< 20 April	22 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabie subdivision[edit]

Non-notable court documents; obvious republication of existing documents, which begs the question of whether or not copyright violations are involved. mhking (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Zoo Animal Explorer[edit]

Article might not our notability guidelines as it's not mentioned in reliable, third party sources. tempodivalse [☎] 23:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing found at Google news, Google Scholar. I'll change my mind if someone can find a review of this. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I found this on IMDB. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reviews that I could find. No coverage beyond listings in shopping sites and the like. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any independent coverage. Bongo matic 01:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Elizabeth[edit]

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:Entertainer Leoniceno (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator. Fails pornbio. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Entertainer and GNG, PORNBIO isn't really relevant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 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) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olli Hokkanen[edit]

This is a BLP of a young man "notable" for drinking 1.5 litres of Coca-Cola on a Finnish television show. The rest of the article is a BLP nightmare.

Even the Finnish Wikipedia thought him unnotable and deleted their version.[1] Scott Mac (Doc) 23:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:N, and, as the article claims, is notable for only one event, then that does not constitute "notability". My two cents. Cheers. I'^mperator 23:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: the assertions of notability are predicated on his having failed to drink that much cola. I feel that in this matter, we should emulate the Finnish Wikipedia. DS (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Probably not notable per above, but there does seem to be a fair amount of 3rd party coverage of this: [2]. Apparently it is a small-moderate Internet phenomenon per article and 1.6M hits for Original 2006 video and 2M+ hits for related videos [3]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability implies something notable Any amount of internet notice for nothing still = nothing. DGG (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well Star Wars Kid and Numa Numa Guy didn't exactly do anything inherently notable either. Sometimes one can be notable just for being noticed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's supposedly notable for one event, and that one event is something that isn't notable itself (drinking/failing to drink a quantity of liquid), so I don't really see how he's notable enough for Wikipedia. His name could, however, be added to one of those lists on Internet Memes or some such. Nick (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick. He says it all. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nick and Bearian. Also agree that he fails WP:BLP. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I'm not at all sure this shouldn't be speedied immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete/delete for now The individual seems to be WP:BLP1E. However, he has also entered the news for criminal accusations independent of his attempted beverage consumption. Regardless, there's a clear claim of notability so speedy deletion would be out of process and a very bad idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Possibly mention in some appropriate list of internet memes. Sandstein 17:57, 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 keep. One (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Filter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page was the subject of a VfD debate on April 16, 2005. The decision was to merge and redirect to/with Fermi Paradox. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Great Filter for discussion. Mackensen (talk) 05:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) I would suggest a merge to Rare Earth hypothesis J8079s (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. This article should be converted to a disambiguation page between Rare Earth hypothesis and The Great Filter (album).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article content is related to both Fermi Paradox & Rare Earth hypothesis, but not interchangeable with either term. Regular Google & Scholar searches reveals that the term is indeed used in RS and is notable in its own right. The scientific/philosophical term is clearly more notable than the album, so the page should stay as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per WP:SPEEDY G4. Additionally, only citation in article that actually mentions the topic is to the topic's originator. Google scholar results tend to be either unrelated or arxiv. WP:Notability is therefore not established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Great Filter is explicitly mentioned in the Nick Bostrom citation as well. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google scholar shows many references (try ' "Great Filter' Fermi' to get rid of some of the noise). Many are by M. M. Ćirković, and appear in real journals, with pre-prints in arXiv. Also there is a book chapter by Ćirković in a book by Bostrom, Ćirković, and Rees. LouScheffer (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Surely you are open to the possibility of a topic's importance changing within four year's time? The topic is clearly notable today - it doesn't matter if it wasn't four years ago. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can find no real differences (looking at the sources) in these theories. Also the history section of The Great Filter shows a lack of interest in expanding or improving the article. Rare Earth on the other hand has a number of active participants J8079s (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How might the article be improved? It already explains the concept clearly and concisely. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Perceived lack of interest in improving the article is not a valid criteria for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rare Earth & Great Filter are different, although related, concepts. One has implications for the past of the Earth, the other about the future of civilisation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ideas Rare Earth and Great Filter are distinct. Notability is shown by (among other things) the album - clearly someone outside of the author thought the idea interesting. LouScheffer (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Great Filter is a web essay. The author is not an expert in this field. There are a great number of web essays about this theory that dont use the great filter as the name of the theory(also some published work, the name has not caught on). Even if The Great Filter and The Rare Earth Hypothesis are different in some substantial way ( I dont see it) they could still share one article that could be linked to Drake and Fermi and have citations from published sources.J8079s (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Since J8079s's fails to distinguish between the Rare Earth hypothesis and the Great Filter those articles J8079s says don't use the GF moniker are probably about the REH or something else. Also, note that that Hanson is a tenured professor, ex-NASA, so I see no basis for the claim that Hanson is not an expert in this field. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment While a web essay is not normally a reliable source, it can certainly be notable. ArXiv is full of web essays, those articles which are published in arXiv and then not in any professional or refereed journals. Many of them collect quite a few references from the formal, traditional, peer-reviewed academic publishing, so a web essay can clearly be notable, even in the strictest of academic interpretations of notable. LouScheffer (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came to the "the great filter" page after hearing the term used by the professor in my astronomy class. I'm glad that it had not been deleted! Eliptis (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. No reason given for fork. Bongo matic 01:58, 28 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 only deletion rationale given is CSD G12 which covers "blatant copyright infringement" which this article is not (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless HDMI[edit]

Declining speedy deletion since there's an active discussion, taking to AfD because the tagger deserves consideration of their point about copyright infringement. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find a couple of RS's, and a few things that point to there being a lot of sources for it. See [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. I'm in a rush, so I was only able to skim most of them. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original CSD tagger, Hdmi org (talk · contribs) (now indef blocked as a WP:U vio), had the following concern: "Both the text HDMI and High-Definition Multimedia Interface are copyrights of the HDMI Licensing, LLC. The term "Wireless HDMI" is a misuse and an infringement of the HDMI trademark. There is no such thing as a "Wireless HDMI" technology since HDMI Licensing, LLC. never officially released a wireless version of its technology and all current wireless solutions use proprietary 3rd party technologies (i.e. WirelessHD or WHDI) unrelated to the HDMI technology for their wireless links."

Sounds to me like his/her issue is with the people developing this technology, not with Wikipedia. I haven't checked verifiability yet, but if this does have RS coverage as Genius101 says, I say keep and let the matter be worked between the company the original tagger claims to represent and the people developing the Wireless HDMI technology. Wikipedia is not a battleground.KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the first link given by Genius101 above states that Philips (Royal Philips Electronics)—which is part of the HDMI Licensing LLC consortium ([9])—introduced a wireless HDMI product in 2007. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seem to be sources and the original deletion reason is totally irrelevant. That's not what we mean by WP:COPYRIGHT. DGG (talk) 02:15, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Weston Chandler[edit]

Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Highly frenetic (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. A Google search on the subject doesn't bring up reliable sources, anyway. Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not pass WP:BIO at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't meet our standards of notability for biographies; not mentioned in any reliable, third party sources. tempodivalse [☎] 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there seems to be some related mucking about on the articles Chris Chan Lee ([10]) and Jimmy Hill ([11]). — sjorford++ 09:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trolls have done similar vandalism on the Notable Cherokees page (either that or a similar page) by adding Chris, who claims Cherokee ancestry. --Champthom (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even so, being mentioned on some blog as "a future republican congressman" is not his only notability credentials. --Phil1988 (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I troll Chris but I admit, none of the current stuff on Chris really meets Wikipedia standards (NPOV or lack thereof, anyone?). Really, mostly EDiots like myself who generate this stuff. --Champthom (talk) 22:52, 26 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) 00:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the stubby cooler[edit]

A supposed history of the stubby holder (aka Beer koozie). I would suggest merging to Beer Koozie except that the content is completely unsourced and frankly unencyclopaedic Mattinbgn\^talk 21:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Get rid of it fast. Tells a nice little story about a guy who "enjoyed the odd drink or two", but it's not an article. No sources, no hint of relevance, no chance this will ever be an article. Chrisahn (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I could find no evidence that any of the info is true. Likely a hoax. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say merge to Beer koozie, but the article is awful and unsourced. And Thaddeus is right, there is a possibility of a hoax, which is exacerbated by the lack of results I could find. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 21:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I recommended for speedy (and was successful on French Wikipedia where the same article was posted). GHITS show no proof that any person by that name was involved in the development of the koozie, so no need to merge. JCutter ^{{ talk to me }} 22:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete smells suspiciously of a WP:HOAX -- not mentioned in any reliable sources. I can't find any mention of this anywhere on the Internet. tempodivalse [☎] 23:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems hoaxy, no need to merge this unsourced material with anything. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

HangonThis is the real history of the stubby cooler, Why:

-there is a source, an interview between Malcolm Lock and Roger Carthew -the stubby holder was invented by Malcolm Lock on 1972 and not by Wes Cresswell on 1976 -it's to old to find information about that on Internet -the stubby holder is an 100% Australian creation -beer koozie and stubby holder aren't the same product because each belong to different culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romain37550 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am rather sure that this is bollocks. I think (and a dictionary from the 1980s backs this up) that stubby coolers were polystyrene in the 1970s and that the neoprene is much more recent - reckon that this article is simply untrue - Peripitus (Talk) 07:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total bollocks Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's likely a hoax. However, on the slim chance that it's real, it fails WP:OR, WP:SOAP and a handful of other guidelines. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, choose your poison: WP:HOAX, WP:OR, etc. Plenty of very good reasons to delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:40, 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 redirect to Swing Kids. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Swing Movement[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources. Fleetflame 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there was an EAR thread in regards to this article which resulted in this deletion nomination. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swing Kids, aka The Swing Movement in Nazi Germany. I can find no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources to establish notability for this band, per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Esradekan or turn into a dab page if there's more swing movements than the one in Nazi Germany; there's a distinct failure of notability guidelines here, and moreover this is quite the valid search term. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:01, 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 no consensus. One (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Are North Melbourne[edit]

A short-lived supporter group who received no independent coverage from North Melbourne Football Club. The creator of the article has a potential conflict of interest. Mattinbgn\^talk 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated three reasons for deleting this entry, so I'll respond to those in turn:

Firstly, that We Are North Melbourne is shortly lived supporter group. This is incorrect. We Are North Melbourne was incorporated as a legal entity in November 2007 and is an ongoing concern with a current website.

Secondly, that We Are North Melbourne received no independent coverage form North Melbourne. Given the purpose of the group (as its name implies) I would have thought this is fair enough. The existence of We Are North Melbourne is intrinsically linked with the North Melbourne Football Club. It played a role in an issue of historical interest and I would have thought this is of interest to Wikipedia users. Other similar groups are listed on Wikipedia, such as: The Boston United Supporters' Trust, Manchester United Supporters' Trust, Rangers Supporters Trust, Independent Manchester United Supporters Association and Screaming_Eagles_(D.C._United). It's worth pointing out that the WANM artcile cites a great many more references than any of these groups.

Thirdly, yes I am involved with WANM, so there is a conflict of interest. But I understand that who has written the material should be irrelevant, so long as Wikipedia policies are closely adhered to. In this case I have attempted to write from a neutral point of view and have cited references for anything that might be contestable. Acoording to the guidelines, "an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias." And I would welcome this kind of review.

Dave.wheaton (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI would find it helpful if you could cite specifically how the article does not meet the WP:ORG. I have read these guidelines and understand that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Several secondary sources are quoted in the Article, including statewide (inc. front page of The Age) and national media coverage (The Australian and Radio National, The World Today) - I believe this meets the notable criteria. I will add more references to the Article if this will help? Dave.wheaton (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WANM was a key to keeping the NMFC in Melbourne. It's place in the NMFC's history is significant and of interest to readers. Article is well sourced. NimChief (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles are about NMFC and WANM is not notable outside that context. There may be an article on the proposed move of NMFC, but that would be about the event not the supporters group. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is the basis for deletion, then I find it quite inconsistent that the other supporters groups listed above meet the WP:ORG but WANM does not. Dave.wheaton (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one is saying that they do - just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that any of it is necessarily good or bad. Very few of the articles given as sources for this article appear to be about this organisation judging from their titles. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I understand this issue correctly, the question to be resolved in this case is whether or not the coverage of WANM is notable?

According to the primary criteria for notability at Wikipedia:ORG: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability."

I think the WANM article meets the notability criteria for an organisation because:

1. The depth of coverage is sometimes "substantial." For example, this article is substantially about WANM: [12]

2. When the coverage is not substantial, neither is it trivial or incidental. For example, the column inches devoted to WANM in this article may not be substantial, but 80 words on the front page of The Age (Melbourne's only daily broadsheet newspaper) is hardly trivial or incidental. I would think that front page coverage in any capital city daily news paper would be pretty good evidence of notability. [13]

3. There are now 18 secondary sources cited in the article referencing WANM's media coverage. This should meet the "multiple independent sources" requirement.

4. The wide range of media outlets/articles cited provide evidence of a "strong indication of notability" from national, regional and local media.

--Dave.wheaton (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited from the parent organization, and this group lacks the in-depth coverage in reliable, third-party sources required by WP:N. Them From Space 18:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you sure WP:N applies to this case? According to WP:N these guidelines apply to "topics", whereas WANM is a legal entity in it's own right. In this case I think Wikipedia:ORG would apply. Dave.wheaton (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is the subject of the article. This topic is the group itself. Notability isn't inherited from a parent topic to a smaller topic, so the guidelines must apply to the organization itself. Them From Space 05:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it is worth mentioning at all a brief mention in the North Melbourne Football Club article would be sufficent.--Grahame (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to North Melbourne Football Club which, at 77kb could do with some splitting. Maybe a separate history section where this article can be merged with the Push to the Gold Coast section. florrie 03:55, 27 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) 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discryptor[edit]

First tagger prodded with "Unremarkable software. No assertion of notability", second tagger speedied, I suggest AfD. Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FinallySecure. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, looks like pure spam to me Cupids wings (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like spam. Not notable either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldlaptop321 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 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. Tone 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lac Motion[edit]

Fake Billboard charts. No evidence it charted at all [14]. No independent 3rd party sources. Non notable WP:NSONGS JamesBurns (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable could not find any record of this song charting. RP459 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable song, nothing independent on Google, nothing on Billboard, allmusic and MTV. A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 19:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable song. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not notable, per above. TheAE talk/sign 20:25, 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 speedy keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

María del Luján Telpuk[edit]

Irrelevant, redundant with the Maletinazo article. Orphan article. The story about the case could be relevant, but not this person. Goddess (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the first time I have seen a WP:GA at WP:AFD, but I guess that is sort of irrelevant. However, most of the text is distinct from Maletinazo, which has not even been updated for events for the last six months. Thus, if one should be deleted it should be the other since this one has much of the current detail. Additionally, much of the other text about her career in this bio is distinct from the scandal article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual has developed into an undeniable minor celebrity with an unquestionable claim to notability. Although, in the performance of her low-level job, she did uncover the tip of an international corruption scandal, her rise to fame was obviously fueled by her physical appearance and personality as well as intense media interest. Simply a cursory glance at the article's fourteen professionally presented footnotes (note no. 2 is no longer valid), including a front-page story in The Wall Street Journal, magazine covers and newspaper photographs, confirms the validity of her Wikipedia entry.—Roman Spinner (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I do not see this when I go to WP:AFD and look at the 11th. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have transcluded the page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by Roman, we have several good sources on the article. How could an article possibly pass the Good Article review if it were irrelevant and redundent? I'm not questioning the nom's good faith, but I really don't see any good reason to delete. Even if it's redundant to Maletinazo, the better course would be to propose a merger. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GA, well-referenced with sources that establish subject's notability above and beyond WP:BIO1E. Jfire (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's done modelling unrelated to the scandal, which means WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply. Article being an orphan can be handled by editing and if this is indeed were duplicate information from the scandal a merge would be infinitely better than a deletion. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FinallySecure[edit]

Declining speedy since it's been around for a year in this form, but taking to AfD. It looks to me like the tagger has been doing good work on "computer security" articles, and I think I agree that having an article on Wikipedia that could be seen as approval of such a product without actual notability could be a bad thing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This appears to be a real product, but searching Google news archive for it found me a lot of press releases (and news service aggregator reprints of press releases) and little or no coverage that could be considered both independent and reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a tech product with minimal notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, looks spam to me. Cupids wings (talk) 20:39, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free (Dani Harmer Song)[edit]

Non-notable song (though may become notable after it's actually released), it's covered enough at the main article for the artist. roux 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage in reliable sources. I doubt the song will become notable when it's released, but it may. For now though, it's definitely not notable. Tim meh ! 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Looks like someone needs to go to ownership counselling too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and I have a gut feeling it won't be even when it is released -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems a promotional attempt. There is also the alternative spelling Free (Dani Harmer song) which before it was redirected had a bit more text. In both cases a recreation as a redirect would be possible. Agathoclea (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it has been released, so speedy does not apply. No !vote. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Speedy was never an option - it has been prodded - redirected - tagged and now AFD'ed as a result of the owners insistence. -- Agathoclea (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure if this is notable, but currently has no content other than an infobox, so deletion seems appropriate. However, it should not be deleted on the basis of the "non-plausible search term" comment above, since the title is perfectly appropriate per WP:DAB. Rlendog (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just a heads up that there has been a redirect and cut and paste move to Free (Dani Harmer song) where I now re-instated the Afd notice Agathoclea (talk) 19:53, 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 no consensus. One (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua–South Ossetia relations[edit]

Contested prod. This information is entirely covered here, and there is no evidence of any notability in the relationship beyond the fact that recognition has been granted. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll have to disagree on the significance of the link cited (and I appreciate that you have cited it). What I draw from it is that Nicaragua is the only other nation in the world that recognizes South Ossetia or even expresses an intention to work with this pariah state. That's enough to persuade me that there would be content for this article. It's also important to look at the the author's other work. Unlike the reckless matchmaking that Groubani/Plumoyr engages in, this is by someone who has taken the time to research articles in his field of interest [15], as opposed to cranking out stubs. Mandsford (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's significant that Nicaragua granted recognition, but a) what else could possibly be said? (after all, a Central American country doesn't have a natural affinity for some mountain passes 7,600 miles away) and b) what do we gain by having the exact same information in two places? Couldn't we perhaps redirect? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources in the article that establish this is a notable, non-trivial relationship and none findable by me.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply the fact that Nicaragua is unique among faraway nations in granting recognition is enough — we have sufficient reliable sources to verify its existence, and its distinctiveness means that the topic is going to be covered by more. No reason not to expect further developments, since South Ossetia's foreign ministry surely won't have much to do with only four other recognitions. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- a) It's still not clear to me why we should cover the exact same information in two places. b) Our articles document what is and what has been, not that which we have no reason not to expect to happen. All sources on this subject speak exclusively of the recognition, which is documented in precisely the same form elsewhere. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only encyclopedic tidbit the article could possibly have is "N recognizes SO" (which I'm sure is covered/belongs on other pages). Building an article around that tidbit looks like an awful experiment in "what if I do this?" Dahn (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this relationship is significant if only because Nicaragua is one of the only two (generally recognised independent) countries in the world to recognise South Ossetia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- As I've asked three times already: why should we cover the exact same information - the fact of recognition - in two places, here and here? - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because that article is about the recognition and non-recognition of these two states in the wider sense, while this article is (or can be) about the particular relationship between these two entities. Completely different topics, so different articles are appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    - But: a) so far, the entirety of their relations consists of recognition, a fact documented as much there as here; b) exact duplication of text is always discouraged. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A single event is insufficient evidence of notability. The act of recognition is such a single event. Martintg (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no relationship, only recognition. Nicaragua speaks only of coordinating the possibility of direct diplomatic relations at some future date via Russia. This article is total synthesis bordering on a hoax. Martintg (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the latest addition to the article: "Whilst on a state visit to Russia in December 2008, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega expressed his desire to travel to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the future". This article is about a possible future relationship, nothing exists at the moment. This article is build on some Wikipedian's speculative synthesis of future events that may or may not happen. Martintg (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per reasons given above. All relevant info is included in recognition of SO article. --Tone 06:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current relations are on the level of "Yeah, sure, whatever". That does not notability make. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given the history and political situation of both countries, this is an interesting and significant relationship, well referenced. A quick check shows a mass of reportage and commentary, including some like this and this that show broader ramifications (I may add them to the article). The relationship may be shallow in terms of real contact, trade, cooperation and so on, but it sure is noteworthy. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again the sources added is related to the recognition, which is already covered in the article International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, nothing about the relationship. The actual relationship itself (which this article is suppose to be about) is so shallow that it doesn't exist. Martintg (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship is very new. As it stands, the article is mostly about the act of recognition and its initial impact. Given the controversy, that is significant. Presumably there will be further developments over the next few months and years, and the article will grow. But there is a lot more information than in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is a list-type article that cannot reasonably be expanded to include all the details of individual country stances on the issue, if only because of WP:SIZE guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that Biruitorul and others are doing an excellent job in weeding out, one-by-one, the random combinations that were generated by Groubani and Plumoyr (this is not one of those pages) in the last few months. In some cases, a further search of news and other sources shows that there is a significance in a particular combination, and this is one of those cases. It is true that Daniel Ortega's gambit of recognizing South Ossetia could be covered in other articles-- not just "international recognition of a. and s.o.", but also "Nicaragua-Russia relations" and "Nicaragua-United States relations". The act of recognition is, in my opinion, notable enough to merit an independent article. I suppose that this could be retitled "Nicaraguan recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia", but I think the title is fine the way it is. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, let's keep bringing these discussions to the table. Mandsford (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for recognition – and per Estonia–Iceland relations. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dersim genocide[edit]

Delete no reliable source.Even it uses a terrorist organiztaion(pkk) as a source.The creator of this article should learn the meaning of genocide.Abbatai (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Actually, the word genocide is used in most scholarly works. However, rename to Kurdish Genocide, as this incident is more commonly known as, in academic works, as shown here [16], in particular this book [17]. Worse case scenario, Merge/Redirect to Dersim rebellion.Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.Not suppressing a political group.Your information is just propaganda if there were a "Kurdish Genocide" the turkish government would relocate all kurds in anatolia.However this case was only carried out in one city that was rebellious.Abbatai (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you overlooked the “…in part” of your statement, which is also included in the definition.. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I say is totally different residents of Dersim were a political group(rebellious) which is not included in this definition not ethnic, religous or national group.If you say it was a genocide you should call all political suppressions as genocide.See Black January.Abbatai (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article in its current form may have some WP:RS issues, but that's not the same thing as lacking coverage in reliable sources, which the subject of this article has, as Shoessss has indicated.--Unscented (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The writer of the book you are reffering is not a genocide scholar even if he was that wouldnot change anything today many turks also claim there was a turkish genocide by armenians.We should seperate genocide claims and genocide.Abbatai (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and carefully consider renaming. Here is one source (reliable?) that mentions the use of the term Dersim genocide: annoyingly it's not letting me past the URL because it contains characters that wikipedia parses:

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34808&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=887bf4a0cb

The source is "Assyrian Nationalists Cooperate with Kurdish PKK Insurgents"

Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 8. Cazort (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no need for a rename, most of its content can be incorporated into the Dersim rebellion article (which could also mention the "genocide" allegation if enough credible sources use it). Meowy 02:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't aware of that separate article. I think they should be merged. On the other hand, there is little content on that page and more on this one. Also, I found another source that refers to it both as genocide, and as the "Dersim Rebellion": M. Van Bruinessen, "Genocide in Kurdistan? The suppression of the Dersim rebellion in Turkey (1937–38) and the chemical …", Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions, 1994. Page 141 of this book begins the covering of this topic: [18]. I am starting to become convinced that we should merge/redirect into Dersim Rebellion but that we should mention that the term "Genocide" is used by many to describe what happened there. Cazort (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dersim rebellion, but with the title up for discussion on the talk page. I think these two articles are each better understood in context with each other, but each of these titles seems to lean towards one point of view, with "rebellion" suggesting that the Kurds were the instigators of the events, and "genocide" suggesting more than is generally agreed amongst independent sources. "Genocide" has a very strong meaning, so the word shouldn't be used in an article title for every suppression of national aspirations, even if it involves a massacre, but the fact that some sources describe it as a genocide should be covered in the article. I note that the source cited by the previous contributor has a question mark in the title. There also seems to be a question mark about whether this can be called "genocide" in most of these sources about these events, at least in those that appear to be independent. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dersim rebellion, changing the title to Dersim Ethnocide. The article has only one source, with Andreopoulos' Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions, simply restating Van Bruinessen's information. Without further primary sources and historiography, it is rather presumptuous to label this event as a genocide. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:16, 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) 04:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Studies Student Union[edit]

Non-notable collegiate cinema club mhking (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My article was revised to show how the club is notable. The group is likely only notable to the Toronto public, but it is notable nonetheless. I added instances of the group being cited in well-circulated Toronto newspapers and shown when notable figures have been involved in the club's events, such as Spencer Rice and Kenny Hotz from comedy central's show "Kenny vs. Spenny", and famed international film director Atom Egoyan, who is heavily involved with the Cinema Studies Program at the University of Toronto. Comment added by Jazzyjpl (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — Jazzyjpl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very limited third party coverage. [19]. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:40, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Very limited third party coverage" is kind of an understatement--there is no coverage at all, and the article has no encyclopedic quality or content. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, subjects of articles are notable to Wikipedia standards or they are not. Unfortunately this group does not have non-trivial third party coverage to firmly establish notability and certainly not enough to support the article, most of which is WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 03:54, 28 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 transwikied to Wiktionary. Article has already been moved to Wiktionary, so deleting article here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daikoku-bashira[edit]

Remains a dictionary definition since its PROD nomination 2 years ago. Created an entry at wiktionary here --Mantokun (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)corrected the typo in wikt link above.--Mantokun (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As long as the information remains on a Wikimedia project, I don't object to its being deleted from Wikipedia. If someone later wants to create a substantial encyclopedia article, it's possible at any time. Fg2 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tagged the article for transwiki to Wiktionary. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 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 A7 by User:Acroterion. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil'Loco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lil'Loco

This appears to be an article about a 12 year old musician. The article has just been posted, and seems to have borrowed heaviliy from the Soulja Boy article, yet there's enough information here to discern the subject. This musician fails WP:BIO, WP:BAND, and WP:N as no reliable sources can be found that describe him in the detail needed for an encyclopedic article. There are only 14 hits on google news and none of them seem to be about this guy (there's a criminal with this ailias as well). A regular google search fails to provide any reliable sources. Them From Space 01:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism, partial copy of another article. JNW (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listed for speedy delete. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied because you guys know what you're talking about. To closer: could we keep this AfD open, at least for a little while, so that anyone who disagrees with the speedy will have a chance to bring it up? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:01, 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 link to Wiktionary. It's a transwikied dicdef, but a plausible search term. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paper jam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paper jam

Delete Not a dab, only 1 entry with a link. Page would only be useful as a Wiktionary page Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC) on their talk page(s). Boleyn (talk)))[reply]

Delete I'd point out that even before it was stripped of the silliness [20] (which is why only 1 entry is left), this article has undergone various incarnations-- spam for some company that thought it would be a good idea to remind people of an irritating experience, a definition for people who might not figure out what the phrase means, and a vehicle for jokes about the worst flavor of jam ever [21]. Worth glancing at to see why some articles don't belong at all. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: was copied to Wiktionary over a year ago. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational force theory[edit]

The article appears to be original research. The theory purports to be similar to several well-referenced theories, but the article goes on to describe how the new theory is different from the old without any citation to where the new theory comes from. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not merely WP:OR, but nonsense. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR and nonsense. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fringe science OR nonsense, not needed here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. I removed the WP:PROD tag from this on procedural grounds, because the creator contested deletion in an edit summary, but I agree that this is at best original research, if it can be called any sort of research at all. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 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. One (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tie me over[edit]

DICT DEF. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not just a dicdef, but also the opposite of correct usage, according to a source I found: Brians, Paul (2003), Common Errors in English Usage, Franklin, Beedle & Associates, Inc., p. 204, ISBN 9781887902892. Per WP:AGF, I'm going to assume that the author of this didn't realize it was incorrect and merely committed original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Completely incorrect article that attempts to argue a position that is contrary to accepted English usage. A good reference to the correct usage and etymology is [22]. JulesH (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected the article, which leaves us with one with little meaningful information, so I'd still suggest deletion. JulesH (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary Dicdef alright. Just fine for Wiktionary. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already there: wikt:tide over. Unless you mean that Wiktionary should have an entry for the incorrect usage, pointing to the correct usage. I guess it should go at wikt:tie over? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 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. One (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Markoff[edit]

Okay, recreated again after it was deleted (speedy), WP:ONEVENT failure. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you running out of disk space. If not then why delete? I was looking specifically for this name and glad that I found a page dedicated to the name instead of some general Craiglist Killers page. Stop wasting your and other people time by attempting to delete other people's work. It's better to have more than less. Disk space is cheap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyenaiviet (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Craigslist Killer#The Boston "Craigslist Killer" or Craigslist Killer. Cycle~ (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Redirect it. otisjimmy1 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Likely search term, but best covered in the Craigslist Killer article.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I redirected it, sorry I should have followed procedure, but it seemed obvious.M4bwav (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI have greatly expanded this page with references. I am planning to continue to expand it. This is a very active current event in boston right now. Please do not delete 24.91.117.213 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another example of folly in deleting something that will clearly be notable. By now enough stories have appeared that it is not ONE EVNENT--there is more than one crime, and there is already international coverage. There will probably be a good many more accounts by the end of the week. The pattern of deleting very notable things on the basis that they arent yet widely notable the fist few hours after the report shows a considerable lack of judgment in applying NOT NEWS. DGG (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment It wasn't notable when it was nominated, why was it an error of judgment on my part? Anyway, ONEVENT says comment on the event, not the person. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As it currently exists, this is an article about the killings, not a biography about Philip Markoff. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG - much news coverage, including lead stories on major national television news programs and in newspapers about the individual as distinct from the crime. Article is in process of being expanded, and it's obvious that more and more reliable sources are becoming available. It's a stub - give it a chance. The facts of the murder are handled in Craigslist Killer, but biographical information about this out-of-the-mold accused killer belong in a biography of him. Tvoz/talk 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not convinced that Craigslist Killer is an actual topic. This article is really a disambiguation page pointing to three separate topics. If it were a topic, it would be accurately called the Craigslist killings, but there are no good sources that actually talk about this. Recommend splitting the other two killers out into their own articles and using the "Craigslist killer" page for disambiguation only. I suspect that Markoff might get a primary topic designation, so the dablink could conceivably appear at the top of his page. I don't know if this is true just yet, however. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ changed to Stong Keep (explanation provided): This page is weak. The material on the Craigslist Killer page is stronger. Some of this material might be saved, however, before a delete-and-redirect is undertaken. Also, i understand why Viriditas said above that s/he would like to make Craigslist Killer (which we both agree needs a lower-cas "k" in killer) into a disambiguation page. I happen to strongly disagree with this idea, though. Here's why:

~~The term "Craigslist Killer" is never given in the media as "Craigslist killings."~~

The current Philip Markoff page is poorly conceived, as noted by Who then was a gentleman, and it is also not well written, in my opinion; however, although it might stand alone if basically overwritten by the material currently on the Craigslist Killer page, what then would happen to the data and timelines dealing with the OTHER two media-named Craigslist killers -- Anderson and Katehis? The latter has already gotten a mention on the George Weber page, as Weber was his victim, but Anderson? This was not such a big case in and of itself -- but it is historically important because it marks the first appearance of the term "Craigslist Killer."
Updated Comment: I am disapponted and angered that the editor Viriditas turned the heavily referenced Craigslist killer page into a dab during the midst of a discussion without having the decency to find consensus -- and i have spent hours trying to make sense of his messy work, whereby he deleted all text formerly on the page by making redirects to an off-topic page. (The topic is true crime / murders; he redirected to a sub-head in the middle of a page about an online advertising service!). However, having spent the morning undoing his editorial travesty, i now vote to keep the Philip Markoff page. Wikipedia has many pages on famous murder cases, listed, generally, under the name of the accused / convicted person. Serial crimes, in particular, are notable, and there is such ample precedent for this kind of page titling at Wikipedia that i find it stange that anyone would seek to delete the material as non-notable.

Comment: To my way of thinking, it is the term "Craislist killer" that is the actual subject here -- and the notability is the way that the media keep applying the term to different cases. In short, i see this 180 degrees from the way Viriditas does. cat yronwode, not logged in all day, sorry! 64.142.90.33 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's very strange, since you just said on Talk:Craigslist Killer that you didn't have a problem with the disambiguation page. In any case, there is no one Craigslist killer, and the three are not connected, so an article about the three isn't exactly accurate. Unless there are good sources about the Craigslist killings, this is a disambiguation page, nothing more. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What i actually wrote was this:

I am not oposed in theory to making "Craigslist killer" a dab page, but i would agree to this only if the Anderson and Katehis pages are created and only if one month after their creation they are not afd-ed out of existence -- which is, i am convinced, EXACTLY what will happen if they are left to stand alone.

Think about it my way, too, though: In my opinion, "Craigslist killer" is not a dab -- it is a new term of art. This is one writer who will be pissed off as hell if an entire day's work of mine is trashed by deletionists just because *you* don't get it that "Craigslist killer" is a newly-coined specific term with a specific meaning and as such it is currently much used in popular culture to refer to any and all murderers, with any and all kinds of motivation, who have in common the modus operandi that they find victims via Craigslist.

In short, the very fact that you are searching in vain for media uses of "Craiglist killings" convinces me that you have not yet understood that we are dealing with a new word coinage -- Craigslist killer, a term defined by internet modus operandi -- and that we are not merely handling a series of unrelated cases that need to be disambiguated. My thinking is running toward writing up a wiki page on "want ad killers" and removing the STUPID redirect that links the term "lonely hearts killer" to only ONE of the several lonely hearts killer cases. Furthermore, no one at wikipedia has yet addressed how H.H. Holmes, the 19th century boardinghouse killer, fits into this picture -- but he does, because he advertised his boardinghouse-abbatoir in the Chicago classifieds -- yet this sort of connection is well understood outside Wikipedia, by true crime writers.

cat yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what this boils down to (see Talk:Craigslist Killer) is that you are worried that Michael John Anderson and John Katehis will be deleted if Philip Markoff isn't redirected to Craigslist Killer. Can you tell me what is stopping you from creating those pages? Is it because you don't think they are notable to have their own pages? If that is the case, do you think that redirecting a more notable killer (Philip Markoff) to a list of non-notable killers will somehow be acceptable and escape notice? Have you thought this all the way through? You are grouping these killers together. This is called original research. And the material you added in the lead section is pure original research:

Before the development of the internet, when similar cases were described in the media, they were commonly known as "Want Ad Murders" and the perpetrators were called "Want Ad Killers" or "Lonely Hearts Club Killers", due to their method of finding victims through newspaper classified ads and personal or lonely hearts club ads.

The source for that statement is a 1983 book by Ann Rule about serial killer Harvey Carignan. It has nothing to do with this article and violates WP:NOR. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Media circus event. Шизомби (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only acceptable redirect is Craigslist#Controversies_and_illegal_activities_by_users. Craigslist Killer was created to circumvent two prior deletions, one of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigslist Killing in November 2007, and approximately a year later in November of 2008, Michael John Anderson. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I was not aware of the prior deletions. You have evidence that Adams kevin, who created the article, did so to circumvent those prior deletions? Шизомби (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a notable person[23], and more evidence that WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS need to be rewritten. --Pixelface (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice both pages have changed a bit since I !voted redirect above. If we do decide to keep a standalone page I think we should consider a rename. Something like "2009 Boston Craigslist Killing" with the name a redirect.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I agree with cube lurker. I'd rather see this blp renamed/redirected to the event/s. His notability will be due to this series of crimes, not personal achievement out side of them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - killer becoming notable, ties into Craigslist controversies and other serial killers/murderers. conman33 (. . .talk) 20:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable.--68.173.101.114 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Jokestress (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know how the discussion has gotten so sidetracked. He is definitely notable. Murder happens every day and the event is not notable. However, clearly this guy is the subject of a lot of interest because how often does someone skip two grades in high school, graduate with honors from albany and enters BU in excellent standing with no criminal record and then just a few months before getting engaged to a wonderful fiancee that he met while doing volunteering at a hospital he throws it all away without any motive. Subject is notable for the same reason Cho Seung-Hui was noteable. He is the independent subject of many highly respected, publicized sources. To summarize the keep arguments as saying he is not notable and only his acts were notable are clearly strawman, and is not in fact backed by those wikipedia core policies that are cited for reasons to delete. JameKelly (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but ok to merge - 1. What to do with this article has been clearly decided in the past, which is delete. Amanda Knox is an accused murderer who has received over a year's worth of media attention but her article was deleted recently. This decision was reached because Knox is known for only 1 event, the murder. She received an internet award for best lady, but this person has not received such recognition. 2nd reason - this person is known for one event only, the murder, and one event people don't qualify for articles. 3rd reason - Wikipedia rules are such that articles are to be called "Murder of Julia Brussman". I understand people's desire to break the rules. If you want Markoff to have an article then my proposal should pass first then you'll have a reason. I wrote this before I knew about Markoff but he's a classic reason for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposed_change If this proposed change happens, you will have your Markoff article and I'll vote keep. Until this is passed, I vote delete or merge because those are the rules. The rules state:

The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category

Markoff did not kill a political leader. User F203 (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it interesting that there are editors who seem to want to change wikipedia policy in order to keep this article when it seems the current interpretation would delete it, instead of arguing on interpretation, what's the policy on situations such as this? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: F203:: The one-event policy says Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual which is NOT the case here, yet you cite this policy to support your opinion. This individual is clearly notable if you weigh in this quote from WP:BIO The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. I feel we have a miscommunication because it's not a cookie cutter issue. According to your interpretation of Wikipedia policy, Scott Peterson, Cho Seung-Hui, Natalee Holloway and Timothy McVeigh would not have articles because they are not notable per WP:1event. I feel a duty to remind everyone that as an encyclopedia, we must exercise good judgment and not apply strict reliance on cookie cutter guidelines. Murder happens every day. What doesn't happen every day is when someone essentially has a great future, a great fiancee, and no criminal background just snaps like he did. He knew how bad it would hurt his family, his fiancee's family, his school and his own livelihood by taking such risks and if the evidence proves he did in fact live such a disturbing double-life, then I fail to understand how you can see this as anything other than an extreme act of deviancy which is why there is so much coverage about him and you know that he's going to enter an insanity defense and his trial and/or legal proceedings are sure to support the argument about his notability and to redirect this prematurely would be a mistake (which DCG finely argued above). JameKelly (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying that something/one "will be" notable or that future events will support a notability argument potentially falls afoul of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Шизомби (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per one event. untwirl(talk) 02:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Craigslist. Textbook WP:1E. Grsz¹¹ 02:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to complicate things, we now have the newly-created Craigslist Killer (Boston). Шизомби (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, per WP:BLP, I've separated in-depth coverage of the allegations from that of the suspect and moved each to its own WP article. Note that editors are instructed not to wait for the end results of review panels discussions before acting to address the concerns fleshed out in this guideline. ↜Just me, here, now … 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you should be more specific about how you see creating that article as being appropriate per BLP. On the contrary, I think Craigslist Killer (Boston) should be bundled in this AfD. Шизомби (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concern is Journalism 101: convicted vs. accused.
Although it's not the usual Wikipedia practice, I myself would support formal or de facto bundling of the AfDs for these two articles, in point of fact. ↜Just me, here, now … 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Craigslist killer (Boston), but definitely do not make an article about the subject himself, someone notable only for having murdered a woman. --Angelo (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo, I really wish you and others would think these things through first. We do not know if Philip Markoff is the "Craigslist Killer" yet. We can probably all agree that it seems highly likely, but you are putting the cart before the horse. Moving his article to that biased name before a published confession or the end of the trial would be the greatest example of bias possible. We don't do that here. Viriditas (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possibilities. The first is that he is, meaning that he received coverage only for being the Craiglist killer. The second is that he is not, meaning that he received coverage only as a Craiglist killer suspect. I can't see your point, sorry. --Angelo (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He received coverage as a suspect in a case. The circumstances of the case are notable enough to warrant his own biographical article. Calling him the "Craigslist killer" in the article title is biased, regardless of how the media convicts him in the press. We don't do that here. I think someone could make an argument (and they have above) for something like the 2009 Boston Craigslist murder and attacks article, as that is fairly neutral. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He received coverage only as a suspect in a case, which is violation of WP:BLP1E. If you have concerns about title bias in "Craigslist killer", just propose changing the name to something like "Craiglist killer case" and I would agree with it. --Angelo (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you actually read WP:BLP1E, particularly the third paragraph. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and I think that a man who attempts to kill the US president, or a prominent politician, could fit with it, but not an alleged murderer of a woman met through a website. Notability, in this case, is much lower and is more focused to the somewhat unusual circumstances than to the involved subjects. --Angelo (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me refresh your memory:

If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.

Is that enough, or do you require more evidence to change your position? The story is being covered by the international press and is likely to become more widespread as it continues to play out. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I have carefully read that paragraph and I still think it doesn't fit at all with this case. It talks, notably, about persistence of coverage; and, since I am not a native English speaker, I had had a look at Dictionary.com, and it says literally something can be defined as persistent when "Existing or remaining in the same state for an indefinitely long time". Where is the indefinite long time behind this case? How can you ensure me we'll still talk about this case in a year, or even a couple of months? You can be kinda sure about this when it comes about someone attempting to kill a US president, but not about such a not-so-exceptional event involving a simple woman with no particular fame. So, there is no persistence, therefore there is not enough significance, and so here is why I still think the subject himself is not worthy of a standalone encyclopedia article. --Angelo (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Craigslist killer (Boston). This kid is notable only for his possible connection to the crimes. The crimes have a page, and that should suffice. Uucp (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a page dealing with the murder (whichever version of that ultimately gets settled upon). There is nothing at all noteworthy about him beyond his involvement with those incidents and the investigation of them. He isn't convicted of any crimes, so all that can be said about him that is at all relevant is that he may or may not be a murderer. And I know this will sound crass, but he's not even a serial killer. He's not even the only or even the first to be called the "Craigslist Killer". There's really nothing notable about him beyond one event. -Sketchmoose (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NPF is an interesting policy I wasn't aware of. Whether he is or isn't guilty, it would seem under this policy it's not appropriate to state where he's from, went to school, etc. Is that right? Шизомби (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I read this over half a dozen times, and also read the related articles. I'm completely failing to see why this alleged murderer is any more notable than those arrested in the other 17,000 or so murders that happen each year in the United States. The vast majority of this article is speculation and attempts to connect the dots. It might be noteworthy if this happened in Finland, but not the US. Now, an article on media bandwagon-jumping might be of some value... Risker (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other 17,000 murders haven't received as much widespread mass attention as this. Bill Clinton's blowjob wasn't any more meritorious than the other 17,000 blowjobs administered each day, either. It's notability is proven objectively in its thousands of pages of search results. Not to mention the fact he's now on the cover of People Magazine.Protophobic (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge to the article on the murder. Nathan^T ^{(formerly Avruch)} 15:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, prefer merge The murder case and Markoff's arrest has received national attention and a small amount of international attention. When it gets that much attention it is difficult to make an BLP1E argument. Moreover, if the basic idea behind BLP is first to Do-No-Harm then we wouldn't be doing any harm given the already prominent coverage. Indeed, if anything, a neutral article on the subject would actually be beneficial given how much sensationalist junk there is. Arguments that the coverage is due to "media bandwagon-jumping" are not a reason to delete. The entire point of standards such as WP:BIO and WP:N is that we don't make decisions about what is notable but rather rely on what external sources have done. This prevent serious NPOV problems in regard to coverage. It will probably make more sense to merge anyways given standard precedents about people who are notable for criminal activity. (Disclaimer:I'm currently a grad student at Boston University.) JoshuaZ (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep massive media coverage = notability. BLP1E was created to deal with Wikipedia articles with information cherry picked from a small number of local/regional news stories about a basically obscure person. It was to prevent the fact that someone had been mentioned once or twice in minor stories, which would otherwise fade away in a few months, from being immortalized in a Wikipedia article that would always be the top result on Google. Deleting articles on people who are frontpage news on many papers... that's just not the spirit of BLP1E. Merging/redirecting, perhaps. But that doesn't strictly require AFD. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Every high profile murder isn't encyclopedic, and massive coverage only means news agencies want to sell a salacious story for more viewers or readers. Sadly, media manipulation seems to be lost on many Wikipedia editors. AniMate^talk 01:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it our job to filter what we think the media should cover? That sounds like it would be bias on our part. Your opinion on what stories newspapers should run is subjective, so is mine. I think celebrities should only be in the paper as it directly relates to their career - movie deals, awards, and so on. If I had my way there'd be no celebrity news because I don't consider that stuff important at all. Does that mean I get to take a hatchet to the Tom Cruise article to write it in my vision of what newspapers should have been reporting on about Cruise? Yeah right. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's clearly going to be/is already a very notable topic, since it is being covered so widely. Definitely encyclopedia worthy. Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 03:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge. I came here specifically looking for an article on this, as have many others apparently. Why delete knowledge that people seek? Computer programming languages are not important to me, but I don't request they be deleted. The censorship and deletionism has gotten so bad on Wikipedia in recent years that it's a surprise Bill O'Reilly isn't running this place. This is why so few people contribute to Wikipedia. Protophobic (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny arguing on WP:ILIKEIT, WP is not a repository of random knowledge, and it's not censorship if the article runs afoul of policies. Furthermore, I'm surprised the deletionism is "bad" as you say it is, of all of my teacher's in my three school's I've went to, none have considered wikipedia reliable for writting essays, to say the least of general review. If you really are looking for strict control, there's always citizendium (I'm not a deletionist btw). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure but need to be retitle as Craigslist Killer. If He killed more than 5 women, it worth Keep like famous serial killers including Jack the Ripper. Cculber007 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Media coverage is sufficient for a well referenced article, following a discussion in the media of the person more than the event. Reading the sources, they seem to be about him--if why and how he carried out these attacks--not about the attacks themselves. --TeaDrinker (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure: In theory, he doesn't deserve a page of his own according to WP:BLP. In practice, if Seung-Hui Cho et al have pages, then the policy is already ruined and therefore useless. - Frankie (talk) 17:16, 28 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 copyright violations. ... discospinster _talk 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Tamil Church[edit]

WP is not a personal website host. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I marked the page for speedy deletion. It is a CopyVio -source http://www.atlantatamilchurch.org/ and http://www.atlantatamilchurch.org/?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=6. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:01, 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. It is a copyvio of a wiki, but i see no evidence of GFDL/GNU type licensing --Ged UK 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food Process Modeling[edit]

WP:NOT a repository of information, especially not for publishing one's research ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It should be noted the original article was deleted as a copyright infringement. The author has reintroduce the page without the copyright infringement, but it still WP:OR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have found that the new page is a copyvio of http://commune.cit.cornell.edu/wikis/foodmodel/index.php/Main_Page. Tagged for speedy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next Backstreet Boys Album[edit]

Doesn't meet notability requirements, yet. IF the album is released, or even well-documented ahead of release, then by all means create a good article. AndrewHowse (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Future albums in general aren't notable unless there is significant coverage in reliable sources. There is not, and the album doesn't even have a name yet. Tim meh ! 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CRYSTAL, with no prejudice to re-posting under correct name once it receives RS coverage. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; fails WP:CRYSTAL --mhking (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This sign says it all. As does the quote, "Those who have sufficient information on this please provide it". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In-text pleas of "Those who have sufficient information on this please provide it" are self-deleting. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 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) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaper- snow[edit]

WP:DICTDEF, goes at wiktionary, not here. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting enough, it was nominated for deletion (PROD) before this for being a NEOLOGISM... ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism; not even sure it has a place at wiktionary; seems more like an obscure urbandictionary thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, non-notable neologism; per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Probably a made-up term by a few people feeling rouge... Cheers. I'^mperator 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be made up; there are half a dozen definitions at Urban Dictionary that are almost identical to this article. Nevertheless, it is a neologism used among skiers and snowboarders. Therefore, delete. Cnilep (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not transwiki to Wiktionary, they don't want it either. —An gr 20:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, dictionary. —Tamfang (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the editor who ((prod))-ed the article as being a NN Neologism. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 26 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 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STARPAP[edit]

PROD removed by user 76.126.141.96. Article fails to need third party reliable sources and it is unverifiable. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Could find no information on this at Google – Google News or Google Scholar where I would expect at least one hit. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, apparently original research. --DAJF (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article's sole reference leads to a school webpage, and a search of that page came up with nothing about the article's topic. It seems to be a project of that school alone - not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Bell (politician)[edit]

Fails WP:POLITICIAN (local councillor, coverage is not substantial enough for WP:BIO). PROD was removed by user who created the article. —Snigbrook 15:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As this stage, notability to pass WP:POLITICIAN is not present. SunCreator (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, with a lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Tim meh ! 20:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local councillor, so there is a small amount of media coverage, but as mentioned above, this does not establish notability. If he is elected to Parliament, then he should have an article. Warofdreams talk 10:37, 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) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fakebooking[edit]

Prod seconded by Unionhawk (talk · contribs), contested by IP with no explanation. Reason for prod was: "Non-notable neologism". KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC) KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stronge Delete clear protologism. Additionally, alleged definition isn't even most probable one. Page no doubt created by 'Joseph Muenich' or a friend of his. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to facebook with the alternate definition of "fakebooking - creating a fake facebook account to impersonate someone" as discussed in this somewhat reliable blog post from About.com. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP. According to the article, "The term Fakebooking was coined by Joseph Muenich on April 12, 2009." The page was created by User:Jmuenich on 20 April 2009. Cnilep (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above concerns. It is obviously a protologism. Tim meh ! 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Tamfang (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, possibly inaccurate dictionary definition of a neologism. Ladyof Shalott 22:18, 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. This should probably just have been deleted as an attack page (WP:CSD#G10) but with the attack removed it still fails WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Christy[edit]

Contested PROD without any rationale given. The PROD nom was "In all likelihood made up, if not I can find no reference to this man." Might be a Speedy G2 or G3 case but in case of doubt, there's the AfD process. No reliable sources, probably a hoax. MLauba (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3 and A7. Blatant misinformation, does not claim or establish notability. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment: no claims about this being a living person so A7 wouldn't qualify I believe :). MLauba (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. MLauba (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This the right fella? [24] Cheers. I'^mperator 14:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my PROD.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:18, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V. C. Agrawal[edit]

nn person Oo7565 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IBP. There is not enough information about the person to warrant an article independent from the company he runs. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With respects to Mgm, there is enough available to expand and source this stub. [25] [26] [27]. Being a lowly stub is no reason to delete or merge if a better article can be created. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:22, 20 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 13:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just expanded and reliably sourced the article to establish notability. It now has 6 references to articles in The Hindu, The Times of India, and The Hindu Business Line. Given the number of Gnews and Gscholar hits, the article still has some room for expansion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a good reference even from the start--there certainly is enough material now. DGG (talk) 22:33, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vivvo[edit]

non-notable application with no reliable, third party sources (just first party, wiki ones) describing significance. Being a "provider" for one or two notable business does not satisfy inclusion. WP:PROD, which was endorsed by another user, was removed by original article creators with no reasoning. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 16:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable software product using Wikipedia for free advertisement. I originally endoresed the prod. I can find no third party reliable sources. Additionally, boccio (talk · contribs) is likely the Product Line Manager [28] WP:COI. 16x9 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern really is about the definition of what a "notable or non-notable software application" is, particularly in the case of proprietary systems. If notability criterion is to be applied across the board in this category, many existing articles in Wikipedia should probably be deleted too. For example, why is Expression Engine more notable application than Vivvo? Or, what are reliable third party sources for the entry for Site Foundry. Let's talk about more universal standards before we decide on deleting individual entries. --Mskoric (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid keep argument for afd's. A wider standard has been attempted before WP:Notability (software) but consensus was sadly against the idea so we must follow the generic guideline and policies, which in this case would not include the addition of Vivvo. 16x9 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The complexity of the process of judging software notability is beyound doubt. The fact that no consensus was reached really highlights my most important objection to deletion of Vivvo, namely that heuristics (e.g. the company is NOT from Palo Alto or it's NOT on TechCrunch) seem to be of greater importance than policies in this case. While the entry would benefit from better editing, it does have several third-party sources cited.--Mskoric (talk) 17:38, 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 13:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is non-consumer software, yet another "web content management" package. The article looks good, but in my mind what this means chiefly is that spammers are getting smarter and learning how to game the system. Looking at the references discloses nothing other than press releases, links to the official site, and a couple of reviews that look like self-published sources targeted at the content-management software community: those sources may be independent, but they're still the industrial version of local newspaper coverage, and do not confer notability among the general public under the applicable notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarbuk von Sensenhorst[edit]

Non-notable historical person, no familiar and third party sources. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - If the claims in the article are true (military officer and notable industrialist), they should be sourced and kept; but I'm skeptical. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think that being a navy lieutenant and army captain are particlularly strong claims to notability, but I've added some sources to the article confirming that the subject was the founder of one of Austria's major automotive businesses. Also the German Wikipedia article has as a source the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, which is regarded as a successor publication to the Almanach de Gotha, and the second of these Google Books hits says that he won a first prize for something in his Horch, presumably a race, but the snippet displayed by Google leaves us in suspense! Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 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 13:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand from the deWP article--and there should be one on the company as well. The deWP's customary disdain of adequate sourcing for articles like these however does not help. DGG (talk) 22:35, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Dutch Shell initiatives[edit]

This is an arbitrary collection of business ventures by Royal Dutch Shell. They range from things that are already well covered on a more primary article (Shell Foundation, Environment of Hawaii, Eco-marathon, Scenario planning) to bog-standard business activities. None of the entries explain why they are specifically relevant or notable under the article heading, nor do the sources suggest that they should be. It seems unlikely that there ought to be an article under this title at all, but if it did it would almost certainly require a full rewrite. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Agree with the nom. In addition this is clearly a POV fork and according to the article's creator at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Johnadonovan and Royal Dutch Shell intended from the outset to be an article positive to RDS, and that is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. Despite the creator's agenda against Shell, this is clearly promotional in tone, blowing Shell's green trumpet, another reason for deletion. ukexpat (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple Wikipedia articles relating to Shell, all containing varying degrees of negative content – even within the Shell Foundation article. I could therefore see genuine merit in the arguments made on the “controversies” talk page for a Wikipedia article focused on RDS positives. Hence my origination of the Wikipedia RDS initiatives article after I had collected sufficient content from various reputable independent publishing sources. Once the article was published, I accepted the criticism about adding some balancing content. This was easy to do in respect of environmental initiatives and provides a clear rebuttal to the notion of the article being Shell’s “green trumpet”. Finding any information to counter balance Shell’s generous donations to worthy causes is a rather more difficult, if not impossible task. The RDS initiatives article is based on source articles factually reporting true events in exactly the same fashion as other RDS related Wikipedia articles. Provided there are prominently displayed cross-links, anyone deeply interested in RDS is likely to glance through all of the RDS Wikipedia articles. Those who did would end up with a better informed overall view of the company. If the article is deemed deficient in its current guise, why not be constructive and remedy the deficiencies rather than deleting in its entirety a collection of well sourced factual information. Johnadonovan (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ukexpat. Fin©™ 16:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the reasons in the nom and paticularly those given by ukexpat. However, as Johnadonovan has stated, the article is well-sourced and while some of the information may not be significant (employees packing groceries for MLK day or whatever) any information that is relevant that is not included in another article should be moved and preserved.Drawn Some (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrainBread[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article seems to have existed quite some time with little to no improvement and complaints regarding notability. Searching through Google News and Google Books has turned up no reliable sources to show this subject has had significant stand-alone impact that I can find after a quick search. If kept would recommend trimming down and combining with a related list of mods or some such, this currently reads more like a video game FAQ than an article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any reliable sources covering the mod in any detail. Tim meh ! 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds of notability (WP:N - has not been the subject of significant coverage) Previous AfDs make for painful reading Marasmusine (talk) 13:56, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Walsh[edit]

Musician who comes up with a reasonable number of hits on google, but these are mostly gig dates, and the odd review on jazz websites. The albums released do not appear to have charted, and I couldn't find any info on the record label. Therefore non-notable. Quantpole (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from this review, I couldn't find any reliable sources to demonstrate meeting WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of the label being an important label. no other claim to notability. lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:48, 27 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 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Harnage[edit]

This apparent autobiography fails WP:ENTERTAINER, as she has not had significant roles in multiple notable films. Created in Feb 2008, the BLP has remained wholly unsourced. لenna vecia 12:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – at this time. No significant coverage to date. Hopefully, one day we will read about her here. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability asserted. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant roles or coverage. Notable relatives are irrelevant to the subject's notability. decltype (talk) 10:54, 28 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. Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sims 3 premade characters[edit]

A list of characters for an so far unreleased game (the game itself is very notable, that's not the issue here). These characters are not like characters in a story and are not important for any understanding of the game (which has no story). This is purely in-universe information which fails WP:N rather badly. These characters have not received serious attention, as evidenced by the 17 Google hits for one of them, Charles Langerak[29]. Fram (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with List of The Sims 2 premade characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nomination says it all. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the nom says The Sims (series) has no story of any significance, and these "characters" are just premade families for those players who don't feel like making their own - the developers may have created backstories for them, but as I recall you weren't under any obligation to follow them. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canon Sims Characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in the Sims 2, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pre-made characters in The Sims, which I gather from the noms were similar lists which were all deleted. BryanG (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of this, I suggest a speedy close. The suitability of these two articles has already been substantially discredited by previous discussions. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:22, 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. CSD G3 - pure vandalism. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dil (Surname)[edit]

Blatant hoax. "屌" means "fuck" in Chinese. References given are shams. The author, User:Sifu-keith, has made numerous disruptive edits, refer to his contribs and talk page. This is not the first time this user has created nonsense pages. Also note that he is a youth (refer to userpage), and probably created this page as a bad joke. I'm surprised this article has lasted so long, since 00:37, 29 April 2008, and no one has noticed. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 12:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This entire page is based on references about a surname from Zambia, examples of people given include "屌和", a homonym for "fuck me" (屌我), "屌文", which is "fuck man", and "屌李", resembling "屌你" (fuck you). For more about the Chinese profanity, see Diu (Cantonese). Also note that in Standard Mandarin and Standard Cantonese there is no "l" final. User claims to be the chairman of some lameass organization, amid other nonsense created to Osama Bin Laden and other articles. Also refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sifu keith tv. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 12:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does appear to be a hoax. The only sites that verify people having this name at all (the first ref and the Pierre Dil link) are actually about non-Chinese people, so they're irrelevant, and the History section, while written in a serious tone, does read like a joke. The dead giveaway, though, is all the made-up people in the "Notable Figures" section. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
De-hoax (if that's an option...?) remove all references to this being a "Chinese name" and reduce it to the referenced material. Then move to to Dil (surname). I'll do this myself if people think it's a appropriate. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's such a rare surname there would not really be anything article-worthy to keep. Once the hoax material is removed, there will be nothing left. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. References are bogus. No non-hoax content worth salvaging. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. Could probably even be speedy deleted as blatant vandalism.--Danaman5 (talk) 14:59, 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 keep. withdrawn by nom. DGG (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Shin-Jo[edit]

The article's subject does not appear to be notable. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Despite the fact that the article lists only one source a Google search finds 820, most of which are a) reliable third-party sources (including CNN and the New York Times, among others) and b) actually about the subject of the article. Furthermore, he's the only survivor of a group of assassins that set out to kill a major world leader - that seems pretty notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Articles in the New York Time – Washington Post – International Herald Tribune – CNN and so on and so on, as shown here [30], denotes notability. In addition, I have inline cited and referenced article. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in sources as detailed above. I've added a few details to the article but several of the sources are behind paywalls - anyone with access fill like giving a hand? Olaf Davis (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the nom, i wish to withdraw the AFD in light of the new evidence and consequently WP:Snowball Theserialcomma (talk) 22:01, 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 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–Tonga relations[edit]

These two countries have no bilateral relations. Tonga broke relations with the USSR once they dissolved in 1991, but decided not to create relations with Russia. For more information, see Soviet-Tonga relations. Tavix | Talk 11:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Funny that it's claimed Tonga doesn't have relations with Russia, because only 12 days ago Russia's ambassador to Tonga presented his letters of credence to the Tongan king in Nuku'alofa. Also File:Vladimir Putin 9 November 2000-10.jpg shows a photo of Vladimir Putin with the Tongan ambassador to Russia at the ceremony of presentation of diplomatic credentials. Soviet-Tonga relations is wrong. There is also a book entitled "Дипломатический ежегодник. 2005" (ISBN 5949350839) (not available online) which includes a section of details and history of Russia-Tonga relations. This is going to be another subject which has information offline. Then there's also things such as the Mir re-entry which saw Russian operations occurring in Tongan waters. The article wouldn't be a kb hog, but there are some notable relations which can be detailed in it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Soviet Union–Tonga relations; there's really no need to maintain two articles on this subject. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Birutorul, despite the political changes, it seems sensible. The relations of the USSR with every individual nation are & remain notable. DGG (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable pairing. The Russian ambassador to Tonga actually resides in Wellington, New Zealand, there is no permanent representative on Tongan soil, not even an honorary consul. The mentioned book "Дипломатический ежегодник. 2005" (ISBN 5949350839) is a Russian government funded publication (hardly an independent source). Tonga maintains only five diplomatic missions overseas, but Russia is not one of them. Having space debris rain down on Tongan territorial waters hardly constitutes a notable basis for an article on bi-lateral relations. Martintg (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The publication is written by the rector of the Russian Diplomatic Academy and is a scholarly publication. Unfortunately, I can't find trivial joint-stamp issues. But I have found information on Russia having fishing rights in Tongan waters, and such rights are done at the governmental level. Additionally, there is also a history of the Russian Empire sending ships to the region, visiting the Friendly Islands in addition to French Polynesia and the like, Otto von Kotzebue being one of those. Adam Johann von Krusenstern visited and charted the islands on his voyages. A lot of this information will be found in offline sources. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Diplomatic Academy is run by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, i.e. it is a government organisation, hardly an independent source to establish notability. Otto von Kotzebue and Adam Johann von Krusenstern were Baltic Germans in service of the Russian Empire, but any contacts they may have had with Tonga is non-notable. Martintg (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Germans were subjects of the Russian Empire, and the ships on which they travelled, and the expeditions they undertook were at the behest of the Russian Empire. Additionally, being a government educational institution is not reason enough for discounting, otherwise we would have to discount almost every single institute of higher learning in the western world (with the exception of the US), for example Australian National University. This would mean that research and publications by Elena Govor would be ineligible for use on an article on Australia-Russia relations, because she is connected with ANU, and ANU receives its funding from the Australian government. What comes into play is the person an expert in their field, and do we expect them to fact check what they write? In both cases, the answer is YES. Some common sense goes a long way on WP. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian National University isn't a part of some government department, unlike the Russian Diplomatic Academy which is a part the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Martintg (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I still think it is a most ridiculous argument for an editor to discount scholarly papers from one of the world's top diplomatic colleges just because it has a connection to the government. Bugger me drunk if I should use materials from www.da.mod.uk to build an article on Russia-UK relations; they would be discounted because it is part of The Establishment. As I said common sense goes a long way on WP, and the continuous argument by yourself and other editors in discounting Russian sources is getting rather tired and boresome. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly merge Soviet-Tonga relation article into this one (as a history backgrounder). There is sufficient information to justify having this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:20, April 22, 2009 (UTC)
Keep, the article shares knowledge = that what's wikipedia is all about! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:10, 27 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 23:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satoko Akio[edit]

fails WP:Bio and WP:N Oo7565 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline speedy, as the article does not include any indication of notability. --DAJF (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, it is borderline speedy. And see WP:SNOW --Pstanton (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Her Japanese Wikipedia page is more substantial, and seems to indicate that she a news talking head for CNN, wrote a book and was in a film. It was a good call not to speedy, it's possible there's something there. I don't read Japanese very well though, so I can't be certain. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's her profile in English. An accomplished lady to be sure, still not convinced of the notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the article as is does not display any notability. And with that said, it appears to me it is possible to establish enough notability by evidences including (but not limited to) 1) her book being awarded here (list of award recipients). 2) covered in multiple other mainstream sources. I am not voting for Keep as I am not willing to do it myself. If the article as we see now has to be deleted, what do we lose.

An off main topic, but possibly more important question is, what is the ground for having the photo on the page with another lady, with her name displayed, who is yet unknown. --Mantokun (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep The nom is proceding alphabetically through Special:Allpages and tagging article with spurious reasoning. This article can easily be expanded and sourced through Google and Google news (needs a Japanese translator). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least a little while Let's see if it's better sourced by the end of the 2nd 7 days. DGG (talk) 23:09, 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 17:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nyleen Kay Marshall[edit]

2 Google news links, and not much else other than forum links and missing poster-type links exist. I don't think this subject is notable for an encyclopaedia. Russavia ^Dialogue 10:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 14:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- The case was featured on a national TV show [31] and RS are available [32], enough to meet our general notability guideline. --J^mundo 14:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – My heart goes out to the family, but sorry to say delete for two main reasons reasons. One, no real national, or even regional coverage, other that one mention on Unsolved Mysteries and one local newspaper article, as shown here on a Google News search [33]. Two, this would also fall under One Event. As it states: “…Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry”. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the same reason I previously tagged the article with a PROD: Per Articles about people notable only for one event. Reliable sources only appear to talk about this person with regards to her disappearance.--Rockfang (talk) 02:18, 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. by WereSpielChequers on author's request. Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bepin behari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bepin behari

I personally created this page and am highly unsatisfied with it for several reasons. I am the only person who has made any contribution to it, beside two other people adding some tags. The page was created as a compromise for want of biographical information of this person on the internet or elsewhere. No concrete data can be found anywhere. First of all, I was new to Wikipedia at the time and made a mistake in the person's name and the article by the first letter of his surname not being in upper case. That in itself should be enough for the article to be deleted. But everything about the article itself is unsatisfactory. There is nothing in it except four speculative and unsourced sentences. Even the bibiography is just a list of titles lifted from another site, which doesn't even include ISBN numbers or dates of publication, etc. Please delete this article since I was the only person to have written it and do not want to be associated with it any longer. If anyone in the future wanted to create a biography article for this person, it would be much better for them to start from a new template altogether. Thanks alot. Cpdeacon (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cpdeacon. Two things: first, mis-titled articles can be moved to a new title, effectively renaming them, so that in itself does not require deletion. And secondly, since you're the article's only significant contributor you can get it removed more simply by using Speedy Deletion, specifically criterion G7 (just put ((db-g7)) at the top - I'll do it for you now). Olaf Davis (talk) 11:15, 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. MBisanz ^talk 07:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green vehicle[edit]

Neologism, editors have been unable to find a definition of the subject Greglocock (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To amplify - since the subject is essentially undefined, as shown by the lede it becomes a matter of opinion, and so any editor can claim that any vehicle is green and so rates a mention on the page. I have looked for, and requested that others look for, a decent definition of "Green vehicle" , several times over the past year, with no actual success (the EPA use the term but don't define it AT ALL). Greglocock (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I declined a prod based on this rationale--the numbe of sources and external links show the possibilities--it's just a question of working on it to improve the clarity. DGG (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out the obvious, the simplest way to kill this AfD is to find a definition of the subject that satisfies WP:RS, rather than pontificating about how other people should work on the article. Greglocock (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My friend once owned a green 1970 Gremlin. It was the worst car ever, and pretty ugly. Edison (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a guide to green vehicles and significant coverage of the concept from which to write an article. Because there are differing opinions on what makes a green vehicle doesn't mean there can't be an article that addresses these points. StarM 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is used all over the place, by the EPA and other official organizations. Everybody has an idea what it means, even if there's no hard and fast definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then perhaps I could point you at Wikipedia:Neologism, where the problem of articles about poorly defined subjects is discussed in a rational fashion. So far all I see is WP:ILIKEIT Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ILIKEIT? I don't think so, what I see is an article that can and should be improved and therefore should not be deleted. When a government entity comes into the fold, I think it ceases to be a neologism because it's discussed in reliable sources that present the different sides of the issue. What I see from you is IDONTLIKEIT in that you're ignoring the sources, all of which appear to be reliable sources, because they don't follow your POV. That said, I don't care one bit whether the article is saved or not because I don't care about the topic and won't ever work on the article, but I think you're misrepresenting/misunderstanding the sources. StarM 12:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the neologism article. I have excerpted the relevant part below. If you think I have an opinion about Green Vehicles you are right, google my name and solar cars. What I don't like are soapboxing articles. Greglocock (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but soapboxing can be fixed with editing using reliable sources that present the issue. No objection to merge if the LEV is a better target. I don't care about "green" - tacky to say on earth day, I know, but I think there is RS discussion and because it's a valid topic, people will look here for information. We owe readers a good article if one can be created, and I think it can StarM 01:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not new and it's not restricted to "certain communities", so how is it a neologism? Canada (or at least Saskatchewan) provides rebates for "neologism" owners, companies like Ford use it as a marketing tool, Yahoo has a "green center", World Car of the Year has a category for green cars, etc. There are tons of non-Wikipedia-polluting references, so what's the problem? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. Some of the reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate are:

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Greglocock (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per the nomination. Some vehicles may be less harmful to the environment than others, but then most vehicles are less harmful than some vehicles - so where does "green" cut in. There is no objective definition of a green vehicle. -- de Facto (talk). 07:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per continued uage in numerous sources. If a "definition" were all that was needed, Wictionary would be the place. The article attempts to increase the reader's understanding of a notable subject [34], [35], [36], [37]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Environmentally friendly vehicles. This is an important subject, but "Green" here is sloppy journalese. My car is peppermint green, but it is a standard small car, with no unusual environmental features. I have not investigated what parallel articels exist. Accordingly the answer may be to merge somewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a better place for it, in fact the existing Low energy vehicle article has the advantage that it is a properly defined concept. EFV suffers from a slippery slope argument, in fact at least one RS has said there is no such thing, since all vehicles damage the environment. Yeah OK, how about a merge with LEV? Greglocock (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or, at the very least, rename per Editor:Peterkingiron. The term "green" has become commonplace to describe enviromentally positive products. Also, political parties are so-named to describe their platform. Soon, as the media/governmental/social use of the term increases the term Green vehicle will be just as self-explanitory as Xerox. BTW...I have a 12 year old Harvest Green GMC pick-up. At 15-18 MPG, it was never "green".--Buster7 (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Environmental technology this is a neologism at worst, and at best a content fork. Ill-defined (how green is "green" enough for inclusion? Etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a neologism - there's no new word in this phrase. And the definition seems no more difficult to manage than sports car or limousine. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "A 'green vehicle' is a car that that creates less damage to the environment when compared to traditional cars that run solely on petrol." [38] turn in your homework kids. pohick (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. I have a fairly low opinion of the Green Vehicle article, and agree that a definition for the phrase from an 11 year old's schoolbook would be in keeping with the article as it stands. I agree that if the article stays then that level of reference is an appropriate level of mockery. Greglocock (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, you can't say it's a neologism, or undefined in a verifiable source anymore: only that it's child's play. (lookit wiki is not a technical library, like DFE2008 Automobile Engines) save the hairsplitting for the design manual pohick (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you were serious? Oh dear. Greglocock (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

serious is funny too: the fact that the WP:V is funny dosen't make your argument not funny. (wiki is popular culture, with all the hype, misunderstanding, and even pseudoscience: academic engineering papers with precise definition of terms, are another forum) pohick (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe most people saw "green vehicle" they knew what it meant right away. This is a legitimate topic for an article. You can perhaps rename it "vehicle of a more environmentally friendly nature" or something. Can't just say "environmentally friendly" because they aren't, they just damage the environment far less. Would horse drawn carriages be included as "green vehicles"? They are a vehicle, and clearly green. Dream Focus 04:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could those in favor of keeping this article please address the issue of why this article in particular should be allowed to contravene the neologism guideline quoted above? Greglocock (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment because it isn't one. Simply being a new word, doesn't mean it's a neologism. It's a work that has come into significant use in news and scholarly information. Just because a word is introduced at some point after the English language was invented doesn't mean it's a neologism. StarM 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The problem I have with this subject is that the connotation of this word is always changing. By the standards of 20 years ago, every vehicle on the road today is "green." In 5 years, the definition of "green" will be much different than the definition today. I can't think of another subject that changes like this to look for any sort of precedent. I won't say delete or keep either way but I think that's important to keep in mind. Like DreamFocus said, it may need renamed to better represent that the definition of "green vehicle" is different now than it will be in as few as fice years. OlYeller^Talktome 01:28, 28 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 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system basic[edit]

The article is a fork of Solar System, using the content from that article to create a Simple Wikipedia-style article. This will in all likelihood lead to serious complications in maintaining both articles in parallel. In addition, it needlessly duplicates what is already available on Simple; certain sections (such as "Dwarf planets") appear to have been copied from Simple based on similar formatting and text. (For reference, there were lengthy discussions last year at Talk:Solar System regarding the merits of simplifying the article in this way.) Ckatz^chat _spy 08:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a simple wikipedia article, which should be on, simple wikipedia, not here. If the name made any sense it'd be a redirect, but it doesn't, so a delete makes perfect sense. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some topics do have a legitimate need for a 'simple' version, like General relativity and Introduction to general relativity. I don't see that Solar System is esoteric or complicated enough to be one. Since the disadvantages are obvious (the complications mentioned by Ckatz) and the name makes no sense as a redirect my vote is delete, unless HarryAlffa (who created the page) or someone else wants to explain exactly why they think this article needs two versions. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the above comments, the article seems to be a needless repetition. HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The simple Wikipedia already has an article for the Solar System and like everyone else, I don't think this is complicated enough to warrant an introduction article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I'd add that this article isn't simple enough to tell someone about the basics. Besides, do we really need a Cliff Notes version of every large article? Mandsford (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CFORK, and a Simple:Solar System already exists 76.66.196.218 (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the creator of the page HarryAlffa (talk · contribs) has a history of disruptive editing at Solar System, see user talk:HarryAlffa 76.66.196.218 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rename article "Solar system executive summary/abstract/synopsis". This is really what I was trying to achieve, as the traditional lead section is to small to hold a useful summary, and the main article is overlong. Written as an executive summary it would not be a fork, nor a maintenance burden as that type of summary should not be concerned with details likely to be outdated soon. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a fairly compelling reason to make such an 'executive summary' given that Wikipedia doesn't normally do so. You say the traditional lede is too short, but the current lede of Solar system is a lot shorter given the size of the article than many ledes. Given that and the current length of Solar system basic, I'm not convinced that you can't achieve your aim better by just lengthening the lede. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guidance on the lead says it should be no longer than 4 paragraphs. I did not say the lead is to short, I said it lacks the capacity to be useful for this particular article - hence the need for an executive summary. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about this particular article that you feel can't be adequately summarised by a lede, then? Olaf Davis (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can't do in 4 paragraphs what the Wikipedia:Lead section says it should do; "summary of the important aspects of the subject". I also feel that an executive summary (as Solar system basic is meant to be) would be an excellent idea, to overcome this limitation. I've also taken the opportunity to try to layout the structure of the document to reflect the structure of the solar system itself, which I think makes a better article. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what's special about this particular article that means it needs a longer than usual lede: all you've said is that it can't properly summarise it, but not why. If on the other hand you think this a common problem to many articles, perhaps the best course of action would be proposing a change to WP:LEDE or the idea of 'executive summary' articles at the Village pump. Such a change seems too significant (and given the above comments too far from uncontroversial) to enact without a wider search for consensus. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This content fork should be deleted. There is no compelling reason to have two articles about Solar System. This topic is not so hard to understand as, for instance, the General Relativity, to warrant creating the second (simplified) article. Ruslik (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Speedy Delete under CSD:A2. Simple Wikipedia may as well be another language for all intents and purposes. Matt (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a dangerous precedent to set. Deciding whether something is written in French is easy; deciding whether it is 'simple' or just a content fork seems ripe for controversy. There's onyl a day left anyway. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote was more based off the fact that a similar article already exists on Simple, not that the article belongs on Simple. Matt (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have pointed out, this is not the simple wikipedia. The intention is good, but I suggest the author to direct his effort towards improving Simple:Solar System. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:07, 26 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 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–New Zealand relations[edit]

non resident ambassadors. even the NZ govt says New Zealand's bilateral relationship with Bulgaria, at both economic and cultural levels, is cordial but lacks substance! LibStar (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (and per the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade) Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Quantpole (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom's link. It is also interesting to note that New Zealand's consulate is in Brussels, which isn't even in Bulgaria. Tavix | Talk 11:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The evidence points to little of substance. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a comically random pairing with no established notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the article's link to the New Zealand Foreign Ministry [39]: "New Zealand's bilateral relationship with Bulgaria, at both economic and cultural levels, is cordial but lacks substance." They were being, well, diplomatic about it. Mandsford (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, per my usual standards, and per WP:CRYSTAL - the sources even state that their relationship could deepen, but does not state how. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. it was heading for WP:SNOW. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus. The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[40]. Martintg (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:13, 27 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 Foreign relations of Estonia. MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–New Zealand relations[edit]

another random country pairing, even the NZ government notes a very limited relationship [41]. Estonia covers NZ from its Japanese embassy! LibStar (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it says a lot that Estonia's relations with New Zealand are handled 5,770 miles away from Wellington in Tokyo. We should give it about as much importance as they do, and delete, in the absence of sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the measures of these type of articles is the importance voiced by the two nations involved. The foreign ministries of both nations are refreshingly honest about the lack of a relationship (from links in the articles): "Relations between Estonia and New Zealand have not been very close, primarily due to distance separating the countries. Nevertheless, relations have been friendly and good." and "Although bilateral ties are limited, Estonia's strong economy, EU membership and close ties with its Scandinavian and Baltic neighbours make it of increasing relevance to New Zealand." Kind of like, "Yeah, I know them... they're all right." Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if Estonia can only be bothered to send a foreign minister to visit New Zealand it's a sure sign that they care nothing about the relationship. Even visits by heads of state are routine and highly staged. IfYouDontMind (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your argument. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or re-direct and merge into Foreign relations of Estonia. If relations between these two countries are not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing. Martintg (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of New Zealand. The content currently available does not appear to merit a separate article, and is better understood in the context of the overview articles. However, there seems to be possibility for further developments, so we may need to restore this article in the future. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with IfYouDontMind. Canvasback (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IfYouDontMind's argument is flawed. How many times has the US Secretary of State or the UK foreign minister actually visited Australia this century, in a bi-lateral visit rather than as a part of a global or regional summit? In the case of the British foreign minister, less that the number times the Estonian foreign minister visited New Zealand. A foreign minister making a bilateral visit to a country isn't demonstratively a "routine event". Martintg (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Your thinking flies in the face of consensus, which was clearly established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Nepal relations Canvasback (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - — Canvasback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Canvasback (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The consensus from previous AfD debates is for merging of these articles into Foreign relations of Xxxxxx articles if they fail the notability criteria but the relationship is more that just some random pairing created by some editor. Martintg (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~Looks fairly random to me. Or rather, indiscriminate. Canvasback (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
        I guess this entry just randomly appeared? As I said before, there 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian Foreign Ministry lists only 72 with which it maintains bilateral relations. Not indescriminate. Martintg (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~It's in the top 36.5% of Estonia's foreign relations, whoop-dee-doo. I withdraw my !vote in the face of this irrefutable proof of non-indiscriminateness. Canvasback (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Hilary T sockpuppet contribution struck out. Sockpuppetteer has already contributed above as IfYouDontMind. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that some bilateral agreements exist, one cannot assert that this relationship will never likely be able to assert notability in the future. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion [42]. Given that some bilateral agreements exists, there is scope for future development, even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time. Re-directs are cheap. Martintg (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:21, 27 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 07:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Uruguay relations[edit]

no resident ambassadors, no history of diplomatic relations. http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?sec_id=371&lang_id=ENG another random country pairing. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no embassies, no sources, nothing to indicate a shred of notability; random pairing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I don't think that's one of the WP:NOT rules, there's no relationship here. Even the article itself concedes that if they need to talk to each other about something, it's between their offices at the UN Building. The link is a wrong number. Anyway, we don't need an article to tell us that there are no Georgia-Uruguay relations. Mandsford (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. You have ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[43]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:22, 27 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 Foreign relations of Estonia. MBisanz ^talk 07:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Uruguay relations[edit]

no resident ambassadors, no visits for either leader, no formal bilateral agreements http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/4725.html LibStar (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally random pairing of two small countries on opposite sides of the world that have essentially zero influence on one another. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Editors can judge for themselves [44]; a few friendly agreements, a little bit of commerce, but nothing that merits its own article. Mandsford (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong re-direct and merge into Foreign relations of Estonia. While relations between these two countries may not be notable by Wikipedia standards, they exist never the less. There are 192 countries within the UN, the Estonian foreign ministry lists relations with 72 and this is one of them. So it is not a random pairing. Martintg (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Estonia and Foreign relations of Uruguay. The content currently available does not appear to merit a separate article, and is better understood in the context of the overview articles. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, request this AfD be suspended until consensus is achieved at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Martintg (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that two bilateral agreements exist, one cannot assert that this relationship will never likely be able to assert notability in the future. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion [45]. Given that where some bilateral agreements exists, there is scope for future development, even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time. Re-directs are cheap. Martintg (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:24, 27 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 procedural close (non-admin closure). The article that's there now is not the same article that was nominated for deletion. If any of the original concerns are still outstanding, the new article can be re-nominated, but there's no point keeping this original nomination open. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underwire (moved to Underwire bra)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article has little significant content and I'm pretty sure no one has written extensively about bra underwires, so it probably won't ever be able to achieve notability requirements. Khalfani Khaldun 07:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is clearly not a dictionary definition as it explains the purpose and structure of underwires as well as defining what they are. And unlike the nominator, I'm by no means convinced that nobody has written enough about underwires to meet WP:N. See, for instance, Riordan Inventing beauty: a history of the innovations that have made us beautiful (ISBN 0767914511), which according to google search has 4 pages on the subject (although I don't have access to verify what specifically they say), or Morris Sewing Lingerie That Fits (ISBN 156158309X) which has 5 pages on the construction of underwired bras, including details of how to find the right size, and how they attach to the bra. JulesH (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support merge and redirect to Brassiere designs. Not notable enough to merit its own article.~~ Keep due to expansion. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are enough sources. DGG (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brassiere designs. It seems there is already a sentence about this topic there, which is about a sentence less than this entire article. Tavix | Talk 11:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Linguist. This has been massively improved since my vote, and I probably should have checked to make sure that it could have been expanded. Tavix | Talk 23:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect Subject is vaguely notable, but not enough for its own article. Better to keep the info in one place (Brassiere designs)

Strong keep and move to Underwire bra. Article has been massively improved by LinguistAtLarge --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Underwire bra and treat the subject of this type of bra instead of just the wire in it. The underwire bra is most definitely notable, I added two references to the article and JulesH's books above also look good, if someone can find them in a local library. One of the refs I added discusses the controversy of underwire nursing bras, which may contribute to breast infection. This should most definitely not be merged to brassiere designs, since there is much more information available than would fit nicely in that list-- indeed there is already more material in the article than would fit in the list. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Underwire bra would be fine by me --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just finished a significant rewrite of the article, adding a lot of sourced material. It is now written more from the perspective of the Underwire bra and should probably be moved when this AfD is closed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went ahead and BOLDly moved the article from Underwire to Underwire bra --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. With hard work and great cunning, Linguist (sorry, I couldn't resist that old debate pun) has lifted this article from the bin and separated it from the ordinary. This fine material is put together in an innovative way, and would not be a comfortable fit in another article like brassiere designs. In light of his full coverage, this AfD is now a, uh, bust.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:15, 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 07:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felpham Colts Football Club[edit]

originally PROD'ed by me with the rationale "non-notable youth sports club". An IP posted this on the talk page: "This article is about an important youth football club in the South of England involving more that a thousand people and should remain". Although the IP did not remove the PROD template, I'm going to consider this a disputed PROD and have thus brought it to AfD ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, looks more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. --Angelo (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only contributing editor to date has no other edits to his/her name, related username, and has set user page as a redirect to the article, suggesting conflict of interest and promotion (and possibly a familiarity with Wikipedia that hints at sockpuppetry?) No sources, no verifiability, no claim of notability. Kevin McE (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would you call this a "non-notable youth sports club guys. I know this club and they are a very big football club. The biggest in the county I think. Who says you can delete it anyway. Wikipedia doesn't have official editors. If you want to edit it - go ahead. Otherwise leave these people to be - they are good guys. On of my neighbours plays with them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.225.55 (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For info, another IP has placed this on the article's talk page, which could be interpreted as a keep !vote (albeit from an IP): This appears to be a page about quite a substantial youth football club. I guess other people can edit the page if they have knowledge of the club. Seems okay to remain as a valid page. Can't see any reason why anyone would want to remove it. Seems to provide good information about a good local organisation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a G11 promotion. Even if not a speedy, WP:WEBHOST applies here. If every community organization had its own article on Wikipedia, it wouldn't be Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails general notability guidelines and may be WP:SPAM. Valenciano (talk) 20:26, 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. I recognize there are some new users commenting, but based on the issues of definability of the list, the deletion argument is convincing. MBisanz ^talk 07:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eurasians[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion. While looking at the ‘List of Afro-Asians’ (which I planned to start again after finding it was deleted) I came across various interesting arguments which led that article’s deletion. I feel that it pertains to this list as well.

I too believe that the ‘List of Eurasians’ is based on a US view of the term, and not a worldly view. Asia contains over half of the world's population with countries as ethnically diverse as Russia, China, India and Israel - the article does not make clear which of these it refers to. In Britain the term Asian usually refers to people from around the Indian subcontinent. The article also does not make clear what definition of European is being used. Like the argument towards ‘List of Afro-Asians,’ I too do not really think the article of ‘List of Eurasians’ is necessary without clearly defined parameters, geographical locations, and required race percentages.

According to one argument: ‘On a list like this, there will always be some individuals added simply because of the way they look, an obvious problem.’ Too, I believe it seems like many are listed because of ‘assumed’ ethnicity, or what they look like, etc. That runs the risk of creating a biased 'article' or list such as this.

Fails WP:BIAS for only considering what United States citizens consider "Asian" and "European". For instance, a person who is a black, dark-skinned, African and grows up in Europe, and who also has a parent from China or Japan, or Vietnam: Can this individual be considered an ‘Eurasian’? It’s not made clear.

The US is not the world; and many things will be perceived differently by many individuals across the globe. HeiRenXuesheng (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eurasia is Europe and Asia, so everyone from Europe or Asia is Eurasian. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have an article on Eurasia which states it contains 71% of the world's population. Even if we restrict the list to notable individuals, it would be too long to maintain and their geographical location (being in Eurasia) will have little to do with their notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. We wouldn't tolerate a List of Europeans or a List of Asians, and this is even less discriminate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (!vote struck on reading Mandsford's comment, I'm now reserving judgment)[reply]
Comment While I am certainly not voting to keep this article, I think that it's being misunderstood-- primarily because of the author's clumsy choice of a title. As noted above, Eurasian can mean someone from Europe or Asia, true. The author's misuse of the word "Eurasian", in this case, is someone whose ancestry is from both Europe and Asia-- Mom's from Japan, Dad's from Italy; or so-and-so is an Irish-Indonesian. It is sourced (92 cites) -- but questionable (Keanu Reaves is on here because he's "½ Hawaiian-Chinese, ½ British"). I see all sorts of problems with this one, notwithstanding that we don't call someone a "Eurasian". Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That raises a question about the status of another article: Eurasian (mixed ancestry).

Ignoring that for the moment, we could theoretically re-title this to something more appropriate, delete the questionable items and add certain important missing entries (e.g. off the top of my head, Kate Beckinsale and Stephanie Chaves-Jacobsen). But I can't for the life of me think of an appropriate name; suggestions welcome. And would we be better served with a category?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This definition of Eurasian is discussed in the article Eurasian (mixed ancestry), it does not include all people from Asia or Europe, just those people of mixed ancestry. The use of the term is different from that of Eurasia (the supercontinent), which is acknowledged in most dictionaries. It is a term with a history of use with variations of definition, but it is a term some people have used to describe themselves. Simply because a term has some ambiguity to doesn't mean the article should be deleted. If you really follow that policy then you'll end up deleting all of Wikipedia. Tweisbach (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see where it states who can be designated as 'Eurasian'. The article just states that a Eurasian who has mixed ancestry from Europe and Asian. As I asked above, woud an individual who is part-African/part-Chinese, born and raised in Europe be considered Eurasian? Moreover, would a full-blood Vietnamese who is born and raised in France be considered a Eurasian? The List of Afro-Asians was seemingly deleted because of this same argument (or maybe it was deleted because of bad faith...i.e. racist individuals who didn't want to have a black/Asian article or list on Wikipedia). However, many of the individuals on the list (List of Eurasians), as stated by posters above, are assumed to be a certain ethnicity; this harkens to the US 'one drop' rule. Even the article from which this list spawns from is taken from a US point of view. --HeiRenXuesheng (talk) 01:53, 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) 00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobmentiarism[edit]

Probable hoax, or at best a political essay proposing new ideology per WP:MADEUP, unreferenced, can't find a single mention of the word on Google search. Prod contested by author. MuffledThud (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Hoax/attempt to promote an invented personal ideology per WP:MADEUP. The book doesn't exist, the author doesn't exist, the word doesn't exist. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Quantpole (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as terminally unverifiable. Skomorokh 21:56, 26 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 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Belgium relations[edit]

another random country pairing Google news search doesn't reveal much. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't it likely that two European countries are likely to have some level of notable relations? Something more than a quick google news search may be required here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's likely Belgium has spoken out against human rights abuses in Belarus, but it might have done so only in the EU framework, in which case Belarus and the European Union would be a better place to handle this. And while I agree it's more likely for European countries to interact, one should keep in mind that one is an advanced Western democracy, and the other a Brezhnev-era relic far more oriented toward Russia (although that too is a sometimes testy relationship). Regardless, in the absence of sources or obvious factors like shared borders (not the case here), we should presume a lack of notability and delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iranium[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Cunard (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete; violates WP:NOTAFORUM & WP:MADEUP --mhking (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Made up and copyvio[46] Quantpole (talk) 11:01, 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 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Gabon relations[edit]

Non notable relations dose not pass Wikipedia:N.Cheers Kyle1278 03:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 04:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the Canadian government's own website says Bilateral relations between Canada and Gabon are limited. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be little of substance here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inconsequential bilateral relationship with no third-party references to establish notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibStar- The only source states, "Bilateral relations between Canada and Gabon are limited." Bearian (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) does not maintain a significant assistance program in Gabon and there are no long term projects planned in this country." In 2006-7 CIDA disbursed $420,000 to projects in Gabon.[47]
Comment I've just remembered that there has been one notable, and at the time quite internationally reknown crisis between Gabon and Canada, the latter reacting with uncharacteristic vehemence in the 1960s, officially breaking all relations and accusing Gabon of interfering in Canadian internal affairs; I think it can easily be found in Kessings' archives. But since it was a single circumstance, it may not be enough for notability.--Aldux (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:43, 27 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) 00:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Adventure Galaxy (video game)[edit]

Non-notable download game ViperSnake151 Talk 02:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding RS of any type. Hobit (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and ~~prod~~ redirect the six other games listed at KatGames (which I've already done). Nifboy (talk) 18:05, 27 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) 00:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prinsesa Analiza[edit]

Notability and Verifiability of Sources in question. The strongest references that I found were [48] and [49]. Both simply state that this person and her group stays atop a hill. They do not describe in detail the info in the article. Both Magandang Gabi, Bayan and Extra Extra are magazine TV shows that air some curiosity once in a while. I doubt that they covered the person and her group extensively. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person, violates WP:BIO --mhking (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the TV features were most likely on a trivial basis. Not notable, I thinkk. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 01:40, 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) 00:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Fat Hen[edit]

Unsourced drinking game that is just a list of lyrics to several songs, not encyclopedic. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, nothing anywhere. We need a CSD category for drinking games. These come up way too often. Shadowjams (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MBisanz/Shadowjams. TheAE talk/sign 02:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One could, in theory if applied liberally, use db-nonsense. WP:NFT. There should be a ((db-not)) for UE/blatant failures of WP:NOT. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clever game, and it's something I've seen once done on The Gong Show without the alcohol. I think the guys who did that won. Either way, just because somebody did this on a game show does not mean that the game is notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 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 close with no other action per the arbcom case, which greatly limits the actions we can take on these duplicate articles. After that case closes this one can and should be reopened. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaimakchalan[edit]

The page currently at Kaimakchalan is clearly repeated at: Kajmakčalan, the latter which uses correct tranliteration. The page is clearly a double and I propose either the deletion of one of them or the merger of both. PMK1 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC) PMK1 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kajmakčalan. Redirects are primarily meant precisely for that purpose. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. JJL (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you speedy close the discussion yourself and redirect appropriately. Graymornings_(talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; That would be the normal thing to do in a typical circumstance. However, a recent motion passed here, strictly states that: No Macedonia-related article, broadly defined, shall be moved/renamed until after the "Macedonia 2" case closes. If it does occur, any uninvolved administrator can expeditiously revert it. After the case closes, Macedonia-related moves/renames can occur as prescribed in the final decision.
I am not sure whether or not this affects this AFD case directly however the motion does not state that the article cannot be deleted. It would be an irregular happening, however a way to by-pass the ruling by the ARBCOM Comitee through this certain "loop-hole". PMK1 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RedirectCan we WP:BOLD/WP:SNOW this? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint John and the Revelations[edit]

Non-notable band. No allmusic entry. Two releases only available via internet, both on self-published label. No awards or charts. JamesBurns (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant independent coverage, fails WP:BAND. TheClashFan (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of the nominator. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band without any independent sources, as such it fails WP:BAND. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – The nominator has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, it goes without saying that the sockpuppetry case againt the nominator should not affect the outcome of this discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not seem to meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Hello. I apologize, I don't understand the formatting on this page, so excuse this weird entry. My name is Amanda and I have been updating the Saint John and the Revelations page. I work for a PR firm that is now handling the band. Although I work for PR, I have endeavored to just keep this page fact based in the WikiPedia tradition. The article is here so people who are interested in the band can find more details about them without the fluff that people like myself usually have to write. I will in no way, shape, or form, use any hyperbole on it. Only facts.

The band is not signed to a label, nor will they probably ever be (the record labels are not good for making money right now), and because of that they will never chart either. They do however have hundreds of thousands of fans all around the world, and they are about to gain a lot more. They have just signed deals to have their music put into two major network TV shows, the HBO show Entourage, and are also getting picked up by dozens of radio stations every day, especially after being featured on KCRW.

They have been featured in music print publications in Canada, and will soon be featured more in the U.S., their new base of operation. We are trying to dig up links, but are unsure if they are online.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to change the entry to avoid deletion, I really have tried to just keep it focused on facts and not some fluff fan/vanity page. If you have any doubts as to their notability, please look them up online and/or visit their MySpace profile, They have a lot more comments and fans there than many signed/charted acts. They have hundreds of thousands of fans that think the band are truly notable, the music industry and charts just haven't caught up with a way of tracking completely independent artists that are doing very well.

Thank you. Amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.106.253 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo Amanda. Unfortunately Wikipedia also has not come up with a way of dealing with completely independent artists that are doing very well, outside of the criteria listed at WP:BAND. Wikipedia's version of "notable" depends on these, rather than popularity or number of fans. As you can see, probably the most sure-fire chance of inclusion lies with non-trivial pieces on the artist, in reliable sources independent of the artist. They don't have to be online, but it does look like this band is not yet "notable" enough by Wikipedia standards for inclusion at this time. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, actually, this might be ok then. We are getting copies of regional and national Canadian music magazines that have mentioned the band, and I'll be able to cite from those. I should have a couple of them within a week. I misunderstood what I could cite and thought I could only cite linkable articles, I'm still learning more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -Amanda

Delete as not satisfying notability criteria. WP:USERFY to User:76.90.106.253 on request to allow Amanda time to find resources and build the article. If after a month the article is still not acceptable remove from the User:76.90.106.253 subpage. SilkTork *^YES! 08:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to an earlier-than-usual re-nomination, if necessary. Basically per SilkTork above, except that since there is a good faith assertion here that adequate sourcing exists, i do not see why the article should not remain in article space and be improved in the usual way. It's also the least confusing option for a new editor, and the most convenient way other editors can look at the sourcing going forward. 86.44.34.151 (talk) 14:18, 26 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 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Youth Foundation[edit]

Delete per WP:Corp/ Org Oo7565 (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The intro is a copyright violation taken from here. Notability? Maybe [50] [51] [52] [53] in German. I don't know if this foundation is notable, but I'm more concerned of the wp:copyvio. -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Spurious nomination lacking proper WP:BEFORE. Copyvio can be dealt with, just as so can improper nomination... [54],[55], [56]... Bad form. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist, apparently, so the cleanup I just performed to take care of WP:COPYVIO and WP:COATRACK issues ~~should be enough to save the article.~~ -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Delete Sources provided above are trivial, and I was not much more successful finding more. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I always though COPYVIO=delete? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only when it affects the entire article, which wasn't the case here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:51, 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.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Dawber[edit]

One of many articles that has crept into Wikipedia on British prospective parliamentary candidates. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to candidates, and there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I42 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue for inclusion of this article and all other article regarding parliamentary candidates for reasons outlined here [User:ZTomane1|ZTomane1]] (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of current notability. If he is elected, then he should have an article. Warofdreams talk 02:09, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No 3rd party refs and candidate clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not as a politician, but because of business interests at [57]. MikeHobday (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this non-independent bio satisfy WP:N? I42 (talk) 21:59, 27 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, although without prejudice against a future merge, subject to editorial discretion and consensus. — TKD::{talk} 15:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onlineworms[edit]

Fails to establish any notability. Appears to be a Korean curiosity, a knockoff of Worms 2. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ZeroOne (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on first blush it looks like some freeware knock-off, but according to this on IGN it's actually an official Team 17 game adapted by Wizgate. Bearing in mind the amount of interest generated by StarCraft in Korea there may be more to this. Someoneanother 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, nice find. I have edited the article to establish some more notability and to include the reference you found. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this one appears legit and certainly has the capacity for expansion and improvement. Excellent job finding new stuff. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:14, 19 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 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a merge and redirect I didn't find any other relevant sources for this and TBH it appears to be a curio. There is a series article or something else where all the games are listed, so this could be summed up in a sentence or two and cited to IGN, but there doesn't seem to be anything to write a full-blown article about. Someone another 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I'm going out on a limb and saying that, if there is coverage on IGN, there should be coverage elsewhere. MuZemike 14:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the notability is verified with Korean newspapers.온라인 웜즈 [58] (온라인 웜즈 = Onlineworms)--Caspian blue 12:05, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trace constituents[edit]

((db-nocontext)) declined. Extremely short article that states nothing but a list of gases produced in small quantities by landfills. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be part of landfill gas. Rename to Trace constituents of landfill gas (without redirect) and merge the names of the gases into the text of the main article (with redirect). This way information is preserved without causing fragmentation or unneeded redirects. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 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 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~Delete - At best it's a merge into the Landfill gas article. Even if it's merged, the underlying page needs to delete because lots of things have trace constituents, and there's little reason it should redirect to landfill gas, over something else (say nuclear test constituents, or whatever). Shadowjams (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm suggesting a rename before merging. You can't merge text and delete the edit history that belongs with that text because it would kill the "paper" trail of attribution. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's a good point. I would normally agree, but here the only content here is a very short list of chemicals; That doesn't require a true merge, and I think there's a downside to making it hard for another user to start a trace constituents page. What if it redirected to a disambiguation? Shadowjams (talk) 17:53, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sorensen (meteorologist)[edit]

He's a great guy, but I don't think he needs his own article in the Wikipedia. Gus Polly^T_C 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:51, 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 00:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing admin should note WP:COI concerns, File:Sorensen06.jpg indicates that the photo and article were likely both uploaded/created by the subject. GlassCobra 16:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a FaceBook or MySpace page to get a new job or attention. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 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 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mallinger[edit]

Non notable football manager of a small club in the lower leagues. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable manager. Giant Snowman 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search gives us some substantial coverage from sources such as The Independent and The Times. There's plenty of scope for this article to be improved, what with him being the guy who brought Gazza to Kettering and all. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:19, 20 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) 00:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable football manager of amateur clubs. Amateur footballers are non-notable, so managers are. --Angelo (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has some notability from the Gazza deal (which seems to have coincided with him selling Kettering) and there's the Independent article which is basically about him. The Times article does point out he saved the club from liquidation, but is largely about Gazza. He is also involved with Footballcv.com. The company's wikilink may need deleting, but it does make some claims of notability, although I'm not sure if these are genuine or if the 'as featured on/in' are simply puff pieces. Still not sure that means he needs an article though Stu.W UK (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources should be third-party, reliable and cover the subject in detail. This is not the case, since Mallinger's name is mentioned mostly in sources regarding Gascoigne's time with Kettering, where Gascoigne is the main subject, not Mallinger. --Angelo (talk) 10:20, 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 23:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Montañez[edit]

I don't think this article meets our notability criteria. Google returns less than 500 relevant hits. --Ixfd64 (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY, not to mention WP:MUSICBIO on all points. We have to ask ourselves whether reliable sources can be found to back up any claims in the article, and I find zero on multiple Google search attempts. —Cyclonenim | Chat 10:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:56, 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 00:16, 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 23:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushmen (Nite Leagues)[edit]

This team does not seem notable at all. Google returns less than ten relevant hits. --Ixfd64 (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notice that the main contributor to the article is User:The Bushmens Dragon (WP:AUTO) Radiant chains (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:57, 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 00:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Cork Nite League is an eleven aside amateur football league and therefore the constituent teams probably don't meet WP:GNG/WP:ATHLETE. CultureDrone (talk) 13:20, 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. GlassCobra 16:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sikder Aminul Haque[edit]

Notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators are supposed to give reasons why they think something should be deleted. If you question the subject's notability, you should have investigated per WP:BEFORE and explained why you think it fails. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't find much in English on him, and it appears that his entire body of work is in Bengali, but from what I could glean he looks notable in Bangladesh. Does anyone who speaks Bengali know of any references? -Senseless!... says you, says me 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:46, 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 00:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that the word famous was thrown around gratuitously. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Before is no excuse for unsourced, unreferenced, articles. Onus is on creator. Absence of no notability does not equal notability. Plus, there's no notability here. Shadowjams (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An apparent absense of notability is no excuse for bad reasoning either. If you don't check for sources, you can't say anything about the notability of a subject with any sort of certainty because no one knows everything. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 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. Please remember to bold comment once in the future. MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZK Framework[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable Flaming Grunt 08:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I moved the article to ZK (framework) since the name of this framework is "ZK", not "ZK Framework". This may prove important when looking for sources to cite. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When we designed our current application, we included ZK, GWT and RAP to our evaluation list for Ajax frameworks. I found this article useful, especially introduction and further links. ZK is a top project on sourceforge whatever that means. I'm not a wiki dogmatist and not really interested in relevance criteria, but I've seen so many articles on wikipedia that are more relevant but incomplete and badly written. I use wikipedia for research on new topics to get articles like this one. Beanformer 09:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanformer (talk • contribs) — Beanformer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - It's not notable. That's it. It doesn't meet the criteria specified in WP:NOTE - read it. Flaming Grunt 01:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Waiting for delete... no response in the last 5 days, come on - pick up the pace please. Flaming Grunt 10:33, 20 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 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GWT is notable enough to be given it's own article, and ZK is more widely used (in my circles of development). It is managed by a very active community, and provides a feature set beyond that of GWT (i.e. IDE integration with both Eclipse and NetBeans). A Wikipedia article is merited in my opinion. In addition to it's technical merit, ZK is also notable for it's completeness and ground-breaking functionality. - Thanks InfoSec812— InfoSec812 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - I've found the article very useful. When I've to choose some kind of software I always read the related Wikipedia page and Zk worth an article. Is a largely used framework and has a very active community. - Thanks l.visconti —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC). — l.visconti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weakest of Weak Keeps, was not able to find any substantial independent coverage of this framework, but being the Sourceforge project of the month might just push it over the notability line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete It doesn't meet the notability guidelines by proving its notablility with reliable sources. The keep votes are not valid arguments. Just because something is WP:USEFUL doesn't mean it should have an article. Spiesr (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third party reliable sources. The SPA keeps above are all not valid.16x9 (talk) 22:22, 27 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 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troika Ranch[edit]

Non-notable club Crashoffer12345 (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a promotional press release, lacks notablity and references. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the note. It does indeed lack the notability as I noted it was taken from the official site and youtube channel of Troika Ranch. The sites "are" referenced in the bottom. Since I am new I might have missed different ways to site this -- nevertheless I did include "References" and "official site" in the bottom to make this easier. I am sure this page must exist but I am not sure how to start it. I do know that deleting the entire page will not help the process. -- awared

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though the article could do with a copy-edit there are decent sources out there [59], [60], [61], [62] and more, so I think the group is notable. Quantpole (talk) 11:36, 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 Deleted per CSD G11. Nakon 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AxiDotNet[edit]

Self-promotion of non-notable product. JaGa^talk 08:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:58, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 00:46, 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 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill2phone[edit]

Repeatedly tagged with ((prod)) and ((db-g11)) in the past. Has not improved since six months ago. Alexius08 (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article as written is highly confusing; it is almost impossible to understand the point of it, much less assess its notability. From what I can gather, however, it seems like this subject may indeed merit an article. However, a rewrite of the entire article is in order. The first line makes the article seem like an advertisement (which it isn't) because it refers to the subject as being offered by one company, later broadening the scope of the article to other companies. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify - The subject seems to be marginally notable. Alternatively, convert this into an article on the concept (over-the-phone billing? no idea what it would be called.) with the included history on it and include mention of the particular providers of these services. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:57, 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 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The nomination is just WP:NOEFFORT but AFD is not cleanup. This particular service seems to be notable and, in any case, there is the larger topic of Mobile payment to which it might be merged. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:38, 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 disussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Emerson College . MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WECB (Emerson College)[edit]

No indication of notability beyond the campus. Does not have a FCC license, and no indication that it ever did. Currently a web stream only. RadioFan (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge into Emerson College page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 04:17
Weak keep Found a 54 word item in Billboard Oct 20, 1973, page 36. This qualifies as at least one reliable and independent source with a bit more than directory coverage. Google News archive shows a number of articles in the college's paper over the years, which seem as relevant as comparable articles in a small town newspaper about something in the town. In addition numerous directories mention it, which counts for still less relative to WP:N, but which give this 60-year old station more credibility than an upstart hobby station in some high-school student's basement. Over the years it has done (no license needed) carrier current AM broadcasting to dorms. There appear to be numerous sources in the form of the college paper to furnish material for an article, and the station has apparently been recognized and listed in advertising directories such as "Broadcasting Yearbook" (1976), Madison Avenue Handbook," (1977, 1980), "Private Colleges and Universities (1982), Television Factbook (1974), "Emerson College )a factbook, 2005, and "Burrelle's Media Directory-1995". Since these are mostly directory listings or local college paper articles, I cannot give an unreserved "Keep" recommendation. Edison (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Edison (talk) 22:11, 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 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per NeutralHomer. I'm not convinced that any notability is there. Yea, 60 years is a while, but if there is only one RS with at total of 54 words, I'm not convinced that we have meet the bar for notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 27 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 Survivor: All-Stars. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Buchanan[edit]

Tom is just a reality show contestant he has not done after two seasons of Survivor. But, fails to having person appears only in one single event. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an entirely unsourced WP:BLP which fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Article content appears to be nothing more than a recap of events on Survivor: Africa and Survivor: All Stars. Plastikspork (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to latest season he appeared in as his name is plausible search term. Make mention of the earlier series which is likely to be verifiable so both seasons are properly linked to him; only merge verified material. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 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 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Unnecessary forking of the TV series articles. Rd232 ^talk 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mgm. -- saberwyn 05:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mgm. He's not notable enough to have his own article. Tim meh ! 01:30, 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 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Amarni[edit]

two year old unreferenced blp for a non-notable painter Oo7565 (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you followed the instructions at WP:BEFORE and make an effort to find sources before nominating the article for deletion? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes i didOo7565 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article of sourcable individual who passes WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:04, 20 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) 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had a look at the online material in French. He's had a solo show in the Galerie du Tableau [63], which doesn't look an especially significant gallery. It shows an artist a month [64], and I suspect that it's a gallery space for hire given the turnover. He's participated in a competition [65], but he didn't win anything. No museum shows, no works in museum collections, a solo show in a small gallery, exhibited in town halls and art centres (according to the article), participated in a competition. The subject falls way below WP:CREATIVE. And there's no press coverage to meet WP:N.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ethico. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Where was the source for the article? And one of the two links is broken. I also agree with Ethicoaestheticist. --Artypants, ^Babble 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE on all points. He hasn't created any significant works, nor is he himself significant in his field. No reliable sources have been found to say otherwise by participants here or by any other editors during the past year that the notability tag has been on the article. Them From Space 05:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ethico...Modernist (talk) 18:56, 27 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 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuan Anh[edit]

I don't see any real claim to notability here. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, does not appear to have won any awards or charted. JamesBurns (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no evidence of much at all--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:29, 27 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 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Devices Corporation[edit]

Non-notable manufacturer; links are to websites, forums, and the company's own website. The reviews are not from reliable audiophile publications, but from individual audiophile websites. Orange Mike | Talk 03:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no tubes - no amp. NVO (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all solid state: that's electronics without tubes, like your computer (unless you're using a CRT). Vacuum tubes vs. not doesn't enter into it. They're still headphone amps, and Practical Devices is still a company. Mark Forest (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The websites provided as independent reviews would appear to be edited by someone other than the reviewers and publish under the reviewer's byline; they are not self-published and would appear to be good enough to provide general notability. That one reviewer didn't seem to be all that impressed with the product reviewed suggests that this consumer product business had enough independent interest and has not been exclusively edited for promotional purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spam where I can't find any references that demonstrate notability. Them From Space 01:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The independent reviews cover the material in the article and show there's interest from publications who aren't self-publishing about the products and have some editorial process (aka reliable sources). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:43, 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 merge to Mean Everything to Nothing. MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Years of Excellence[edit]

Per WP:CRYSTAL, the album is not (currently) notable. Chzz ► 02:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Instead of removing the EP from wiki entirely, perhaps it could be merged with Mean Everything to Nothing. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability yet to be established, WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 04:30, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Mean Everything to Nothing or Manchester Orchestra. Tim meh ! 21:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until notability can be establish. --J^mundo 03:55, 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 Redirect to Nickel-metal hydride battery. GlassCobra 16:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ni-OH[edit]

Future game; WP:CRYSTAL Chzz ► 02:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability yet to be established, WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:14, 14 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystalballing. Alexius08 (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It may be notable when more is known and published at reliable sources. Tim meh ! 01:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It lacks first party/reliable sources. Wait until better coverage is made. DivineAlpha (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickel-metal hydride battery (which is where the current Nickel hydride article redirects to, this articles title being the chemical formula for nickel hydride the redirect seems appropriate). JulesH (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JulesH. If Nickel hydride redirects there, then so should the formula for the stuff - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 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. GlassCobra 16:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SanDisk RescuePRO[edit]

Non notable software Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No showing of independent notability from SanDisk itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no significant coverage in reliable sources. There is no assertion of notability separate from SanDisk. Tim meh ! 01:58, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Lomar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I can't find a single reliable source for it. All google brings up is personal web-sites, and various versions of the Wikipedia article. No reliable 3rd party sources, there are no references within the article, the 2 external links are down. The websites of the organization appears to not exist. My first impression is that this is a hoax, or at least not notable. Pstanton (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, also this is the 2nd AfD, the previous decision was to keep the article and improve it, which hasn't happened, and I at least haven't seen anything on Google that could be used as a source. --Pstanton (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although minor, it is mentioned in this book. More substantial are [66], [67], and [68]. Sufficient sources exist to establish notability, and certainly shows it isn't a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So it's a group that's run a fraudulent visa and passport service that now purports to be some humanitarian aid foundation? Regardless, none of its websites is still active. Non-notable fraud ring at the worst and someone's elaborate fantasy at best. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:54, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my gut feeling is that this is a hoax. The acronym 'ROLF', the use of the Lovecraftian 'Lomar'...hmmm...trouble is there's enough truth mixed in to confuse the issue. Dom Klaus Schlapps of St Severin's is real enough but the website of the 'OPR' makes no mention of the Lomar project. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whatever this once was- and it seems to have never risen above the level of marginal notability- there's no evidence that it is currently active. If that is the case, no new material about it is likely to emerge, and the old material that I've seen linked so far is insufficient to produce a verifiable article. If there is a sudden surge of activity and notability, it can always be recreated in user space. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the sources that have been mentioned only seem to refer to Lomar tangentially, the only thing that appears even mildly notable is an apparent scam in Nigeria using the name, years ago. I still think deletion is warranted. --Pstanton (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation as an article on the subject of Whpq's sources, which do appear to be about something totally different to this article (i.e., a micronation or something similar, rather than an international political organisation as this article discusses). Article is in any case currently titled incorrectly for this content, as the organisation it describes is apparently not called "Republic of Lomar" anyway. JulesH (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The micronation was really a political organisation designed to give out "passports" to people in need so they are in fact one and teh same. -- Whpq (talk) 10:21, 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.