two sentences in a blog and their description "For bonus LOLz.." is not giving me the impression they take Molly very seriously. NME's video site clearly states "The video content provided on this page is generated by YouTube and consequently features user-generated content". In other words, anybody can get on there. NME does not "think that Molly Lewis is notable enough to devote three pages to her on their website", as you wrote above. NME-Video is just a YouTube search engine and no indication of notability or NME approval. The same goes for Istardom.com and AOL Video. Yintaɳ 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I just made myself appear on that NME-Video page and believe me, I really don't belong there. Yintaɳ 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether the Analouge Magazine "take Molly very seriously" or not, the point is they mentioned her, I see no part of the rules that states that the subject must be "taken seriously". The reason they say "for bonus lolz" is because they find it funny, I fail to see how that makes her less notable. You are right about the search websites though. Captain Fishy (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Delete. Her song about dating and breaking up with Wikipedia is absolutely hilarious; however, even if you stretch the point, I don't see her passing WP:MUSIC at this point in her career.--Kubigula (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently we have at least two reliable sources: "Dave" and the "Analougue Magazine", not to mention all of the Youtube videos (I know these are neither published nor notable, but they are a genuine record of what Molly has done). Other than this, she does not fall directly into any other categories of the music notability guidelines (remember these are guidelines not set rules, and they do not state that the subject must fall into more than one category). We also have several other sources like UkuleleHunt, their reliability is subject to dispute, but they are "independent from the musician". Captain Fishy (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I can tell, the Analogue source is both non-reliable (it's a blog) and trivial (two sentences with no information about the artist), and the Dave source also appears to be trivial. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're probably right about the Analogue source, but the Dave article is not "trivial", it directly talks about one of her covers, and it places her on a list of "7 of Uke-Tube's Greatest Moments" (alongside some other videos which are certainly notable). Captain Fishy (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry about this, but the Dave mention is pretty much the dictionary definition of "trivial mention". In fact, the precise extent of the mention is the line: "You Tube has also seen a wealth of unlikely covers being given a run-out on the ukulele ranging from a version of Europe’s ‘The Final Countdown’ to a cover of Britney Spear’s ‘Toxic’", on a blog hosted by the site, which doesn't even mention Molly Lewis by name, even in the list of Youtube links at the bottom of the page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked the WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines, and they state that somebody is notable if they have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"; this is the reason her large amount of YouTube subscribers, and the people who see her at public performances, are significant. Captain Fishy (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check again. WP:ENTERTAINER doesn't apply here. It's for actors and comedians. Yintaɳ 16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the reasons stated so well by others above, but let's hear more appeals to the authority of old media and the corporate music industry on Wikipedia because it's hilarious. Oh, also I need someone to admonish me that this is not a ballot. --Mr. Scholarly Guy (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC) — Mr. Scholarly Guy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment aimed at Captain Fishy and others: WP doesn't care about YouTube. You can keep hammering on about her YouTube videos but they're irrelevant to this discussion. She can have as many YouTube hits as she wants. The WP community has set the criteria for inclusion at WP:MUSIC and she simply doesn't meet them. That's why people, including myself, suggest to delete the article. If you don't agree with those criteria, fine, start a discussion at WP:MUSIC and try to get consensus to have them changed. That's how things work here. Yintaɳ 08:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is an important distinction between Youtube hits and Youtube subscribers, the latter of which is what people are generally pointing to. The reason people are talking about the number of subscribers is that it indicates an sizable following of people who may be interested in knowing more about Molly Lewis. For example, I came here because I was interested in finding out what kind of baritone ukulele she played. WP:MUSIC clearly states that its criteria are guidelines and do not necessarily have to be met in order for an article to be preserved, probably to allow common sense to override them or something crazy like that. --208.108.4.68 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Also here let me add the SPA tag myself so I don't have to see another passive aggressive disparaging comment in this page's history tab implying that anons and newbies are here because of "canvassing". I think some of the deletionists here need to try harder to assume good faith. — 208.108.4.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't put words in my mouth, please. I said that "there appears to be" canvassing going on. As also stated by JohnCD above who expected the same to happen and added the "not a ballot" template, since this discussion was mentioned in Molly's blog. Of the nine people who said "keep" so far, eight had hardly done anything on WP before. Or since. I don't think I'm being "passive agressive" (isn't that a contradiction in terms?) when I notice that and mention it. It doesn't mean you're not entitled to your opinion. (By the way, the distinction between YouTube hits and YouTube subscribers is irrelevant when it comes to WP:MUSIC.) Yintaɳ 15:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube hits and subscribers are irrelevant when it comes to WP:MUSIC, but not when it comes to WP:ENTERTAINER. I think we can all agree that her Youtube subscribers are "fans", therefore if she has a large ammount of Youtube subscribers, she has a "large fan base". Captain Fishy (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter because WP:ENTERTAINER applies to, and I quote, "actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities". So it doesn't apply here. And it also says "See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc." Whatever your opinion on the article or its proposed deletion, I'd say it's fairly obvious that WP:MUSIC is the guideline to go by. Yintaɳ 16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Captain Fishy (talk) 17:06, 24 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 a7, being a local school board member is not an assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cicero[edit]

Biography of questionable notability. Only one source can be found mentioning him, and THAT one indicates that he will be stepping down from his post on the Cleveland Heights / University Heights Board of Education; the very fact that made him (questionably) notable in the first place. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:04, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Anti-Aging Academy of Medicine[edit]

This smells too much like advertising and/or a promotional effort (see the creator's user name!), and fails good faith searches (ex.: [20] [21]). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based off of non-notability. Even if it were found to be notable, it should be written by someone without a CoI regarding the subject. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Shouldn't this properly be the "World Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 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 keep. The main issues here concern WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. However, a sourced article can legitimately be about events that have not happened. Also, much of the parts that read like original research have been cleaned up (see diff). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars sequel trilogy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Star Wars speculation

Articles for deletion/Sequel Trilogy (Star Wars)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N, with slight failings of WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. This is an article about a set of films that are never going to be made and the article (even the opening paragraph) confirms this - "Lucasfilm and George Lucas have for many years denied plans of making a sequel trilogy, insisting that Star Wars was meant to be a six-part series...currently, there are no firm plans to produce such films". Merge any worthy content to Star Wars, but otherwise this is worthless. Even though Lucas has touched upon the issue, it is trivial. Dalejenkins | 14:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect to Star Wars. --EEMIV (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS. In the words of the article itself, "Lucasfilm and George Lucas have for many years denied plans of making a sequel trilogy, insisting that Star Wars was meant to be a six-part series". Whether the article has 14 citations or 400, all it can ever add up to is vague speculation stitched together from here and there. Heck, half of the article seems to be quotes from George Lucas himself insisting that there is no third trilogy. There's no subject here to write about. PC78 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Crystal doesn't apply, since it's all verifiable, as far as I can tell. If it's merged, it can't be deleted per the GFDL. Notability is established by the references. It's disinterestedly written, so OR doesn't apply. TRIVIA doesn't apply because there is an obvious thread tying this information together, as well as its been filtered by the sources. FANCRUFT is an essay and in the eye of the beholder, and a number of people find the term offensive, so you may want to avoid using it as a reason to delete in the future. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peregrine_Fisher. Article is more than adequately sources with many reliable citations. While Lucasfilm's "official story" on the sequel films *now* is that they were never planned, this is historically inaccurate, based on relevant cites over the years. And, as shown by the wealth of information here, this would overwhelm the main Star Wars article, and a separate topic is justified. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per EEMIV.--Iner22 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid topic with reliable sources establishing notability. OR (if any) can be dealt with editing. J^mundo 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Do you guys realise this is an article about something that does not but one day might exist? That is not deserving of an entire article for itself, no matter how many references it has. I mean, WP:CRYSTAL says we have to delete an article about a film that exists but has not been released, yet here is an article about a film that does not exist nor is anybody planning to start making it. In conclusion, the logical decision is to merge it into the article about the film series. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It has enough references to pass both that, and WP:N. Even if it does have bits of trivia, it's sourced enough to not fail WP:OR, and even if it were WP:FANCRUFT, it's not unreasonable to say that the Star Wars fan base is big enough that (contrary to the essay), content is of importance to a large population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Update: I should probably point out that the main reason I'm opposed to just merging to Star Wars is because that article is too long as it is, and leaving this one separate makes it easier than merging and having to trim/fork off something else. Khalfani Khaldun 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is claiming the exact opposite. It says that NO progress has been made on making another Star Wars trilogy. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to the quote from WP:CRYSTAL, but I really don't see how no progress is contrary to that statement. Khalfani Khaldun 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to exercise some logic here. I mean, there could be a ton of references indicating that there is no chance in hell a sequel to Citizen Kane will ever be made. Yet, we're not going to make an article called "Why Citizen Kane Does Not Have a Sequel" are we? I'm not advocating the deletion of this information completely, but there is no need to have a separate article about something that does not, nor ever will, exist no matter how many nerds have dreamed it should. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but at the same time the whole reason this is a notable topic is because according to multiple reliable sources at one point in time Lucas had expressed a desire to create a sequel trilogy. I think the fact that it is clear that at one point in time there were to be more movies made, and for that plan to completely disappear and furthermore be denied by the very people who planned it in the first place is the reason why there is significantly more diverse coverage in reliable sources than just a million sources that all say it will never happen, thus making it Wikipedia-worthy (IMO). Also, see my updated comment about merging the content above. Khalfani Khaldun 05:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dalejenkins. No such films exist or will exist. At most it deserves a small mention in the main Star Wars article. Not notable enough to warrant a article on what at one point was a possible trilogy but never happened. TJ Spyke 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no reason at all why a proposed project would actually have to be made to be notable. There are well-documented discussions about the possibility that such films would be made, and therefore there is no reason we cannot document the discussions. The article meets all relevant standards: it passes all of WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR and WP:NOT. As WP:CRYSTAL clearly states: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." That sentence could have been written with this article in mind. JulesH (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, given the huge notability of Star Wars as a franchise, any credible discussions of further films to be made in the series are clearly not "trivial" as the nominator suggests. These discussions were credible when they first came to light, and as notability is not temporary, that means they are not trivial now. JulesH (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. During an earlier discussion, I found a few other sources that might be useful. This article, which originally came from the Star Ledger, was probably the best. (It's also available from Newsbank. Zagalejo^^^ 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source is from an internet forum, so therefore fails WP:RS in a spectacular fashion. Dalejenkins | 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sppedy Keep Evidently notable and the nomination proposes a merger. I've often wondered myself what was happening about the final three episodes and expect that they will eventually come. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Dalejenkins | 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. My essential point is that topic is notable. The rest is just a personal anecdote for general interest of the editors who must labour through this tiresome repeat nomination which is disruptive, per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And which part of that has been broken exactly? Here is not the place to air your views I'm afraid - please read WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#BLOG. This AFD is far from distruptive, I sense the sour grapes of a Star Wars fan.... Dalejenkins | 11:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was last nominated 4 years ago by a different nominator. What a silly statement. Dalejenkins | 11:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems much improved since then while the arguments for deletion have not. What new fact have you brought to occasion this discussion? Anyway, I see that your nomination proposes merger and so this discussion should be speedily closed as an improper process for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD came to no consensus, so the delete arguments still stand. It's also interesting to note that your keep arguments appear to be the same. Also, whereas myself and others who want the article deleted have stated their reasons in deep explination, you have bluntly said that the subject is notable and have not expanded on it. Remember that AFD is a debate, not a poll. Clearly, you have not read WP:SPEEDY to. Dalejenkins | 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last AFD was 2 years ago, not 4 ([22]). JulesH (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are lots of reliable sources about plenty of movies that are not going to be made. This seems like a non-topic, like Betamax in the 21st century. This could be blanked and merged instead of deleted, but I don't think there is much to salvage. If the movies are every made(sorry fans this is not going to happen) then is can be restored. Chillum 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Khalfani_khaldun. The article seems sufficiently referenced with reliable third party sources. Also (and even though I know someone's gonna throw WP:OTHERSTUFF up because of this) I find this little different from such unmade or cancelled films such as The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, The Alien, Godzilla vs. Frankenstein, or Doc Savage: The Arch Enemy of Evil. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue with your agrument is that all of the pieces that you point out were all actually produced or were in production, whereas the Star Wars sequel trilogy has never even been written or considered. For more detail:

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote was temporarily cancelled, but is now in production again.
The Alien was eventually adapted into a TV series
Godzilla vs. Frankenstein probably should be merged with King Kong vs. Godzilla, I'll give you that, but again, it was actually written.
Doc Savage: The Arch Enemy of Evil seems to have whole books or whole segments of books written on the issue.

The Star Wars sequels have nothing in common with any of these and, despite the fact that you mention it, WP:OTHERSTUFF still applies, so I shouldn't have really wasted my time... Dalejenkins | 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the speculation about a Star Wars sequel trilogy has received a lot of coverage in its own right. And many people (not just Star Wars fanatics) are curious about this topic. The article routinely gets a couple hundred views each day: [23]. Zagalejo^^^ 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether 3 or 3million people view this daily, it still fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TRIVIA. And Wikipedia is not a fan site, this content belongs there, not on an academic encyclopedia. Dalejenkins | 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) This isn't "unverifiable speculation". The article makes no claims about the future. It simply summarizes what has been said about the possibility of a sequel trilogy. 2) What's trivial to you is useful information to others. It's all subjective. 3) There are several academic journals devoted to pop culture, and at least a few college courses about Star Wars, specifically. Pop culture has a place here. And what the heck, it's not like you're writing articles about T.S. Eliot or Soren Kierkegaard. Most of your articles are about British reality TV shows. Zagalejo^^^ 21:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to acknowledge that comment with a response. WP:ATTACK. Says it all really. Dalejenkins | 22:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to stick up for the people who spent time working on this article. I'm not saying that your articles should be deleted. I'd probably !vote to keep them if they were brought to AFD. I was just commenting on your argument, which seemed unfair. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also read WP:EFFORT. Dalejenkins | 22:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL, it's a sufficiently referenced article on an extremely notable series. Even if they never exist, they're notable enough (and sourced well enough) to have an entry detailing them and why they're not actally being made. Dayewalker (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an exemplary case of what WP:CRYSTAL was designed to not discourage: the fact that Lucas has changed his stories plenty of times has reported many times in RS, demonstrating notability. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That was interesting to read. With something as major as Star Wars, the subject is clearly noteworthy. And it references major news coverage on the subject. Dream Focus 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeeeep as a reasonable spinout article. Doesn't seem to violate any particular policy (certainly not WP:CRYSTAL, if three is any gazing to the future in there it can be removed editorially.) And as there are books on this topic, WP:N is easily met. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is pure speculation, a collection of referenced rumours and quotes means makes it a synthesis of original research by wikipedia editors. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but editors are urged to consider reorganization of this article with the main Star Wars, possibility making an article specifically about the films from Star Wars#Feature Films and the content here, with Star Wars remaining as the franchise lead. This passes WP:CRYSTAL and is sourced, but I'm not thrilled about it being talked about outside of the two other trilogies and thus the suggestion for reorganization. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest merge, but that is neither here nor there The notability requirement's purpose is to make sure that there are enough reliable sources to talk about the article. Those reliable sources most definitely exist; I see the Atlantic Monthly and Time Magazine among the sources. The print sources especially make it clear that this is not just a WP:CRYSTAL issue. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Knowledge about a possibility of three films after the original series has been around for a long time. After the Episode III, Lucas has stated he wasn't going to make 7-9. It should be acknowledged. Quistisffviii (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) to Star Wars. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: These don't even exist. This is a WP:Crystalball article about some films that the CREATORS THEMSELVES DENY are going to ever be made. There is nothing at all to say these will ever exist. While a well-written article, it has no good content and should be deleted. A small section about these NONEXISTANT FILMS should be added to the Star Wars page. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources confirm that there were at one time plans for a sequel trilogy, even if now there is no chance of it ever happening. Notability doesn't expire simply because people change their minds. DHowell (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into Star Wars. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as second-hand crystal-ballery. Second choice is merging. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable, sourced to reliable sources, no more a synthesis than any other article and hardly breaching WP:CRYSTAL, since this article is about what has been said, not what will be said. Yes, there's an argument that this shouldn't be important, but that's another argument that smacks of POV. I can't see this as being guilty of UNDUE, since this has been reported upon by the BBC. Hiding T 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lucas originally described the original Star Wars trilogy as the middle trilogy of a nine-part story. That he since changed his mind doesn't change the original notability of the sequel trilogy, and it is not WP:CRYSTAL since the article is not dependent on whether or not the sequel actually ever gets made. If one were to bother to go back to hard copy sources from the late 70s and early 80s, rather than just rely on Google, they would certainly find information on Lucas' (admittedly limited) description of the sequel. Rlendog (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely reluctant delete. As a strong advocate in favour of Chronology of Star Wars, it pains me to have to agree with this nomination, however, the films do not exist! As a rule, something that does not exist cannot possibly be notable! There are no plans to create the films and the majority of the content of the article is speculation, thus, I must, reluctantly, conclude that it should be deleted, though any decent, referenced material should be merged into Star Wars, though I fear there's all too little of that. HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (stricken- I'll elaborate below)HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I;m baffled by your stance. The Chronology of Star Wars doesn't exist either. Come to that, I'd like to see this argument expanded to cover all those things currently in non-existence. Maybe start off small, with Nothing before moving on to the big ones, like Infinity. After all, nothing and infinity by definition can not exist, they are just concepts discussed by people... oh wait, that's like the Star Wars sequel trilogy. All we need now is some reliable sources, what's that, the BBC? And it's a major part of the article. Well, I do declare. Hiding T 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you, I am! However, I'm trying to take an objective view. Much as I believe Star Wars is worthy of the coverage it has, a film series that may or may not have once been planned but has indisputably been scrapped is not notable. The only substantial fact in the article is that the series will not be made! nothing and infinity are, at least, mathematical and philosophical concepts, though, perhaps you'd care to nominate them for deletion and we can continue this discussion!!! HJ Mitchell (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think there's more than one substantial fact. Fact: Lucas originally planned significantly more than 6 movies. Fact: Gary Kurtz also knew of the sequel plans. Fact: All producers ever involved now deny ever having even considered sequels. Fact: Hamill stated that he originally promised Lucas to return and play a role in one of the later episodes. There's a lot more to the article than pure speculation, and being covered by both the BBC and Times alone is enough to establish notability for any other topic, so why not this one? Khalfani Khaldun 23:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. It's kind of like how we have articles on Carnival of Light, Paul is Dead, Big Numbers (comics), Hitler Diaries, Spaghetti tree et al. This stuff doesn't exist or didn't happen, but the fact that people discussed them and thought they did happen has made them worthy of note. This article can be better written and better sourced for sure, but that would involve people digging up the many print sources that exist. Starburst would be a good place to look. I've just found a great The Times review of ESB which covers the sequels, so I'm going to integrate that into the article. Hiding T 09:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE, I've added info sourced from The Times which speaks of how the initial idea of a wider series was merely an homage, and never intended to be made, which gives the article greater depth and coverage. I don't think this article merits deletion, it's more a case of working out the best way to utilise the information we've got, whether this is the best article title, or whether a merge is more appropriate. This is an issue with teh way we organise data on Wikipedia, that both integration and separation have strong arguments which can only be settled by discussing the apprpriate issues at the correct venue. This discussion isn't really about deletion or crystal balling, because the article isn't about speculating on what might be or might have been, but is about documenting the Star Wars phenomenon, and how it grew. Hiding T 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is extensive discussion of this issue in relevant media. Renaming/refocusing and other cleanup can be discussed elsewhere. Powers ^T 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "somewhere". I love the fact that this is an acticle about a non-event. - jc37 10:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Very well refenced, calling other editors contributions CRUFT is uncivil: "...use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've stricken my above advocacy in favour of deletion. I hate to admit it, but I've been swayed by the arguments made above and the lambasting I received for my previous stance from Hiding et al. I'm now maintaining a neutral position, though will follow this debate with interest. HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:49, 24 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) 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilad Lehmann[edit]

CV of a non-notable Ph.D. student, failing WP:ACADEMIC. Wasn't sure if I could make a case for speedy as A7 so brought here first. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, also, I'm assuming that if Lehmann were truly notable, he would have had a German wiki page, which certainly isn't sidebar linked if it exists. Fol de rol troll (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this subject seems not to be notable by English Wikipedia standards, but why should the non-existence of an article in German Wikipedia about an Israeli subject have any relevance to this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None at all. I could have sworn I read that Lehmann was at a German University on the article. Maybe I'm losing my marbles. Oh dear. Either way, I still say Delete.Fol de rol troll (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Watch out for those marbles - they roll away even faster as you get older ;) Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for lack of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, search doesn't indicate notability either. Hekerui (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Does not meet basic notability standards. Tiptoety ^talk 22:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. I think the mention of a scientific discovery makes A7 speedy deletion problematic, but this isn't even close to passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has a few papers with a few citations, but nowhere near enough to get to WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in concurrence with the above commentators – summary: the article is little more than a recitation of this guy's college career thus far. He may become notable someday, but certainly is not at the moment. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 23 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of assassins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of assassins

This article is a duplication of info listed within the [[Category:assassins]] tag. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most categories will support a corresponding list as an additional navigational aid. This list is not a duplication or redundant, since it holds more information that what is possible with a category. It links to both the assassin and the person assassinated. Additionally, it contains a few items where the assassinated person has an article, but the assassin doesn't. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I've stated before, and will continue to state in the future, a list being complimentary to a category is not a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. The list provides information the category doesn't, so it's not actually redundant as claimed. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general, every category of discrete objects should have a corresponding list unless there is some special reason not to. DGG (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very useful list Vartanza (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Annotations as to who was assassinated make the list more informative than the simple category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as it links the assassin with the assassinated. PaulJones (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above-- as everyone has noted, this article can do what the category cannot, which is to explain the significance of each person on the list. Looks like a snowball ending for this discussion-- preferably one hurled from a window by a loner, who kept to himself. Mandsford (talk) 23:48, 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. Insufficient evidence of notability arising from this discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Rae White[edit]

Unnotable actress; fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER; only sources are from her own CDs and by article creator's own admission, her IMDB profile which was written by her manager and her own website. Was CSDed and declined; was PRODed by User:Orangemike on the 14th with note of: "Unsourced article about non-notable actress who has attracted (apparently) zero attention" and removed by SPA IP User:84.65.38.7 with note of "Expanded article and added intial references - more to follow soon (I hope!))" though no actual references were added. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her best claim seems to be her role as Emma in the UK version of "As the Bell Rings," but I can't find any reliable sources discussing her in that part, either. If the information in the article can't be verified by reliable sources, then there's nothing to say about her on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is only a reason if such sources cannot be found with a reasonable search. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another child star in the local iteration of a minor Disney franchise, and not even reliably sourced for that. Seems to be a bit of an ad for the school she attended, too (three mentions, two wiki-linked, in one short article). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She has appeared in three major West End productions and has had a lead role on a TV series. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Contrary to the claims made above, two sources WERE provided in the most recent positive edit, although they need to be correctly referenced (Not sure at the moment how you reference information which comes from documentation included with CDs - And please note that the two CDs mentioned are not HER OWN, as incorrectly stated above, but rather the OCR of an Andrew Lloyd Webber show and one produced by the London Philharmonic, and so are not specifically hers and the associated notes in the packaging would not be written with any specific bias towards her). Has also had lead roles in major West End musicals and other stage and TV productions, which are facts of note. Additionally, the most recent positive editor has stated that they are attempting to track down further supporting references to add to the article. To that effect, this article should be retained in order to allow them to find those references. Emma white20 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Could someone do a LexisNexis search? I would be very surprised if 2 lead roles (the rock opera and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) in London West End musicals didn't receive some paper coverage. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent point - I sometimes think that a lot of users and editors here forget that other sources apart from online ones exist and are allowed as references here on Wikipedia! Of course, such searches are more time-consuming than the lazy way of just typing keywords into Google and seeing what comes out, because you have to go out of your house to something called a "library" and look in strange objects called "books"... And if she's in a lead role, there's a good chance of her being mentioned by name in some of the reviews, isn't there? Emma white20 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, after you made this post insulting people for not doing this kind of search, I assume that you actually did the search yourself. Did you find any useful references when you did it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you need to learn the difference between insults and sarcasm... And, as a matter of fact, I've just done another Google search (can't do a library search right now, as I'm in the UK and they're all shut as it's the middle of the night here!). If you search for "Sydney Rae White" and go past the first couple of pages, you'll find several probably usable references(for example, here) to her being one of the main cast in the very latest 2009 production of 'Quadrophenia' - I guess that helps establish a bit more notability for her, doesn't it??... Emma white20 (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That article mentions her, but it isn't really about her, and doesn't say anything other than that she'll be appearing in that play. You're presenting the appearance of being a member of her family; can you recall anyone writing a newspaper or magazine article about her, or a book? Have there been reporters around the house interviewing her who might have written about her in more detail? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        How the hell would I know that? - I've got no personal or professional connection to her at all, despite what you may think! All I know about her is what I can find online or from other published sources. Think about it for a second - If I was connected with her, don't you think I'd have a list or collection of articles about her, which I'd be quoting from and using to improve the article??? Or do you think that everyone who supports the career of a lesser-known artist or performer must automatically be related to them, because that's the impression I get from some of the comments which have been made towards me?? (It's true that I AM distantly related to a currently-working British stage and TV actor, but it isn't her, and I haven't contributed to any Wikipedia article about them - if they even have one, as I've never checked to see - so there's no conflict of interest or hidden agenda here...) As for the link I included, that's just meant as an example to show that, despite what some may contend, information can be found online to confirm at least some of the details about her career, and on websites which may qualify as reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines - which gives a lie to those above claiming otherwise... And that link shows that there's scope for further research NOW, which may help to improve the article to the point where notability is established beyond doubt and it reaches the standards required. I haven't examined all of the links I found, as I don't have time right now, but it shows that there's information out there on places other than her official site or IMDb which needs to be carefully examined and followed up before any decision is taken on whether this article is deleted. Emma white20 (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only can, but done. Search for her name, past ten years and searching all available resources: "No Documents Found". Searched for "Sydney White" as well, but all results were for Sydney White (quite a few if anyone happens to be working on that article) Screen shot available if someone disbelieves it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Actress has had significant roles in notable film, TV and stage productions. Untick (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - She's had featured lead roles in various productions in major West End (London, UK) theatres. She's also appeared in a featured role on the original cast recording of an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical and in other productions. Going by what's written at WP:Entertainer ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions"), the fact that she's had significant roles in notable productions does establish notability for her too, and so justifies this article being retained. 84.65.38.7 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — 84.65.38.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Notice the top of that page Yes, that's a subcategory of WP:BIO. But the section at the top, 'basic criteria,' requires that those achievements be verifiable by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Are you aware of any? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:25, 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 keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Racers[edit]

Non-notable game, just another Xbox Live Community Game, no refs, no assertion of notability, most likely written by developer. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reliable sources covering the game, which are necessary to demonstrate notability and allow the article to expand. Someone another 14:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources are really not going to help us. XNplay's 'about' page features misc. Q&As, down the bottom you'll see the following 2: "Q: Who are you guys? A: We’re just some guys, y’know…" and "Q: Why does your news come from the demo versions? A: Because like most people using the service, we don’t have 1,000 points+ a night to throw onto games." There is no way to reconcile "some guys" who review games after playing for 8 minutes (that's the length of the demo before it cuts off) with WP:RS. What they're doing is great for the gaming community but their efforts are of no use to us on Wikipedia. Gamasutra is a great source, but the piece in question is looking at sales figures and mentions this game in a couple of sentences, this isn't significant coverage by any stretch. Likewise, IGN is another good reliable source, but their article covers 11 games in less space than they'd afford any game they were properly reviewing. It's literally 4 sentences long and stands it against Super Off Road instead of talking about Little Racers in its own right. Someone another 23:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked for your opinion. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure. If you come across any game article you're unsure about notability-wise then you're very welcome to drop me a note, likewise the video game project as a whole has a lot of collective knowledge about what sources might be available for particular types of games and if nothing else could separate lost causes from the numerous articles which can be repaired. Someone another 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someone another 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ weak keep[24], [25]. Two sources, both decent, both RS as far as I can tell. Meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. I think the coverage from the three sources is acceptable, but I agree, the two clearly reliable sources are short and the one in-depth bit of coverage is from a source that it is (at best) debatable about being a RS. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobit. There is also a stub article on IGN and a short review here [26]. The game hasn't been out long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagetto (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but possibly consider making a "Xbox Live Community Games" article that includes the section from Xbox Live Marketplace and then a list of games that have received some attention such as this one or "Miner: Dig Deep" - not enough to establish them as full game articles but should not be ignored as usable search terms on WP. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think inclusion in a broader article is the way to go, here. Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the above shows sufficient notability. MuZemike 14:05, 23 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) 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob game[edit]

un-sourced article on non-notable playground game UltraMagnus (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, but sounds interesting-- like a game of pool with army men instead of billiard balls. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's just a list of rules with no information about how the game is notable.--chaser - t 16:07, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XThe Warx[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC (and WP:V) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fol de rol troll (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any indication that this meets WP:MUSIC. They've done 1.5 CDs with Seventh Dagger Records, but despite that American company possibly having a presence in Australia, it doesn't have the history or acts necessary for the band to become notable by signing with the label. It still seems to be a minor indy. I've also bundled the albums into this AFD.--chaser - t 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:46, 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 List of Star Wars planets. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars sectors[edit]

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

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

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

Unreferenced plot summary and trivia. I realize that lists are more or less a compromise for non-notable topics, but this list contains absolutely no real-world information. Even within Star Wars, "sectors" are just window dressing mentioned in passing; planets and moons might be well-rounded enough and often important to understanding the fictional work, but that's not at all true of these larger swaths of space. Negligible improvement in any meaningful way since contested prod a year ago. --EEMIV (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a little too far into the realm of trivia to be considered wikipedia material, especially unreferenced. Copy and paste it to Wookieepedia and let them have it. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure Wookieepedia already covers this material more than sufficiently. --EEMIV (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. Dalejenkins | 14:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Star Wars planets; failing that, delete as too trivial. JJL (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If a suitable spot can be found. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for navigation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JJL, and possibly consider organizing List of Star Wars planets into a table with a column for the sector each planet belongs to.--Iner22 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly original research about fictional locations that are not the subject of any reliable sources (beyond passing mentions in reliable sources that discuss the works of fiction they belong to). Trivia, content fork, not plot, no original research or synth, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically a glossary of fictional locations that are seemingly nonnotable individually or as a group. If the sectors didn't have such fancy names and were named "sector 1", "sector 2", etc. instead, fans might not even have seen the need to create this list. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real-world information, no citations; this is essentially trivia. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, then move merged page. Obviously there's no real world need for this list, the same goes for every other list (or article) of fictional things. List needs a no ref tag, though. And if the sectors were just called "Sector 1," etc., the list would still exist, and it would probably be the same. That's my two scents 15:19, 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 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Porritt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Prod removed (did not realise this had been to AfD before). Player's notability stems largely from a corruption case WP:NOTNEWS as discussed in first AfD. Second AfD seemed to be confused about whether playing youth football at World level merited inclusion- consensus seems to have been reached since then that it doesn't. He still has the one England u-17 game to his name and nothing else. Currently fails WP:ATHLETE Stu.W UK (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - between the notoriety over his transfer case, and the coverage given when playing for the England junior side, there is enough to get him over the barrier of WP:N, which trumps WP:ATHLETE. - fchd (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The FA link is a dead, although I suspect that source would fail WP:NTEMP.

International football players' notability is independent of their age. It doesn't matter if they're under 17 or over 30. People like this should be judged on the WP:GNG. WP:ATHLETE is only an addition to that, not a replacement. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he played for the England senior squad I would completely agree, but he didn't. He played one match for the under 17s. He hasn't appeared at the highest level i.e. senior squad. As for the transfer case, that's a reason to have an article on the case, not the player (although there's a case to make that even that would go against WP:NOTNEWS). If you want to say he meets WP:N without WP:ATHLETE, I would also query which of the given sources are non-trivial. Stu.W UK (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still discriminating based on age. U17s have a highest level they can play at too. The only reason they're not playing on senior squads because they legally can't. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no legal restriction on the age a player can play for their national team, or play professional football. An obvious example would be Wayne Rooney, who was playing for Everton in the Premier League at 16, and England at 17.Stu.W UK (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....and Gareth Bale played for Wales (the full men's senior team) at age 16 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:N. Giant Snowman 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again- which of the sources are non-trivial? If some non-trivial sources are added to the article I'll happily withdraw my nomination Stu.W UK (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this one more time. If anyone can tell me which of the article's sources are non-trivial, or add some non-trivial sources, then I'll remove my nomination. Stu.W UK (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing they mean this one, as the others don't cover enough about him to pass WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 00:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If his notability stems solely from the 2006 allegations of corruption in English football, why not redirect there, as decided at 1st AfD? Stu.W UK (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Article seems to be more about the corruption of his move, rather than the player's footballing exploits. --Jimbo^[online] 13:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jimbo - if the player had received some coverage for his exploits on the field then we could debate the old "WP:ATHLETE vs WP:N" argument, but as the coverage is only for dodgy dealings by agents which happened to centre on this lad then he doesn't merit a break-out article from the already existing one on the scandal..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect notable only because of a corruption case, but if we have an article about the case it's much better to redirect this article into it. --Angelo (talk) 08:37, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Zappa[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because my PROD tag was removed without any amendment to the article. I don't believe that Zappa is notable outside of being Frank Zappa's daughter. A google search seems to suggest she is a minor actress, but there's no viable source outside of IMDB. I had previously used the 'notability' tag and another editor has added the 'cite' tag, again these were removed with no further edit, but have been subsequently added back to the article. Fol de rol troll (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. My first reaction was, "What? Of course the Zappa kids are notable." But notability is not hereditary, and I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing her; the closest I came up with was a press release for an art installation she did. I hope that someone else will have better luck. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect any salient information to Frank Zappa after deleting , although the name would remain as a redirect and someone could recreate in the future. ~~Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)~~Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not suggesting we merge and delete, are you?--chaser - t 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's meant is merge the information into Frank Zappa and have Diva Zappa as a redirect to Frank Zappa, allowing for the page to be recreated if DZ becomes notable. I think :) Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond reliable sources, there's nothing here worth merging. Redirecting after deleting would discourage re-creation until she becomes more notable.--chaser - t 16:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of independent notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:57, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SYNC (webcomic)[edit]

Non-notable webcomic; lack of reliable sources. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 11:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is no more notable than the thousands (tens of thousands? millions?) of other non-notable web comics; I cannot find any reliable sources that would indicate otherwise through my own search. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Extvia. I'm not sure why the comic needs to be at AfD if there is already an article on the artist writing it, but merging would seem the most appropriate route. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Extvia for deletion a minute before I nominated this article. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comic appears to have only started in the last couple of weeks.--Iner22 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search turns up little other than deviantArt links. No major independent third party coverage. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:41, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extvia[edit]

Non-notable webcomic artist; lack of reliable sources. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 11:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person meets the notability criteria just about as well as I do- we both exist, can be verified to exist, and have web sites. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FisherQueen.--Iner22 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search turns up little other than deviantArt links. No major independent third party coverage. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Retain.~~ According to the "Creative professionals" section of the aforementioned Notability Standards page, I believe this artist can be considered "Notable" by the widespread respect given by his peers and appreciators. Evidence of this can been seen by his extensive list of deviantART "watchers," people who elect to receive notifications every time he submits a work onto the website (the list can be reached here). The situation is similar with another site which he has an art profile page at, Fur Affinity, at which he has no less than 3,767 watchers. If that's not enough, four of his pieces have received deviantART.com's "Daily Deviation" status. His "Okami Hill Autumn" also ranks 9^th most popular anthropomorphic artwork[27] on deviantART at the time of this posting, and his deviantART profile page sports over 964,000 page views. I would therefore assert that he is rather popular within his genre. --Madcomputerscientist (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for considering, Orbital Delegate, and I'll trust your judgment. I relinquish my previous stance. --Madcomputerscientist (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be considered notable by the community he's a member of, but as far as I can tell he doesn't meet our specific notability standards. Orbital Delegate (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Dethlock99 (talk) 14:54, 22 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outskirts press[edit]

I started off trying to fix this article, but came to the conclusion that it is one of the most blatant pieces of promotion that I've come across. However, it does appear that it has published one or two books by reasonably notable authors. What do other people think, please? Deb (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The place is pretty well-known in the writing community. There's probably some reliable sources to replace this with a reasonable stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Keep, passes WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability even though the article requires a considerable amount of rework. Jll (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it pass these? I don't see many references on google, and most of those that are there are clearly not independent. (I'm not saying it's not notable, but I don't see clear evidence that it is.) Deb (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, forget I said that. You've done a damn good job of cleaning it up. Deb (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Deb. The company has received significant coverage in some secondary sources, for example the Denver Business Journal citations in the article and a review at [28], and I think its having published some notable books strengthens its hand. However having spent a futile half an hour trying to find more good secondary sources, there doesn't seem to be that much out there and so I think it is fairly borderline, and have changed my opinion to weak keep. Jll (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue expanding per [29], [30], and [31]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly press releases released by this company. This and this are all books released by this company (or the words "outskirts press" in that order, as a coincidental pair), at least five pages in. Gesturing vaguely at Google searches isn't sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plenty of vanity presses around, this one doesn't seem notable. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue to expand based upon a growing number of sources. While using Google and searching for Outskirts Press, the 3rd listing on page 1 offers a 3rd party review of Outskirts Press in comparison with 9 similar companies. In this review of the top 10 self-publishing providers, Outskirts Press ranks 3rd, bested by iUniverse and AuthorHouse (both of which are in Wikipedia). In fact, even the #7 company, Xlibris, also appears in Wikipedia. Seems to me the Gold, Silver, and Bronze companies of this unaffiliated reviewer ( www.top10reviews.com ) should appear in WikiPedia, since The New York Times cited the importance of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia reference. Then, in continuing my Google search, the 4th listing on page 1 offers a thorough review of Outskirts Press from not only a 3rd party source, but from a competitor. This competitor seems to consider Outskirts Press notable, going so far as to compose a comprehensive primer on Outskirts Press on its own website. Going further on the Google search, the 5th listing on page 1 references a 3rd party source for a non-fiction reference book titled “The Fine Print of Self-Publishing” by Mark Levine. Outskirts Press appears in this 3rd party source on pages 121 to 129. Another 3rd party book, “Top Self-Publishing Firms” by Stacie Vander Pol organizes self-publishing companies by size and average sales rank of its authors. This 3rd party book places Outskirts Press as the #1 book in its “Large and Medium Sized” firms category on pages 50-52. Continuing my Google search, the 9th listing on page 1 offers a 3rd party review of Outskirts Press posted by blogger Mick Rooney, posted on July 25, 2008, which states that the current title count on Amazon is 2800+ and further states “One only has to browse reputable POD writer forums in the United States to see how popular this publisher has become with authors looking to utilized [sic] the print on demand publishing option. They happily mix it in the industry with the big hitters like iUniverse, Authorhouse and Lulu.” (By the way, all three of these other referenced companies are in Wikipedia.). 2800+ titles on Amazon? Sounds notable, especially to those 2800 authors, some of which have their very books listed in Wikipedia. I ask, how can a book be listed in WikiPedia and the publisher is not? So I continued my investigation on Amazon.com and did an advanced book search by publisher. Outskirts Press currently has 4,035 books on Amazon. According to Rooney’s post, they had 2800 on July 25th. In 10 months, Outskirts Press added 1,235 new books to its inventory. That’s 120 new books a month, on average. Isn’t that more than some New York Publishers produce? I looked at the number of titles fellow vanity-publisher Trafford Publishing published last month (March 2009) and it published 89. Yet, Trafford is on WikiPedia and recently survived its own article discussion, by producing 31 fewer titles than Outskirts Press. User A Man in Black (above) is right, Google alone isn’t sourcing, yet in this case, Google alone seems like enough to keep this article, along with the Amazon stats, and let’s not forget The Denver Business Journal citations already included in the article itself, as noted by user Jll (above). 20:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before you dig yourself in any deeper. Deb (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for contributing the article. To sign your name and add the date you put four ~ like this ~~~~.

The first source [32] looks good to me and I have added it.
I am not convinced about the numbers of books argument - using Amazon advanced search (assuming I am using it correctly) shows that Outskirts Press published around 1,600 books in 2008, but this is small in comparison to the 926,000 books in total Amazon lists as published in 2008.
The argument that articles on other similar publishers exist is not a strong one since the Wikipedia inclusion criteria is about "notability" and "verifiability" — if one thing is notable and verifiable then it does not automatically mean that all other things like it are. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is an essay about it.
Self-published books (and blogs) are frequently not considered good sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29), although I have doubts about that here because any book about self-publishing will probably itself be self-published for the sensible reason that it demonstrates the author practices what s/he preaches.

On the other hand, the article now cites two news articles from one source, and links two other independent sources. Jll (talk) 12:56, 24 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) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Musatov[edit]

To what degree is a screenwriter notable? This one has written an article about himself, with no sources that would meet WP:RS. He's the credited cowriter of one notable film, but I couldn't find any independent writing about him, and his Wikipedia account appears mainly devoted to self-promotion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know this isn't particularly helpful, but the fact that the film has an entry and appears to involve a number of notable people pushes me slightly towards a keep. On the other hand, one would have imagined that there would be some independent reference - I suppose there is a slight possibility that he isn't the same Martin Musatov. Deb (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question- But without any reliable sources, what verifiable information could go into an article about him? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've found good references confirming the connection of Martin Musatov with this film, and decent evidence connecting the subject to our persistent indef blocked user User:Martin.musatov. I was honestly shocked, I assumed it was just a troll lying for attention. It's possible a clueless Variety author picked it up from IMDB, but I believe it. In any case what we've got here is a marginally notable screenwriter who happens to have delusions of grandeur and a very poorly thought out idea to use Wikipedia to win a million dollars. Dcoetzee 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case I'm going to contact Variety about this. Dcoetzee 11:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The film certainly exists: one can borrow it from Netflix. I don't see any particular reason to doubt that Variety gave the correct list of screenwriters. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would apply the same rules to screenwriters as I do to actors (in other words they're a WP:CREATIVE professional). They should have written at least 2 notable produced scripts, won an award for their work or have received significant coverage in reliable sources as a whole. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There used to be more content to this article, though it was still a stub. I removed everything that could not be reliably sourced, per WP:BLP. I think the crankery and sockpuppetry associated with User:Martin.musatov should lead us to be especially careful with sourcing on this one. It is clear that there exists a screenwriter named Martin or Marty Musatov, because it says so in the Variety article, but I don't think we should accept any other information from IMDB on this one, because we have no way of knowing who edited IMDB or how reliable their sources are. I am not entirely convinced that the P=NP crank and the screenwriter are even the same person, though it seems likely that the P=NP Musatov and the Wikipedia sockpuppeteer Musatov are the same person. So, as for this AfD, I think the only thing we have to go on is screenwriter for a single movie that while real has no special claims of notability (the main article about the movie states that it went direct-to-DVD in the US). I don't think that's enough to keep the article. Note: if this ends up being deleted, so should the disambiguation page at Musatov (and perhaps the dab should be deleted regardless as it has only two entries). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, per nominator. I had a poke around google myself and the bulk of the hits seem to be user generated material and there just doesn't seem to be enough RS and V compliant sources for an article. I don't think being a co-writer of a film that went "straight to DVD" is sufficient for a claim of notability. Sarah 03:35, 23 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) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Monty[edit]

This actor appeared in a single film. I found a single review that called him adorable, but other than that, there is no significant coverage about him or any indication he won any awards. The article fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG and should therefore be deleted Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Kingpin13 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect to the article about the film? Deb (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and source. Unlike the nom who found one review, I somehow found he and his character in many reliable sources, including Chicago Tribune, NRC Handelsblad, Daily Press, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dallas Morning News, etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i find no sources on my own (this BLP currently has none in it) that would establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:53, 22 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/snowball keep. The notability of geographic places is well established.--chaser - t 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crow, Texas[edit]

Fails WP:N. --Skater (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The major map services show it as a placemark, and unincorporation is not a guidline to deletion of a community article. Nate • (chatter) 11:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources might be misplaced, but the external links are valid sources and clearly show this is a real inhabited place, which are commonly considered notable as long as they're verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mgm. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a real geographical location. - Dravecky (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per precedent, even an unincorporated community does not fail WP:N. Mandsford (talk) 15:50, 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 no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Scribner[edit]

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball (unless MID Mid-season all-star is being selected for an all-star game, which I don't think it is) which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added quite a few sources, as well as a link to the scout.com interview. Those, added to the all-star appearance, put Scribner into the "keep" column for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The sourcing isn't great, but it's enough to meet WP:N. BRMo (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article establishes the notability of the player, passes WP:ATHLETE, and is sourced. Borgarde (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the addition of the new references, I do not think the player meets the requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 00:42, 23 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. Wizardman 17:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Semerano[edit]

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor leaguer.--Giants27 ^T/C 18:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Cunard (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've added a number of sources to the article, as well as info about Baseball America ranking him a number 3 prospect in New York State. While I'd like to see more, I think this nudges him over the line.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although Fabrictramp found a couple of articles profiling him, they appear to be from his hometown paper; I'd like to see significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. BRMo (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 01:22, 23 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) 01:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock legends of Ukraine[edit]

Nominating for deletion, as non-notable commercial recompilation of material available on primary albums. Galassi (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 03:40, 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. Arguments for retention focus overly on giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor and do not fully address the issues of the stated WP:MUSIC violations. I am, obviously, open to a userfication request for further work Fritzpoll (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas R. Vozzella[edit]

Non-notable performer and arranger. Only 264 Google hits, and apparently most are websites which sell his arrangements. The editor who created the page only contributed to this article, plus a few composer biographies where he tried adding links to said commercial websites. Jashiin (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to fix my mistakes on this article. I am doing this for a friend of a friend. Some said to put external links, so I linked his compositions to composers of the compositions. Now the article is up for deletion. Some newbies could use more help and patience from experienced users. Not everyting that is done is on purpose, just don't know what to do. Help, and patience, please? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the authors’ intent to break Wiki rules. It was purely an attempt to do what another suggested. Everyone wants to be helpful, but sometimes the assumption is that there is some overt intent to get away with something, etc. that needs to be exposed. Well it was a pure mistake. This article has been challenged prior, with regard to its worthiness on Wikipedia, and was retained. This was the authors first attempt at an article, a mistake or two were made, and it is being put up for deletion again. A little help would be nice, rather than condemnation. This author has done every suggestion, or at least tried, although wrong, without suggestions to fix is a pretty difficult when you are new to Wikipedia, and or have very little experience at writing articles, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the AfD process is not a "condemnation", as you put it. It is a discussion on whether to keep the article or not, and the result of this discussion still may be to keep it, depending on the consensus. Second, you didn't make any "mistakes". This discussion is here not because of how the article is written, but because the subject of the article may not be notable enough for an encyclopedia. So there is no need to appeal for help and patience, noone is judging you. We're merely trying to determine the subject's notability. So the only way you can help here is by citing more reliable sources: published reviews of Vozzella's work, articles on him from other encyclopedias, references to his works in publications by others, recordings of his music, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional material was added in support of this article. Just as a note: Just because submissions cannot be proven via the web, does not denote their non-existence. Many of the Journal references, etc. are not available on the web. Old fashion library research is required. All of these references, etc. are sited. In order to prove the existence of compositions links to these sites are required. They have been removed as they have been said to be commercial. Some of this is a two edged sword; wrong if you do, wrong if you don't. This person is highly involved in the choral conducting field, because of his work in the church; visibility on the web is minimal (but in terms of those in the church music field 200+ hits on Google is great). Having choirs perform and ACDA and MENC events is not a small accomplishment. Having choral compositions published is also a huge accomplishment in the choral field. Dr. Vozzella, is notable, and his achievements supersede many in the field. If he were an orchestral conductor and did not work in the church, his visibility would be increased ten-fold. I do hope you will re-consider removing Dr. Vozzella for deletion, in consideration of the above. Also, this author is open to corrections, suggestions, etc. and has, to his detriment followed the suggestions of others, as can be seen in the history of this article.MusicTex (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC) MusicTex (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I would prefer to give the article's author the benefit of the doubt in his claim that web-based content relating to the article's subject, as a means of validating notability, is minimal. However, I would point out that listing the subject's 'private label' recordings and private commissions do not establish any claim. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this article has added additional references, and deleted compositions that have no web based references. The published compositions had links previously. However, it was suggested that these links were too commercial in nature. Thusly they have been removed. The recordings have been up-dated to include the distributors of the recordings. If this is not acceptable, they will be removed. Each thing that this author does is to follow the suggestions of the many people that make them. There might be too much help coming, as everyone has their own ideas and thoughts. Probably after all the suggested changes, additions etc. are made, the article may revert to the one originally published. That article did not have this much attention, and/or suggestions. Again, this author is making all the changes, etc. that are suggested. I respectively ask that it be left, and allowed to develop. Thank you! MusicTex (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the article in its present state in line with Wikipedia:Notability (music). The key criteria here is that the subject has " been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician . . . and reliable." If there are bona fide independent reviews of the subject's work, I'd be happy to reconsider. --Klein zach 10:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jashiin, Kleinzach. Eusebeus (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Said compositions are published by firms that specialize in choral music. The articles and published reviews are in the Choral Journal. News paper articles, where available, have been link to support claims. Maybe looking at the items and fixing things would be helpful. Isn’t anyone free to edit. Well edit, and check the sources. Just because you haven’t heard of them, doesn’t constitute their validity or lack thereof. There seems to be a push to delete without true discourse. MusicTex (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I'm rather concerned by the original author's recent behaviour, and I'm inclined to recommend delete, as well, but I'm going to spend a bit of energy cleaning it up until it's inevitably done away with (yes, I really do expect its deletion). I must be going soft or something. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person seems to be notable in his field, having performed in the White House, etc. If someone wants to form a "gang" to delete all articles that do not really meet WP's strict notability standards please let me know. I will be glad to join. Soon 90% of WP will be gone and that will be a great thing all around. Until then there is no reason to single this article out for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone who performs at the (Washington) White House automatically notable? To Steve Dufour: all publications need to decide what they should, or shouldn't be covering. That's unavoidable. What we are trying to do here is apply rules that are fair and even-handed, and lead to objective decisions. Do you want to take part in the process? --Klein zach 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I take part in AfD and other discussions.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Userfy to User:MusicTex/sandbox/Thomas R. Vozzella and let it be brought back when it gets cleaned up. No need to discourage new editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the user in question started editing in early November 2008. Hardly a "new user". --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there are paper based sources, then surely these could be listed. I'm inclined to believe that that Vozzella has minor notability and that a poor article is not reason alone for deletion. Fol de rol troll (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain/very weak keep so that the article can be improved. Per above comments, I feel that the article's subject could potentially be notable, as long as references are found. If references are not found, then the article can be deleted, and right now, that is the case. Hopefully someone from the Article Rescue Squadron can come and fix it: the article has potential, but again, only if sources are found. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:BIO based on the sources provided. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The "My West Texas" article, which seems to be one of the few truly independent of the subject, if not the only one, looks to me as if it might qualify as a trivial mention. If that is true, then there is a serious question of the subject's notability. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me share, once again, that in the choral field, the number of compositions he has published, journal articles and reviews, as well as major performance venues is more than many of the bios in Wikipedia that have gone un-challenged. Ones field, publications, etc, may vary. In the field of church music, Dr. Vozzella is a leader in the field. Choral conductors and church musicians, as stated above are not as high profile as orchestral conductors. However, on the merits of having 29 years experience, and his accomplishments, he far exceeds in the field of church music, which seems to be his primary field of practice. In choral music, a single choral composition that is published is equal to one recording (1,000’s of copies, and used by 1,000’s of people). He performs weekly on radio, television, and live web casts, and pod casts. And, again, many who challenge this article are relying solely on web references. There are numerous references that are hardbound that will be added. However, that takes a bit more time than just surfing the web, as has much of his research and published works taken. He is the sole authority on the music from T. S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral. All of these achievements together are more than enough notability in the field of choral and church music. MusicTex (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly stated that choral composers, arrangers and conductors are "not as high profile as orchestral conductors", that "in the church music field 200+ hits on Google is great", etc.; and from your words it seems that church and choral music are fields shunned by most, obscure, and difficult to study using online resources. However, some simple Google searches produce, for instance, choral composer/arranger John Rutter: 346,000 Google hits, a great number of compositions and arrangements, recordings produced by various artists other than Rutter himself, published compositions, reviews.. anything you want. Or here's another choral composer/arranger/conductor, less prominent: Alice Parker. There are 82,000 Google hits for her, and again, massive lists of compositions, recordings, reviews, etc. And both Rutter and Parker are living persons. Seems to me that contemporary choral music isn't that obscure, and that 200+ hits are not particularly great.

According to you, plenty of paper references exist that "will be added", but when will they be? Your article is 6 months old, plenty of time to add some. Suppose you didn't know you should provide references. But this AfD is 11 days old, so you've known about the references problem for more than a week, AND you have an opportunity to ask Dr. Vozzella personally - but the article is still not referenced properly. The "Worship Arts Journal" seems to be something really, really obscure - there are five Google hits, two of which are to your mentions of it on Wikipedia and CPDL. And what are the Choral Journal articles? Does "James Jordan review" stand for a review of Jordan's work by Vozzella, or a review of Vozzella's work by Jordan? None of the issues cited are available at the Choral Journal website. If those are reviews written by Vozzella, they're not really references showing his notability.

To recapitulate, your main points are that (1) choral composers are generally obscure, and (2) plenty of references for Dr. Vozzella exist, only not available online. However, (1) is easily disproven with Google, as I have demonstrated. As for (2), we have only your word for it. The way things are now, it looks like Dr. Vozzella has composed two choral pieces (and produced a dozen arrangements) and released some self-published records of own works. And the entire situation looks like a textbook example of WP:COI, complete with tries to advertise the subject by adding commercial links. --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone’s assistance. If it is still here when I get to a library, I will work on it, if not, it will be gone. I tried, oh well, lesson learned. Thanks! MusicTex (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep per [33], [34], [35] and author's wish to contiue improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again? MichaelQSchmidt: You've already given us your opinion once before (see above 17 April). --Klein zach 23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. Struck earlier userfy vote based upon continued good faith wish to improve. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards Delete here, doesn't quite tick all the boxes and seems to rely too heavily on one source I'd call questionable. I think we're into areas of wondering if the article is a little self-serving. Hiding T 13:51, 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.

Tickle torture[edit]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. I'm honestly surprised that people would rather have a bad article than no article about a subject, but I accept the consensus here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It seems there is little hope for improvement and it would better be gone than stay in its present condition. I must admit, it made me laugh, especially the part about the goat licking the salt solution. But this is not the place for humour. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember this as a commonly used term. Perhaps we can redirect to Tickling? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cull to one or two lines, include a few of the existing tenuous references, and Merge to the tickling article, in particular, the purpose of tickling section (i.e., the purpose of tickling as 'torture'). Hazir (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim to a very short paragraph and merge to Tickling. This doesn't appear to be a notable enough or real enough topic for a stand-alone article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Needs to be cleaned up and sourced better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Embarrassment to wikipedia is not a deletion criteria. There are plenty of articles on this site that cover topics some may consider embarrassing to read. But this article does appear to fail in other areas. Since the term is common enough to be notable, I think the article needs cleanup rather than deletion.—RJH (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not Censored is the relevant policy about embarrassment., but I can see a merge. DGG (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is an embarassment to Wikipedia. It provides no evidence to support its assertion that there is little hope that the article will be improved and I have just refuted this by adding citations to a couple of good sources which I found amongst the hundreds of possibilities. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this WP:Notable "embarrassment" per WP:AFTER and discuss further sourcing and article trimming on talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references confirming it does exist, and it has been used as a form of torture in the past. Dream Focus 11:53, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse scandal in Cloyne diocese[edit]

No evidence of particular notability is given here. Seems like just more piling on, and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in Miami archdiocese, where there is a keep consensus. Also, this affair is very notable in Ireland, you would know it if you read the Irish newspapers on a regular basis. ADM (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the Miami article covers events over a couple of decades. This appears to deal with the fallout from a report required by processes which were put in place and then ignored. If it had caused the processes to be put in place in the first place, I'd agree it was notable enough for an article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:OTHERSTUFF - you'll have to show that the subject of this article is notable enough in it's own right.
Keep. The subject-matter is quite obviously notable, a major scandal involving Church and State - so notable in fact that it has prompted the involvement of the Pope (would you like to tell Benedict that he's made a mistake?) PiCo (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On quite a few counts, yes--but not this one in particular. I don't think papal action necessarily indicates notability in this case, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - Wikipedia is NOTNEWS.--Vidkun (talk) 12:31, 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, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
Grounds for deletion cited are notability and NOTNEWS. However, notability is satisfied because there has been nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, and notnews is satisfied because (to quote notnews), "news coverage goes beyond a single event". (The events in question include the Sunday Tribune's initial breakage of the story, Sean Sherlock's intervention, the apologies, the Pope's intervention, and the Commission of Inquiry, which all receive separate coverage.)
Therefore, no valid reason for deletion survives a serious examination of the subject.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews (is there a procedure for this?). (Transwiki not possible for legal reasons.) Merge/rename ([perhaps as a section in new article Sexual abuse scandal in Ireland) - needs to focus on the wider/historical significance. Pretty well written for WP:NOTNEWS, and even has references at the end instead of inline, Wikinews-style. As to S Marshall's second point: I'd say these are all aspects of one event, not separate, unrelated events. NB: Classic sign A of One News Event: no incoming links from other WP articles. (I realise the article is only a week old, but in this case I don't see much potential for linking either; it hardly merits a footnote in Catholic sex abuse cases.) Classic sign B of One News Event: obvious parent (Sexual abuse scandal in Ireland or similar) doesn't exist. Rd232 ^talk 22:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that if it's one event with several aspects, then those aspects are remarkably widely-separated in time.

I suppose it's a tenable point of view that this is "one event" that spans several months, but I should think that stretches the meaning of "one event" rather too far.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically a series of related events comprises an episode. (The distinction between an event and an episode canbe argued endlessly, it's basically a matter of analytical convenience.) One Episode is still WP:NOT#NEWS for the details of that episode. It should be included only if and to the extent that the episode casts light on the broader issue. Rd232 ^talk 22:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, improve substantially and perhaps rename. The article was no sooner begun than it was nominated for deletion. Lots of points missing such as this, this and doesn't the "walking priest" himself deserve some sort of mention? The Augustinian cleric launched the atonement walk after what he described as "the inexcusable" Diocese of Cloyne abuse allegations. He said he found these to be "the lowest ebb" of a sad, tragic story for the Church.", "Hundreds of supporters of a protesting priest will cheer his arrival in the Pro-Cathedral today on the final leg of his marathon 'atonement' walk from Cork to Dublin.", "Fr Michael also confirmed that he had had a number of calls from victims of abuse who were interested in what he was doing and the message he was promoting. There is certainly no shortage of sources if this were handled in the correct way. --candle•wicke 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is now part of history as are the other articles in the parent category. Certainly notable. Needs improvment? Then improve it. Hmains (talk) 04:06, 22 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) 01:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death Note Vs Detective Conan[edit]

Well produced but obvious hoax, no sources cited, no external (English nor Japanese) sources back up its claims, and there's not a shred of evidence that this is anything more than a hoax. Hoax and PROD tags removed by original author.ShakingSpirit ^talk 10:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously a hoax. The "references" and external links don't mention any such crossover. It has been created by an editor responsible for another hoax on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddie Mercury Duets 08), and there may well have been more. I'm surprised this has not been speedily deleted under CSD G3. Astronaut (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having watched the anime show, I can be pretty sure this is a hoax.--Iner22 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a hoax. Calathan (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax 300% --KrebMarkt 19:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per CSD G3. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above comments. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 16:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:44, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ergonized[edit]

Content management system being promoted by its developers. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For what it's worth, a Gsearch doesn't show any hint of notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Note the the company that made the software is NeoCreo which is also the username of the author. And in addition to spam, it also fails notability with absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I couldn't find all the product features noted on their web site. But instead found the "Ergonized Ecommerce Features" section in its entirety at this site. Bizarre! -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 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 Australian rules football culture#Betting. Too many comments to relist per WP:RELIST. COnsensus is for the mateiral to be included elsewhere. This seems the obvious target from the discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footy tipping[edit]

This article does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Sure, there are quite a few mentions of "footy tipping" but it's scarcely discussed in a non-trivial way. The fact that many people participate in online/office footy tipping does not make it notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. We don't have articles for e.g. NCAA brackets, NFL suicide pools, AFL last man standing contests etc. This article is of no encyclopedic value and it exists purely as a vehicle for spam. There's nothing in it that couldn't be summarised in one or two lines and added to Australian rules football culture. I would be happy to do this. Hazir (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. Per nom, does not meet general noteabillity clause. Agree with nom to be merged with Australian rules football culture. GO PIES! -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.

Keep If you look hard enough (try adding site:news.com.au or site:theage.com.au etc to your google searches) you find more than just trivial coverage, ie the sociology of tipping, the business of tipping and the politics of tipping. Some are promotional in nature, but I'm sure that someone, somewhere has done a PhD on tipping! The-Pope (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first article does discuss footy tipping in a non trivial way (while giving a few sites a plug along the way) but there's nothing substantive in it that couldn't be summarised neatly in Australian rules football culture. The latter two articles are specific to Tattersall/footytips.com.au and have little relevance to a general article about 'footy tipping'. Hazir (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thanks, this nom reminded me to put in my NRL tips for this week! =) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Unsourced at the moment but I doubt sources would be too hard to find. Definitely notable enough for a standalone article IMO. Querey merging with similar betting competitions? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Definitely" notable because you "doubt" it will be hard to find sources? This is not really helpful. What content is there that necessitates a stand alone article? Have you looked at Australian rules football culture? This is where the article could be easily merged. Hazir (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well it took me all of 30 seconds to find those three non-trivial sources. In response to your dismissing of the business side of footy tipping, I think it's what makes it notable... if it was just a pub/office type of thing, then it should be hidden away in a culture article. Given it has become big business, with politicians using it as a key election platform and businesses based on it being sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, I think that's pretty notable. The history and failure of Tipstar might be worth it's own article, but for now would fit nicely into a footy tipping article, but not really into a Aussie rules culture article. Yes, the article needs a lot of work, yes it appears to be a target for some vandalism/spamming, but that isn't a valid reason for deleting. The-Pope (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Tipstar has no place in a general article about footy tipping. It certainly does not fit 'nicely'. If we are to include this content, then what about Oztips, AFL.com.au tipping, NineMSN tipping, Realfooty tipping, Bigfooty, Lastmanstanding? I'm sure articles could be dug up about the trials and tribulations of many footy tipping enterprises. I maintain that there's no need for a stand alone enclyclopedic article about footy tipping. It's just a betting pool game that people like to play in Australia. Some do it in the office, some do it online, there's various sites, some are free, some are not. This is easily summarised in a few lines and added to Australian rules football culture, where it is not such a magnet for spam. Hazir (talk) 18:03, 23 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. Also hundreds of sources in news archives. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Krom[edit]

Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How have you determined this? Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mayors are generally notable (see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians). JJL (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mayor of a city as large as Irvine seems notable to me. Certainly we should keep this until the Congressional race is decided Vartanza (talk) 05:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bartolo Nardini[edit]

Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How have you determined this? Uncle G (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't look notable. MyDog22 (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - World leader in high-quality grappa, article rewritten with refs. Black Kite 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notable enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Two refs, one better than the other. Firm hundreds of years old with large share of world market for a well known product. Edison (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (or should I say extremely strong keep to balance out the weak ones above?) per WP:COMMONSENSE. Verified to produce a quarter of the world's supply of grappa - how much more notability could anyone possibly want? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improve is my vote. Nardini makes a large number of grappa as well as amaro and rabarbaro, etc. This article only scratches the surface. Shabbychef (talk) 20:39, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bart N. Locanthi[edit]

non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Locanthi is, as an AES and ASA fellow, and AES Gold Medal recipient, very notable. Pent112 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not notability. If you want to easily prove Alan Liefting's pretty much nonexistent rationale false, cite multiple independent reliable sources that cover this person's life and works in depth. I see that you had already cited one (a page-long article in the JAES) before the article was even nominated. Cite some more. You'll give the closing administrator something clearly and strongly founded in deletion policy to hang xyr hat on, which cannot be said of that nomination rationale. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it says he's a guy of vision and genius. MyDog22 (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A search of Bart Locanthi with google delivered hundreds of hits. A few of them:
- [36]
- [37]
- [38]
- [39] Pent112 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's more like it. That gives the discussion specific sources to address. If you can find and cite sources that are primarily about Locanthi, discussing him in depth, that will help to make your case watertight. Uncle G (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Needs clean up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable US person. Ronroth (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources found by Pent112. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are available to establish notability. --J^mundo 20:43, 23 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triune Continuum Paradigm[edit]

Non-notable topic of research and WP:COI. The article and Google / Google Scholar indicate few if any coverage which the article author and inventor of this "paradigm" did not co-author. Contested PROD, see also the article talk page. Sandstein 09:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with "Non-notable topic of research" was discussed in the article talk page. The non-notability was disapproved by the factual evidence: existence of verifiable and reliable sources (refereed academic publications by international publishers who are completely independent from the article's author).

The only remaining issue seems to be a suspected conflict of interest; the existence on the conflict does not look justified (see the discussion from the article talk page). (Aipetri (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Also, the factual evidence disproves "Google / Google Scholar" argument of Sandstein. Here are some publications that were not (co)authored by the article's author, that refer to the Triune Continuum Paradigm and that were found using the aforementioned Internet search tools only:

[1] J.P.A. Almeida, G. Guizzardi. On the Foundation for Roles in RM-ODP: Contributions from Conceptual Modelling, Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on ODP for Enterprise Computing (WODPEC 2007), the 11-th IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2007). Annapolis, Maryland, USA, October 2007. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/EDOCW.2007.21

[2] P. Balabko. Situation-Based Modeling Framework for Enterprise Architecture. PhD Thesis 3234, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology – Lausanne, EPFL 2005.

[3] P. Balabko, A. Wegmann. Precise Graphical Representation of Roles in Requirements Engineering, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Engineering Methods to Support Information Systems Evolution, EMSISE’03, Geneva, Switzerland, September 2003.

[4] R.M. Dijkman. Consistency in multi-viewpoint architectural design. PhD thesis 06-80, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, 2006.

[5] R.M. Dijkman, J.P.A. Almeida, D.A.C. Quartel. Verifying the Correctness of Component-Based Applications that Support Business Processes, Proceedings of the 6th ICSE Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering: Automated Reasoning and Prediction, pp. 43-48, Portland, Oregon, USA, May 2003.

[6] R.M. Dijkman, D.A.C. Quartel, M.J. van Sinderen. Consistency in multi-viewpoint design of enterprise information systems, Information and Software Technology, Volume 50, Issues 7-8, pp. 737-752. June 2008, Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2007.07.007

[7] R.M. Dijkman, D.A.C. Quartel, L.F. Pires, M.J. van Sinderen. An approach to relate viewpoints and modeling languages, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2003, pp. 14-27, September 2003, IEEE publishing. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/EDOC.2003.1233834

[8] R.M. Dijkman, D.A.C. Quartel, L.F. Pires, M.J. van Sinderen. A rigorous approach to relate enterprise and computational viewpoints, Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2004, pp. 187-200, September 2004, IEEE publishing. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/EDOC.2004.1342515

[9] M. K. Farooq , S. Shamail , A. M. Mian, Reference model for devolution in e-governance, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 351. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 123-129. December 2008, Cairo, Egypt.

[10] S.I. Herrera, M.M. Clusella, G.N. Tkachuk, P.A. Luna. How System Models Contributes to the Design of Information Systems, Proceedings of the First World Congress of the International Federation for Systems Research (IFSR 2005): The New Roles of Systems Sciences For a Knowledge-based Society; Kobe, Japan, November 2005.

[11] D. José, A. Wegmann, G. Regev. Expressing Systemic Contexts in Visual Models of System Specifications. Proceedings of the Workshop on Context Modeling and Decision Support. T. Bui, A. Gachet (Eds.) Paris, CEUR-WS, Volume 144, July 2005.

[12] K. Lano. A compositional semantics of UML-RSDS. Software and Systems Modeling. Volume 8, Number 1, pp. 85-116. February 2009, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. DOI 10.1007/s10270-007-0064-x

[13] K. Lano. Using B to verify UML Transformations, Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Model design and Validation (MODEVA 2006), B. Baudry, D. Hearnden, N. Rapin, J. G. Süß (Eds.), pp. 46-61; Genova, Italy, October 2006.

[14] L.S. Le, A. Wegmann. Definition of an Object-Oriented Modeling Language for Enterprise Architecture. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS’05); p. 222a. Hawaii, USA, Jan. 2005, IEEE publishing. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.186

[15] L.S. Le, A. Wegmann. Meta-model for Object-Oriented Hierarchical Systems. Technical report No. IC/2004/47, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne. EPFL, 2004.

[16] R.A. Lopez Toro. Estimation des risques d'incohérence liés à l'emploi d'UML pour le développement des systèmes. PhD Thesis No 961, Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Toulouse, 2009.

[17] O. Ukrainets. UFO-element presentation in metamodel structure of triune continuum paradigm. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technologies, CSIT’2006. September 2006, Lviv, Ukraine.

[18] A Wegmann, A Kotsalainen, L Matthey, G Regev, A. Giannattasio. Augmenting the Zachman enterprise architecture Framework with a systemic conceptualization. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2008, pp. 3-13. doi/10.1109/EDOC.2008.49

[19] A. Wegmann, L.S. Lê, G. Regev, B. Wood. Enterprise modeling using the foundation concepts of the RM-ODP ISO/ITU standard, Information Systems and E-Business Management, Volume 5, Number 4, pp. 397-413. September, 2007; Springer. DOI 10.1007/s10257-007-0051-3

[20] A. Wegmann, L.S. Lê, B. Wood. Multi-level System Modeling Using the Foundation Concepts of RM-ODP. Technical report No. LAMS/2006/03, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne. EPFL, 2006.

Here are some projects that use the paradigm applications and that also were found using the aforementioned Internet search tools only:

[1p] Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland.

Project: Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology (SEAM)

http://lamswww.epfl.ch/reference/seam/theory_tool

[2p] Exia Corporation, Ottawa, Canada.

Project: Advancements in Software Factory and Domain-Specific Language Implementations

http://www.exia.net/content/advancementsinsoftwarefactory.pdf

[3p] Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA.

Project: The Alloy Analyzer

http://alloy.mit.edu/publications.php

[4p] Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Project: UML 2 Semantics Project

http://research.cs.queensu.ca/~stl/internal/uml2/bibtex/ref_uml2semantics.html

[5p] Universidad de Málaga, Spain; Universidad de Córdoba, Spain.

Project: www.rm-odp.net

http://www.uco.es/~in1rosaj/rmodp/publications.html

I sincerely hope that this evidence, in addition to the references that are already present in the article, convinces everybody that mentioned by Sandstein suspected paradigm's non-notability is actually untrue. Aipetri (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do understand your point of view. You are developing a new theory, which becomes published in several notable publications, and other institutes start to have interest in your work. But in Wikipedia this is not enough. We only accept subjects, which have some sever coverage in reliable, third-party, published sources, no mater how much you publish yourself. If this third-party coverage isn't their yet, then we classify the topic as not-notable. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third party reliable sources exist ([1]-[8] on the article page). I didn’t reference any of my self-publications. All of the referenced publications were published by reliable third parties which are not affiliated with me. My affiliations are only: Triune Continuum Enterprise and Creative View S.A., - the publications of these organisations were not referenced as sources. Aipetri (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I think you lost me. You are claiming the 1 to 8 reference in the Triune Continuum Paradigm article are the third party reliable sources!? The reference section list:

the first source, your PhD thesis from June 2002, published the Triune Continuum Paradigm
six other of your publications, and
one publication by your thesis professor A. Wegmann.

All your publications (in Wikipedia) are considered first party sources and your professor's publication second party source. These are no third party reliable sources -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Wikipedia rules "third party" refers to publisher (as opposed to "self-published" material) and not to the authorship. So in this case the mentioned publications are all third party sources (see explanation below). Aipetri (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another wannabe TLA about somebody's Elk theory, couched in such vague language as to defy any attempt to make sense of it. If someone can explain, in plain English, the difference between a computing "paradigm" based on Tarski's semantic theory of truth, as opposed to another "paradigm" that's supposed to somehow use, say, a correspondence theory of truth - only then will I accept that this isn't hyperinflated nonsense created to sound lofty and difficult without containing any actual insight. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarski’s theory of truth was used to formulate the Triune Continuum Paradigm, because it allows for formal reasoning about expressions made in a system modeling language. The application of Tarski’s theory to general system modeling makes it possible to express system models in a computer interpretable form and to employ computer automation to unambiguously demonstrate:

adequateness (or inadequateness) of modeling representations with regard to the agreed conceptualizations of a universe of the modeling discourse;
coherency (or incoherency) of interpretations within modeling representations;
limits of the application scope of a modeling language (in particular, showing where the language is formally inapplicable).

As for the mentioned correspondence theory of truth, I can be mistaking, but as far as I understand, it can be considered as a generalization of Tarski’s theory; and unlike Tarski’s theory, the correspondence theory does not provide a logical formalism that would allow to formulate Tarski’s formal semantics and to apply to them subsequent computer automation.

More details on the application of Tarski’s theory to general system modeling can be found in the following publication:

[21] A. Naumenko, A. Wegmann, C. Atkinson. "The Role of Tarski’s Declarative Semantics in the Design of Modeling Languages", Technical report No. IC/2003/43, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne. EPFL, April 2003.

I hope this explanation clarifies the story. Aipetri (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaving aside my inclination to wonder whether the expression 'Get a life' could have been applied to the people concerned, there is definitely notability in the cases of Russell and Tarski, and quite a few ghits for the third component and the paradigm itself. I do feel that the article strays from the encyclopaedic in being rather incomprehensible. I realise that to most people this sort of stuff sounds like gibberish (I include myself in the majority there), and wish that someone would translate from jargon into English. (This applies to many expositions of both Logic and Philosophy, which could explain the unpopularity of both subjects...) Peridon (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaking (if so, please share a pointer to the corresponding rules), but I do not suppose that Wikipedia is only for light reading. As you said, there are many expositions of scientific subjects included here that are difficult to comprehend to most people. But, in my opinion, this doesn’t make the articles unencyclopaedic. Indeed, according to the definition of five pillars of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". And in our case we are dealing with a subject from specialized encyclopedias: articles on the Triune Continuum Paradigm were published in “Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology” (see references [3] and [5] on the article’s main page). Aipetri (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not unfamiliar with older philosophy (having addressed an audience on aspects of Schopenhauer's thought), but modern philosophy and logic seems to be deliberately designed to be totally esoteric and impenetrable. Bearing in mind that people use encyclopaedias in many cases to find out what a subject is about, I feel that a section giving a summary in ordinary English would be advantageous. I am not calling for deletion - I would go for Keep pro tem at least - but for what to my mind would be improvement. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article can be improved, and I planned to work on it, adding more details and explanations. I hope to continue this work as soon as the current discussion will conclude and the article will be kept in Wikipedia. Aipetri (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable source discussing this paradigm. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See references [1]-[8] on the article’s main page. If you think that these sources are unreliable, then please explain why you think so. Aipetri (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said third party reliable source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, please explain why you think that the publishers of 4 refereed international journals, the publisher of two refereed editions of “Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology”, the publisher of refereed proceedings of an international workshop and the best Swiss technical school are not reliable third parties. Thanks. Aipetri (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Systemics. This topic is beginning to get some attention in third party sources, so I guess this topic could be kept for now merged into Systemics, and listed as a application there, untill it draws some more attention. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, based on “primary, secondary, and tertiary sources” rule. Aipetri (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of the difference between a self-published and a third-party published source.

Since it appears to be a reoccuring argument, I would like to clarify that in order to distinguish between a self-published and a third-party published source, it is necessary to check the publisher:

If the publisher is the source's author or his/her affiliated organization, then it is a self-published material.
If the publisher is not the author or his/her affiliated organization (and not Wikipedia, who is considered to be the second party), then it is a third-party publication.

Aipetri (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just explained it is not about the publisher, but about the author. There needs to be articles written by third party authors. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I think that in the context of Wikipedia rules you are mistaking. In Wikipedia rules “third party” is opposed to “self-published” and not to “self-authored”. There is no such thing in this context as “third party author”, because there is no “second party author”. To the contrary, “third party publisher” is opposed to the “second party publisher” (Wikipedia) and to self-publication. Aipetri (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to make my 50.000s contribution to Wikipedia after five years. Could it be, you are mistaking? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be talking about you and me, we should talk about Wikipedia rules. In this particular case I have well founded reasons to say that Wikipedia rules are on my side and not on yours. Aipetri (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when we are talking about third party sources, it is always about the author. Ask any other wikipedian. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, see here. All your work are considered primary sources.

I see what you mean. I agree on the rule about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and on the way you applied it to the article under discussion. However, let us also agree that the rule on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and the rule on self-published work are two different rules. The former refers to authorship while the latter refers to publisher origins.

If you are saying that “self-published sources” rule was designed to refer to the authorship rather then to the publisher origins, then it is a poorly (misleadingly) stated rule and it needs to be changed to “self-authored sources”. However, I think that this rule (unlike primary, secondary, and tertiary sources rule) must be about the publisher origin. This is confirmed by the usage of word “third-party” that in everyday life refers to a party who is independent from the two parties involved in some sort of relationship. In our case the relationship is between a Wikipedia’s article author and Wikipedia as a publisher. The rule suggests that a Wikipedia’s article author should not rely primarily on self-published sources, but should rely primarily on third-party sources (that is: not self-published and not Wikipedia-published).

The article under discussion satisfies “do not rely on self-published sources, but rely on third-party sources” rule. But, I agree that the article’s subject currently appears relatively weak with regard to its coverage in secondary sources (“primary, secondary, and tertiary sources” rule). Additional research is needed to show more of the secondary sources (if they already exist). Aipetri (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources talkpage is the place to ask more general questions about Wikipedia rules. I personally don't think there are exactly two different rules here. In Wikipedia everybody can make up the rules, so several rules could relate to one subject. In this matter I think the termology might be confusing. Also reliable third party sources aren't always about the author, it can also relate to a website where the author is unknown. There are a lot of ins and outs in Wikipedia rules. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:18, 24 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) 13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Castro (singer)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Yes he did appear on American Idol but he didn't even make it to the final cut down show. So essentially, we have an article on him because he's the brother of Jason Castro, who appeared on Idol as a finalist in season 7. Really no notability beyond that. All of the references are either about his Idol experience or are in some relation to his brother. He's never released an album, even locally. Just fails almost every notability test. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4, recreated page. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Already addressed and declined. (It's not wholly different. But there are some more sources, this time around.) Please provide another rationale. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails everything at Wikipedia:Notability (music) and article fails to show how he is significant on his own. Hekerui (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed- fails everything in the 'notable' req's. When in doubt, just ask: would you find this entry in an encyclopedia?65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:23, 22 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 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Morss and Brett Tyler[edit]

WP:BLP1E, notable for only one crime. No lasting notability. BJ^Talk 20:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, WP:BLP1E. – Toon ^(talk) 20:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E Smitty (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. لenna vecia 21:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. South Bay (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sad, true, terrible, but not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reversed my early closure per request by User:SilkTork who I imagine will be showing up sometime soon to argue 'keep'. Icewedge (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Icewedge (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murder of Daniel Handley. ~~Yes, Keep.~~ This case has wide coverage, yet is not anywhere on our encyclopedia. It has dual notability for the crime itself, widely reported in in 1996 and well established by reliable sources, and for the overturning of the 50-year tariffs in 2002, also covered by reliable sources. As the article covers two distinct events, BLP1E does not apply, and as neither of the events is covered anywhere on Wikipedia, BLP1E does not apply. The ethos of BLP1E is "Cover the event, not the person." This article is about the event. We can talk about how best to deal with the material - if the article should be renamed, or the material merged somewhere, but delete the material? No - it clearly meets the WP:N guideline, and the WP:V policy. SilkTork *^YES! 07:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The single crime is a BLP1E item, the court ruling as a precedent is glanced on in Whole life tariff and should be improved on in that article (actually, parts of the crime content itself is in that article). As such, Redirect to Whole life tariff. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that coverage of a crime is a BLP1E item - it is coverage of an individual in addition to or in place of coverage of a crime that BLP1E addresses. However, a redirect to the appropriate section in Whole life tariff is a viable solution, as it renaming the article to make it more obviously about the crime, and the aftermath.

While we're at this, in the Timothy Morss and Brett Tyler section in Whole_life_tariff#The_others there is a link to their victim, Daniel Handley. That is a genuine BLP1E issue, and is directly related to this discussion. The solution to Timothy Morss and Brett Tyler should involve Daniel Handley. So another option comes up. Rename Daniel Handley to Daniel Handley murder case, and merge Timothy Morss and Brett Tyler to Daniel Handley murder case. SilkTork *^YES! 09:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the Daniel Handley article and merged in material from Timothy Morss and Brett Tyler. So I'm changing now to Redirect to Murder of Daniel Handley. SilkTork *^YES! 09:51, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future (musician)[edit]

No reliable sources to indicate notability. Google doesn't turn up anything, the links given don't mention him, and the MySpace link is broken. Similar article was previously speedy-deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalik Rashad Perry. Radiant chains (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability criteria of either Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (music) apply. Links in article don't give info; possible hoax. Hekerui (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliabel sources. Maybe he'll make it big in the future. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PinoyExchange[edit]

Notability in question. I cannot find 3rd party sources in local newspapers that verifies its notability. Claim of being the Philippines' biggest message board is verified only by one site called big-boards.com (big claims require multiple sources) Lenticel ^(talk) 04:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but a very weak keep, only because it seems to have enough different people editing it over the years. However I do take issue with their self-published sources (I have tagged the article) and the whole thing is a little too advert-ish for me. Re: notability, google shows over 1mm hits for that term - however only 446 are from outside the site itself, and many of those are worthless link exchange sites. But again, multiple editors. JCutter (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The website has an alexa ranking of under 10,000 and a Google Page Rank of 4, and the traffic within it's demographic seems very high. There are probably sources out there which can assert notability, although I have not been able to find them with a casual search. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I personally consider PEx as the most popular online forum/board in the Philippine web, but then I'm not a reliable source for that assertion. :-P FWIW, PEx won the People's Choice Award for the Community category in the 2001 Philippine Web Awards: [40]. --seav (talk) 10:39, 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, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per good evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:40, 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 redirect to The Shys. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kweskin[edit]

Non-notable keyboard player. Articles makes no assertion to notability. No awards. Member of a garage band that's released two album which have no history of having charted JamesBurns (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant independent coverage, fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheClashFan (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Indef-blocked sockpuppet of nominator. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, someone should nominate The Shys for deletion. Secret ^account 22:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Shys, as per WP:MUSIC, as there is no evidence of notability of the individual musician separate from the band. (The Shys actually do meet the general notability guideline, with coverage in a variety of North American newspapers, although the sources have not yet been added to the article.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge whatever is appropriate. The band isn't just a garage band. They're signed to a notable label and released two albums (which meets WP:MUSIC). Bands don't have to have charting hits to be notable, it's just one of the many possible criteria that can be used. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Iam (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Indef-blocked sockpuppet of nominator. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Neither the musician or band seem to be notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- And yet, as I said above, the band The Shys has received coverage in multiple sources. Examples include:
  - Swegles, Fred (Aug. 15, 2006). "San Clemente band returns on Fiesta with fame", The Orange County Register.
  - Bracelin, Jason (Nov. 21, 2008). "The Shys are anything but", Las Vegas Review-Journal, p. J12.
  - Miller, Jay N. (Dec. 29, 2006). "Our critics look back at the year's best movies and music", The Patriot Ledger, p. 17.
  - Hogan, Ray (July 27, 2006). "Album review: The Shys", The Advocate, p. 19.
    - and so on. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:53, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–South Korea relations[edit]

another random country combination, the extent of relations seems very limited: http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/regions/europe/20070818/1_990.jsp? doesn't appear to be any bilateral or trade agreements? LibStar (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two countries on opposite sides of the world, neither of which have full embassies in the other country. Sure, real notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another random bilateral pairing with no notability demonstrated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search of 'Iceland Korea' doesn't produce any reliable sources suitable for establishing notability or expanding the article: [41] Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No embassies, very little trade, hardly any investments and no presidential/royal/whatever visits to the other country. Yeah, real notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, conventions to improve economic cooperation [42] and a visit by a foreign minister [43], yeah, real notable. MyDog22 (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by MyDog22 (indef. blocked vandalism account) indicate this topic is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. No inherent notability for the fact that two random countries do or do not exchange ambassadors. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information. Edison (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They don't even have proper embassies; no content; useless/redundant/superfluous. Rd232 ^talk 22:24, 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 merge to RADIUS . MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of RADIUS standards[edit]

Straightforward violation of WP:NOTLINK. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list of IETF - RADIUS related protocols, similar to List of RFCs, List of ISO standards, List of IEC standards, or the list of 802.11 standards in the Standard and amendments section of 802.11. Even other many other lists like List of U.S. military vehicles by model number exist. This list was taken out of the RADIUS article because this information is not easily turned into prose and made the article difficult to read. However, the information is good to have in one place. kgrr ^talk 04:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Merge. DGG, Thanks. I put the whole list in table form into the RADIUS article the same way that IEEE 802.11 does it. List of RADIUS standards is no longer necessary. kgrr ^talk 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It would seem that the ones you cite have much more general applicability, to the extent that many of the individual standards have articles. Not one of these does, nor does it look like they are likely to.. It would fit well into the article on RADIUS--and here your 802.11 example is relevant. DGG (talk) 23:56, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Colonomos[edit]

I see nothing to establish notability here - even if MSI Music were notable (and I don't think it is), that wouldn't justify this bio. JaGa^talk 04:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO; very little chance that any of the content will be reliably sourced. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's been an unsourced orphan for a long time, and doesn't assert notability. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 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. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 00:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson de Carvalho Barbosa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anderson de Carvalho Barbosa

prod was contested. I still have no clue why this guy is notable. Person who deproded says he plays for a pro team and that makes him notable. I don't know anything about soccer but I do know a bit about sports in general and do know there are many pro athletes who never make it off the proverbial bench or maybe play in only one or two games. In essence, the back up to the back up kinda player. This article gives me no clue as to why he is wiki worthy. Is he the Pele of his time? Or is he the bench warmer? Or is he somewhere in between? I have no clue cause the article doesn't tell me! And as a encyclopedia, Wiki authors should not keep their info to themselves but share their info to educate us ignorant on the subject at hand! Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the AfD links. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he meets the notability criterion, per WP:ATHLETE, as I said when de-prodding it. I don't like the rule either, but it has been decided that people who play for fully professional teams are notable. If you don't like it, try to get the notability rules changed. Trying to delete this article seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. PamD (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:Athlete. The article needs significant improvement (some references at the very least) but it isn't subject to deletion for notability. Camw (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if someone updates so it meets WP:V to demonstrate that WP:ATHLETE is relevant- I will if I have time but I can't guarantee it. Here's a starter: this shows he exists and played in the highest level tournament in asian football. He also needs adding to the disambig page at Anderson (footballer), and properly linked on the Sharjah page. Stu.W UK (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep article may need a lot of work, but I've added a reference which shows it is about an athlete who played nearly 100 matches in the fully-pro Campeonato Brasiliero Serie A. Jogurney (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - passes WP:ATHLETE, and generally, nominations who are only hoping to spur article improvement are in poor form. matt91486 (talk) 22:29, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of algal culture collections[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was nominated for deletion a few months ago as a pure external-link farm, but ended as no consensus. Several editors asserted that it could be salvaged by reformatting.

A few months later, no substantial edits have been made to the article apart from to add further external links. Wikipedia is still not a web directory or a list of external links. There is no salvageable encyclopedic content here, and I feel the original arguments made to delete it seem only more relevant. Lists are useful as a means of navigating and summarising Wikipedia articles, but it's really not the function of an encyclopedia to provide directories of all the web sites on a topic.~ mazca ^t|c 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in the first place. these are probably almost all of them worth an article, but die to the absence of people here in the subject they may be a long time in coming. In the meantime we have at least this. DGG (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or in the alternative merge to Algaculture#Algal_Culture_Collections after pruning. I don't agree that these are all notable in and of themselves.--Aervanath (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as an article serving as a directory that lacks any independant sources or encyclopedic material. I see this article as containing nothing but spam. Wikipedia is not a link farm! Them From Space 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments at previous AFD. Nothing has changed since then. Per WP:DELETION we only delete articles if it is felt that we can't make a valid article on the topic, and there is no reason at all such an article cannot be produced on this one. JulesH (talk) 08:18, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a classic violation of WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe this is one of thoes few instances where WP:IAR would tell us to use common sense. The links are directly relevant to the article and are equal to Citations proving that each place does house a collection. (Feel free to convert them to actual Citations, they do seem somewhat brutal in their current format.) Just because the Article is sparse on prose (at the moment) is not reason to delete a encyclopedic list that would not be found anywhere else. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a significant article and those links were present in the "external links" section, I would remove them per WP:ELNO #13 # Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. As this would be the same as page-blanking, there is absolutely nothing worth saving in this article. The sources aren't third-party sources, so they don't assert notability, nor are they the preferred sourcing for verification. Them From Space 07:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to start quoting... you missed the bold first sentence "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject"... also WP:EL (nutshell) "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". all satisfied. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not. The article is about a list of algae collections, not a specific algae collection. If there were an article about each of these collections, than the link would be relevant as the official link, but in a list collection like this there really isn't any one "official" link. The links aren't directly relevant to the article at all as they are about a different scope altogether. Them From Space 08:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an Article about a list ... It IS a list. Each link is to an official page. That is my application of common sense. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, notable, subject of international conferences ([44][45]), a number of the collections are described in peer-reviewed journals ([46], [47], [48], to list a few). Colchicum (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in agreement with DGG and JulesH. Also, there is no time limit on how long it takes to spiff up an article. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see where the WP:NOTLINK concerns are coming from, but I think that the basic existence of an article at this title is justified. It would be nice if someone who knows about such collections would format it more like List of herbaria, where the significance of the entries is established by the scope of the collections' holdings. Deor (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a sourced, useful and properly annotated list.Biophys (talk) 13:39, 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 merge to Strands. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyStrands[edit]

Declining db-spam; taking to AfD. The yahoo.com ref is okay, the others are iffy, and this is a new service, possibly not in full operation. Also, tone is too promotional. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use some work, but there are reliable sources talking about the service. Tim meh ! 23:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells too much like advert. Was clearly written without NPOV and external links (especially security related) don't do anything to establish notability. JCutter (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Security related external links have been removed, and some promotional statements (about the services/features) have been rephrased. The article also lists out websites offering similar services, which could be useful to Wikipedia users. Ramya.arjun (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

per AFD guidelines, I should point out the comment above is from the article's primary poster. JCutter (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article about the product's company: Strands. PK T(alk) 15:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Baltzer[edit]

Non-notable political activist; "sources" are mostly her own websites and fringe political publications with strong biases in her favor; no evidence of notability, but much pushing of her ideology and claims. "Sources" proposed on the talk page of the article are mostly cover-jacket-blurbs without sourcing, and the like (including one alleged e-mail to a Wikipedia editor). Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the effort of the article's supporters there have not been secondary reliable sources found that discuss her in depth.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the long lists of links provided, a cursory glance shows that they are either (a) she herself (either personal reports or her own letters to editors, etc.) or (b) are blogs and other non-reliable sources (like via contacting a person who wrote an email). I just hope we have something beyond an appeal that it's censorship. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Eudemis below. Cleanup is necessary to keep it in line but that's not for AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the controversy surrounding Palestinian issues and the online propaganda war being waged by both sides, it is easy to overlook her independent press coverage. While not the cover of Time Magazine, she has been the subject of several published articles from independent secondary sources that would qualify her as notable under the guidelines. The Missourian [49] The Providence Journal [50] The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, IA) [51] The Salt Lake Tribune [52] Golden Triangle Newspapers [53]--Eudemis (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Keep~~ Delete My concern looking at the earlier versions of this article is it was extremely POV. The originator may have a WP:COI in terms of editing and promoting this. I am also concerned that Baltzer is generating her own coverage rather than being truly notable. The articles seem to be human interest stories for a local speech to an interested group - I give talks, but it doesn't make me notable. Mohummy (talk) 18:01, 22 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 01:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Peru relations[edit]

another random country relationship, non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - random, no notability shown by reliable sources, the usual. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable on the world stage. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's the usual deal here: no embassies, little trade and/or investments, no presidential/royal/whatever visits and no notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. No inherent notability for the fact that two random countries do or do not exchange ambassadors. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information. Edison (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at minimum, all such articles where there are no proper embassies and no other info. Rd232 ^talk 22:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I have my doubts on this, unless someone can suggest some actual significant content. DGG (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Unfortunately, I can't find a translated version of this "El Perú y Hungría establecieron relaciones diplomáticas el 16 de abril de 1969..." but there's more than the usual amount of detail for one to write an article about relations between the two nations. There's also this Peruvian president agrees to repay country's debts to Hungary (1998). Enough? Perhaps. Mandsford (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the usual standard for inclusion. See [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] - anyways, I don't see what makes this such an unusual case that it needs to be treated in an exceptional way. WilyD 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are either primary sources ("we consider our relations important"), or random bits of news/trivia out of which an article could never be written - and in any case, what you are proposing is in breach of WP:SYNTH. You are taking these disparate news stories and claiming they, together, form evidence of a notable relationship. But that's not permitted: you need reliable secondary sources detailing the relationship as such for this to qualify as an encyclopedic topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a response to Biruitorul's comment above, combining sources into one article is not prohibited per se; rather, it is synthesis that is not allowed. Using multiple sources to establish notability is not synthesis, but in fact required. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 24 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing Point (band)[edit]

Disbanded group with no label asserts no claim to notability per WP:BAND. JaGa^talk 02:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ex-band with one non-notable non-charting EP release, no independent coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:39, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Kayani[edit]

This article now is a WP:BLP1E as he was released without being charged with a crime and is otherwise non-notable. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kevin (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability other than being a suspect. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time passes so fast. No objection to deletion as it is pretty clear now at this stage. - Mailer Diablo 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only notable for that one event, so per nom. Tiptoety ^talk 22:25, 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 delete as recreation of material already deleted, G4. TeaDrinker (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bournemouth University Boat Club[edit]

Non-notable university sports club. An earlier incarnation of this article was also deleted via AfD: [63]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to old AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bournemouth university boat club --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:46, 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 keep, the consensus seems to be that he meets the general notability guidelines via the non-trivial magazine and media coverage, even if he hasn't played a professional game yet (WP:ATHLETE). Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Bouzanis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A year has gone since his previous AfD and he still hasn't played a game so still fails WP:ATHLETE. While there are articles about his choice between Greek and Australian national teams, they mean little under WP:NOTNEWS. The choice isn't particularly unusual either, see here for multiple examples Stu.W UK (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears he has never played professionally or in the Olympics.--Rockfang (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While in general I support deletion of articles that do not meet WP:ATHLETE, the article appears to clearly meet the General notability guideline. The articles cited are specifically about the subject, cover a span of nearly two years (thus more than mere news or WP:ONEEVENT and the subject has played at national U-23 level. I understand the rationale but I don't see how Wikipedia is improved by deleting this article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles like this and this in the largest newspapers in Australia contribute enough to meet the significant coverage criteria. Camw (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 07:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article fails WP:BIO by the subject having not participated in a fully professional league, it passes WP:N with ease. Having been kept in the last AfD, I think it's fair to keep with the status quo. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand is if he got a career-ending injury tomorrow, what exactly is it that would make him notable? Stu.W UK (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt if that happened he would recieve further significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, further solidifing his notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm glad to see you didn't go for the easy or obvious response there. Stu.W UK (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll plead guilty to that. I'll try to atone. My real point I guess is that once so much has been written about someone by reliable sources, it's not up to us to say he's notable. The media has already said he's notable for us. And notability can't be removed. If you were notable but then fade, you're still notable in relation to wiki policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My only concern is if this sets a precedent where anyone who signs for a big team from a small (in footballing terms) country will be notable because they'll get written about regardless of whether they ever play a game. Stu.W UK (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it sets any precedent. The general notability guidelines are that precedent. Regardless of any games played or not, if someone's writing about them specifically in a major newspaper then that demonstrates a certain notability, thus the GNG. Many inane, boring and unimportant things pass these requirements. Need I remind you of the former featured article Spoo? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:N. Giant Snowman 17:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't meet footy notability but has plenty of news articles about him specifically, easily passing general notability guidelines. (Article could certainly do with a trim though...) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:N, just like last time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may be some items in newspapers about this kid, but this does not mean that he is notable footballer, it means that there are a lot of sports journalists out there who have nothing better to do with their time than write about a footballer who has never played even 1 minute of professional football. King of the North East 10:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:N. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N is not policy, and must be interpreted with reason. Appearing in the news thanks to wise journalists searching for another future world class player is not a valid measurement of notability. Who remembers of the 12-year old kid being signed by Man Utd? Is he notable as well? --Angelo (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your perspective here Angelo. Indeed, using common sense when discussing notability is a view I shared, and still share, with you on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Mulholland. However, Bouzanis has had more coverage than for just the Greece/Australia caps so I think he's qualified for significant notability here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mentioned the Greek/Australian issue in my comment, read it carefully. I am instead pointing to what could be 'defined 'notability of sources', that is a big issue when dealing with sports-related articles. All of the sources present the subject as a perspective football protagonist, which is an obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL, none of them actually mentioning anything about the achievements he made at present time. Being in the news, again, is not a proof of notability: there is a lot of journalists around with a lot of spare time who enjoy writing about young footballers, hoping one day to be able to say something like 'well, I had predicted it years ago'. But, again, this is incorrect, it would be like making an article about a writer before he publishes his first novel, or about a band before they make their first song available to the public. --Angelo (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The style of the article needs revision - there's a deal of padding and non-notable info, which I'll have a bash at. Murtoa (talk) 10:35, 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 speedy delete under criteria A7 (web content with no indication of importance.) As this was the subject's sixth speedy deletion, I have also temporarily salted it.

Conra[edit]

Non-notable freeware MMORPG. A Google search does not confirm notability that meets WP:RS or WP:WEB requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Failure to assert notability and absence of independent sources. The only sources cited in the article are primary (the Conra website). —C.Fred (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable website, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:WEB. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:56, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street nerf[edit]

Appears to be game 'made up one day'. No Google hits, no refs. Prodded this already, now nominating for deletion. JNW (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence or claim of notability; appears a made-up one day variation of throwing a Nerf ball. JJL (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:V standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up one day; absolutely no mention of this anywhere, as far as I can see. tempodivalse [☎] 01:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and possible hoax. Valenciano (talk) 10:31, 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 speedy delete as pure vandalism (CSD G3) — Gwalla | Talk 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Polar Bear[edit]

Article about a nonnotable band that fails WP:BAND. Nothing in the "history" section is able to be verified with a quick google search (was hip hop and heavy metal even around in the 1950's?) Their website is in primitive condition and is definitly not that of a famous 50 year old band. Them From Space 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything to show notability either. —Frehley ^Space ^Ace 00:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ~~Looks to be hoax, but really is plain vandalism~~. Of course there was no heavy metal, nor hip hop then--the entire article is nonsense, and should have been speedied as vandalism. JNW (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meed our standards for notability as it is not mentioned in reliable, third party sources (or anywhere at all, for that matter). tempodivalse [☎] 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No such thing as "heavy metal" in the 1950's. South Bay (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, and a pretty obvious one at that. No bands are together for 50 years and make millions of dollars without anyone noticing. Second, "but was paralized from the testicles up" is an odd sentence from the article as no one is paralyzed like that. He only has use of his legs? Paralysis doesn't work like that, as there isn't a brain in your feet. Also, heavy metal was not around in the '50s, like South Bay pointed out. Tavix | Talk 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very obvious feeble hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax for hip hop heavy metal from the 1950s to the 2000s. Hekerui (talk) 18:29, 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 no consensus. Although "delete" wins the headcount 9-5, both sides have presented valid arguments; also, some of the issues like original research have since been fixed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of words that comprise a single phoneme[edit]

A list of single syllable words in a handful of European languages. Unencyclopedic. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencylopedic material; a list. JJL (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this list is problematic, to say the least, beginning with the title, and the indefinite article in it. The lead can't make up its mind as to what it is, and the list does not clarify. If this is going to be a list of all meaningful sounds in all languages--what would be the point? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. You ask what is the point? I ask: what is the point in articles like List of long place names or List of short place names (to name just two out of thousands)? Adam78 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many articles I consider pointless (on wrestlers, comics, monster trucks, college athletes), but those are not under discussion here. Besides, your comment refers to what might be considered a new article, and mine refers to a different one. The point of the "first" article still escapes me, but this, with a new title, is a meaningfully different animal. Consider rewriting the lead to better reflect the new title (I still don't understand the indefinite article in the first half of the first sentence), including a note on the various languages present in the list, if only to indicate that click consonants are part of the discussion, for instance: I agree with editors here who have raised the POV-issue. And I know that AfD is not for cleanup, but this is more than cleanup. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or clean-up, this could also be considered a POV as it only discusses European languages and the fact that different people have different opinions of what is "meaningful" in a language. This could probably be salvaged, but would require a complete rewrite of the lead, name-change, and different criteria for the list, but I don't see that happening (is it possible?) Tavix | Talk 02:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above users. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the title is, ironically, that it is not technical enough. I can see what the author has in mind. For what it's worth:
It appears to be a list of words that comprise one single phoneme. A phoneme is not the same as a phone, which is a "sound". So the "sound" in the title is highly misleading. So, also, is the "meaningful". It's not whether these are "meaningful". (There's a whole linguistic debate on whether phonemes have meaning, that hinges on what one defines "meaning" to be.) It's whether they are recognized words. So a more technical title would be something on the lines of List of words that comprise a single phoneme. But even that's not perfect. There's the whole intermediate layer of morphemes to consider. And even then that would be glossing over the fact that there isn't a recognized universal phoneme inventory for all languages, so the idea of including all languages mixed together, side by side, as this list does, as if the phonemes were universal across all languages, is on shaky linguistic foundations.
I hope that this conveys what is apparently intended here better than the title does. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Adam78 (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a very useful list of sounds. It would not be useful converted into prose. kgrr ^talk 04:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really useful and WP:Original research Steve Dufour (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Being useful is not a criterion but a POV (cf. Wikipedia:Unusual articles), and original research has been eliminated by adding sources. Adam78 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncle G's description of what this list actually is, and what it should be called, is spot on, but the encyclopedic usefulness of such a list is quite dubious. I'd say this list is an indiscriminate collection of information. If it should exist anywhere, it could perhaps be an Appendix at Wiktionary (but even then it would probably have to be divided up by language, otherwise it would become enormous - single-phoneme words are not exactly rare), but not at Wikipedia. —Angr 05:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- False. Luckily there are tons of examples of similar articles whose inclusion in Wikipedia is not challenged. This point doesn't apply here, see the explanation given on the quoted page. Adam78 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has never been a reason to keep anything. And Wikipedia:Unusual articles lists encyclopedic articles on unusual topics. This is an unencyclopedic article on, well, nothing very special. As I said, single-phoneme words aren't exactly rare. (Irish, for example, has at least 8 different words that are all pronounced [ə].) —An gr 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmmm... delete. MyDog22 (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disregard this last 'comment': user has been banned indefinitely as a sock puppet. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. You may have missed the page Wikipedia:Unusual articles that lists hundreds of articles, most of which could be similarly called "unencylopedic material" by this standard... But you can also consider articles like Open back unrounded vowel, which simply describe the formation of a sound and give a mere list of its examples in various languages. Including consonants, there are more than two hundred articles like these. Have a look at them. Is there anything that makes these many articles more encyclopaedic than this one? Adam78 (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't possibly list all the words that are a single phoneme, it should be list of single phonemes used as words (which could be all of them) with selected examples. MyDog22 (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I can't. But exhaustiveness is not and has never been a condition for a Wikipedia article. Articles like Open back unrounded vowel don't list all the existing instances of a phoneme in the world's 6000 languages, do they? Adam78 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, trivial, rife with factual errors Cnilep (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please be bold to fix at least some of the errors. Adam78 (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been several precedents of language-related articles which can be seen as "original research". (The article Pseudo-anglicism for example, lists several words from many languages, similar to this list.) Many arguments here are just wrong, titles can be fixed, factual errors can be fixed too, and "trivial" basically means that you aren't interested in it... – Alensha ^talk 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Browsing is an encyclopedic use. Finding unexpected and interesting things has always been a very major use of encyclopedias. A list of words like this, though it might also fit as a supplement to a dictionary, is also appropriate in an encyclopedia--especially in Uncle G adds some discussion. Guidelines & policies have exceptions, & this is a suitable case for that. OTHERCRAP exists is not a good argument when the so called crap is a significant feature of the encyclopedia-- to eliminate them all we'd need a general discussion. DGG (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an interesting list with the potential to grow with entries from other languages. (If it gets too large in the future, it could be broken up into sublists based upon language family.) It appears to be sourced well, and if there are factual errors, these should be corrected rather than deleting the whole thing. LadyofShalott ^Weave 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of this grouping is not established. Why not another list of words which are made of two phonemes, three phonemes, and so on? We then have lists of every word but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The notability of this grouping is simply the record shortness (records, extremes are notable in themselves) and the fact that there are phonemes that are not only building bricks of words but they are words instead. It has nothing to do with a dictionary (note that hundreds of thousands of words are excluded), it has to do with records. Adam78 (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research by synthesis. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Misinterpretation of the policy. It says "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." There is simply no conclusion in the article that could be beyond the sources. Adam78 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, this is clearly synthesis. The only information from external sources is dictionary pronunciation guides. The conclusion that these pronunciations encompass a single phoneme in the relevant language, and the further conclusion that that cross-linguistic observation constitutes a class are conclusions original to the page's editor(s). The fact that the conclusions appear relatively easy ones to make does not obviate the fact that they are original. Of course, I will be proved wrong if Francia–magyar szótár states explicitly that /ɑ̃/ is a French word consisting of one phoneme and compares this to the Hungarian word /ɛ/, but I'm not holding my breath. Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 23 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, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blowdart game[edit]

Declined PROD, non-notable game that looks made up ViperSnake151 Talk 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence or claim of notability; appears made-up one day. JJL (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable game. I've done several searches for sources and have been unable to establish the notability of this game. Cunard (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatantly made up one day, no evidence of any reliable-source coverage. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High school students who pretend to be hit by an imaginary blowdart and fall limp to the ground will be sent to detention. Mandsford (talk) 00:18, 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 into Human (Brandy album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True (Brandy song)[edit]

this article should be deleted as the level of information available is poor and it is unlikely that more information will be made available. additionally is there really the need to have a page for every song that charts but wasnt officially released by an artist? this information could be included on the page Human or brandy's discography Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human (Brandy album). Why is this song notable outside the album? Qqqqqq (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, no awards, no covers, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:34, 16 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) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant, sourced info in to Human (Brandy album)#Singles (even though it wasn't a single), and delete this one. I personally don't see the point in keeping it as a redirect due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term. The Bubbling under charts aren't notable in themselves, since her #18 position actually equates to #118 on the Top 100 R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart. Not enough for a stand alone article I believe. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible or not we cannot delete the article history of merged material. Wikipedia:Merge and delete We could move or rename it before redirecting, but if a merge occurs, deletion is no longer an option because it would violate GFDL - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable song never released as a single. Iam (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of JamesBurns, who already !voted above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:20, 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 9/11 advance-knowledge debate#Israel. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Moving Systems[edit]

Non-notable. Some Israelis working for the company were questioned and released in the days soon after 9/11 before them and the company went back to Israel. There's a theory that they are related to Israeli intelligence, but other than that, there's nothing notable about this company which no longer exists. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 9/11 advance-knowledge debate#Israel (or possibly other related article) as it is a common enough search term and is discussed there. No evidence that it needs its own article though. Rd232 ^talk 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 9/11 advance-knowledge debate#Israel per above. A Google News Archive search only returns passing mentions or results related to the 9/11 questionings. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. There are also a few articles in those google news archive results about the moving business being shady (apart from 9/11), but not enough to confer independent notability. The only mainpage link to this [64] is the suggested redirect target, which has more relevant information than this article, so redirecting there is appropriate, as it doesn't have any size issues that would suggest splitting.--chaser - t 03:45, 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. If anyone wants a copy of the text to source and merge with Creativity Movement, I'll be happy to provide it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Festum Album[edit]

Seems a bit of a neologism to me. The only Google hits I'm finding for the phrase "Festum Album" are postings on Yahoo Groups and things of that nature. It doesn't appear to have been reported on by any news media either, and the article itself indicates that the holiday was created in 2002. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The religion itself isn't likely to receive media attention, let alone its holidays. However, the holiday exists as does the information about it, which I included in the references section. Besides, unlike mainstream religions, it's relatively new and as such it has no political or economic clout; therefore it's not likely to have much media attention. --scochran4 (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that per WP:Notability, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. I understand your argument that the holiday is unlikely to be covered by the mainstream media, but all we need is some reliable secondary sourcing. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to cite Ignore All Rules. The holiday exists and information exists outlining its reason for existence, history, and rituals. The purpose of the article is to accurately outline and detail the aspects of this religious holiday. Deleting this article would be counterproductive to that end. --scochran4 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Scochran4 that the article should remain. It is a recognised holiday that is part of a recognised religion. Thoughtcrime69er (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Creativity Movement is not a religion, really, it's an atheistic white supremacist movement, and not a particularly big one so far as I can tell. Any content that can be verified through RSs can be added to the parent article later. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Creativity Movement has been recognized by U.S. federal courts as a religion in that it gives its adherents a notion of morality. --scochran4 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there proof of this? And precisely which movement is this--the "Creativity Alliance," "The Creativity Movement" (a/k/a "Skinheads of the Racial Holy War"), the "TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation," or the "Church of the RaHoWa"? Drmies (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —John Carter (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anything can be reliably sourced, merge and redirect it to Creativity Alliance; else delete. LadyofShalott ^Weave

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since not notable; reliable sources saying anything about this "feast" do not exist. I looked. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – (edit conflict) lack of any verifiable that can establish notability of this holiday. MuZemike 02:08, 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 merge into Jerry Garcia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. Garcia[edit]

This is a very POV article ("these ties reflect the psychedelic spontaneity of his music and life" "his neckwear has become the eye of many teenagers looking for that certain style" "new patterns based upon Garcia's work have been added, all of which have enjoyed great commercial success") which appears to be about a non-notable subject; at any rate, not supported by any third-party references. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 07:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have received plenty of independent press coverage over a number of years, including several articles specifically about this brand in The New York Times [65], LA Times [66] and Daily News Record [67][68]. Pburka (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Pburka. Also, here's one from the San Francisco Chronicle. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge. This product line is really not notable on its own even though there is a feature article about it. Any notability really extends to Jerry Garcia and the novelty associated with a necktie being named after him. I find this a difficult article to stand up on its own and has a number of other issues. I have removed some of the NPOV issues from the text but still it is an orphan article with limited content and references. I find that there are rarely derivative articles of this sort (example: Derek Jeter's cologne, Paris Hilton's perfume, Mary Kate and Ashley Olson's clothing line or any other derivative products that spin off from a celebrity) on Wikipedia. As a result, I would propose merging this article into a subsection of Jerry Garcia and having this page redirect to Jerry Garcia. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 18:58, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for disambiguation. There is nothing else that I can find (among all the false positives) that can establish notability of this person. MuZemike 02:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the article? It's a brand, not a person. Pburka (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While the articles linked above, they border on the sort of flash-in-a-pan coverage which should removed per WP:N. That said, it is the NYT and LAT. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the articles listed were published in 1992, 1995, 1996 and 2001. This is not flash-in-a-pan coverage. Admittedly, I'd never heard of this brand before this AfD, but the significant and extended press coverage convinces me that it is notable on its own. Pburka (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jerry Garcia. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jerry Garcia and redirect to the same. Useful as a section in the Jerry Garcia article, but not as a standalone article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable page, under the world of fashion, excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.238.113 (talk) 05:49, 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 01:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality House of Tulsa[edit]

I do not feel this article passes notability requirements for organizations. I don't feel there are sufficient claims to notability and the only sources are articles from the local news source. WP:ORG currently has the following to say about that:

"attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability"

and, under non-commercial:

"Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."

Author has made it clear on the talk page that they are dealing with this article as they would a home page (information for guests, donors, and volunteers of the house) rather than an encyclopedia article. It may be suited as a redirect to House of Hospitality, but I don't believe it should be a standalone article. 13² 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Thank you again for your help. I appreciate your help in making this entry better.

I reviewed the WP:ORG information, and further edited the Hospitality House of Tulsa entry with more references to other news sources. I feel that because Hospitality House of Tulsa has been featured in at least four separate news sources in two cities, it has "demonstrable effects on society". Each article demonstrates the impact this organization is having on people not just in Tulsa, but also people who have traveled from numerous other states for treatment in Tulsa.

Could you please help me understand how Hospitality House of Tulsa still fails to meet this guideline in WP:ORG: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." I understand from this guideline that smaller organizations such as the Hospitality House of Tulsa can be "notable" just as larger organizations like the Ronald McDonald House, if they have "demonstrable effects on society." I am having trouble understanding why Hospitality House of Tulsa does not meet this standard, when four other hospitality houses have their own Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_hospitality

Please help me understand why Hospitality House of Tulsa does not belong with these other Wikipedia entries.Mbjohnson1 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. I would move to keep. Pustelnik (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existance of other articles at Wikipedia does not mean that this article belongs here. This article should be argued on its own merits, as spelled out at WP:N, and not because of superficial resemblance to other articles, which themselves may either merit deletion, or may have reasons to be kept that this one lacks. Please base your arguements on the merits of this article only. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I removed the inappropriate material. There seems to be sufficient sources ,between the references and the external links, to support notability. I'm not all the strong on local notability, hence only a weak keep to express my personal view, but it seems to pass the necessary standards, hence the keep. DGG (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Thank you to everyone for your feedback and help in making this entry better. It is so appreciated. Mbjohnson1 (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – written like an advertisement or otherwise material that could be placed on their own site. This is not what Wikipedia is for. There also seems to be a conflict of interest and some ownership going on here. MuZemike 02:02, 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 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algie Composite Aircraft[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and appears to be a case of advertising for a non-notable company. As it stands now, apparently its aircraft kit is under development (according to our article). But with less than 300 ghits and most of them (all?) to trade sites, this article should be deleted until such a time as this company has a product for sale that attracts sufficient notice to pass the notability guidelines. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above concerns. I was also unable to find any significant coverage of this company in independant, reliable sources that would 1. justify notability and 2. lead to proper encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Them From Space 19:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the reference to WP:CORP lists "All cars that have had Haynes Manuals written about them satisfy this criterion." This product has in fact had significant articles written, notably see the cover on [[ http://www.amazon.com/Fiberglass-Other-Composite-MaterialsHP1498-AutomotiveRacing/dp/1557884986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239549615&sr=8-1]] This link should qualify it for permanent addition according to Wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DAlgie (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This, you may have noticed, is not a car, much less a car about which Haynes Manuals have been written. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I see a bunch of generic trivial descriptions and mirrors, but nothing that would close to independent and significant in coverage. MuZemike 01:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:UPANDCOMING firm that doesn't even have a product yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 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.--chaser - t 03:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justo Arenas[edit]

Declined speedy, non notable judge. Appears to be COI too. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:BIO suggests judges who are nationally or first-tier subnational warrant inclusion; I don't see the subject being either here. While the material in the article may be verifiable (although that is not shown), I don't know that the subject is in the press with sufficient frequency to develop an article which extends beyond the information provided by sources close to the subject (such as some, as yet not found official bio); the exclusive reliance on which will surely sway the article toward the positive. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete concur with above regarding magistrates being generally non-notable, and no evidence to the contrary presented here. These are generally temporary positions. JJL (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I see a whole bunch of legal documents, but nothing providing anything independent or reliable to establish notability. Oh yeah, clear conflict of interest, as well. The content on the User:Jarenas seems to be copied from somewhere, but I cannot find where. MuZemike 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:02, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Lev[edit]

Removed PROD. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. لenna vecia 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On reading the article I wanted to !vote keep, but nom. is correct; WP:ENTERTAINER is not met (nor is WP:ATHLETE). I42 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22elena+lev%22&cf=all -- notable enough.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the google news search above. Coverage isn't significant enough to meet WP:N or WP:ENTERTAINER. Them From Space 03:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ShrekOfVulcan. Looking at several of those articles really quickly, there seems to be enough significant coverage in reliable sources. MuZemike 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears notable, but this needs to be better demonstrated in the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:38, 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 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Distribution[edit]

I'm unsure about the notability of the company; the only thing I could find in Google News was the story regarding the recent buy-out of the company by Burton Snowboards, nothing else in the way of reliable sources talking about the company. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 22:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article is a clearly promotion or advetisement to that company. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nothing that I can find can indicate any notability of this company. I only find the same press release of the buyout, which is not independent. MuZemike 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- couldn't find any assertion of notability. Website just says "talk to your sales rep". — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:50, 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.--chaser - t 03:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niyazi Silsila[edit]

Declined speedy, non notable order. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiability. Nothing reliable comes up on this 8-hit-long Google search. MuZemike 01:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not notable enough for inclusion, as it is not mentioned in any reliable, third party sources. tempodivalse [☎] 01:43, 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.--chaser - t 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wen Peixin[edit]

This is supposedly the "wife" of He Tianhao, which was deleted by consensus a few weeks back, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Tian Hao. This has similar problems: no sourcing, and I couldn't find any non-Wikipedia sources on the internet. This person is listed on several literature-related lists (see the Special:Whatlinkshere/Wen Peixin) but they don't have sources either; perhaps they were just copied from the categories. If this is deleted I suggest those links be removed. Rigadoun (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this hoax. I've done several searches for sources and have been unable to verify this person's existence. Even if she did exist, the lack of sources would mean that she fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there are passing mentions of his death by looking at this search, but nothing providing any verifiability of this person. MuZemike 01:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those hits look like they just scraped this article. Also, the alleged subject is a "she". cab (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No English gbooks hits and no sources in Chinese either. Not sure how her name would be written (文佩欣, maybe?), but general searches in Chinese like like "The Fate of Love" Qing Dynasty female author, "The Fate of Love" Lanzhou, Lanzhou female author Kangxi year 27 (her alleged birthdate), etc. don't give any useful results. cab (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:43, 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. Although this fails a headcount, "Four square regional is mostly schoolyard rituals and chants, which will never have citations" is grounds for deletion; Wikipedia is not a "holding tank." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four square regional[edit]

The article is a mere list of unsourced rules. It is a bit of a content fork, as it could easily be merged to the main four square article. The article's material is not backed up by reliable sources and it unverifiable, as of August 2007. Simply put, if there was no article already, it would not pass the articles for creation process. Alex Douglas (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. This seems to be usage of Wikipedia as a web host. MuZemike 01:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. Alex Douglas and I recently salvaged onto the main Four square article the material that was of general interest or well-documented. What remains in Four square regional is mostly schoolyard rituals and chants, which will never have citations. But such material continues to be contributed, and I have no problem with using this page as a holding tank in case future editors can make some of it rigorous enough for inclusion on the Four square page. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:34, 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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill College Junior Common Room[edit]

Organization does not seem to meet requirements set out in the notability guidelines, or the organization-specific guideline. There is a single outside reference for this article, which itself does not actually mention this organization at all, but is an obituary for a professor at the school. I don't see any evidence that this is a particulatly notable student group, and it seems that unless some independent references materialize, this group is not notable enoigh for an article. Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed two of the references from the article. The first one was a broken link and the second does not discuss the subject at all. Salih (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nothing out there to establish notability of the room specifically. I honestly don't think a redirect would make sense here as I cannot see why this would be plausible of a search term. MuZemike 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to satisfy WP:N or WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its claim to fame is covered in Representation of the People Act 1969; other than that it isn't notable. Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 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 23:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Steve Sidewalk[edit]

non-notable DJ Brianga (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – the only thing I can find that comes close to anything reliable is this post from the gaysocialites.com blog, but that's it. Everything else looks trivial or are unreliable. MuZemike 01:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - D-lister, no national tour, no contract for a CD, no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Brown (goaltender)[edit]

Delete as an unsourced BLP that fails the general notability guidelines. He is a lifelong minor league hockey goalie with no special significance like being a top prospect, for example. Note: someone who passes WP:ATHLETE must first pass WP:GNG. Tavix | Talk 18:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – looking at the first couple of pages of the Google search of "Mike Brown" goalie, I get a few trivial mentions from reliable sources but nothing I would consider significant to meet the general notability guideline. MuZemike 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just misses notability, as things stand. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE on account of having played professional hockey. There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia of players with Brown's level of achievement and notability. Here's a full article about Brown...[69]. Don't forget, while significant coverage is more than trivial, it may be less than exclusive which more often than not is the case for minor-pro hockey players. You may find a few articles based on them, but they will be mentioned throughout the media. I've added some beef to the article. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Nurmsook. Patken4 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference Nurmsook found is an article saying that he has not yet had a significant career. DGG (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference I found was also published three years ago, and looking at his statistics, he has clearly been playing professional hockey in each of those three years since. Regardless, 40 minutes in the AHL still means he has "competed at the fully professional level of a sport", which means he passes WP:ATHLETE, and with the sources I found, he passes WP:GNG. Thus, I would argue that DGG and King of Hearts' arguments are essentially moot, as where does it state that an individual had to have a significant career? And further, how do you define significant? Following WP guidelines, this guy is a pass. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have to agree with DGG, since 40 minutes of ice time isn't much of a career. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's played almost 100 games, almost 5,000 minutes, in professional league hockey in North America. That career passes WP:Athlete. Patken4 (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – played in ECHL and AHL, both are professional leagues. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:03, 24 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.--chaser - t 03:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Depeche Mode[edit]

Deproded by an IP. This article is unreferenced and non-notable. It is a list of albums that is redundant to Depeche Mode discography. A listing that the Depeche Mode catalogue is available through iTunes Store is NOT notable, and that is what this article is about Esasus (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very similar to the situation with the iTunes albums. No chance of charting as they're available only via a single vendor, no chance of it being notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Google and found news items on the release of this album from NME and Spin within seconds. I have added them to the External links and am urging we Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Shawn. There is a minimal amount of notability there. Good enough IMO. MuZemike 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable collection of songs, these iTunes box sets (if they can really be called "box" sets) are not notable. A mention in their discography article is enough. TJ Spyke 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. The NME & Spin ref's only provide the release dates and a quick run-down on what is in it (it looks like a slight rewording of the same press release too). Not exactly significant coverage in my view. And why would they, the albums and songs have already been covered in detail in their own specific articles. The mention in the Depeche Mode discography is more than enough, unless it goes on to break some sort of sales records, or one of the previously unreleased songs hits the charts or something. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan's cogent arguments. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage of a non notable collection. Iam (talk) 02:52, 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.