The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. there being no further discussion in a week after the relist, no-consensus seems reasonable; no prejudice to a merge is consensus can be obtained for that in the usual way--I have no opinion on the underlying issue DGG (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fully qualified domain address[edit]

This definition is not notable and not in common use. It happens to be defined in an RFC on "voice profiles for internet mail", but there are a lot of definitions in various RFCs. The FQDA article was prod'ed once and it was deleted, but when I prod'ed this version of the name, the prod was contested. I have looked, and on the first 6 pages of google, and all references are either 1) copies of wikipedia's e-mail article, 2) usages where they actually mean fully qualified domain name and not the definition given in this article, or 3) related to RFC 3801 (and earlier versions of this RFCs and/or drafts for these RFCs). The one exception was a thread on the Postfix mailing list. While RFCs are good sources, random definitions in them aren't noteworthy.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Wrs1864 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your pressing 'Next' 6 times in Google is not material.

No instances of where fully qualified domain name (example.org), or this site and mirrors have mistakenly been used in the article. The term is used in multiple RFCs—which, in your words, are "good sources." It is unclear what is "random" about the sometimes-hyphenated techical term. Usage in RFCs, other than the single #3801 one you mentioned in the Prod, is already provided in the article, which you are obliged to check before nominating.

It's a specialized technical area, and part of that; it has usage in comp.unix.admin (long-established mailing list), discussion of mail systems [1] & [2].

It is taught as part of at least one university level computer science syllabus, California State University, Long Beach, by Dr. T. Maples, Ph.D., see http://www.cecs.csulb.edu/~maples/cecs410/notes/410-1-Intro.doc: "Note: A modern Internet e-mail address is a string of the form localpart@domain.example, creating a Fully Qualified Domain Address (FQDA). The part before the @ sign is the local part of the address, often the username of the recipient, and the part after the @ sign is a domain name." –Whitehorse1 07:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is in only one current RFC, not multiple ones. RFC 3801 uses it, as I mentioned above. It obsoletes a previous version of the same document, RFC 2421, which in turn obsoleted the previous version, RFC 1911. Neither previous revisions, nor the draft documents used to make those RFCs, count as multiple sources any more than previous versions of a wikipedia article count as multiple articles. As far as your compsci syllabus, it is an exact copy of the line out of e-mail from a few years ago. Actually, that entire document looks like a worked over copy of wikipedia's e-mail article. A few usages on mailing lists and news groups isn't enough to make a phrase notable. So far, with both of us looking, we have found one (1) reference to a reliable source in an obscure RFC. Wrs1864 (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the quoted example use of the term in the university course notes defines the term incorrectly as well. The second part (after the @ symbol) must not be a domain name, but an FQDN, i.e., a DNS host name. WP should have an article defining the term properly using the existing Internet Standards Track RFC as the source of definition. Kbrose (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the "incorrect" defintion of FQDA needing just a domain name instead of a FQDN is one of the easy ways to tell if the "source" was copied from wikipedia's e-mail article where it was defined wrong. Sadly, if you accept things like this compsci syllabus as a "reliable source", due to the error in wikipedia, it may now be that wikiepdia has changed the definition of the term. This isn't the first time that such errors in wikipedia have been picked up by "reliable sources." On the other hand, this also points out just how few places give a definition for this term. Wrs1864 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there were rather more instances of usage/defining the term (though still a small quantity) before you removed them. (diff) Those were IETF Internet-Draft documents which, of course, are not RFCs; be that as it may, referring to an RFC as as a 'standard', like the 'robots exclusion standard' (sic) is commonplace, the distinction between document types is sometimes blurred. –Whitehorse1 22:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify here: I'm not asserting the linked edit was correct or incorrect, or in _any_ way suggesting or implying inappropriateness.

- - - OK, I think maybe it would help if I explained a little about the RFC process here. Before there can be an IETF Request for Comment (RFC), you must submit an internet draft version of the document. If the drafts pass review and become RFCs, these drafts do not disappear, but they are meaningless. Once an RFC has been published, not a word of it can be changed for any reason. If anything needs to be updated, from just minor spelling changes to major revisions, a new internet draft needs to be submitted and then the a new RFC with a new number will be published. All the RFCs and drafts that you listed were for the exact same protocol/standard. with one exception. Trying to cite all of those drafts/RFCs as separate "sources" would be like trying to cite all the versions of this AfD as separate AfDs. Now, there is one draft document that wasn't part of the history of RFC 3801, but that draft expired 10 years ago. It is important to remember that Internet drafts are not peer reviewed documents. All the RFC editor does for drafts is check the formatting. I could package up this AfD as an internet draft, format it correctly, send it off to the right email address, and it would be published. An internet draft might count as a self-published source (WP:SPS), but like most other things that anyone can publish, they should generally be avoided here.

So far, only one reliable source for this definition has been found, and that is RFC 3801. Wrs1864 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. After thinking about this term for a week now since the original suggestion of deletion, I am going with my original (private) reaction and vote to oppose the deletion. Even though the term is not very often used anymore these days, I do remember there was more frequent use of this term in the 80 and 90s. Furthermore, it clearly is defined in the RFC literature, the number of citations doesn't really matter, IMHO. The RFC in which it is defined, is not so obscure, b/t/w, rather an important standard for voicemail systems. What persuades me mostly though, is that the term has been confused in some instances with 'fully qualified domain name' and thus I think WP can serve as a more accessible reference to a general audience for the correct meaning of this term. I think policy strictness (in terms of notability for WP use) is not a good strategy in this case and deletion serves no real purpose outside of such criteria. Kbrose (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too remember when this phrase popped up more often, but it was never that common. I really don't think that ignoring WP:N in order to use wikipedia to push for the "correct" use of the phrase is at all appropriate, that would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Considering how most uses of this phrase are actually intending to be fully qualified domain name, I could see a redirect tagged as a misspelling. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to email address. The subject of the topic is basically an e-mail address where the domain part is a FQDN. The term is not notable, and is only used (as far as we can tell) in a single reliable source. It is worth mentioning, it isn't worth having its own page. JulesH (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with links to fully qualified domain name and email address for clarity. A redirect to email address would be confusing. Ventifax (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give any more sources than just the one RFC? If so, what should be the definition of this term? Wrs1864 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 23:34, 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decide![edit]

Italian political association without notability. Expired PROD. No representations. Deletion in it.wiki according to the opinion of a clear majority [3] Invitamia (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decide! was represented in Parliament from 2007 to 2008 by Daniele Capezzone and has been one of the constituent parties of The People of Freedom (PdL) in 2008. Capezzone is now the spokesman of the PdL. I don't understand how a deletion in it.Wiki can be relevant here: it.Wiki cannot be a source for anything in en.Wiki and it.Wiki has a long record of strange deletions (many parties with parliamentary representation had been proposed for deletion and some had been deleted). --Checco (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Checco. It had a parliamentary seat, that alone is sufficient notability. —Nightstallion 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!! --Jacvan (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Built only in 2007 - closed less than two years later - no representations - only private corporation - The great majority of italian parties built in the history stood just once for elections before desappearing. --Invitamia (talk) 20:36, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taste Cafe & Marketplace[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Taste Cafe & Marketplace

Blatant advert. None of the sources support notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant advertisement yes! Possibility for inclusion here at Wikipedia, yes! However, at this time, just not enough coverage to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Good luck to Mr. Urwand and his sisters. I am hoping to read about them, here, in the not too distant future. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like an advert. Not convinced the sources are strong enough yet to establish notability - the Times one simply qotes the Frommers - in terms of significant coverage -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. This should have been salted after deletion. Alexius08 (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources do not show notability; they are review-style coverage as exists for nearly every restaurant in the US. Full disclosure: I originally placed a speedy tag on this article, subsequently declined. gnfnrf (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with an added pinch of salt. Yintaɳ 13:38, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven W. Peck[edit]

Does not seem to be notable as he is the Founder/President of a a non-profit that doesn't have an article on it and no articles link to this one (See here). The creator has a conflict of interest (see that user's username) and the only references are to the company's website. Mm40 (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or start an article on Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. As shown by the follwing two Google News searchs, [4] and [5], there is more than enough coverage from independent - creditable - verifiable - thrid paty sources to claim inclusion here at Wikipedia under our notability guidelines for either of the two subjects. Start one article and redirect the other. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:59, 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amman Filmmakers Cooperative[edit]

This reads like an advertisement to me. Logan | Talk 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Requesting an AFD based on the criteria, "... reads like an advertisement to me", is not a valid reason to bring this piece here. Statements such as: "...not enough coverage from independent - thrid party - creditable - verifable sources", would qualify for a legitment reason for an AFD. However, I believe, someone may point you to the following references, [6], and make a pretty good argument to Keep. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ShoesssS is right. Looks notable enough to me, sources check out fine. And now I'm off to cut some AdSpeak from the article because it does read like an advertisement. Yintaɳ 11:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per proper consideration of WP:AFTER. The group has in-depth coverage in reliable sources[7]. Advert is addressed through proper cleanup of such... and AfD is not WP:CLEANUP though it often is used that way. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Merges don't require AfDs; feel free to do so by yourself. Cheers. I'^mperator 23:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters and Brothers[edit]

Fails WP:NM. Non notable single. Merge to the parent album, The Long Play. Europe22 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Articles for deletion isn't needed to do a merge. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:16, 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 Non-admin speedy close, page redirected. ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Gross[edit]

This article is a dupe. Possibly a redirect could be created. Tracy Grose is the correct name. Calebrw (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Tracy Grose, as this is the correct name (e.g. see here). I assume the subject's professional playing time is enough to satisfy the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE. I say Merge instead of Redirect even though the pages appear identical, because there's valuable information in a previous version of the page (see here) which does not appear in the alternate article. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, which preserves the history so anyone can merge any of the content from the history to the correctly titled article, and Speedy close because nobody is actually suggesting deletion of an article - if anyone disagrees that this should be a redirect the correct venue is WP:RFD. I'll do the redirect now, so can someone that knows how do do it please close this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 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 Speedy Keep Merges don't have to go to AFD; do it yourself. Cheers. I'^mperator 23:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Ist Weit[edit]

Only 125 copies sold = non notable. Fails WP:NM. Merge to "Big in Japan" as cover version. Europe22 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Articles for deletion isn't needed to do a merge. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:52, 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreak Make Me a Dancer[edit]

I don't think this meets the notability criteria for future albums yet. With the exception of the digital spy source, the rest are blogs, forums, twitter etc. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in deleting this page. The single is officially going to be released on 15th June, and a video is coming up the next month. So, don't delete it, please. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franpopstar (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an album recorded by a major artist and released by a subsidiary of the largest record company in the world. I think the article satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria. Also, I see no reason to question the digital spy source. The release info comes directly from an interview with two of the artists involved in the production. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable song. Cd single cover is known yet and a music video is filmed yet.--Aaa16 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Landon[edit]

Lack of notability (has only five porn films to his credit); no references; article reads like a puff piece written by a publicity agent or a starstruck fan LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs work but even if there is only five films, he's got five awards for them which meets pornbio guidelines. This needs to be sourced of course but that shuldn't be too ... hard. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. How sad that Wikipedia even has pornbio guidelines! He made five films in four years, and hasn't worked since 2002. How can he possibly be considered notable enough to warrant an article, even one as badly written and referenced as this one is? MovieMadness (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, how sad we have guidelines? We do so to help those unenlightened have a clue as to what content can be considered noatble or not. WP:PORNBIO clearly states if they have won a major award - he's won five. If he only worked for 2 months it would still meet notability. -- Banjeboi 08:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does one determine how major a "Grabby Award" is? Regardless, the article is filled with POV statements sounding like someone's J/O fantasy ("He has won several awards due to his photogenic good looks and acting ability;" "He is known for his youth, muscular build, strong facial forms, and blond hair;" "However, he is perhaps most known for his 10 inch, slightly curved, circumcised penis") and very few facts, starting with date and place of birth and continuing with the story about his first film, are verified by reliable sources. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The various AVN awards meet RS. Remember... they are genre specific. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: LiteraryMaven -- WP:PORNBIO is the going standard for these types of articles. If you think the standards are too low, you can register your complaints at the talk page for it. I myself wonder about how hard it is to get these adult industry awards, but pornbio is the current standard (and there are plenty of articles which actually don't even pass its generous standards). Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The gay porn industry is actually quite huge and, believe it or not, an industry panel sets standards and reviews nominees. Do I personally watch, agree, dispute or otherwise care, no. But they do, did, don't and do and ergo this is agreed upon industry award. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an article and send to WP:CLEANUP to address POV. Like it or not, he passes WP:PORNBIO with alacrity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He passes only one out of four WP:PORNBIO requirements, i.e., he has won awards listed in Category:Adult movie awards. As for the rest, he is not a Playboy Playmate, there is nothing in the article to suggest he made "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre," "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature," or is "a member of an industry Hall of Fame," and there's no indication the five films he made were "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." Is passing only one out of four sufficient reason to keep? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect you may be misreading that, it doesn't say they must meet all those requirements, it states - A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. -- Banjeboi 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PORNBIO also says "meeting one or more [requirements] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". The only references in this article prove Joe Landon won the awards that are listed. Nothing else in the article is proven. A lot of it is POV. I have a feeling there is absolutely nothing notable about this person even to people who have an interest in this type of thing. LargoLarry (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seemingly non-notable. Nothing above sways me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Furniture in Animal Crossing[edit]

This is simply game guide content at best. Item lists are rarely notable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree Shizuoka budoka (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Yintaɳ 13:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless. And wouldnt even make a good game guide. DGG (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Flagrant violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:VGSCOPE. Randomran (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and quick: Unsalvagable. This subject will never meet the inclusion criteria. Marasmusine (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant WP:GAMEGUIDE content with no assertion of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete – this is not a game guide nor an indiscriminate collection of information. MuZemike 17:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Milk#Nutrition_and_health. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of Drinking Milk[edit]

Originally tagged as a copyright violation, the author rewrote some of the text in his or her own words. Now its an unsourced essay that duplicates Milk#Nutrition_and_health. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article title is POV. Content is a personal essay for homework. Duplicates content as per nom. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:38, 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. Willing to userfy if there's any useful material here for a merge/redirect Fritzpoll (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBA Cable[edit]

Terrible sourcing. Non-notable neologism (most likely). Purportedly about a type of cable but seems to be a how-to guide for untangling a phone cord . Doesn't appear to be a candidate for CSD. Wperdue (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NEO. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has terrible sources for the same reason that no one has ever heard of CBA cable before, and wouldn't know that it is the ubiquitous coiled cable found on everything from key chains to telephones to keyboards, without a resource like Wikipedia. I just found this out today while searching for a method of untangling Bell Knots. I discovered the sparse information which I have submitted. This information is not common knowledge, but belongs on Wikipedia because CBA cable is common enough to be worthy of admission to an encyclopedia and unknown enough to need that encyclopedia to be Wikipedia.
I am going to create another article about Bell Knots. Have you honestly ever heard of these? Again a ubiquitous yet unseen phenomenon that affects us every day of our lives. Both of these need to be on wikipedia, and hopefully someone with the esoteric knowledge and resources can enhance the public well-being through the aggregation of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellknot (talk • contribs)
re:Neologism CBA cable is not a neologism, it is jargon. Search for "CBA Cable" on Google shopping, and you can find that this is a common label, even across manufacturers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellknot (talk • contribs) 2009-04-24 20:53:25
re:Sources Muse magazine did an article about this http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/8f7bb/please_upvote_and_help_me_i_really_want_to_learn/c0934ky and it should be in their archives. There are certainly other publications which reference it, but only through the cloud-sourcing power of Wikipedia will they come to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.148.127 (talk • contribs) 2009-04-24 21:04:46
Comment This is very clearly not a neologism as I am finding 11 references in google scholar: [8] going back to 1983. On the other hand, I'm finding it challenging to locate sources that give us enough information on what CBA Cable is. So I'm not sure what to recommend. I would disagree very strongly with deletion on the grounds that is a neologism. However, I am also not convinced that it is notable. Cazort (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll find, when you read those sources that you found, which do indeed say what CBA cable is, that "CBA" in that context stands for Colliding Beam Accelerator. Most people do not have one of those attached to their telephone handset. Uncle G (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I did not read these sources in enough depth! My comments were based on a more superficial look at the articles. Cazort (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a poorly-written guide. Alexius08 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M. Bellknot, someone — I don't know who. — has led you completely up the garden path. There's a reason that what you are talking about is "not common knowledge". It's because it's a load of tripe. Please don't write about "Bell knots". There's no such thing. Nor does this "CBA cable" exist.
When a material that is a helix is twisted in the direction of its chirality beyond a certain point, it forms what is known as a supercoil or a superhelix.(ref) This is mostly studied with respect to the supercoils that form in the DNA molecule double-helix, but the underlying principles apply to many things, from telephone handset cables, through rubber bands to garden hoses (ISBN 9780521006330 pp. 16). Twist a helix in the direction opposite to its chirality, and the result is underwinding or negative supercoiling (Ibid.).
This is not a knot. A helix can supercoil all it likes. Topologically, it remains an (arc of an) unknot. If you pass one of its ends through a loop, that forms a knot. But it isn't called a "Bell" knot. It's not special to telephones, or to Bell. Its the plain, ordinary, overhand knot.
And as you can see from simple inspection, the helical cables that you find on keychains are not the same as the cables that you find on telephones. The number of cores differ, as indeed do their types. They are just several kinds of cables in plastic insulator. Sometimes, in Canada, telephone cabling involves things called CSA cables, but that's only because the standards for such cables in Canada are set by the Canadian Standards Association. Many types of cables are "CSA cables", just as many types of connectors are DIN connectors. (There's another "CSA cable" in telephony, but that's another name for the local loop of the Carrier Serving Area, and nothing to do with subscriber equipment at all.) Uncle G (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The most phrases for this sort of cable seem to be coiled handset cord and spiral cable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, I would recommend to Rename, possibly with a Redirect. Spiral cable seems to get far more hits under the searches I've done. Thoughts? Cazort (talk) 16:41, 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 speedy delete. CSD#G5 Black Kite 19:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic 1 Overhauled[edit]

little context, not content. Not even released yet. The very model of a minor general (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CRYSTAL. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:33, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disarray[edit]

Dictionary definition. Non-encyclopaedic. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plain and simple dicdef; already covered in Wiktionary. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I can't think of any content for the word "Disarray" that would warrant expanding the article or that would make it noteworthy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cnilep (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It looks like a cut-and-paste copyvio, too, but I can't find the source. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a list of word definitions. $50 says its a copyvio. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tim meh ! 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Wikipedia doesn't handle dictionary entries. tempodivalse [☎] 03:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:DICDEF ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy Sloan[edit]

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. لenna vecia 19:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mayor of such a small city probably shouldn't have an article. The lack of coverage in reliable sources furthers that argument. Tim meh ! 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the nominator is correct that the standard for mayors is the presence of reliable sources — but the size of the city or town that they lead is irrelevant if the sources are there. She doesn't seem to have much in the way of substantive coverage, so delete — but a mayor of a town with just 10 people still qualifies for an article if legitimate sources pan out, so delete without prejudice (almost typed prejucide!) against recreation if better sources can be added in the future. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are sources to indicate significant coverage. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Willking1979 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Belarus relations[edit]

Unsourced stub with no assertion of notability. I can find no reliable soruces on my own that would establish independent notability for this rather obscure bilateral relationship. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, User:Groubani is posting just about every pairing of countries that exists, which would result in 192! possible pairings. While some, like United States-Mexico relations are applicable (as they have standing relations with each other independent of sitting on the United Nations together or participating in the Olympic Games together), random pairings like this without any such formal relations shouldn't have its own article. Toad of Steel (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per precedents. Dahn (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - random; no hope of salvaging this. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Argentina doesn't even have an embassy or mission in Belarus. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete – Not notable relation. TheAE talk/sign 21:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another truly random pairing from the obsessive creator. I wonder if these 2 countries have even talked bilaterally (ie not at a UN function). LibStar (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:08, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–United Arab Emirates relations[edit]

Unsourced stub on a topic for which i can on establish notability via independent reliable sources. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the usual unsourced, non-notable bilateral permastub. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one of those experiments that have come to plague this project. Dahn (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like Bali ultimate I am unable to locate independent reliable sources confirming the Presidential visit or anything else on this topic. Mergellus (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N no evidence of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State visits in 2007 and 2000. I would suggest people use search terms such as "Беларусь Объединённые Арабские Эмираты отношения" and the like to see that there are some quite notable relations between the two countries. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:39, 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Iran relations[edit]

Unsourced stub on bilateral relationship for which i can find no sources that would establish independent notability. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant bilateral relationship exists. See the article entitled "Belarus and Iran forge Strategic Partnership," originally from the International Herald Tribune [9]. In the article, you will find quotes about the Belarus-Iran relationship from scholars, politicians, and more. Furthermore, the International Herald Tribune's reporter refers to the "special relationship" between the two countries. Cool3 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Belarus - Iran Foreign Relations on the Iran Tracker website, which is run by the American Enterprise Institute. Their article isn't the longest I've ever seen, but that is independent coverage of the relationship from one of America's principal public policy think tanks. Cool3 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information.Edison (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In addition to the source Cool3 pointed out, I found a myriad of other sources pointing towards these countries having a highly notable relationship. Some highlights: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I am finding pages and pages more of relevant results. These are NOT focusing on a single event--rather the coverage is of multiple separate events/topics all relating to Belarus/Iran relations, over a long period of time. See: [16] for a list of results. Cazort (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we also have trade being the basis of their relations here, international concern about their relationship here, response to international pressure here, Iran support to Belarus in nuclear power plant construction here and many more. Not only is this a notable relationship, it is one that has broader international implications. Smile a While (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good faith would be best shown by a prompt withdrawal of the nomination. DGG (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith would not be to make such straw man type demands that attack the motives of the nominator without making any policy-based argument whatsoever. The article remains entirely unsourced without even a bare assertion of notability, and I have not been convinced otherwise but what i've read here. Very poor "keep" vote DGG.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I implied, but did not think necessary to say that a/Keep, on the basis of the arguments of the sources just submitted. and b/that I hoped you also would recognize that. I apologize for not saying it in full initially. DGG (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the numerous citations proving notability above.--Moloch09 (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there has to be significant events between two countries before we can document the relations. Otherwise, it will forever be a stub. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't you consider the events documented above to be significant? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if you were to google any pair of countries, you are bound to find information about trade, political agreements, financial deals, etc. between country x and country y. For example, China and Yemen[17]. IMO, these are not significant events, but I am willing to change my vote if you can demonstrate that the events that occurred between Iran and Belarus are more significant than those occurred between Yemen and China. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, there is good reason to keep them, since those things are what make for notability. "Significant" is less than historic, just as "notable" is less than famous. DGG (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Data from 2008 shows that trade between these nations almost reached 1 Billion USD and even Iran is sending students to Belarus for university studies [18]. These two countries also play a key role in the oil politics, which is an issue that is constant today [19]. Belarus is also using Iran to ween itself from Russia, which is another constant political sticking point relevant today (think Gazprom). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute keep of the strongest magnitude One need only read any news relating to Belarus foreign policy in probably the last ten years, and it is well known that Belarus and Iran have been developing a strategic relationship. Iran is a key recipient of Belarus military equipment - stuff like "Mr. Lukashenko personally ordered Soviet-trained Belarusian chemists, scientists and technicians to work closely with Iran's mullahs on the deadly Shahab missile system -- designed to strike Europe and Israel -- as well as on the country's uranium enrichment and chemical warfare programs." is pretty strong military relations. There are also strong economic and trade ties (including flights between Belarus and Minsk). The nominator bother to look at WP:BEFORE, in particular try to find sources to see if it may be notable? I would suggest a google search (web, books and scholar) for strings such as "belarus iran relations", "belarus iran military", "belarus iran trade", etc. Another search could include "Беларусь Иран отношения", "Беларусь Иран военная", "Беларусь Иран торговля". One will see that this is clearly a notable relationship. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:09, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–South Africa relations[edit]

Unsourced stub about a bilateral relationship of no notability establishable by me. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - utterly random, inane pairing totally devoid of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inane indeed. Dahn (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and put any relevant information (there seems to be some) into each country's article. The relations themselves are not notable enough for their own article. Tim meh ! 21:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information like where embassies are. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:09, 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 23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pervasive PSQL[edit]

SPAM, but too old for speedy, Product not really notable and article is excessivly promoting with no really acceptable old version to revert to TurningWork (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. reads like an advert, with no mention of why its notable.untwirl(talk) 19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Deelte - Press releases abound. Independent coverage, no so much. There is this Eweek article but it reads like a re-hashed press release. There is this very very short article. And this brief mention in the Register. Not enough to clear the notability bar for me.-- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep - Have had to interact with this product and, even though it's horrible, as the name suggests it seems to be built into all sorts of weird systems. Should ideally be re-written but by someone far more NPOV than me...! Aula ^TPN 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with that suggestion is the lack of reliable third-party sources that Whpq (talk mentioned. It's hard to see how a rewrite that complies with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources could be much more than a bare statement of it's existance. TurningWork (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - reliability is going to be the problem. I suspect that all sources will be highly polarised one way or the other. However I worry that deleting it will get us dragged into a "it's notable enough - deleting the article is blatant POV pushing" swamp - sadly I've experienced it before and I don't think it's un-notable enough to justify deletion. Perhaps the answer is to reduce the article to a stub? A bare statement of its existence as you put it? Aula ^TPN 20:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets deleted and reappears, then it can be dealt with when that happens. I would not advocate keeping something that is borderline just because somebody might complain about it. The article is very spammy, and I did expend some effort in finding sources as there appeared to be a possibility that it could meet notability. But in the end, I really found very little in the way of reliable sources. So what we have is a spammy article with little being written about it. Your own experiene with it is that it's not a good product and that might explain why there is so little coverage. I don't really see a good keep rationale. If somebody can turn up more substantial sourcing than what I was able to come up with, then I am willig to change my mind. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 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. This article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user and is speedy deletable per WP:CSD#G5. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester City Centre bus stops[edit]

Its a list of bus stops within a city. I'm not sure how this can be in any way encyclopaedic, and almost definitely falls under the definition of being a travel guide! Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~[Keep]~~ This article should NOT be deleted because it is NOT a TRAVEL GUIDE and why should it be deleted just becasuse some one thinks it is a travel guide well why is there an article for St Margarets Bus Station ??? thanks Sowhyman (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC) (Note: I (Jenuk1985) have struk out this vote, as the user has made a delete vote below)[reply]
- (edit conflict) So you remove the AfD template? Drmies (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stations can have information on their history, layout, any events etc about them, and so can be important. Public information like this cannot. Anyway, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists isn't a valid reason to keep this. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely. It certainly is a travel guide, and cannot be encyclopedic. It's basically the same as this. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there is some special policy on bus routes that I'm not aware of, this topic is not notable. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a directory. Bus stations are, apparently, notable topics. This is not. Try and find some in-depth discussion in reliable sources of this bus route--it'll be difficult. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (another edit conflict)
Delete per nom. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ JENUK1985 just though it was a bad idea and it is annoy coz they ALWAYS delete pages ! Sowhyman (talk (Note: I (Jenuk1985) have struk out this vote, as the user has made a delete vote below)
- Sowhyman, English please. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- DELETE if the article is deleted could this link be posted on Arriva Fox County, Centrebus & First Leicester [20] ? i will agree to this being delted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowhyman (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you try setting out your thoughts more logically, please? I can't understand what you are saying. Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE arriva436 was right and there should be a link with [21] this is the leicester network map ! Sowhyman (talk

- This doesn't make any sense. Besides, Arriva436 said no such thing. And I signed a couple of times for you. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic value.--Michig (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what i was saying was delete the page and put an external link on ARRIVA FOX COUNTY, FIRST LEICESTER & CENTREBUS WIKI pages with the link being : [22] which USER ARRIVA436 NOTED Earlier ! Sowhyman (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I see--but why should Wikipedia have a link to your bus schedule? Arriva noted that this information is already available on the internet. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Yintaɳ 14:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted above this is just a copy of the schedule brochure.-Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Would Haymarket bus station, Leicester be considered a valid article? (There is already a Haymarket bus station in Newcastle). Perhaps a new editor should be encouraged to contribute something that would not be trampled over and deleted - but it must have some history and prose, not just a table of routes.-Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The information in this article has also been added to Haymarket Centre, Highcross Leicester, and St. Margaret's Bus Station. I would suggest that if this article is deleted, the duplicated content is also deleted from those articles, for the same reason of lack of encyclopedic value and WP:NOT.--Michig (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The user has also now created Leicester bus stops 2009, practically the same. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironholds got rid of that with a redirect--nice move. I've removed that information from the first two articles mentioned by Michig, but not St Margaret's--that really requires rollback and a careful look. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a list that can be found elsewhere. No content, no nothing. Majorly talk 19:38, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyannis Storm[edit]

non-notable short-lived low level hockey franchise, that never came close to hitting the ice. Bhockey10 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep They've apparently had some non-trivial coverage [23] and [24] although a good chunk of it is behind the CCT paywall. It is a little disheartening that the first thing to come up on a Google search is Hyannis area storm door repair. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any notability seems to have been temporary, so WP:NTEMP may apply here Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. And if I understand the article correctly they never even really existed(?). Yintaɳ 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the past, we delete the articles of teams that never came to be. The article probably shouldn't have even been created till it was a sure thing per crystal ball. -Djsasso (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If anything this should only warrant a blurb in the league article. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:16, 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 delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyun Sung Kim[edit]

cryptographer, doesn't seem to be especially notable, no real sources. Plus most likely autobiographical Jac16888 ^Talk 18:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem yet to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be low at the moment. May become notable in the future.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any Korean news on him. I'll say he has zero notability in South Korea.--Caspian blue 12:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Keep, Keep - It is a Korean stub. The education system in Korea is as good as in the US especially in engineering, science and math. The university is a well known in Asia. I have seen notable articles on wiki which are as good as this - Moderately good amount of citations that are good to pass this. Keep it - I vote 'yes' once for all - may be the 1st 'Yes'.

I have updated this article for a positive. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC) (one for each)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, doesn't meet notability. Country is irrelevant even though Korean education system is likely better. Notability of university does not confer notability on professors. Drawn Some (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen questions on wiki about the notability of schools in underdeveloped/developing/developed countries to verify someone's notability. I'm not a Korean, but heard good things of schools in Asia. Let me sayt that the level of education in Science, Math and Engineering in Asia (India, ...) are much superior. You know what Gates thinks about the Software Engineers from India... --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scopus, in agreement with GScholar, shows 21 articles, the most having been cited 13 times. In afield as active as this, it does not make for notability. DGG (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought 13 is good for designing hardware architectures. 22 articles are lots of. It is not software/software applications--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us some comparisons with other people? DGG (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a professor (notable) on wikipedia who is specialized in hardware architecture (i'm still searching now) . Comparing with the other disciplines would not be fair. This person is born in 1971. His numbers (citations) will go up to at least 40 from 13 if you wait another 30 years. Rather than making him notable then (he would be 70 almost), why we should not now. He is too young compared to many.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any one on wiki with his matchings (a professor specialized in computer hardware). I'm stuck. May be I do not know how to searchj!!

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locked In (House)[edit]

The article is a sloppy, poorly written and unreferenced account of a single episode of the TV series House. To the best of my interpretation, one episode does not meet the General Notability Guideline unnless, as is not the case here, the episode has some particular significance. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Having checked the edit history, I have not notified the author as he appears to have had only a minor role in the article and no role whatever after its creation. The bulk of editing has been conducted by a number of IP users and other users who have made one or two edits. As such, I have not notified them via their talk pages of this nomination. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most notable television shows have individual episode pages at this time. That said, improve the thing! I would, but I don't follow House, so I wouldn't be of much help there... Toad of Steel (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To say "one episode does not meet the general notability guideline" is to go completely against the grain; while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't valid, THOUSANDSOFOTHERSTUFFEXISTS is supporting evidence at least. Poor writing is something for cleaning, not deleting. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of House episodes#Season 5: 2008–2009. Most notable television shows shouldn't have articles for each individual episode, not unless they're well sourced and much more than a plot summary. Most Doctor Who and Star Trek episode articles, for example, qualify. This one doesn't. Powers ^T 19:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fourth Man in the Fire, Talk:List of Charmed episodes#Redirection of episodes? for precedent. Powers ^T 19:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most articles on new television episodes take a while to mature, just like current events. I'm not disagreeing in that an episode's article should have third party reviews (per Wikipedia:source), but a Cleanup is sufficient; there's no need to resort to an AfD (unless the cleanup has been up there for a couple months and there's no sign that it is being cleaned up). Toad of Steel (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this, this and this means it certainly is covered. Problems with the article can be easily corrected without resorting to deletion. Wikipedia does not work on precedent; we're not a court of law. While recent precedent can be taken as an example of what the community thinks of certain situations, those discussions took place over a year ago and six months ago respectively. Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's unsourced, find sources. We're debating whether sources exist - they certainly do. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is highly likely reviews exist for this episode, even if they aren't found on-line. My local paper covers 2-4 different show episodes a day of major series. Others do too. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this meets the notability requirements. If it's nothing more than a plot, add to it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of House episodes#Season 5: 2008–2009. There's nothing notable about this episode. The show is notable; every single episode is not. -Sketchmoose (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:N, notability is determined by coverage in reliable independent sources. This episode is covered so it's notable. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles for a very large number, if not all, episodes of House leading up to this episode. It's pointless to bring this single article up for deletion. Pale2hall (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Some of this refers to inference and motives, and therefore needs a secondary source. DGG (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per almost all of the above, and failing that, a redirect doesn't need (and shouldn't be taking up space in) AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is unsourced to any reliable sources and consists wholly of plot (which is already covered in the list of episodes). While not as damning as being unverified and failing WP:NOT, the article also has no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, failing to meet the notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the rest of the discussion or, failing that, do a basic search. Google pulls up this, this and this within the first page. Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taintstick[edit]

The article is about a band but gives no assertion to notability and does note cite any references. The only information is a list of members and a discography. The discography is either incomplete or the only album to the band's name was released this year and has had very little critical reception and no chart ranking is provided. There are no links in the article except to the band's myspace profile and official website, neither of which are WP:RS. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; easily passes WP:MUSIC, if not from the notability of the members than from third-party refs easily found through google, such as this. I'd suggest that the nom should make at least a brief google search in future and actually read the policies he is citing. Ironholds (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also see slight coverage by NME; I'll try and find some more stuff in a bit. Ironholds (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at best, with a redirect to Jason Ellis (if that is the right person); if the album doesn't turn out to be real, then delete (I'll leave this matter for a person more experienced in finding teen music). Ironholds is too optimistic: a. the album isn't out yet (so this is crystalballery); b. the label's website doesn't list the band, as far as I could tell (it's a confusing mess, that site); and c. antimusic.com is HARDLY a reliable source, as is suggested from the supercool and promotional tone of the article: "For a sneak preview of the wholesale devastation that awaits when Taintstick release their debut album in the summer of 2009 please visit www.MySpace.com/TaintstickMusic." Drmies (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ironholds Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds has found one promotional website and "slight" coverage by NME--actually, no coverage, only a video online. Keep in mind that this album is only visible through a crystal ball. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Taintstick has several songs in rotation on Sirius. Check http://www.dogstarradio.com/search_playlist.php for weekly rotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.155.97 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a reliable source, and even if it were it wouldn't add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:07, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Cronin[edit]

I don't believe this unreferenced BLP meets notability requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER. All roles appear to be minor, and I can find no sources in Google news, books, or scholar. لenna vecia 17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See interview. Was major and sometimes minor character in numerous films and television from 1976 through 2004 [25]. The article does not do the man justice and needs a proper cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that he appeared in films is not at issue. No independent sources ("Actorslife.com" aint one) have ever seen fit to discuss him in any non-trivial depth. Therefore not notable, therefore delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He passes the sub-guideline WP:ENTERTAINER in that he "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". These are WP:Verifiable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No he doesn't. Significant roles in multiple notable [productions] is the requirement. He doesn't meet it. لenna vecia 15:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry we disagree, but he does. Recurring major role in Home Improvement, lead recurring role in The Oldest Rookie (no wiki article yet), recurring major role Knotts Landing, recurring major role in Alice, and appearances in dozens of notable shows such as Seinfeld, Family Matters, LA Law, Hill Street Blues, Mad About You, Cheers, Star Trek the Next Generation, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Wonder Years, The Magnificent Seven and many, many, many more from 1976 through 2004[26][27][28]. Sure looks like "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" per WP:ENTERTAINER to me. That you think his body of work is insignificant is an opinion to which you are entitled. That's why we are now at AfD to decide what the community thinks. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that you think any appearance is significant is your opinion. Was he cast in a significant role in any notable television show, or was he merely in a few recurring, but not major, roles? I see no significant roles listed on his IMDb, and outside of that non-reliable source, I find nothing on his supposed Emmy nominations. لenna vecia 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable, and article is well written etc Fahrenheit 20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep appears to meet WP:ENTERTAINER depending on the definition of "significant". Hobit (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as pure vandalism (hoax), CSD G3. — Gwalla | Talk 18:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Herrera[edit]

Possible hoax. I can't find anything on this person, the records, singles, or record company. لenna vecia 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three albums, a million and one singles, signing to Sony when he was 13 and winning a competition... and yet no coverage? I smell a hoax. Ironholds (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All one has to do is read the last line "and none of this is true" to justify the delete vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.12.102.170 (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was not added by the author of the article, but I did notice that as well. لenna vecia 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartless Records[edit]

Contested PROD with no reason given and no improvement. No secondary sources. No assertion of notability. Conflict of interest (appears to be the owner who created the entry). Wperdue (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No external sources, no evidence that this company is notable. 61.18.170.58 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. In future CSD would work just as well (or better, in this case) than prod. Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I CSD the majority of this type of entry. However, it was at least conceivable that notability or sources could be provided by another editor. I wanted to be conservative in my approach. Wperdue (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Delete Heartlessly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Taeyeon (Girls' Generation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested redirect back to parent article (Girls' Generation). As I noted in my summary, she is notable (solely) as a member (the leader) of Girls' Generation. Unlike, say, Im Yoona, who has done acting work (to the point of winning awards) as a solo entertainer, Kim hasn't done much to prove notability as a solo artist. I know that she has done things by herself, so I realise this is somewhat debatable. That's why it's here. :) But I feel that her solo work is not notable enough for her to have her own article. And all of the information is already on the main Girls' Generation page. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Key members of (unambiguously) notable groups deserve individual biographical articles, if someone wants to contribute the information. Consider that we have individual biographies for (as a random example) all the members of Metallica, despite the obvious lack of solo work. I'm unaware of any precedent for deleting articles on popular and influential musical performers who do not have significant solo careers, and given that we already do have many (very good) biographical articles on musicians who don't, I see no reason to treat this case differently. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But as per WP:MUSICBIO, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." To me, Taeyeon's on the bubble, because she's done some minor things here and there. Her "biggest" release is that song on the Beethoven Virus soundtrack (I believe that was it...or was it Hong Kil Dong?), and considering it wasn't an official single...I don't know. Like I said earlier, I can see both sides. I'm afraid, though, that this will open up a can of worms and have fans create articles for every single member even though most of them haven't done ANYTHING outside of Girls' Generation. But if notability can be demonstrated, and if there are reliable sources (the article currently has none, because all of them were forum or blog posts), then I guess I have no argument here. :P SKS2K6 (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: If this ends up being a keep or no consensus, can a mod move this to Taeyeon? She does not go by her full name.SKS2K6 (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC) (Never mind, Taeyeon doesn't exist, so it can easily be moved there. It's Tae Yeon that currently redirects.) SKS2K6 (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator misleads the named subject's notability. She is THE LEADER of the popular girl's group and solely appears in many show program and even takes a radio DJ. I think she deserves to have the own article given this ample news.[29]--Caspian blue 12:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not persuaded by her status as "leader," because that's not independent of the group and can be well-handled in the group article. What puts her on the bubble for me is her independent aspects of arguable notability: the DJ work; the theme song; and winning the dance contest. None of these are really big, but in the aggregate, they're enough that I don't find the existence of the article objectionable. TJRC (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. I think the characterization above by the nominator (!) SKS2K6 that she's "on the bubble" is dead-on. Given the alternatives of deleting or keeping, my preference is generally to keep. I'm not worried about setting precedent here. On a substantive issue, if future articles are similarly on the bubble, I have no problem with their retention; if they're not, there's no reasonable argument to treat the same way. On the procedural issue, we don't work on a precedent basis, for the most part; see WP:WAX. I agree, though, deletion discussion aside, this article is badly in need of references. TJRC (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Since this is a newly created article, I would recommend to be bold and ignore all rules when expanding the article. References can come in at a later time. See WP:WIARM. Cocoma (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: But I don't think that really applies on a WP:BLP. SKS2K6 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment To clarify further, the WP:BLP rules certainly apply here; but the lack of references is not a ground for deletion. It's a ground for a) adding references to material that ought to be referenced; and b) deleting controversial material that is not supported by references, but not deleting the entire article. TJRC (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment No, not exactly so. It's obvious that they are not original research and does not damage the reputation of Kim Taeyeon. So you should drill it down to the content's verifiability. When verifiability is in question, read WP:BURDEN (that is to give sufficient time for them to provide references).Cocoma (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, Girls' Generation is a notable kpop group. The point of concern is her notability to have her own article. My reason to keep is that while her solo work is not a lot, both Hong Gil Dong OST's If and Beethoven Virus OST's Can you hear me, are considered notable works in the kpop group, and have both won awards. Thus, I do not agree with SKS2K6, where these works are not notable. It's not a lot, but it's definitely notable. She is also a DJ on radio show and is a former participant on MBC's We Got Married. All above show the subject's notability and doesn't seem to be lower than that of Im Yoona. To conclude, this article requires improvement on the writing, not deletion. Cocoma (talk) 14:24, 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 delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wealthy fictional characters[edit]

Apparently arbitrary list - intersection of fictional and wealthy - with no objective criteria for entry onto the list. The Forbes list (see external links sections) is interesting, but this list gives no such details and is quite frankly different. Otherwise unreferenced (I believe). Prodded twice before. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; he's said everything I could say. Ironholds (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--wow, this is some listcruft. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nom said, this is a nonencyclopedic intersection of topics; I believe it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Deor (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the other valid reasons given above, this list is intrinsically original research. Bongo matic 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
very weak Keep though it will need sourcing for the extent of wealth of each individual, or the basis for which he or she is being considered wealthy. Some of this is probably available from secondary sources. Very weak keep, not keep, because the present article may not be a really good starting point. The proper consideration is if the wealth is characteristic of the character, as for Jay Gatsby--who is not mentioned in the present article. There would be several hundred or thousand people in literature whose fictional role is quite specifically ln large part that they are rich. There are probably at least 20 or so major figures in Trollope alone. The more difficult question is what do wdo with those who are central characters and also rich, but it is only a part of the characterization, as for Emma Woodhouse, "young, handsome, and rich" according to the author -- also not mentioned. Now, neither of the people I referred to do even have articles, which is truly astounding, considering the amount of criticism that has been written, and that there are films as well as novels. Our priorities on fictional characters are peculiar, even for the internet; it's not primarily lack of interest, but the monopolization of potentially interested people in afd and multi-year policy discussions. (An admittedly inadequate start for Emma Wodehouse was deleted one minute literally after creation as recently as Oct 2008, as "no context," by an editor and an admin who apparently did not recognize the name; nobody seems to have much as tried for Jay Gatsby.)DGG (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are well-taken, but don't seem to me to argue (even very weakly) for "keep". Bongo matic 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yikes. I think an article on wealthy fictional characters might be possible, but this list seems problematic. Maybe y'all have just ground me down and I've become too pessimistic. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:IINFO. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure listcruft, fails WP:LIST ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dagwoods[edit]

non-notable company. Speedy declined per "check google news", which I've done and found diddly-squat. Ironholds (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – at this time. Just not enough coverage to warrant inclusion at this time, as shown here, [30]. Comes across as any local sandwich shop would, and hopefully we are not becoming a directory of local eateries. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - If deleted, this title should probably redirect to the dabpage Dagwood. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case anyone is wondering (as I was), this restaurant chain is unrelated to Dagwood's Sandwich Shoppes, which are named after the comic strip character and are probably notable: [31]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator didn't do a proper google search. He could have done "Dagwoods Montreal" and it would have shown a list. And trust me, it's quite delicious. But how it prepares the subs is what differs from Subway and Quiznos. --Mixwell!^Talk 04:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That first point is a possibly valid concern, can you post some possible refs here? However, the two other points are too subjective to even be considered, sort of ILIKEIT arguements.--Ipatrol (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did do a search under "Dagwoods Montreal", as shown here [32]. Sorry to say, only one article, and one article does not denote notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Re-Comment" "Dagwoods"%20Fast%20Food%20Montreal&sa=N&hl=en&tab=nw shows plenty of results. There's a Flickr research, some critics... --Mixwell!^Talk 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mixwell is the original creator of this article. Ironholds (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before Ursup was done, it was created on User:Cream. --Mixwell!^Talk 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, your link didn't work, nothing shows at all. Two strikes. Count now 0-2. However, takes three strikes to call you out :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky to type URLs with parameters in them. I'm pretty sure that what he meant to type is this: Google search for "Dagwoods" Fast Food Montreal -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. That brings up about 20 sources verifying that they exist, something off flickr and, er.. us. Ironholds (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the only news relases from Dagwoods were a statement that they didn'T have any Maple Leaf products that were contaminated by Listeria and a article in The Gazette explaining how they work and why they exist. [33] --Mixwell!^Talk 23:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repeated failure to establish notability, a quick search through some Montreal newspapers turns up little more than brief reviews and passing mentions.--Ipatrol (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, per google searches etc. Chzz ► 16:06, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Management[edit]

Little outside sourcing is available online that doesn't appear to be from the company's own PR releases, or confused perceptions about them (see press release not even making the news wires). KingofPop.info is a blog; Snake Racing News item is a trivial mention; WordPress "article" is also a blog entry; Gemini "article" is a joint press release.

Also suggest a review of Ladd Biro, who is also authoring or editing this, his own article (indicating a severe COI), and KAOS Worldwide, though the KAOS article seems sufficiently supported. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's comments: There is nothing inappropriate about either of these entries. They are not promotional in nature, but rather descriptive. Champion Management is a known, existing entity with a long list of celebrity clients. That makes it noteworthy. There are ample 3rd party references to this in the wiki.

Ladd Biro is a nationally syndicated fantasy football columnist, as is heavily referenced in the wiki.

These are legitimate entries and should be approved without further discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laddbiro (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable, blatantly unsourced; the shameless COI is no help, but of course not in and of itself a reason to delete. Notability is not contagious; having notable customers doesn't make you notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons listed above. This type of self-promotion doesn't belong here.MKil (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Flanaess. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Iuz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No outside sources or evidence of independent notability. We're not a dedicated D&D wiki, and something this in-universe would only be valid there. Ironholds (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD isn't a vote; mind giving reasoning? Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was discussion to merge it before, but it never happened, so might as well make it stick this time? I'm otherwise fine with keeping, though. BOZ (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flanaess or Iuz; probably lacks enough real-world notability to justify having its own article, but a good bit of this could be merged per WP:PRESERVE and WP:PNJCS. The Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject has been working on merging relevant content from this sort of article into better "list of..." type pages; we just haven't gotten to this one yet. The talk page actually has old merge discussion that was never finished, and at one time this had been redirected, but that was reverted. I will happily merge the content as soon as this discussion is over, unless the article is deleted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems appropriate, and we have members of the project willing to do the job.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per recent consensous in D&D-land that this type of thing is good to merge. I'd prefer the merge target be some Greyhawk geographic article, but I'll defer to others on what the merge target should be. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flanaess. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, A) I should read the above. B) I should know that. Had the map of Greyhawk on my ceiling as a kid. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to either Flanaess or Iuz.--Robbstrd (talk) 13:18, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaplex[edit]

Spam article created by a now-blocked COI SPA. KurtRaschke (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an ad. my name inc 20:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for promotional content. Seeing that little ® symbol in the article says enough. Alexius08 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for an article of its own. Blueboy 96 17:52, 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 withdrawn by nominator. J Mundo and others have verified that it's a legitimate school and not just a training center, and consensus to keep is clear. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EET n°479 'Dr. Manuel Pizarro'[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable vocational-technical "school" or training center; this is their website. This article itself is nearly incomprehensible (possibly the result of a machine translation) and I don't see any evidence that it's worth the effort to clean up, since it does not seem to be notable anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article does clearly state that this school has been designated as a World Heritage Site. This suggests a level of notability beyond the average trade school. Perhaps someone whose Spanish is more surefooted than mine could check out the truth of this claim. The machine translator (the poor dear!) seems mostly to have gotten hung up on the compulsory gender marking in Spanish; that could be cleaned up if this proves to be a worthy subject. If high schools are notable per se, perhaps this school counts also; someone who knows more about education in Argentina might weigh in.

adding The school building seems to have some kind of significance; I was able to get that much out of this text:

El titular de la cartera de Obras Públicas y Vivienda, Hugo Storero, señaló que el edificio de la escuela Pizarro forma parte del “patrimonio urbano y arquitectónico de la ciudad de Santa Fe”, por lo que desde el ministerio se ha proyectado un “abordaje integral” sobre el mismo.[34] - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would take the World Heritage thing with a grain of salt unless a source is supplied; I'm not an expert, but as far as i know a local government can't "declare" a World Heritage Site. And the writer of this article has a userspace that's full of pages with puffed-up claims (for example, he has a "wikiproject" in his userspace that claims to be "official policy" and "mandatory for all editors of English, spanish" and several other wikis), so, to be blunt, I'm not sure it's true. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also no sign of it at List of World Heritage Sites in the Americas#Argentina (8). Of course, it's possible that the article writer was thinking of some municipal award and wrote "World Heritage Sites" because he didn't know the difference. I don't know. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 14:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--as far as I understand it, colleges are inherently notable. That the article needs work is the understatement of the week, and I also don't buy the World Heritage Site claim. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the butcher's knife to the article. In the absence of reliable sources (ahem, in a language I can read) the article will have to rely on notability often extended to schools and colleges. I have no doubt it's notable, but it needs some TLC. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for taking the time to do that; it looks a lot better now (although should probably be moved to a more normal title that is a more likely search term), even without sources. My only remaining question, though, is whether it is really a college/school/university as opposed to a privately established training center/business. Not knowing much about how accreditation or whatever works in Argentina, and not being a Spanish speaker, it's hard for me to tell. If anyone could find out about that and verify that it is really a legitimate institution, I would be willing to withdraw this AfD. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey Rjanag, thanks. You're right about the title and I had a quick look at that, but I've never moved or retitled anything--and since my Spanish sucks I shouldn't be messing with much more than the obvious. And I also can't get a hold of precisely what this thing is, which is why I was a bit vague, saying "schools and colleges." Let the AfD stand, and let's hope that some passers-by will help us out here. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHS-- This is the equivalence of a public technical high school in the U.S. (for example, students can only be dismissed early to parents, [35]). The news article verify this school is run by the government. BTW, the RS only says that the school is a heritage site of the city of Santa Fe. --J^mundo 20:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving the article to Dr. Manuel Pizarro Technical School. --J^mundo 21:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - technical high school for which sources are available. Difficulties in translation are not a reason for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:32, 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 . Article was a copyright infringement listed for over seven days at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 21. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HP ServiceGuard[edit]

Redirect name than delete. How to manual that is already covered under HP-UX. Likewise, an external link is provided on the HP-UX page that covers this information in a more detail. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Shoessss. Rilak (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Witches Hammer[edit]

Film that I do not think meet WP:NF. There was something in the local paper about it[36], and reviews on speciailist horror film webites. There are plenty of hits for it, but none I could find that could be deemed to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note the additional sources that have been provided. They are all specialist horror movie sites, many of which seem blog like in character. There is also an award nomination (but not win) from a minor film festival. I stand by what I said in my nomination, that I do not believe this has established notability, specifically none of the guidelines from WP:NF are met. Quantpole (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malleus Maleficarum as a likely search term. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 17:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete and Redirect~~ per Wrathchild. the only source I can find is [37] which is frankly horrible. If better sourcing turns up, I'd be willing to change. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice improvement. Keep Some of the sources used are moderate, but the ones I looked at seemed to be RSes complete with editorial oversight even if they are largely "fan-based" sites. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NOW improved article. Multiple sources have been provided, and though not New York Times or Washington Post, are genre-specific WP:RS that have editorial oversite and are accepted experts in their field. The NYT rarely reviews independent, low-budget horror films unles they make a BIG splash... but then Twitch Film or Fatally Yours rarely reviews big-budget blockbusters. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it meet any of the guidelines of WP:NF though? Quantpole (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, WP:NF defers to WP:GNG which is met per sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete none of those sources look very reliable to me, fan-sites don't establish notability for something. Blizzards of bad cites aren't worth one good one. Fails GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are interesting opinions, could you explain which don't seem reliable and why? And is there something about "fansites" I'm missing in WP:N or some other guideline? Some of these are hobbiest sites (no one makes a living off them) but given proper oversite and editorial control we've always taken such sites AFAIK. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now seems considerably improved and clearly noteable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granite thump (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All those websites have editorial oversight and a history of good fact checking, which makes them valid references. If you find one that doesn't seem valid to you, please look around it, and then post your case in the talk page of the article. Dream Focus 01:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dank55 (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnelled[edit]

WP:NEO in a nutshell, no evidence of use and most likely WP:NFT. ∗ \ / (⁂) 14:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As I've tagged it for. The only content is "test". Mm40 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted per ((db-test)). The creator changed the content to "test" at about the same time this was AfD'd. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:08, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Curtis[edit]

Non-notable? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You tell us. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable. MyDog22 (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC) removing sock !vote[reply]
- That doesn't help. It's as useless to the closing administrator as Alan Liefting's rationale is. Please follow the link above, see what a good rationale comprises, and give one. That will give the closing administrator something to hang xyr hat on. Uncle G (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not even policy. What's wrong with voting based on my emotional reaction to the article like everyone else? MyDog22 (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Disregard this last comment: user has been banned indefinitely as a sock puppet. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability criteria require that information in an article must be verifiable from multiple reliable sources, but the sources cited don't fit that requirement- one of the sources is the singer's own MySpace page, and the other is a blog that barely mentions her. I did a google search, but couldn't turn up any better sources. In addition, if her best claim to notability is as a backup singer, I don't think she meets the list of guidelines for includsion at WP:MUSIC. See? That's how you do it! :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage by external sources. LK (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems notable, but I couldn't find anything at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–Malaysia relations[edit]

can easily be covered in Foreign relations of Kosovo. no evidence of any other relationship. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 14:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. —Mm40 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This can be covered in Foreign relations of Kosovo unless there is some further relationship. If need be, this can be created again at a future point. Mm40 (talk) 14:58, 24 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 14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - the fact of recognition (the only notable facet of the "relationship") is already covered at International recognition of Kosovo. By the way, User:Turkish Flame creates a "Kosovo-X relations" article every time some country grants recognition, which should be stopped and reversed. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think Cool3 has done some good work, although a) one wonders whether the material is more than trivial and might not be better covered elsewhere (and as usual, the lack of sources studying the relationship as such is a downside); b) I hope some of Turkish Flame's more random stuff (like Kosovo–Luxembourg relations) can still be redirected/deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Randomly created, yes--but even a broken watch is right twice a day. BTW, I agree with you on point b. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I'll also agree with point B. In my opinion, though, many of these nominated for deletion as indiscriminately as they are created. We would all benefit from a little more WP:BEFORE and perhaps some firmer guidelines on notability of bilateral relations. Cool3 (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more to the relationship than just recognition. Malaysia was also (in 2000) the first Asian country to establish a liaison office in Kosovo. Since recognizing Kosovo's independence, Malaysia has also assisted Kosovo in several areas. I'm working on getting all of this into the article, but I think that even as is at the moment, the relationship is clearly notable. Cool3 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Cool3, you are the man/woman and I'm really impressed with what you've done. After this vast improvement, I believe notability has been established. This goes to show that sometimes the most unexpected pairings turn out to be meaningful. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the test is whether there is sufficient reliably sourced material to write a worthwhile page. As above, more depth is needed but, meanwhile, the page is developing well. Smile a While (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Breakdown World Tour[edit]

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing that makes this tour any more notable than any other. Suggest a merge of verifiable material to the main article page Nouse4aname (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources available to establish notability: Reuters, MTV, Google News search. --J^mundo 14:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Jumundo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.78.90 (talk) 19:33, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois high school boys basketball championship[edit]

Appears to be a list of the winners of the basketball championships for Illinois high schools - I'm uncertain if this satisifies notability criteria per WP:GNG, or indeed whether it violates WP:NOT#STATS. Brought to AfD for consensus opinion. CultureDrone (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable statewide high school competition. The article does need work, but that's not a reason to delete. Apparently this tournament gave rise to the term "march madness".[38] See also "March Madness started in Illinois", Fayetteville Observer, Mar 19, 2006 and this evidence of considerable coverage. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Illinois_High_School_Association#March_Madness where this is already covered. Maybe merge/redirect there until this article can be improved. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not beyond sourcing or improving IHSA website. Rather dull presentation at the moment, less than one would get from adding the link to the IHSA article, so I'm not voting for a keep. Suggested improvements would be to list the final game score (Oak Lawn (Richards) 67, Zion (Z.-Benton) 63 in 2008 for the 4A) rather than to simply say "2008- Oak Lawn (Richard)" [sic]. However, don't under-take an over-whelming project. Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are entire books about high school hoops in Illinois ([39], [40]), and many future NBA players (like reigning NBA Rookie of the Year Derrick Rose) have participated in the state championship. Article needs some cleanup and expansion, but it's a start, and there are all kinds of ways to source this information. (Besides the IHSA website, one could track down all the results by digging through old newspapers.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree this article needs some cleaning up but I think the subject of the article is worthy, and hopefully editing and completing its information will eliminate the current issues with the article. There is a similar article about the Indiana High School Boys Basketball Championship that has many of the same issues as this article. Anyway I've added an external link, which verifies most of the info in this article, and a lead section.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject of the article has consistent verifiable coverage, so it's notable. matt91486 (talk) 14:07, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bueler[edit]

The article's talk page pretty much says it all. A random kid made something up in school one day and so has an article here. Surely not? "Loads of press coverage", but what? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – “…But What”? I would say this meets our minimum requirement for inclusion here at Wikipedia [41]. I’ll start cleaning-up the piece, over the next couple of days. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Seems to me like it fits minimal notability guidelines to me. It definitely needs cleanup. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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. I took into account the comments that there are other Nox_Arcana albums on Wikipedia, but each article must be considered on its own merits, and this one does not meet notability requirements, and does not have reliable sources as indicated in the discussion. I would be willing to WP:USERFY if an editor wishes to work on the material to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. SilkTork *^YES! 00:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood of Angels[edit]

Not a hugely notable album; the article has no RS, and reads like an advert; seems to be an excuse for external links. Plans are afoot to fix up the bands article - which is similar in tone, but the band does meet WP:MUSIC so I'm trying to fix that one rather than delete. But I don't think that this album warrants its own article - not enough facts in RS's to make one. Could have a mention in the band article. Cheers, Chzz ► 18:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The album is the only one of Nox_Arcana's albums that uses vocals on ever track. Considering NA's work is primarily ambient, I would considering a album this divergent from their normal style fairly notable.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete: article reads as promotional material --ZombieCow (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subjective opinion. to me it reads more like the review at Flames Rising--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep: article falls under article six of Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Music was performed by Nox_Arcana. The album is listed on their discography. If this article were deleted it would become the only one Nox Arcana album not to have have an entry. Issue with the content itself is not enough to justify deletion. --SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the band does meet WP:MUSIC having meet criteria 2 "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." Winter's_Knight peaked at #8 on on the Billboard chart.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the Nox_Arcana entry has been supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians. Deleting this entry would undermine the integrity of the Nox_Arcana entry and the overall Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians project.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be another typical example of a promotional article from the Michelle Belanger series.

Michelle Belanger is a self-promotional artist and a recognized spammer in the Wikipedia, having been warned many times already on countless edits and articles promoting herself and by the consecutive use and abuse of suck-puppetry. Her own article on Wikipedia has been deleted and can be consulted to help in the decision of this deletion here under discussion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Belanger.

Curiously enough, the only user so far endorsing the keep of this article is User:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy who's history logs of Wikipedia contributions show a nearly exclusive history of edits related with promoting Belanger's things. Even after being warned, she continued the disruptive editing that earned her, in April 2009, a preventive 24h ban for promotional and disruptive editing related with the non-notable Belanger content. Surprisingly (not) she appears again in this Wikipedia:AfD that related with an article with promotional tones and not really enough notability as an album to be considered encyclopedic. A nearly full article trying, again, to promote Belanger's fake notability. Suspicious to say the least.

I was brought to this Wikipedia:AfD after checking User:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy showing up again on an Wikipedia:AfD that was asked for nomination by myself: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zsuzsanna_Budapest. This brought up immediate red flags since the article I nominated for deletion makes extensive usage of links related with the spammer Michelle Belanger and pointing to sites directly related with her, or her own property. Magically again, User:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy showed up trying to prevent deletion. Seems like she keeps a watch on every Belanger-related article to ensure the promotion that she was so advised over and over to let go, even after Wikipedia admins deciding that Belanger was not notable to be used as a source or reference on Wikipedia. All of this just brings back the old concerns of sock-puppetry and self-promotion in everything related with Michelle Belanger.

Wikipedia can never and will never support such attitudes. This is an encyclopedia, not a free resource for advertisement. MarkChase (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And similarity, magically MarkChase, any references Belanger you are out to delete, just as exclusively you have been promoter of Aset Ka material. Of course the difference between you and I has been that I have been engaging in editing and community discourse not related Belanger or Aset Ka. And again, leveling accusations of puppetry are not appropriate in general discussion. If you feel I am a puppet, report it to the proper individuals. If you feel bringing up discussion points to consider is promotion, report that as well.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No external sources, no claims made for notability, fails WP:NALBUMS. Note that several of the other Nox Arcana albums should be listed for deletion as well, as they also lack notable external coverage. LK (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is no longer promotional; now, it's only not notable. I see no need for a merge or a redirect. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsigned 65.189.101.217 has removed significant portions of this article that describe the type of music and theme of the album. The text was not promotional; it was descriptive. This user has also been warned several times about vandalism on their talk page. I am reverting to the earlier material (keeping the Afd notice, though, until its decided). And I'll see what can be found for 3rd party sources. I'm sure there's an interview or something that can be found. This album is listed with All Music. As for notability, this album is certainly notable for the fact it is one of 10 albums by Nox Arcana, and as earlier stated the band is on Billboard. It seems whoever is deleting the material has a bone to pick with the lyricist, but that shouldn't be grounds for deletion. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm back after I looked around for online interviews with Michele Belanger. I found many articles about her books and TV appearances. There are some interviews with Nox Arcana who mention the album and working with Belanger but I'm not sure if anything really pertains to the wiki article. What I mean is that the wiki article is just the facts, description, credits, etc from the cd itself (though rewritten so as not to be a copyright issue). There is one line about Belanger's four-octave range, and that appears in an interview with Nox Arcana and also in the Flame's Rising review mentioned already. If anything, maybe this article should be downgraded to stub, but I am against total annihilation. Anyway, here's some of what I found. Some are grouped here [42] and here's one that mentions the album before its release [43](see last paragraph). I'm afriad that's all I could dig up on my lunch hour. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, sorry, just one more point. I think this album and lyricist would qualify for notability as per the "Others" music guideline Due to her books, she gets a fairly good amount of TV coverage, radio and podcasts and seems to have a high profile in the goth subculture and fetish subculture. I think it's fair to say that Michelle Belanger "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." (despite that the album is a footnote) and meets notability for that reason. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it also seems that some of the voters for deleting have some kind of hidden agenda or mission. Note that ZombieCow deleted [44] the ref for Nox Arcana's Billboard ranking after it was mentioned above. I have since replaced it. The user also removed a description of the style of music, nothing promotional, only another user's input on describing the musical style. These actions seem more disruptive than helpful. Any more and I'll request an admin to step in. Ebonyskye (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at [45] you can clearly see that the ref was added after the undo-ing (if that's even a verb ;-) ). My apologies - I should have researched the billboard albums myself, a fault which I will try to avoid in the future. There is also no hidden agenda on my part - I just removed the unsourced statements. -- (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Ebony and others, I have restored the article by letting stand only the information that can be verified. That Nox Arcana "is on Billboard" (what does that even mean?) is not relevant, unless that statement means that this album charted and achieved a Billboard ranking. The article was chockfull of entirely unverified POV statements, and WP is an encyclopedia. I mean, "with the vocals rising and falling from ethereal choirs to brooding, primal-sounding chants," from what reliable source did that come? And by the way, if you are now finding the sources for those statements, does that not imply they were made up out of whole cloth in the first place? The two sources you referred to above, they are hardly from RS either. So, if you find those sources to make such claims, feel free to add source and claims--but reverting just because you say you can find those sources at some later point is not the way to go. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply--ZombieCow, my apologies for my earlier assumptions on your part. No harm done.

--Drmies, it has already been established that Nox Arcana are on Billboard. If you don't know what that means, it is a recognition by Billboard Magazine (a very well established music magazine in the USA) which lists the Top 10 albums for a given year and category.

I have whittled down the statements. But the description of a person's vocal style or musical style is not pov, it is simply a description (rise and fall of a high to low vocal range, ethereal as a musical genre, primal sounding drums as opposed to drums in a marching band). Likewise, the theme of the cd is already referenced by the band site and the cd itself. It need not be tagged a third time. You are welcome to edit (I would accept suggestions as to how to improve the article) but removing credits and what is already established as fact is just rude.

Unlike Nox Arcana's other releases, which are primarily instrumental with minimal narratives, these songs feature both lyrical and musical content. is a fact.

This is the sixth of seven full-length albums that Nox Arcana recorded in three years. also a fact, if you only took the time to count.

Please do not remove the wiki links again [46]. You cannot claim something is not ref'd when it was you who removed the reference.

There are more ways to provide a ref besides placing ref tags. Info can be referenced from the actual cd, from the band site, and it is not always mandatory to place that info into a ref tag, especially if it would be redundant and is wiki-linked to other wiki articles. Thanks. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, that someone can be "on Billboard" is news to me. But then, what do I know about English grammar. Or what do I know about WP:OR? So their music is ethereal and high, or whatever, that is a fact and not original research? You confuse "fact" with "judgment" (what you call ethereal I may call, well, dull), and you confuse "truth" with "verifiability." This is an encyclopedia, and I would hope you'd adjust your praise of this album accordingly. Oh, I wish you had noted that the information which could be reliably obtained from the CD was still there. All I removed was fanpraise and original research. Did I say delete yet? Drmies (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW, you might consider an opening sentence which states what the topic of this article is--an album by a musical group. Really, encyclopedic writing should start with the basics. Oh, and I forgot--you continue to confuse blogs with reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Very good point, Drmies. I have added a statement that it is a musical collaboration. I'm not sure what blogs you mean. I believe the refs used were for a major publisher Llewellyn, and a well established online magazine, FlamesRising.com, which has thousands of reviews and interviews with major publishers. Perhaps the US refs are unknown to you, including the usage of the word ON, as being "on" a website, or "on" a well known list of top ten albums (that is how it is said in English). I really see no reason that you would even want to continue editing this particular article, since you obviously do not like the album, band, singer, whatever (considering you call it "dull"). It does smack of bias. Have a good day. Ebonyskye (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, maybe Flames Rising is not a blog, but it doesn't count as a reliable source--it's very much a fanzine. Either way, even if it's the Wall Street Journal, it doesn't say anything of substance at all about this album, only that Belanger is on it--it doesn't even mention the title. So all it can verify is the album's existence, and no one doubts that. As for Llewellyn, if you think that a publisher's blurb counts as a reliable source then you don't know what an encyclopedia is. But there again, all that that "reference" establishes is that she wrote some books, which has no bearing on the album at all, and only serves to re-introduce a non-notable author into the Wikipedia. You are trying to establish notability by association, and the only "source" you have left is the liner notes. The album is NOT released on a notable label, it didn't chart, it didn't win any major awards...it's not notable. Finally, about "bias": that's a ludicrous charge. I used "dull" as another unverifiable adjective, just like your "descriptions" of the music (which you called "fact," but which you wisely did not reintroduce to the article). Anyone who knows English knows what the word "may" implies: possibility, not fact. If anyone here is biased it's you--producing an article full of fancruft while attempting to delude WP standards. OK, I do have a bias: I don't want articles on non-notable topics taking up server space. As for English (US or British), "on Billboard" does not mean "in the list of best-selling albums on Billboard's Top Holiday Chart," which is what you intended, no doubt.

Drmies (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Considering Wikipedia is full of artists and musicians who have a story behind their music, I don't see why this would be any different. In this case, I believe it is notable because the artist in question is also a legitimate published author who also happens to be a professional singer. Additionally, this CD is not a "unknown" self-published venture, so I'd definitely say it qualifies. Recommend if article does end up getting deleted, to vet Wikipedia and clear out other entries of a similar nature across the board. (unsigned comment was added by User:24.196.76.162 diff Chzz ► 21:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Drmies' idea of a Reliable Source, that would basically mean vetting every single album and every band that does NOT have a listing on a major music chart, like Billboard for example (although Drmies scoffed at the Billboard Charts). How about bands that advertise in the magazines they get interviews with? Do we accept those magazines as unbiased RS when the band has purchased ad space in the same issue? I could spend the next 6 years deleting bands from Wiki for much less. Ebonyskye (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, my idea for a reliable source comes from WP:RS. Yours seems to come from my freshman students: it was on the internet so it is true. And I never scoffed at Billboard, in fact, I refer to it myself in articles on albums that I write. I scoffed at nothing--I merely pointed out that your grammar was incomprehensible and misrepresented what Billboard was. You made the suggestion that Billboard would have given some special recognition to your band, when the only fact was that the album charted. I don't care how you spend the next 6 years, but if you aim to spend them here you would do well to acquaint yourself with the guidelines for this place. (And why would you think that I would think ads are reliable? Seriously, where do you get that from? Was that something someone said on some blog?) Drmies (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite. I think bands that pay for ads in certain small press genre magazines (say under 3,000) get preferred treatment, therefor the "interview" is not as reliable as it might otherwise be had no money changed hands. That's not always the case, but it is something to consider. And a lot of fanzines have evolved into well respected publications that may be considered expert on a specific genre or subculture. Just because a publication is a fan of a genre or topic does not make it unreliable. One would not necessarily reference the NY Times or Wall Street Journal for information on a goth band or an independent horror movie. It matters not that a source exists only online. Many print publications have stopped printing hard copies (or don't print as many) and now publish their content online. And self-published sources are accepted when it is written by the author and concerns opinion, such as the description of a style of music or summary of a story/theme Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion.
- As for my grammar, there was nothing wrong with what I stated. You were the only person here who supposedly had an issue with the band being "on" the Billboard charts, (and I was not even the first person here to point that out), yet you were using grammar as an excuse to scoff at the inclusion of the chart ranking. I honestly don't know why you are crusading for the removal of this article. Prior to deleting everything in it, it was rather informative.
- In any case, the contested pov content regarding "ethereal" (despite being only a descriptive statement of style/genre) has been removed, so the article really does not warrant deletion. As for notability, the band itself meets Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles#2 and Wikipedia:MUSIC#Others#5 and Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Ebonyskye (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other talk pages on this issue[edit]

For the sake of this discussion, please note some comments have spilled over into other talk pages having to do with this topic.

User_talk:Drmies
Talk:Nox_Arcana
User_talk:Chzz Cheers. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:07, 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 keep ; nominator is requesting merge/redirect, not deletion (non-admin closure; if I'm wrong on this one I'll take my lashings). KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If You See Her, Say Hello[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I highly doubt that a track from one of Dylan's most important albums (Blood on the Tracks, 1975) does not have lots of coverage in either magazine articles or books. Also, there seems to be enough cover versions around of this song (already mentioned in the article). Missing sources is no reason for deletion. Who wants to visit the library? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 13:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nominator does not actually want the article deleted. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you're right, but before opening a merge discussion we could make some immediate improvements (sourcing) and end the whole discussion. From the album article: In 2003, the album was ranked number 16 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time. The album reached #1 on the Billboard U.S. pop charts and #4 in the UK. If any albums are legit for having articles on all of their songs, then it's albums like this one. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Evidence of non-trivial book coverage: [47], [48], [49]. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep ; nominator is requesting merge/redirect, not deletion (non-admin closure per WP:BB). KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mudmen (Pink Floyd song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains relavant information about its musical similarity to another song on the soundtrack. At present, all Pink Floyd songs have articles, and most of them have enough content to justify their existence. The few that don't, should be improved instead of being deleted. Apparently there is a desire to mass delete, which I feel is unnecessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are available to establish notability; the song "mark the birth of the style that Gilmour would milk so successfully", (The complete guide to the music of Pink Floyd). --J^mundo 13:27, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Arnoud Cantrenos[edit]

A likely hoax, seeing as Google doesn't return a single hit. I'^mperator 13:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Similar search term, Giovanni Arnaud Cantrenos, also returned no hits. Cheers. I'^mperator 13:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be utterly unverifiable and is a BLP containing unsourced negative information. No mention of the fellow on the Accor website (or anywhere else that I can find). Deor (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Estrella[edit]

Professor and legislative candidate without proof of notability. He's surely not running anymore (he's been called "running" since the article was created in May 2007), and his other accomplishments aren't enough. I can't see how these awards are significant enough for notability. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article of a miserably failed candidate. If he won the election, it might be worth keeping. As a Filipino, I could say that I am not familiar with this candidate, not even during the election. Alexius08 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Some news coverage, but not enough to justify keeping. The search turns up some false positives, and other items that are simply lists of candidates.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Alexius08 (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to decide - if he won the election, he would be a candidate for wiki notability. I'm unable to find his work as a professor of law. The author needs to write more to justify the claim.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musketeers, wouldn't we be able to find coverage if he had won the election? Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand–Ukraine relations[edit]

another laughable combination from the obsessive article creator. not a shred of notable relationship, no resident embassies. even the NZ foreign affairs website makes no mention of relationship with Ukraine [50] LibStar (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the foreign ministry do not think it significant enough to talk about it, how could it possibly be notable? Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 24 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 14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amusing, but in no sense notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information like where embassies are. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Updating with new sources now. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - My fault turns out the sources didn't pan out. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 00:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and no meaningful content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 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[51]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that these two countries exist is notable but is covered by their own entries in Wikipedia. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant content, and little chance of real expansion. -- Avenue (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Human sexual behavior. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pity sex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete: This page contains a lot of Original research with nothing sourced. Toad of Steel (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any information here that is not W:OR could be moved to the Human sexual behavior article instead.Toad of Steel (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be a good article topic, but this is not the way to do it, it's close to being a personal essay. The only "source" is this AskMen article; this link posing as a ref just goes to a spam website. Better to wipe this clean and let someone else take a shot at it in the future, with actual sources. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against re-creation. There is nothing here from which to form a decent stub article. sexnewsdaily.com (the one citation) does not appear to be a reliable source. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I voted to keep it last time around, but the sourcing/improvements that I anticipated never came about. No prejudice to recreation with sources. bd2412 T 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Human sexual behavior, as the term itself is commonly used and is a plausible search term. LK (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (selectively merge) to Human sexual behavior. I searched Google News and Google books for "Pity sex," "mercy fuck" and "charity fuck." All terms are in some slang dictionaries, attributed to the U.S in the 1960's or 1970's. They show up in some nonfiction books on self-help or sexuality, only briefly, since the concept seems to be one not needing much explanation, and in terms of how undesirable the experience is claimed to be.[52]. One observation which could be documented in the merge is that it may be an act of charity toward an unattractive male or female desiring to lose their virginity.[53] [54][55]. It's not clear that it is so terrible for the individual wanting his/her cherry popped, or who hasn't had any sex in quite a while. As the "Pizza Rule" says about bad pizza, "It's still pizza.[56]" The terms show up lots more in fiction books, again briefly as an undesirable experience. I could not find any extensive discussion to back up the original research in the article, however true to one's understanding of human behavior the article may be. Edison (talk) 22:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Morocco relations[edit]

another random combination from the obsessive creator. no resident embassies, only bilateral agreement is a minor memo of understanding http://www.vm.ee/eng/kat_176/3362.html LibStar (talk) 12:26, 24 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 14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability evident in this random pairing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I see no proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia. 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 [57]. Given that where some bilateral agreement exists, there is scope for future development. So even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time, the existence of such a bi-lateral agreement should at least qualify that article for merging rather than outright deletion. Re-directs are cheap. The Estonian MFA indicates such a bilateral agreement exists or is in the precess of being drafted, hence there is scope for future expansion. therefore this article should be merged and a re-directed retained. Martintg (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information like where embassies are and what year two countries recognized each other. Fails WP:N.Edison (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is notability in this relationship, Morocco is interested in the Estonian oil shale industry and collaboration. Both countries have significant deposits and I recall reading about some collaboration in this area. This article has future potential for development, see here. Martintg (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a problem with that logic. Yes, Morocco is interested in Estonia’s oil shale industry. And...? How does that equate a notable relationship? We need a source about the relationship that says A and B and C are notable components. We can't ourselves pick out facts found in a Google News search and proclaim them to be aspects of a notable relationship. Also, consider this: were it not for this "article" and editors feeling the need to "fill it in", would this (essentially trivial) fact ever have made it onto Wikipedia? And is there nowhere else this could be covered - perhaps Energy in Morocco? And, per WP:BTW ("Introduce links from related articles to avoid orphaning the article"), is there any article that could link to this one? - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any aspect of, say France–United Kingdom relations, can and is covered in other articles, so what? How many articles actually back link to it, none explicitly, as far as I can tell. France and England has a common history that stretches back a thousand years. History between Estonian and Morocco is considerably shorter, but to say there is absolutely no potential for growth in this relationship, than thus no potential for groth of this stub is wrong. As I said before, 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 [58]. Given that there are some bilateral agreement, and potential for a significant relationship based upon energy co-operation, as reported in the press, there is scope for future development of this stub. So at very least this should qualify the article for merging rather than outright deletion. Re-directs are cheap. Martintg (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 23:06, 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) 01:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, lack of reliable sources trumps all assertions. Fram (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Hyun Choi[edit]

I can't find any sources to suggest that this figure is notable. The article seems to be based on a personal website and is basically self-promotional material, possibly with a political motive. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Massive POV-pushing and zero verifiability. Near as I can tell behind all the theatrics on the article, he wanted to avoid mandatory military service, and in response, South Korea refused to issue him a passport. That doesn't make him Isang Yun or Song Du-yul; that makes him a draft dodger. He was going around the entire internet and spamming this on message boards last year [59][60][61], and now he's brought it to Wikipedia. Searching in Korean (I believe the spelling should be 최동현) for "Choe Dong-hyeon" England or "Choe Dong-hyeon" torture" gives a few hundred unrelated Ghits. cab (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Korean name is a common one, so if you google with it, you just would find "other notable figures with the same name. I can assure you that the person has absolutely zero notability.--Caspian blue 12:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several issues here.
1. For a country as closed to the outside world as North Korea lack of publicly accessible information is not uncommon, including Wikipedia, Jon In Chan, Choi Yong-kun (Category:North Korean people by occupation). For this Consider grouping them. After all any public information serves to inform which is what Wikipedia is about; an Educational Charity.
2. I actually phoned that British politician mediator's office (Jenny Tonge) and it confirmed that the Dong Hyun Choi’s case was indeed handled by her and he became a refugee. And by googling I could see that the subject's brother DongSuk Choi is indeed a chemistry graduate of Seoul National University (his publications). Like the case of Jon In Chan one can verify factuality on Dong Hyun Choi by speaking to the people n organizations named in the article.
3. Many wiki biographies are less notable, and Choi’s case has something worth noting - being a political refugee from South Korea in the West. That’s worthwhile keeping for unbiased public understanding of immigration n asylum issues and serves to inform the minority legal cases.
4. I question the viability n motifs of some of the Wikipedians who called for delete. The Wikipedia Article Deletion Policy states that anyone calling for deletion must declare vested subject interests. Looking at Wikipedia articles some of them have created, I am not sure whether deletion was called for with impartially. Also, to say Dong Hyun Choi is a military duty dodger, that is clearly as reference-lacking, sheer POV statement that this Wikipedian is trying to keep Wikipedia free of. For what Wikipedia is for and aims to achieve, I think we all agree that informing and assessing be unbiased and done in a mature way, and not name calling or jumping to conclusions, whether a state/person is perceived as democratic or military rule. On these grounds, not only on the education/public informing front but also on reference n verifiability front, it looks OK. Keep the article along with other OK North Korean people pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoland83 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC) — Yoland83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I took the liberty of formatting your post. In response to your points:

By policy, Wikipedia articles should contain only information that has been published in reliable secondary sources such as newspapers, academic journals, or books from reputable houses, not information coming from a personal website. The fact that information about North Korea is not widely available on the internet has nothing to do with this case. Choi resided in Europe for a long time, and yet no European newspaper has written about him.
Calling a legislator's office to confirm non-published information is an example of what we call original research. Information obtained in this manner cannot be inserted into articles. And the fact that his brother graduated from SNU has nothing to do with whether Choi himself should have a Wikipedia article or not. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not factuality, but rather compliance with the General Notability Guideline.
It does not matter whether Wikipedia has articles about other, less notable people. Here on Wikipedia we refer to that as the "What about X?" fallacy. Anyone can create a Wikipedia article, and anyone can start a deletion debate. You also say that "Choi's case has something worth noting"—however on Wikipedia, we don't make our own judgements about whether or not something is worth noting; instead, we see whether reliable secondary sources have found a topic worth noting by writing an article about it. In this case, they have not.
This is just a bunch of obfuscation and has nothing to do with deletion policies. cab (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 12:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep saying this is POV page is downright incorrect. his site is (as with any website) but the article is clearly written in a manner that is 'informing' and there is no 'siding' or 'advocating'.. the wiki article itself on dong hyun choi has encyclopedic and journalistic merit without pushing views. let it continue to inform and educate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.60.119 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC) — 81.158.60.119 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, I am unable to establish notability in reliable sources as required by WP:N and WP:BIO. The key item for inclusion/exclusion of a BLP is "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". I recognize that North Koreas closed isolationist stance makes sources from inside North Korea hard to come by. The subject of this article has however not spent his whole life in North Korea, and if he was percieved to be notable in the UK and abroad he would be discussed in (as above) "published secondary source material". Finally, second hand accounts of phone calls are not sources, it's WP:OR. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO. All the name dropping of people he has interacted with or who have written letters to help in does not establish notability, nor does the claim, not supported by reliable sources, that the South Korean government is out to get him. He got some fellowships and scholarships, which does not show notability, even when they are called "international awards". Winning prizes in international music competitions might be sufficient to show notability if documented from reliable sources. Edison (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reputable independent sources and unsolvable bias. Alexius08 (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jack Straw is an international politician and Jenny Tonge is national politics person in GB, also known for her work on Middle East conflict. If these people personally intervened on his case and British Parliamentary office verify it, that meets sufficiently qualification of WP:N. Most immigration and asylum cases are handled by executive officers. (Young graduates and managers in gov deparments.) It is rare for such high profile politicians to take on individual case. If gov offices is confirming he was adopted as British on the recommendations of these ministers and involveing Korean ministers, though unusual its significance on human rights law cases from Korean peninsula is miles passing notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbinica (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC) — Columbinica (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If those people personally intervened and that event was covered by reliable secondary source material it would probably establish notability. If it was not covered by secondary sources including it would be original research and wikipedia is not a publisher of original information. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cab. Can't find any reliable sources for this either. Yintaɳ 11:01, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Marketing Group[edit]

The short version: spam. The slightly longer version: serious conflict of interest issues have left us with an article that, while containing a number of sources, is but a hollow shell that crumbles upon close examination. Sports Marketing Group's biggest claims to fame appear to be a couple surveys & a prediction (details in article). Regarding the surveys, several sources did write about the results, but in the way that the results of polls are typically written: focusing on the results themselves, not so much the collectors of the results. The mentions of SMG could probably be considered trivial mentions, and the articles themselves perhaps WP:NOTNEWS. If anything, I could perhaps see a stretch of an argument for merging this with the founder, Nye Lavalle. However, Mr. Lavalle's article has some strong COI & NPOV problems too.

See the talk pages of both mentioned articles above, plus WP:COIN for info on the COI probs.

Probably borderline speedy-able with ((db-spam))... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't get into the problems with Nye Lavalle here. I proposed merging the two articles a while back and I would support that. The main reason for a merge/delete is that SMG appears to be simply a vehicle to promote Lavalle. He has other interests besides sports described on his page, but I don't see how to separate SMG from Lavalle. Simishag (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents

The page is very relevant for anyone in the sports business, marketing and media industries. Especially students like myself who are studying sports management. There seems to be a conflict with Sim and Pope and it seems to be personal in nature over their views. However, that should not detract from the info we've posted and researched. The original companies in this business like ProServ, IMG, and SMG should be listed and more info placed on and updated and discovered.

These companies were noteworthy and contributed to the growth of an open and professional sports arena and the men, women, and companies involved in helping to grow a $280 billion plus industry should be recognized. Note, other fellow students and I have contributed to other articles as well and added to this industry.

The complainers have cleaned up, so their excuses and personal quirks and bias' should not lead to any deletion. I mean, sim keeps adding NASCAR high points and doing his best to attack figure skating and when you read his talk page, the bias is more than obvious. He also has had complaints from many others and from what some of us have gathered from his comments, he does not have any marketing, research, sports management or journalism background. He should not be allowed to hurt many students who wiki is really a great first resource (still must do the fact check) for his pet projects and peeves. Not what wiki is about, I do not think.

My two cents 66.229.128.203 (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AbsolutDan and Simishag that this article is basically spam and is a vehicle to promote Lavalle. The article does assert notability but a google search [62] doesn't find anything about this company. I think the IP user has hit the nail on the head - at most it might be useful for people in "sports business, marketing and media industries" but this an encyclopedia not an industry magazine. Delete Smartse (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I'd advise examining other pages of companies in this industry that have virtually no cites and are far more biased than anything written on these pages. I will have students add more to these other companies and individuals with proper cites. You simply can't ignore a multibillion industry in America that keeps you watching and attending NASCAR or WWE wrestling or whatever floats your individual likes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_Sports_Poll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Luker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMG_(business)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProServ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marketing_Arm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millsport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doyle_Dane_Bernbach

Mark McCormack was a billionaire and counseled everyone from the Pope to Tiger Woods and virtually every CEO in America. Without money, expertise, and research, there would be no NASCAR. To delete any of these companies or persons would be a tragic mistake. We are not the wiki police deciding what is relevant and what you may not find relevant is very relevant to others. Sports management and marketing classes are majors at many colleges and universities as well as MBA programs in the discipline. If you want to add, edit etc that is fine and what wiki is about, but don't let personal views dictate and cloud your judgments. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=&as_epq=sports+management+program&as_oq=college+university&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off

Many of the above wiki pages need to be beefed up and cited. We shall do in coming weeks. However, scan any company or person on wiki and I am sure you can criticize any. Few pages have as many cites and references as these pages do and the pages we've edited and added to.

Sports marketing and management are a major part of American business and education see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=&as_epq=sports+marketing&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=&as_epq=sports+management&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off

Ignoring the companies and individuals that contributed to this massive worldwide industry would be wrong.

Additional comments. I have read the wiki policies and comments.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic

I see tons of criticism, but no specific passages, elements or phrasings listed. Sim redid tons on the article. I'd suggest someone go and ID negative info about the company or Lavlle and see what can be added. Am I wrong here? Not trying to argue, but to discuss valid points. Also, anyone is free to report on any additional info. The info is all sourced, cited, and uses extensive quotes from reliable sources that are cited. I have yet to see such a well cited story here. I know I am in a man's world, but come on guys, some specifics as to what is not reliable, not fact, etc. is appropriate I think rather than any personal views or bias, yours or mine, that are all natural in their selection. Some of you all may like blondes over brunettes, small over big, individual sports over team ones... you get my point.

Let's address specifics, rather than personalities and personas.

KPKrissyPope (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know my views. Keep! Here are some of two cents comments and links. far more than 10 most hated.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&num=100&q=%22nye+lavalle%22&cf=all http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&newwindow=1&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&q=%22nye%20lavalle%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=poll&as_epq=sports+marketing+group&as_oq=hated+loved&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&num=100&q=poll+hated+OR+loved+%22sports+marketing+group%22&cf=all http://books.google.com/books?um=1&num=100&q=%22sports+marketing+group%22&btnG=Search+Books

I think smart didn't add additional search strings to limit. Also, doing searches of major newspapers turned up a lot. The Bob Ryan story from Boston paper was really funny.

Check factiva and other news sources.

Found a ton of articles if you guys want on their site. They need to redo and update site.

http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDFgallery1.htm http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDF%20Files/SMGClips%2785-%2793.pdf http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDF%20Files/SMGClips%2793.pdf http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDF%20Files/SMGClips%2793-%2794.pdf http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDF%20Files/SMGClips%2794-%2796.pdf http://www.sponsorintell.com/PDF%20Files/SMGClips%2796-2007.pdf

In reading the articles, it appears to me they were media darlings since while one or two articles made snide comments and remarks, no one challenged their research and the quotes I found on the company were from the CEOs and presidents of major ad agencies at the time like DDBNeedham and DMB&B which had Budweiser, GM and all. You should look at Steve Wilstein's page. He was the AP reporter who busted baseball and McGwire. It seems he had a close working relationship or collaboration with the AP. Few companies get to do joint studies and research with the AP. One area no one has mentioned and should be included in the articles is that they did the largest study of sports gambling as well that won an AP award.

KrissyPope (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. I'd also put it below the notability threshold. Yes there are lots of stories out there, but most seem to be about the 10 most hated sports research, with little about the company itself. The sources I could find talking about the company appeared to be very speciailist publications which though they may be reputable, do not establish notability. Quantpole (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 12:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Cheers. I'^mperator 12:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per discussions above and on WP:COIN. The above links show that the company is only noted in specialist publications and as User:Quantpole pointed out only then referring to the poll. Smartse (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-consumer business serving a very small clientele, with clear neutrality issues remaining in the text. Seems to be referenced mostly to trade publications, press releases, and Google searches that yield results that are not primarily about this business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--despite the copious verbosity of the above editor, the article is simply spam. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle metal (genre)[edit]

Triple N: a non-notable neologism for a non-existent genre. Originally a redirect but that was two years ago. I don't think the redirect is necessary since anyone typing it will end up on a page about an album rather than any music genre. Bardin (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bardin (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified and (thus) not notable. This isn't a genre, it's a term thrown around by a couple of fans. Metalheads, can't we all just get along under a common moniker? Drmies (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-existent genre. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - as non-existent and unusable as a redirect. FireCrystal (talk) 23:48, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Majesty[edit]

Does not satisfy notability guidelines per WP:BAND. Only source given is a Myspace page. A google search does not reveal any other sources. A v N 11:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of passing WP:BAND. Flying Toaster 11:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete does not apply here, unfortunately. There is an assertion of notability. A v N 17:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Flying Toaster 17:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable band with no evidence of notability. A Google search reveals no relevant hits except this article and MySpace. Geez, they're not even on Facebook or MP3 Ringtone sites! Easily fails WP:BAND. Astronaut (talk) 23:52, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010[edit]

Too early. One liner saying Slovakia will participate in 2010, and is unlikly to grow until the national competition gets under way in early 2010. It is the only Song Contest country with a 2010 page. Fails WP:CRYSTALBALL just like the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 article. Astronaut (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a blatant non-article—until next year, that is. Punkmorten (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It fails Wp:CRYSTAL. (Latvia originally said they would be withdrawing from this year's Contest due to financial reasons, but have decided to enter after all.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles about annual contests should only be written for the upcoming contest. This is still pure speculation and if verified, it still wouldn't be enough for a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNOW. Too early for such an article. Or, if necessary, redirect to Eurovision 2010 when the page is re-started after this years Eurovision. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 16:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eurovision 2010 is not confirmed as of yet. Afkatk (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too soon for this page to exist. When the time comes there will be plenty of information for it, but for now, the announcement of their participation on 2010 would be best on Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Atomic Betty[edit]

WP:LISTCRUFT, a trivial list with no notability. All the "sources" are just episodes of the program. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN trivia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly-sourced list relating to non-notable topic. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you are calling a "non-notable topic"? The show? The characters? Hobit (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The series is for sale on Amazon, so the DVD is a valid source as long as it only discusses the subject itself and makes no attempts at drawing conclusions that aren't explicitly mentioned. It doesn't need independent notability because it's a spin off from Atomic Betty. Now, the split was badly performed without leaving behind a summary, but that is a reason for merging back, not deletion. (also merging has the added value of putting the information in context, so it's no longer independent so the references are valid per WP:SELFPUB - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, the main series, Atomic Betty has been going for three years and has its own article, so WP:LISTCRUFT does not apply. Second, when talking about fiction, referring back to the work when talking about it is an acceptable form of citing, otherwise we wouldn't have the ((cite episode)) template would we? See WP:WAF#Primary_and_secondary_information, which reads, in part, "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source.". --BlueSquadronRaven 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard way to organize a group of NN fictional characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MgM. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:V says that using the primary source for references is perfectly acceptable. Read through that please. Dream Focus 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is not about whether this information is verifiable. I don't suppose anyone would have reason to doubt that "Megan is a chubby brunette who toddles around everywhere." The question is whether these characters are notable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to give WP:LISTCRUFT as a reason for deletion, the least you can do is read and understand it. I quote: "Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and List of Oz books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out." Even as it stands, it does not fail against any of the 11 criteria in that guideline. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with #8 on that list: The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.. BSR, I know you've spent time on this list, but please try not to take this personally, okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Atomic Betty. There's no reason why this information cannot be merged into the main article on the show, which certainly isn't that long. AniMate^talk 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
?? Redirect? or merge? The character list is 58kb with refs. The episode list is 43kb. The parent article is just under 5kb. Putting all the pieces back together will only create an article of 106kb.... not "too" big. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The DVD themselves are valid references per guideline. "Independent" notability is not required as the subject "Atomic Betty" has the established notability and this is simply a sub-article "list" of the parent. Any concerns about the split or a re-merge to the parent should be properly handled through discussion (which belongs on the article's talk page as per guideline) after a proper keep and closure of this AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a GFDL violation. Jemima PD (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Jemima PD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Jemima PD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked as a sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hilary_T/Archive. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a good way to organize the material. Good breakout per WP:WAF. Hobit (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Can somebody catch me up on on the status of this debate? As I recall, a compromise was reached allowing lists of characters. Was there some threshold that the parent show had to pass for such a list to be justified? Is List of characters in Atomic Betty a test case by the nominator? Resurr Section (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any sort of compromise regarding lists of characters (a quick search turned up no such discussion that I could find). There are, however, many such lists of characters in any given movie/tv series/book/anime/whatever, so I'm not sure why this one was singled out. The nominator cited criteria #8 in WP:LISTCRUFT, asserting that the list is unencyclopedic. My view is that since the same guideline justifies breaking a list out into a stand-alone article from an article that is encyclopedic, in this case, the main Atomic Betty article, it is reasonable for inclusion. I note that the nominator has not attempted to send any other such lists through AfD, so if it is to be a test case I can't say on whose part. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users Icestorm815 • Talk 02:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Craigslist killers[edit]

See also: Internet killer (AfD discussion) and Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users (AfD discussion).

Alleged that title uses generic term not found in sources and/or contains predominance of non-notable entries ↜Just me, here, now … 09:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entries seem notable and the generic term is suppported in sources. (However, some contributors keep blanking portions of its text or redirecting. What say ye? Ie, I took the unusual tack of nominating this article for deletion despite my own impression that such a deletion rationale is faulty.) ↜Just me, here, now … 09:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also would support a merge to Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users: a more all-encompassing list. ↜Just me, here, now … 12:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users, as List of Craigslist killers fails the List criteria by itself. However, it is encompassed by Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users. Cheers. I'^mperator 11:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ This was inappropriately referred to AfD, since the nominator is electing to keep! The article is under discussion on the talk page. It had, until the nominator moved Craigslist killer to List of Craigslist killers without discussion, been wavering between an article and a disambig page, with a list being mentioned as a possibility but there being no consensus for it. These issues should be hashed out on the talk page. I referred the article to the Mediation Cabal upon the suggestion of Third Opinion and also requested input from the Crime and Internet Culture wikiprojects. Шизомби (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Internet homicide. Шизомби (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term appears 1,700+ times in sources so I dunno what the nom means. If the list contains non-notable cases, they can be removed... that doesn't require article deletion. This clearly passes WP:LC criteria 4 and 10 due to the sources. I think criteria 1 is hopelessly subjective (you could say a list of county seats in California was created "just for the sake of having such a list"). As for the "list is of interest to a very limited number of people" or "the list is unencyclopaedic" arguments, I dunno, I can see that. But then again, 1700 sources... it may be a silly trend in my opinion, but it's one the media apparently cares about. I think there's enough sources to justify some sort of an article here... maybe a list is a silly format, but nevertheless deletion isn't called for. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article consists of two paragraphs and a list. The two paragraphs are pure original research and the sources are used to make it seem like the information is referenced when it actually isn't. The information in the article is based on personal research performed by a single editor, and the editor has admitted this on the talk page. This particular information cannot be found outside of Wikipedia. Not a single source in the body of the article (first two paragraphs) directly supports the material. Without interpretive elements, the list could easily be merged into Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users. This is a classic example of original research and should be used as a learning exercise for new editors. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno. The sources cited appear to be doing a lot of the conjecture (e.g. the New York Daily News specially makes the connection between craigslist killings and earlier 'want ad killers'). If there's some original research in the first two paragraphs, it's still not all OR. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made the same mistake the first time I read it. Read it the second time. You will see that it actually makes a completely different claim than the one in the article. It's almost deceptive how it was done. It is completely OR because none of it can be verified outside of Wikipedia, not even in the sources. Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, good catch. Except I wouldn't say it's a completely different claim... however, the source doesn't actually claim Craigslist killers are the modern want ad killers... it just implies it. It's a fine line. The claim about "The first use of the term Craigslist killings may date to..." does seem like classic OR - someone searched a news database, found the earliest entry, made a conclusion... that's fine for a newspaper article or a paper but not for Wikipedia. The rest of the sources seem to just use the term "craigslist killer". This is a very tricky case. I think what we need is a source that says "'Craigslist killer' is a type of criminal..." rather than just a source that uses the term 'craiglist killer' in articles about specific criminals? Does such a source exist? --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with new article Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users (which itself could use a beezier title). As of last time I reviewed the sources, none of the sources establish that there is a distinct phenomenon (or even such a thing) as a "craigslist killer". It's just a turn of phrase that sometimes appears in newspaper headlines. Even the sources that use them tend to use the expression once in the headline or sometimes the lead, then make no effort to describe it as a phenomenon, just isolated incidents. It appears to be a non-notable intersection of two different things - murders, and people using craigslist. The problem is that categorizing murders as "X killers" (when X is cruise ships, match.com, Hilton Hotels, disco clubs, dungeons and dragons clubs) is unencyclopedic. To be fair there does seem to be a preoccupation with Craigslist among the tabloid press, and among more serious press when they are being sensationalistic. So there is a valid question whether the pop culture fascination with Craigslist is itself notable. If so, then there might be a notable subject in there, but it is best covered by secondary sourcing about the phenomenon itself rather than the OR / SYNTH of combing news stories and then making a list of them. In a broader article about the subject of Craigslist incidents, though, it might make sense to have a sourced list of such incidents. So, in sum, I would either delete as proposed or merge with the similar article about the wider topic the entire range of crimes and scandals where the medium is Craigslist but Craigslist is not a party (some of these are already on the Craigslist article). Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users. The fact there seems to be a preoccupation with Craigslist among the tabloid press and among more serious press when they are being sensationalistic does not necessarily make this topic all that encyclopedic in nature and worthy of its own article. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This whole thing is being handled very badly. We now have Philip Markoff, List of Craigslist killers, Craigslist killer (Boston), Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users, Internet killer, Lonely hearts killer, Michael John Anderson, maybe others, all having to do with mostly the same thing. If people would just have more patience and handle things properly on the talk pages, these articles and AfDs might not be multiplying at this rate. These things could probably be handled in a single article or sections of other existing articles. Шизомби (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those issues have already been handled so please update your scorecard. There is no duplication at this time. The only wildcard at this point is whether Philip Markoff should exist as a separate article, and good arguments have been put forward on both sides. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, Internet killer is still live. It should be nominated for deletion as it is complete nonsense that duplicates the fluff we've already removed. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet killer. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.......
The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page[...]. These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long. [...]Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information, full of railroad timetables and comprehensive lists. But any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible.---META:WIKI IS NOT PAPER#ORGANIZATION
.......I/e per the vision of the Project, if it's notable, we cover it; yet -- especially so as not to make our readers' eyes glaze over with stuff they're not looking up -- we break all notable stuff down into pieces of increasingly more-and-more precise and distinct detail.... ↜Just me, here, now … 02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and wrt whether an Item Become A Newsmedia Touchstone must be precluded from Wiki-coverage.......
As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.--WP:CRUFT ↜Just me, here, now … 02:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge Into Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users. While the homicidal incidents connected to Craigslist are the most startling, they are relatively few in number and represent a wider situation that is addressed in greater depth with the article where this information can be merged into. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete becasuse it has already been Merged to Internet killer: Last night, when the article Craigslist killer was blanked and restored repeatedly without warning (see the "badly handled" comment above), the material was subsumed into and made a part of the broader article [[Internet killer], where it now already resides. Craigslist is merely a subset of the internet -- the internet killer phenomenon has been studied from a sociological perspective (and has links to the study of the Online predator phenomenon as well). It is true that there are a gazillion more google hits for the term "Craigslist killer" in quotes than for "Internet killer" in quotes -- but the latter is a broader topic, as it encompasses chatroom suicide-homcide pact killers and the widespread fictional use of the bogeyman of an "internet serial killer" (e.g. characters named "the internet killer" that predate the use of the term to describe actual murder cases). In stating this opinion, i acknowledge that "Internet killer" has been listed for AfD by Viriditas, but given the amount of sourcing available, it is my opinion that it should and will survive that test. catherine yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to some more approrpriate article (any ideas above are fine) or Delete is OK too. Everything here is either ~~WP:NOVEL~~ ed. oops. I meant WP:SYNTHESIS or otherwise non compliant with our list and referencing guidelines. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOVEL, Jayron32? How so? ↜Just me, here, now … 07:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC) You mean some literarly wraith of conjunction betwixt criminal and venue?[reply]

With the white road smoking behind him and his rapier brandished high!
Blood-red were his spurs in the golden noon, wine-red was his velvet coat
When they shot him down in the highway,
Down like a dog in the highway,
And he lay in his blood in the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.

And still on a winter's night, they say, when the wind is in the trees,
When the moon is a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas,
When the road is a gypsy's ribbon looping the purple moor,
The [Craigslist]man comes riding--
Riding--riding-- —(WITH APOLOGIES to NOYES(?)) ↜Just me, here, now … 13:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What we have is a few random news headlines that use the phrase "Craigslist Killer" in a few random unrelated murders. To claim that this represents a coherant concept is a novel synthesis of ideas; this article taken some unrelated news articles, picked a few coincidental facts from them, and placed them together in such a way to indicate that this represents some larger coherent trend or idea rather than what it is, which is a random set of unrelated events. tied together by coincidence. Find me an article that discusses the concept of "Craigslist killer" as a concept rather than some random news stories that show some random killers that used Craigslist, and you may have something article worthy. Until then, the article is merely the novel synthesis of some unrelated events. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific, if you would. It doesn't seem like novel synthesis but more like a given or a logical deduction. See Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Simple_or_direct_deductions. Шизомби (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I could compile a list of murderers born on April 17th, and create an article titled "List of Killers Born on April 17th". Factual, check. Verifiable, check. Worthy of note as a concept? Not unless I can find a reliable source which notes that this particular fact is worthy of note. To claim that a fact is significant enough of a fact to build an article around by compiling a list of reliable sources which mention that fact, but which do not give significance to that fact in the way that the Wikipedia article does is not merely a logical deduction, it is the creation of significance merely from coincidence. Unless someone else finds it significant, to do so ourselves is original research. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't inclusion/exclusion criteria apply across the board and not catch as catch can or willy-nilly? It seems that some here are somewhat overplaying your hand about a need to establish notability for the phenomenon. Off the top of my head, it seems to be a premise that
*"List-type" articles and article sections must contain sources that extol the notability of the combination of the underlying components of such lists itself
-- is that at all close to what you are arguing here? But, if this is so, wouldn't such a criteria be enforceable upon any random set of list-type articles that one could assemble from throughout the encyclopedia?

-

But...let's see!

"Presidents" and "nickname" generates Presidential nicknames. "Nay." These are culled from the sources without citing any sources that comment on the importance of nicknames to presidential politics or whatever.
"Obama" and "family" generates Family of Barack Obama. Yet no sources are provided that explain the importance of this combination.
"Socks (cat)" and "cultural references" generates the section Socks (cat)#Cultural references. "Nay." No reference explains the importance of Socks the cat to American culture.
"Nikola Tesla" and "popular culture" generates Nikola Tesla in popular culture. Ditto.
"LGBT," "characters," "television," and "soap operas" are combined to form the section List of television shows with LGBT characters#Soap operas. No references support the cultural significance of the combination of these components.

-

So we gotta conclude a "nay" there (and rightly so, to avoid mass deletions of quality material from the encyclopedia!) ↜Just me, here, now … 07:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these handful of events are already covered in Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users, which is an appropriate sub-article of main article Craigslist. This list of "craigslist killers", along with internet killer, is novel synthesis and original research as noted by several other editors above. Wikipedia should not be coining terms and defining phenomena. --MPerel 05:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we seat patrons without dinner jackets at the bar and patrons with dinner jackets at tables, we're still serving customers coming in with/without jackets. That is, if "illegal activities by users of Craigslist" isn't a neologism, how is "killings by Craigslist users"? And, if it is to be thought that the premise
*"The article under review's list of Craigslist killers doesn't merit encyclopedic coverage due to some kind of 'neologism' within its defining parameters"
-- is true, then it only follows we must delete the list (as concisely titled) not keep it, anyway, via merging it, except instead to Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users (as more cumberbunly...I mean, cumbersomely, titled). It is important to be consistent and well-defined in such criteria, or one class of patrons might get the impression they're not welcome because of their brogue accent when it's observed other parties who speak in Yankee tones get in, in informal attire, regardless of what inclusionary standard ostensibly is imposed..... How would those upholding the "neologism" etc. line defend your position in response to this line of attack, as it were? ↜Just me, here, now … 07:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a single reliable source that discusses the subject of "Craigslist killers" and reflects the content in this article. If you cannot do so, then the article must be deleted per Wikipedia's core content policy, WP:NOR. As it stands right now, the main points in an article about "Craigslist killers" were pieced together using information from multiple sources that are not directly relevant to the topic. WP:SYNTHESIS prevents us from doing this. The ideas and thoughts expressed in the article about "Craigslist killers" represent the opinions of the editor who wrote it and nobody else. The subject of the topic about "Craigslist killers" cannot be found outside Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking past each other, I'm afraid. ↜Just me, here, now … 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question. What RS should I refer to that covers this topic? Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is chock-full of RS. Sure the article has weak spots sourcing-wise here and there, in some verbiage attempting an overview. But simply remove the whole into or write your own -- don't get stuck on delete then in the next motion create an article that's a content fork...... Viriditas, in one breath you're arguing there is not enough sourcing for the whole piece and in the very next breath you're saying to merge most of its -- presumably adequately sourced -- content to elsewhere. But an argument for article deletion simply ain't equivalent to an argument for article merger, so you should get your rhetorical house in order. ↜Just me, here, now … 12:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikidemon, Jayron32, and Viriditas already mentioned in various ways, "craigslist killer" is a catchy phrase that sometimes shows up in headlines to describe separate isolated events. Using the jingly sounding title, "Craigslist killers", as if they are related implies a special phenomenon (but this has only been identified as such through synthesis by a Wikipedia editor). Can you find any reliable sources that discuss "Craigslist killers" in the plural as some special phenomenon? Likewise, the article "internet killer" even explicitly claims it is a journalistic term, yet provides no sources that use such a neologism describing the alleged phenomenon. In comparison, the clunkier title about various controversies makes no such association connected to made-up jingly terms, nor implies any sort of special phenomenon, but simply expands a paragraph about generic controversies that grew too large to fit in its parent article. --MPerel 17:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge all the similar-titled articles into one single article. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC) I would be agreeable to merger into Internet homicide, and delete and redirect all the others. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users would be a far better source for such information. A list of 5 people isn't exactly a list. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users. my name inc 18:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((subst:afb))

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euston (band)[edit]

Band fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG and WP:V. No extensive media coverage. No major label deal. No real assertion of any notability. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 11:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google and Google News searches find no reliable sources. Vague assertions of notability in the article are not enough to meet WP:MUSIC, and even the band offical site appears to show they are unsigned. A strong case of WP:GARAGE, methinks. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles but could not find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. The "press clippings" section of the band's website does not offer much of substance either. The Gig Guide, which is a music magazine in Kent, provides a little but not enough. I recommend delete unless some other sources are offered before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:35, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bankhead (Atlanta)[edit]

Cities are notable, no one disputes that Atlanta is notable. This difficult to define "neighborhood" in Atlanta on the other hand... Not so notable. Nor is it all that verifiable through reliable third party publications. Alas, we should delete. JBsupreme (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Atlanta neighborhoods. I would add that just because there's a template here, it does not mean an official endorsement of anything. It simply means that an editor, like you or I, created a template. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is true. I have no opinion (at this time) regarding the other "neighborhoods" within that template. JBsupreme (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't exactly understand this AfD, but then again what do I know about the Dirty South (this is just meant to be an inside, too-cool-for-school in joke for WikiProject Hip-Hop member JBsupreme - others can ignore it!). But seriously—is there a reason why this particular neighborhood was put up for AfD? We obviously have articles on most ATL neighborhoods. This article is pretty weak, but there's no reason it cannot be expanded with demographic data, a map, info about schools, major employers, and hospitals, discussion of its history, etc. Atlanta is an extremely historic city, and presumably this neighborhood used to be something else and we could talk about that, how it changed over the years, how it got its name, etc. Maybe in the past it was not even part of Atlanta proper and I'm sure we could find sources that say so one way or another, though probably in books that deal specifically with the history of ATL (like maybe this one). Additionally, this neighborhood is actually rather notorious even outside of Atlanta as a fairly high-crime area, and the idea that it's not notable thus seems a bit odd (I've heard of it and I've never lived in the South). Rappers T.I. and Shawty Lo were in a widely covered feud about whether the former could properly claim "Bankhead" status, and that alone created a flurry of discussion in various hip-hop mags/web sites and also suggests that the neighborhood is somewhat notable since famous people are fighting about whether they properly "represent" the place in question. Also we have an article about a famous dance (MJ did it!) named after this neighborhood and even one on the MARTA (the Atlanta subway) stop in the neighborhood. It would be rather strange to delete an article about a neighborhood and keep an article about a subway stop within that neighborhood or a dance named after it, and likewise it would be odd to delete this article on a well-known Atlanta neighborhood while keeping articles on a bunch of others. Overall I'm of the view that large, historic cities like Atlanta warrant articles on all of the individual neighborhoods that exist within said city. It might take a bit of digging to find sources, but I'm confident that we can develop and maintain a decent article about Bankhead (maybe not as fancy as the article about wealthy Buckhead, but I suppose Wikipedia like society will have its inequalities!). Finally, if my comment here saves this article from deletion I plan to call T.I. and demand that he buy me whatever I like. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Also just in terms of sources, see [63] [64] [65] [66] (first three from Atlanta-Journal Constitution, last from Washington Post). None are freely available online (you get a preview of what they are about though) but I'm sure we could find these and/or others like them in the Nexis or Pro-Quest Newspapers databases. In other words I do think we can source this article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unverifiable? Just look at a map. A neighborhood in a major city that even has a subway stop with the designation of the neighborhood is inherently notable. There's even a book called Bankhead to Buckhead: Atlanta, After the Ashes. While I don't have access to the text, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that there is non-trivial coverage of Bankhead in it. Other books cover Bankhead too. [67][68]--Oakshade (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::{talk} 08:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The People from Planet Cheese[edit]

Production has not yet started, therefore fails WP:NFF. JD554 (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suspect this may be a WP:HOAX, there are no ghits for the film title, I can't find it on Fox's website, there is no mention of it on Apatow's website and the url from the alleged poster http://www.iliveonplanetcheese.com/ doesn't exist. --JD554 (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant misinformation; quick search engine test shows this as patently false. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, searches find nothing, and even if it were true fails WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did the same checks as the nominator did and came up with the same results. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Malta relations[edit]

another laughable combination from the obsessive article creator. no notable relationships, non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - funny, but non-notable in the utmost. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:37, 24 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 14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drmies (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the many precedents. Dahn (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rather than having 203 grab 2 = 20503 silly stub articles which violate WP:N and WP:NOT a directory or collection of miscellaneous information, how about sticking with a "Foreign relations of ..." section in the articles about any country with notable foreign relations? Politics of Malta and Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Iceland) seem to be where enthusiastic article creators should focus their efforts, rather than creating these robostubs. A link to the official site for the Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, which lists the countries where they have embassies and consulates, is far better than blasting these silly roboarticles all over Wikipedia, because the info in their official website is much more likely to stay up to date than these stubs created by a onetime pass of someone's computer. If the diplomatic history is too long to fit in an article on, say, France, there could be a separate article, as there is on the foreign relations of France, or even one on U.S-China relations, or diplomacy between Germany and Russia before the 1939 invasion of Poland. There are scads of books with substantial coverage of such topics. But most of these article have no content other than restating the the title means what it says, and whether the 2 have some sort of diplomacy between them,when it was established, and where the embassies are located. Edison (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 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[69]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations LibStar (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending discussion on what to do with these. DGG (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long Dong Silver[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article with persistent BLP problems which have recently been attempted solved by redirecting the article to Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. This, however, becomes very non-sequiturial in my opinion and I am therefore nominating article for deletion instead. __meco (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the already included source and others - such as the Australian Sex Party (yes folks, a real political party in Australia) regarding another scandal about who the lady is with Long Dong Silver in photos from Colour Climax magazine, a Danish adult magazine in 1982, edition number 120. Such as this source from the Eros Association (Australia's national adult retail and entertainment association). Such as this source from the Dallas Voice mentioning how it was proven his long dong was a fake. Indeed, he's notable and Wikipedia readers should know about him, as should the Bureau of Weights and Measures according to Time magazine. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to point out that every single link you are referring to is a joke and not valid for a biography of a living person. A passing reference from Time? (And I do mean a passing reference which has NO relationship to the article) A spam advertisement for a penis extension product? A sex blog? COME ON. JBsupreme (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mind pointing out where you see a spam advertisement for a penis extension product? If you'll look at the bottom of that source, it specifically says, This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition September 14, 2007. It wasn't spam but was written by a reliable source, aka news paper. And also where do you see a sex blog? Everone of the sources I have provided are either news media, representative association or political party. None of them are a "joke". They are reliable sources and they all speak to the notability of Long Dong Silver.- ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another huge WP:BLP disaster on Wikipedia which needs to be irradicated. JBsupreme (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per discussions in first AfD and address any BLP issues identified. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. Current article is almost totally OR and filled with gems such as Long Dong Silver is believed to be dead. At his prime of film-making, he was considered to have the largest penis of any man on Earth, but no official measurement was ever taken. Gahhhh. There's almost no RS-based information on this guy anywhere, other than several mentions of him (in passing) during the Clarence and Anita show. Even the IMDB and IAFD don't have much, and they don't even agree which films in which he appeared: neither include the film Sex Freaks as per the article, and the only film they both list is Beauty and the Beast (not the Disney one!) The sources Allstarecho cites are not all they seem to be: The first one is a political party's site, and doesn't address LDS except in passing; the second is simply a repost of the first; the third is just a passing reference; and the last is also a passing reference (and not meant to be taken at all seriously). IRT Delicious Carbuncle, the article has not improved since the last AFD; in fact, it's worse, with even more unreferenced junk. The only thing referenced is that he was mentioned during the Clarence and Anita show, and that's why I suggest a redirect there instead of outright deletion. If sombody can find *reliable sources* which deal *with the subject* I might be persuaded otherwise, but there's nothing here that is verifiable and notable. Horologium (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject has sufficient reliablly sourced information for a stand-alone article. I demonstrated in the first AFD that WP:N is easily satisfied, to wit: 'Verified by its discussion in reference to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. CNN's [70] "Bill Press: The return of Long Dong Silver"(2001) says that Anita Hill testified that Thomas harassed female workers in part by describing porn videos he had watched "including the now-famous 'Long Dong Silver.'" If CNN says it is famous, that goes a long way toward establishing notability. Google News archive has many other articles discussing the film. See Google News archive [71] , particularly Pioneer Press (St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 28, 1991, page 10B "Who's in, who's out on the In list:... Long Dong Silver") [72]. Washington Post [73] called Silver "a well known performer." Rocky Mountain News [74] says Silver was well known even before the Thomas hearings. Time magazine(1998) [75] called Silver "a household name." ' Edison (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some refs to the article, from books and newspapers. Edison (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of this dude and its not really my scene. Also ALLST☆R & Delicious seem to have tight standards on notability, so if its good enough for them... FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proposed redirect is unfair and worse than any other possible way of handling the article. The present version seems wholly satisfactory. If additional verified information about his film career can be obtained, it could be added. DGG (talk) 20:32, 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Amateur Scientist[edit]

Uncited article of discontinued column in a magazine. Doesn't prove notablity and has questionable material, such as accusations of discrimination. BBiiis08 (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't seem to disagree that the column existed. Can't it simply be redirected to the journal/magazine or the author? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable and I myself bought a bound collection of these fine columns back in the day. Questionable material is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Amateur Scientist was long running and influential. This could make a very interesting article. Celefin (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Keep to this piece of jounalistic history. And a note to the nom... if you feel the "accusations of discrimination" were questionable, with just a little WP:BEFORE you might have had you find the numerous news articles specifically covering Forest Mims and his claims of discrimination when he was fired from Scientific American. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, sourced, etc. -Rotwechsel (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Remember, AFD is not cleanup. IF you think something has "questionable material", then discuss it on the talk page of the article. Dream Focus 14:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. The column ran for over 70 years in a major science magazine, and was much quoted by others. Books compiled from it were published and the column and its book anthologies received good reviews. Edison (talk) 17:21, 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 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Latvia relations[edit]

another random combination from 2 nations with very little in common. some minor bilateral agreements but hardly notable: [76] LibStar (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - random, irrelevant pairing; no sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:37, 24 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 14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments by Biruitorul and BlueSquadronRaven. Tim meh ! 23:39, 24 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) 01:46, 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[77]. Martintg (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:56, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Singapore relations[edit]

another random combination, no resident ambassadors, only 1 bilateral agreement and very limited relations [78]. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence through reliable sources that the relationship is of much interest to anyone. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:36, 24 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 14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as the many other country-country relations articles. Not notable. Any information can be merged to either country's article. Tim meh ! 23:42, 24 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) 01:00, 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[79]. 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) 01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending discussion of how to handle these in general. DGG (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siebel Tutorials[edit]

Wikipedia is not a manual Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: contains nothing at all. Alexius08 (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably speedy, per Alexius08. It contains no context to really discern what the subject is. Tim meh ! 23:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya elite[edit]

Thing made up one day. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not made-up; it is a real property development in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh [80]. However, it and even the company which developed it appear to be non-notable based on a Google search: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per Wikipedia is not Facebook --Deepak D'Souza 06:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental metaphysics[edit]

Verifiability/Notability issues. Article appears to consist entirely of original synthesis; can not find any reliable source on the web that provide a definition of Environmental Metaphysics that corresponds with the usage in this article. Google search eliminating Wikipedia duplicates yields only 30-70 hits, with many of those being blog postings and other non-reliable sources. Source cited in intro for a definition of the concept is referring to a concept in environmentalism, not aesthetics. (See: reference) Clay Collier (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Mick Dundee: This is environmental metaphysics:
- Barry Smith and Achille C. Varzi (2001). "Environmental Metaphysics" (PDF). In Uwe Meixner (ed.). Metaphysik im post-metaphysischen Zeitalter : Akten des 22 Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums, 15 bis 21 August 1999, Kirchberg am Wechsel (Österreich). Vienna: Holder-Pilcher-Tempsky. pp. 231–239. ISBN 3209031940 ISBN 9783209031945.
Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be nothing here that would not be redundant to feng shui or qi, and as such this would appear to be a non-notable neologism and redundant title. I knew that metaphysical engineering could not be far behind! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a paper called Environmental Metaphysics that was published in a book of symposium proceedings in 2001, but it has no relationship to this article, which appears to be pure OR. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smith & Varzi 2001 doesn't appear to have gained sufficient notability to serve as the basis for a Wikipedia article, and the existing content is dire.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current article content is not in any way related to the few published uses of the term, which is fairly rare anyway, and appears to be pure WP:OR. -- The Anome (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal accusation[edit]

I found this page deleted (prodded). It seems an important topic to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The person who prodded gave the reason "since the merge hasn't happened and it has been nine or so months, I suggest that the article be deleted if only to give the admins a kick in the butt to merge this important article". 1) This fails the prod criteria. Since there appears to be a consensus to merge a deletion would obviously not be uncontroversial which is what PROD is for. 2) Deletion is not cleanup. 3) There is no need to kick administrator's to perform the merge. Anyone can, including the person who prodded the article in the first place. 4) Article can be redirected with a note on the target page so a merge can be performed later. In short: No one provided a valid reason to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - relevant subject - Skysmith (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICDEF. Dlabtot (talk) 17:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Ethiopia[edit]

nothing really noteworthy about this population that justifies a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there appear to exist non-trivial, reliable sources about this population, such as a whole book published in 1977 and reviewed in the Journal of African Studies in 1980 [81]. cab (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or for that matter, the 1975 source by the same author already cited (#4) at the time this article was nominated for deletion. cab (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Very notable subject; article has potential for expansion with serious and dedicated work. Badagnani (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An influential minority who have played a role in the Ethiopian economy & politics since at least the 18th century. Sheesh, if I had known this article was likely to be nominated for deletion I'd have worked on profiling a few Greeks who lived in Ethiopia instead of working on improving stubs. -- llywrch (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~. Keep _{(on second thoughts it has some potential)} The article barely meets WP:N. It may have potential for expansion. However the "Movies" section is completely unnecesary so is the map of Ethiopia. PMK1 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without making an judgment on PNK1's suggestions, I think they would be more appropriate for the talk page of this article -- where they will be seen long after this discussion is closed & archived. -- llywrch (talk) 17:19, 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 03:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian-Greek relations[edit]

completely insignificant relationship [82] non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it seems Groubani had a thing for Greece, but really, zero notability has been shown, or likely can be shown for this one. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seems to be a bit there. Greece was quite vocal at the UN preferring Democratic Kampuchea over the People's Republic of Kampuchea in the 1990's. They also contributed polling officers to the UNTAC mission in 1993. They've since cooperated over the Cambodian flagged (and Greek captained) 'Winner' debacle, where a Cambodian flagged ship carrying cocaine was fired upon by the French navy. An email to the Greek embassy in Bangkok would probably gives us any press releases on economic co-operation. I've added various refs on the above that I've found to the talk page for now. I'll try to expand the article with them soon (at right work now!). Cheers, Paxse (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not uninteresting, but a) most of those are primary sources; b) it would help if the relationship as such had been the object of study, not us stringing together bits of information we consider evidence of a notable relationship and proclaiming one out of these, in violation of WP:SYNTH. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 11:50, 24 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 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Paxse's sources are sufficient to convince me of the notability. The fact to the matter is that in-depth sources on the relationship as such are much more likely to exist in Greek or Khmer than in English (so at least I for one can't really find them). What Paxse has done is show that a relationship exists and that there is enough material here for a good article. Cool3 (talk) 18:14, 24 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. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 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[83]. Martintg (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; complimented by trivia which in no way establishes notability. Dahn (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable, independent sources discuss this relationship. THat's the minimum standard.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Kingdom of Manticore. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Manticoran Navy[edit]

Huge heap of fancruft — with an emphasis on fictional Military Insignia. This dubiously notable topic is already adequately covered at Star Kingdom of Manticore#Military. Tagged for clean-up over a year ago and no progress on concerns. Jack Merridew 04:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 04:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 04:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 04:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too much detail about a fictional work. Lack of third-party references to reliable sources. The insignia appear to be original research. (I've read every book in the Honor Harrington series, even Storm from the Shadows, and I think this is way too much information for Wikipedia.) --John Nagle (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:INUNIVERSE, etc. This fictional organisation does not seem to be notable in the wider world. No objection to userification so that the information can be copied elsewhere (ie: to Wikia) though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Wow this is really in-universe stuff, too detailed. Could be covered by having a small section in the main article. Also unreferenced. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are already 5 paragraphs there; ya, unsourced save than implicitly to the primary sources. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that stating "keep" without giving any reason for keeping the article does not help the discussion or the consensus building in any way, and will probably be totally ignored by the admin closing this AfD eventually? Fram (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am. I just wanted to voice my protest. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without merge to Star Kingdom of Manticore. Content is over-detailed WP:PLOT that lacks (evidence of) WP:GNG, third-party WP:RS. Whether deleted beforehand, I'm apathetic. --EEMIV (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not really notable outside the book's universe. I'm a great fan but this doesn't wash. Thanks, Capitalismojo (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MErge to List of organizations in the Honorverse 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources independent of this author establish any notability for this fictional organization in the Realityverse.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:47, 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 Nomination withdrawn -- no call for deletion was put forth. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions in Abkhazia[edit]

One-item "lists" are never very helpful, especially when the relevant information is fully covered here and here. ~~Besides, no source indicates an embassy actually exists, only that Russia is planning on opening one.~~ Biruitorul ^Talk 04:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn upon request, with a better solution found. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Abkhazia. An embassy does indeed exist in Abkhazia, as this details. Given the existence of other such lists, this is a likely search term, hence redirect. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nominator Would you be able to withdraw the nom, and we can simply redirect it to Foreign relations of Abkhazia. The reason I ask this, is that there is no point going thru this process, only to have it deleted, and I will immediately create a redirect to the article anyway. It would save us all a lot of time and bother. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list will expand in years to come. Belarus and others will eventually recognize Abkhazia's independence. --Tocino 00:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Mexico relations[edit]

another random combination, rather minor agreements [84] LibStar (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no embassies, no hint of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:32, 24 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 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The small amount of relevant information can easily be put in either country's article. There's not enough to devote a whole article to the relations. Tim meh ! 23:54, 24 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. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 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[85]. Martintg (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless, random, trivial, non-notable. Dahn (talk) 15:18, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Shaman[edit]

WP:BIO - notability marginal. John Nagle (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article created by Steven Shaman (talk · contribs). May be self-promotion. Individual has blogs, podcasts, and videos on YouTube. Individual does not have anything in Google News archive. Article lacks significant third-party references from reliable sources indicating notability. --John Nagle (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons outlined above: not notable. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ironholds (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:28, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MY Le Ponant[edit]

This is a news article in disguise. The details of individual highjackings are not encyclopedic. WP:NOT#NEWS. Rd232 ^talk 03:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hijackings are sufficiently rare to establish notability, even with the increased amount of hijackings off Somalia in the past year and a half. Meets verifiablility criteria and reliable sources criteria, thus notability is established. Mjroots (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't challenged on grounds of notability. WP:NOTNEWS violations usually come with a hatful of verified WP:RS. But not everything reported in newspapers is encyclopedic, not by a long shot. Rd232 ^talk 04:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of ships attacked by Somali pirates any material that isn't already there. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This particular hijacking is notable because of the French military action taken on Somali land, a potential act of war, and because the six captured accused pirates are to be tried in France.Rhinoracer (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for mentioning it in an article about piracy. I don't see that it justifies newspaper-like detail on the incident. At the very least, the article should be renamed to focus on the incident. Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the individual ship articles are valuable as a source of information on what kind of ships are being attacked, and a mere list like List of ships attacked by Somali pirates is not good enough to do that. Naming these events "Incident of month day year" does not work, as they often play out over several days or months, and there may be more than one incident per day. Other significant events involving ships are usually named after ther ship e.g. Titanic and not the date. By the reasoning above, the Titanic article should be deleted, as the ship was on its maiden voyage, and is not noted for anything but sinking. Pustelnik (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"All of the individual ship articles are valuable as a source of information on what kind of ships are being attacked." That information should be summarised in Piracy in Somalia as well as listed in List of ships attacked by Somali pirates; we should not expect readers to trawl through a myriad of ship articles to draw a conclusion on what kind of ships are being attacked. In any case, the problem is this is not an article on the ship, it is an article on the details of the highjacking of it. At minimum it should be renamed Highjacking of MY Le Ponant, or some such. It is a news article masquerading as an encyclopedia article, and that masquerade is substantially aided by being misnamed. Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Titanic has been the subject of hundreds of books, articles, and movies over the years. List of ships attacked by Somali pirates contains information about each ship attacked in terms of what kind of ship it was, the crew, the cargo, and a brief description of the incident. It would be perfectly acceptable to expand those entries slightly in cases where there isn't enough information for a full article. --Clay Collier (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Ships cost millions of dollars. If there are WP:RS we can use as references, why shouldn't we cover every single one? Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because apart from its dimensions (WP:NOT a directory (WP:DIRECTORY) there is little or nothing in those WP:RS which doesn't relate to the event. (Also WP:NOTNEWS.) Rd232 ^talk 01:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Oman relations[edit]

another laughable combination, the Greek foreign ministry doesn't even list any bilateral relations with Oman [86] LibStar (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - laughable indeed; zero evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. feydey (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, garbage. Punkmorten (talk) 10:43, 24 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 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. heading for WP:SNOW LibStar (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor-Greece relations[edit]

another laughable combination from the obsessive creator. there is not even formal diplomatic ties between the 2 countries only recognition [87]. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to see here. And by the way, everyone who's a head of state or government comes to the Olympics, so that's hardly evidence of anything. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of meeting WP:N Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, garbage. Punkmorten (talk) 10:43, 24 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 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the acute lack of notability. If anything, it is nice to see East Timor shuffled into this whimsical series of articles. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:58, 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) 01:45, 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[88]. Martintg (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations LibStar (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:59, 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 03:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei-Greece relations[edit]

another completely laughable combination from the obsessive creator. no resident embassies, There are three or four Greek families living in the capital of the country!!! LibStar (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; funny, but not notable in the slightest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, garbage. Punkmorten (talk) 10:43, 24 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 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a start on Greece-Asia, try Greco-Buddhism as a source. There may also be an article on Greco-Hindu history and culture. From reading through this material, it seems obvious that the ancient Greeks did a lot of traveling and writing in Asia which escapes the Eurocentric view. And it seems that China has been aware of Greece for a very long time, in contrast to its awareness of Finland, Iceland, Belgium etc of which it has become aware more recently. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some respect please libStar. This editor is doing his best to improve our coverage of bi-lateral relations and a lot of the articles he starts should have articles and could quite easily be expanded into full articles even if they begin as stubs. I agree though that often the way they are started doesn't help the cause to establish any real content though. With Brunei its a difficult one outside southeast-Asia as its just a small country with no embassies so would be difficult to write about. I think people who contribute to wikipedia or at least try to help it should not be laughed at like this and given some respect evne if this article is a little offline in terms of likely content. Seems this editor is a sockpuppet and you are right about this one but people shouldn't feel discouraged from editing and laughed at, thats my point. We need content contributors even if some are a little misguided and need some redirection. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at - http://www.mfa.gov.bn/ - the front page of the Brunei Darussalam Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, one wonders how to write about this country which, compared to most others, doesn't seem to actively reach out and develop strong ties. How does it compare to Greece, which of course has a strong history of outward looking and modern thought? Since down through the ages Greece is an all-star in foreign relations and trade, and save for ASEAN Brunei is not (compare Singapore, Thailand), what is the nature of the bilateral relation? --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random, nonsensical, article of no informative value whatsoever. Dahn (talk) 15:32, 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 merge to Action of 9 April 2009. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanit (yacht)[edit]

I am aware that articles do exist on many ships that were hijacked by Somali pirates, and in most cases I agree that the articles are warranted. The reason I have nominated this article is because, whilst most articles on ships hijacked deal with quite major ships, like tankers and big cargo ships and such, this article is dealing with someone's privately owned yacht. I do not feel an article is appropriate about someone's privately owned yacht, especially considering the notability of the ship (its hijacking and the subsequent attack by French forces) is covered at Action of 9 April 2009. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, and as evidence, claim the interest of others who have added to or modified the article. It is certainly notable, and has been mentioned in news articles worlwide. Action of 9 April 2009 should probably be merged into the Tanit article, as the vessel and its name are more memorable than the ship. ~~I move to keep the article.~~ Pustelnik (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to other people editing, many articles which have been deleted in the past have been edited by a substantial number of editors (case in point, the article on Alexandros Grigoropoulos). I do not deny news coverage of the ship is widespread, but such coverage is in the context of its hijacking and subsequent assault by French forces, hence why I support keeping Action of 9 April 2009 and not the article on the yacht. The ship itself isn't notable, but its hijacking and the assault is. I agree Tanit is a memorable name, but the article can always be re-directed to Action of 9 April 2009 so as to add readers looking for information. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On another point, I am very open to a merge. I would support merging an article on a hijacking into the article on the ship captured if the ship were a major one like a cargo ship or tanker. However, in this case, if a merge is an option, I support keeping Action of 9 April 2009 and merging the Tanit article into that, since the Tanit as a ship has absolutely no independent notability outside the hijacking and assault. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. MyDog22 (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, unless there are sources (that I'm not finding) establishing the notability of the yacht apart from this incident. Deor (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Smerge (selective merge) to the article on the incident. Per WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tanit (yacht), to keep other lists internally consistent, particularly those related to Piracy in Somalia. I will request input from ships and piracy Wiki Projects. Pustelnik (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst the other ships which have been hijacked that also have articles on Wikipedia are quite major ships in as so far as they tend to be cargo ships or tankers, and thus have some notability outside the incident, this boat was a private yacht that does not reasonably have any, nor have I been able to find any evidence of, independent notability outside the hijacking. Therefore, if we are to merge, I advocate that it should be the Tanit article that is merged into the article on the hijacking and subsequent retaking. Plus, Pustelnik, if you are certain of your merge !vote, please could you strike out your earlier keep motion. Thank you in advance. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This yacht is as notable as MY Le Ponant, another French yacht which was hijacked by Somali pirates and in which French forces intervened. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just because an article on MY Le Ponant exists, doesn't mean one on the Tanit should. Plus, they are very different yachts. Le Ponant is a commercial yacht catering up to 67 people, whereas the Tanit is someone's small private yacht. Plus, whereas there is no additional article covering the hijacking of Le Ponant and assault, there is an article on the Action of 9 April 2009 for which the Tanit is notable. Outside of the action, the Tanit has no independent notability, and hence why I support a delete or a merge into the article on the action. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that ships listed on Wikipedia be large, or any disqualification for being privately owned. The yacht is notable for the attempted voyage, with an international following on the internet, even if it were not captured by pirates. There is a third yacht with a similar article, the Carré d'As IV, which was small and privately owned. Pustelnik (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think calling a blog by the owner of the Tacht having received a following is a bit dramatic, and plus the blog hasn't received such coverage as to warrant an article on the yacht as per WP:Notability. The only thing notable about the yacht is its hijacking and the assault, and that is covered on another article. Whilst no guideline or policy says a private yacht can't have its own article, we can use common sense. This is someone's private yacht; a small craft for a few people of the type owned by countless around the world. The only thing it is notable for is the hijacking and assault, and that is covered elsewhere. As for the Carré d'As IV, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:36, 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, DGG (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Tanit (yacht) into Action of 9 April 2009 to avoid unnecessary duplication (yacht notable only for one event, and nothing to be said about it not coverable there), then delete that event article as violation of WP:NOTNEWS, or, at a push, merge somewhere else. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Rd232 ^talk 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into List of ships attacked by Somali pirates any information that isn't already there. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is disingenuous. List of ships attacked by Somali pirates exists partly as a source for referring to articles, as do most of such lists. Pustelnik (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing says that lists can contain only referrals to other articles. The list contains additional information about all of the ships listed and appears to cover most of the relevant information about the ship in question. WP:AGF. --Clay Collier (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm changing my mind. The fact that this is a small, privately-owned yacht is relevant, in the context of the pirates justification for piracy that they are poor fishermen defending Somalia from illegal fishing and dumping. There is no way an illiterate fisherman would mistake this vessel as a commercial fishing vessel or a toxic waste hauler. The Action of 9 April 2009 article is poorly titled, as the incident involves actions on other dates as well. Pustelnik (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping on the article cannot be kept on the justification that we are trying to prove a point about the pirates. Plus, the Action title is correct as per the regular titling of most hijacking articles, and the information from the Tanit article is useful as background information to the Action. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ship hijackings are sufficiently rare enough to establish notability of vessel. Titanic is only noted for one thing - Sinking. Nobody's rushing to delete that though! Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your keep !vote, since you've already registered a keep !vote. Thousands of ships around the world have been hijacked over recent years, and this small yacht in no way can be compared to one of the worst maritime disasters in history. It was the scale of the disaster that makes the Titanic notable. This boat was a setting for a hijacking and assault, and this small yacht has absolutely nothing else notable about it all. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine re removing the vote. I wasn't sure if they were all considered or just those on the relist. There have not been thousands of hijacked ships in recent years. Even though the number of attacks has roughly doubled this year compared to last year, there are thousands of ships which do not get hijacked. Which is why I assert that any ship hijackd is sufficiently notable to have an article. Size of the boat/ship is irrelevant in this context. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Rd232. Renaissancee (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Ships cost millions of dollars. If there are WP:RS we can use as references, why shouldn't we cover every single one? Geo Swan (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–United Arab Emirates relations[edit]

another random combination from the obsessive creator, non resident ambassadors, 1 minor bilateral agreement. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a nice touch is the "since the 1970's" bit - "yeah, we've had relations for a little over three decades, not really sure how long though". Anyway, not a shred of notability is shown, so delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:19, 24 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 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:58, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2069 lunar eclipse[edit]

This is crystalballery to the max. Do we care about something happening 60 years from now, now? ViperSnake151 Talk 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a series of articles linked from List of 21st century lunar eclipses; it shouldn't be assessed for criteria as if it were standing alone. Note that some of the earlier entries on this list have been AfD'd and kept; see User talk:SockPuppetForTomruen#Speedy deletion of October 2023 lunar eclipse. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eclipses occur in long series that are interelated, so individual event fit within a pattern, as well as each being unique events. They're predictable and historic as well. Having individual articles (over 1900-2100 like NASA's site offers), opens a sufficiently wide window to show their interrelatedness. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.s. Here's a recent graph I made that shows all the lunar eclipses from 1000-2500 in an Excel Spreadsheet, fitting within 2 eclipse cycle axes Inex, and Saros cycle. You can see the 1900-2100 eclipses in yellow, fitting with a larger pattern. This is cool stuff, standard calculated facts for 50 years, and yet not freely available online as graphics like this!
Commment. Unlike 2068 elections, 2069 eclipse is reliably calculated, unless something quite heavy impacts the Moon or the Earth, so it's definitely not CRYSTAL. It's ... perhaps silicon? I'd agree, anyway, that data listed List of 21st century lunar eclipses is quite sufficient for the subject. NVO (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. this AFD should not run isolated from other articles on this list. Something around fifty articles must be treated as a whole lot. NVO (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether this eclipse happens or not, what makes it notable? I don't see any reason for it to have a article and the article makes no assertion of why it will be notable. Just because something will happen is not a valid reason to have a article on it. TJ Spyke 04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another discussion on deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 August 2008 lunar eclipse. It seems INSANE to have RANDOM delete discussions on a SET of interelated articles. Either they're all notable, all not notable, or perhaps individual articles per event are not notable? Or perhaps there's a magic line of notability during the lifetime of Wikipedia? Who knows, but I've spent a good 200+ hours on lunar eclipses on Wikipedia, and still working hard! It would be nice to know if it is unwanted. And I can move it all to Citizendium or someplace else! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do a google search for lunar eclipse [89] and wikipedia is right on top, with NASA second. NASA is fine if wikipedia information was just repeating it, but Fred Espenak (who handles the NASA site) is a busy guy. In fact I just found his diagrams had inaccuracies which he is in the process of correcting. He knows about the inex series, but hasn't had time to give more information about it online. Wikipedia is a place many people can contribute. I'm adding a framework that can be expanded for 100 years if we're lucky to still have Wikipedia then! I just see no downside here, and needing to defend notability for astronomical events seems crazy to me. Billions of people can see each eclipse, and over a lifetime billions will. They'll wonder what they saw, wonder when it happened before, and when it'll happen again. I think this is worthy because it shows the hidden clockwork of the earth-moon-sun system, and its exciting we can predict these things. It's exciting to think about the use of Stonehenge 4000 years ago for predicting eclipses. 200 years of eclipses shows the patterns, and within our lifetimes. NASA does this completely, and I see no reason Wikipedia ought not to have it too. I'm proud to work on this. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's verifiable, going to happen, and the article has enough information in it to be useful. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here because the event will happen. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- No, but WP:N DOES apply, and this article fails it. TJ Spyke 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1. "Reliable", "Sources" - Published books, websites. Check
    2. "Independent of the subject" - Being an earthling in a large universe, I have a biased interest here.
    3. "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.[6]
  - Overall I don't understand any of this notability stuff. Many people are clearly interested in eclipses, global events! What's more to demand? What's the harm of inclusion? What's the harm of exclusion? SockPuppetForTomruen (talk)
    - What published books? There are 2 sources in the articles, one of them just being a map, and both are websites. This eclipse has not gotten significant coverage or substantial coverage. The most I would be willing to compromise is to merged all these different eclipse articles (since none of them deserve independent articles) into 1 article like others in this AFD have suggested. TJ Spyke 23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some nifty way to merge all articles about future eclipses into a single list or table article? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is/are tables, like List_of_21st_century_lunar_eclipses, and useful, but you can't show interrelated series. With individual articles, I've tried to use templates for shared information between events, and still working on a template-database for stat information to prevent duplicated information and make corrections easier. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 11:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We know that the Times Square Ball is going to drop on 1 January 2010, barring extraordinary circumstances, but there isn't an individual article on that. Toad of Steel (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Merge the information into List of 21st century lunar eclipses if all the relevant data is not there and redirect. Toad of Steel (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soap Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory or list of statistics. There have and will be millions of such eclipses and other conjunctions. Some demonstrated notability in an independent source is required to feature one here.Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary printed source survey of lunar eclipses is:
  Bao-Lin Liu, Canon of Lunar Eclipses 1500 B.C.-A.D. 3000, 1992 [90] SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - What exactly are we voting on here? Deleting ONE lunar eclipse event article? Deleting ALL lunar eclipse event articles? Should we delete all solar eclipse events too (There's only sporatic articles there going out a decade or so)? And even if a majority of two dozen uninterested people think lunar eclipses articles are unworthy, where's the line? One compromise, lunar eclipses occurs in 5 sets repeating every 18 years, so having one article for every 3 years might be more acceptable but who decides that? How many hours of work do I do before I get cut down again? Do we have another vote of two dozen people when one random person gets an itch? SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A previous delete discussion occured for recent past lunar eclipse August_2007_lunar_eclipse at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/28_August_2007_lunar_eclipse. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of 21st century lunar eclipses. It's going to happen based on scientific calculations, but there's not much other wise to be said as there is not much coverage yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've expanded all the basic information and related eclipses here. I can imagine grouping eclipses into less than one per article, but I think there's more than enough interesting and useful information to defend one article per event for eclipses that will occur in the lifetime of people alive today. NASA's detailed charts are 1901-2100, and I can at least complete all from 1950-2050, 100 years being long enough to show most the relations given 10-29 year eclipse cycles, and a few special eclipses outside the range like this central total eclipse. For historic eclipses, I'm hopeful I can encourage some astrophographers to share eclipse photos on Wikipedia at least back to the 1960's. I'm most interested in seeing the eclipse qualities over time, the darkness of the eclipses based on how deep the moon moves into the shadow and the weather/transparency of the earth's atmosphere that allows the moon to show its dim red glow inside the umbral shadow. There's also historic observatoins from published magazines like Astronomy (magazine) and Sky and Telescope that sourced material can be added on each event. There's multiple levels of study here, from getting people interested in astronomy and general beauty of the events, improving understanding of how the eclipse cycles repeat, scientific studies of how eclipse qualities vary, accuracy of prediction, and connection to historic events. Solar eclipses also can use expanding on Wikipedia too, BUT I chose to work on lunar eclipses because more people can appreciate them, since half the world gets to see any one event. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wicomico County Public Schools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitland Primary School[edit]

No, not looking for deletion but an IP is intent on undoing be and rather than edit war, bringing this re-direct here for consensus. If both re-directs are the outcome, request salting of the re-directs to stop re-creation. No evidence these schools are in any way notable. Should be re-directed to Wicomico County Public Schools. Included for the same reason:

Fruitland Intermediate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) StarM 02:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicomico County Public Schools. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The school is the notable institution, not the school board. The school board is nothing without the member schools while the schools are still important without the school board. This discussion was hashed out a few years ago and the result was that schools are inherently notable. The likelihood of someone searching for a school board is much less than someone searching for any of its member schools. If anything is to be deleted it should be the school board page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan1701 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you're incorrect, none of the schools discussions have ever reached policy byt the most recent failed one WP:SCHOOLS said specifically For elementary and middle schools, reliable secondary sources are usually too limited for notability. These schools are not notable. Note, the above is the creator who has been using the IP to undo the re-directs. StarM 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Wicomico County Public Schools. Protect/SP redirect as needed. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The school exists, but there's not enough content to warrant a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Wicomico County Public Schools. TerriersFan (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Financial Management[edit]

Declining mistaken WP:CSD#G4 tag, but there are no Google Book hits and no Google News hits. There are a lot of Google hits; I think the company probably isn't notable per WP:CORP, but I'm not sure. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was deleted before under G11 (spam) and though that is borderline here, this still doesn't pass WP:N. I only found 22 hits on google for "International Academy of Financial Management", which isn't "a lot" to me. Those hits only take you to linkfarms in pages of other nonnotable organizations. Them From Space 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable group or corporation. Apparently (according to all the chatter regarding American Academy of Financial Management), some members of AAFM were dissatisfied and decided to form the IAFM, but the legitimacy of this move is disputed. Yet this dispute is not covered in any news source that Google News indexes [91]. So, either the IAFM is a hoax (what the advocates of the AAFM article claim) or it is not notable enough for any reliable source to take an interest in the story. Either way, fails WP:ORG. [btw, I'm the one who nominated this for a G4 speedy deletion] RJC ^Talk_Contribs 06:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability shown in this article about a minor, apparently schismatic trade association. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria–Croatia relations[edit]

another random combination. no bilateral agreements, just 1 minor Memo of understanding http://www.mvpei.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV//templates/_frt_bilateralni_odnosi_po_drzavama_en.asp?id=50 LibStar (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - surreally random pairing; no evidence whatsoever of notability to this relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I don't see anything in here, can't easily find anything, and don't see how there would be much going on between these two countries. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's simply another one of these pointless pairing of random countries :/ Cheers. I'^mperator 11:53, 24 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 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, Algeria sells a lot of natural gas to Europe, in direct competition with Russia, perhaps the Croatian-Russian relationship and the recent dissolution of Soviet-influenced Yugoslavia would be a good place to start in considering the context of this article. If Algeria and Russia are in direct competition, and if Russia has a tendency towards "market control" (read as mildly monopolistic), could Algeria-Croatia be a relationship on the rise? One might be able to add all the non-Russian cold-war era European natural gas customer countries to this trend. Algeria must be prospering by Russia's strong stance on its gas market. Just a thought. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH might be of interest to you. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 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) 01:53, 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[92]. Martintg (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Rosewall[edit]

fails WP:BIO. simply being a CEO of a small business is not enough. and neither is occasional media appearances. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No claim of notability or importance in article nor are third party references to support notability given. The company of which he is an executive is mildly notable but that does not automatically confer notability for him. Criteria of WP:BIO are not met. Drawn Some (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hope I'm not unduly swayed by the universally promotional flavour of this piece, which reads as though someone close to his company, or a PR advisor has contributed the copy. I agree that it falls short of WP:BIO. Murtoa (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes a single purpose editor connected with the article subject has largely worked on this article. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely the existence of the wax statue pictured in the article should confer some notability? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to Ken Rosewall indefinitely, per nom. The article is so, perhaps hopelessly, subjective that even if his potential Notability were established, the article would still need to be rewritten. Synchronism (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There must be thousands of financial professionals in Australia. Citations to the firm's own newsletters do nothing to show notability. We assume that such newsletters are quite likely to quote the chairman and mention him favorably. His on-air commentary might deserve our attention, but only if it makes an impact that is recognized by reliable published sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there are some references on the page which highlight on air commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansonrosew (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on air commentary alone does NOT confer notability. Drawn Some (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks third party sources about the subject of the article and is a bit spammy. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomintaion - no notability asserted and article is promotional. Smartse (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am supportive of keeping the article on his company which is also under discussion for possible deletion, this article is full of conflicts. The main contributors have already admitted an affiliation with the company. I think the main issue, however remains notability and the articles presented to demonstrate 3rd party coverage are all either incidental or specifically related to his function at BBY.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosewall has all balls in his court. The Daily Telegraph

--Zip1010 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia–Serbia relations[edit]

non resident ambassadors, many of the diplomatic ties were created with the former Yugoslavia not the current Serbia. minor trade relationship http://www.mfa.gov.rs/Policy/Bilaterala/Mongolia/basic_e.html LibStar (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's mildly interesting they established relations in 1956 (though unsurprising, given the rapprochement with the USSR the previous year), but that can be noted at Tito–Stalin split, if relevant. Other than that, nothing to indicate notability to this relationship, which the closure of embassies indicates isn't taken very seriously. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article has essentially no content other than the opening and closing of the embassies (there's nothing else to say). -Drdisque (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drdisque. The countries are half a world apart, and there's nothing to say in this article that doesn't violate WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 24 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 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps these countries have much more in common than is obvious, both having something to do with Central Asia down through the ages. Offline history books and non-English language documentation might be used to write about this. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does Serbia have to do with Central Asia? And please don't say the Mongols invaded them - that's covered at Mongol invasion of Europe, and it would be absurd to link that to the two modern states. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 00:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:19, 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, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Croatia relations[edit]

another random combination from the obsessive article creator. this indicates only minor bilateral agreements between the 2 nations. http://www.mvpei.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV//templates/_frt_bilateralni_odnosi_po_drzavama_en.asp?id=55 LibStar (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - relations exist, but not much more can be said. Delete for lack of sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:58, 24 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 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Azerbaijan and Croatia have Russia in common, both being ex-cold-war states. This is a very sentimentally powerful connection, shared among many states, including Czech, Poland, Finland, most of Eastern Europe and most all of Caucasus and the Balkans. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source? And do recall this little incident. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 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[93]. Martintg (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia–Serbia relations[edit]

another random combination from the obsessive article creator. this indicates a very limited relationship. [94] LibStar (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there is scope for an article on Yugoslav-African relations, there's really not enough to say on Ethiopia alone. Tito and Haile Selassie were good friends, and Tito did focus on economic and technical assistance, but much the same can be said for half a dozen other countries. See here for a good approach (though as the source dates to 1963, it would be a little difficult to cite without more modern works at hand). - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:10, 24 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 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is irrelevant who created an article in a discussion over its deletion. Serbia inherited Yugoslavia's relationship with Ethiopia, & Haile Selassie was an important participant in Tito's "non-aligned nations" program. It was one of many tactics Haile Selassie used to leverage aid money from both the Western & Eastern Blocks, while maintaining autonomy for Ethiopia. I also believe that there are on-going activities between the two countries at this writing. -- llywrch (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be interesting to see sources for a present-day relationship, but regarding the Yugoslav period, as I've said, a Yugoslav-African relations article seems to make much more sense: Yugoslavia had similar aims in those countries, which in turn had fairly similar aims themselves, and while the Yugoslavia-Africa topic has been the subject of academic writing, for Yugoslavia-Ethiopia it's more difficult to say that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand your response, Biruitorul. It sounds to me as if you are arguing for numerous articles on the relationship of Yugoslavia with African nations. If we can explain how one country used its relationship with another to gain something, then there is material here -- & justification -- for an article. -- llywrch (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, just one article lumping them all in - sort of like Sino-Pacific relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But your statement can also be used to justify writing separate articles for each African country. If a narrative can be written on "X-Yugoslavia relations", IMHO that would justify an article on "X-Yugoslavia relations". Especially if your proposed "Yugoslav-African relations" article gets too long. -- llywrch (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Ethiopia, and Ghana were Yugoslavia's most important partners in Africa. I think a reasonable article could be written as follows: Overview, one section for each of these, rest of Africa, conclusion. And since the current article has no content yet, we lose nothing by deleting and starting anew on that larger project. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one of those. Dahn (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:20, 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 23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. Rhind[edit]

Non-notable author. No listing for author in Amazon and no Ghits to support Notability. The books all seem to be self-published using Trinity Publishing ttonyb1 (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One book under David Rhind listed as Out of Print in Amazon. No others found in Amazon catalog. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources - Whpq (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability shown in reliable sources; almost everything here is referenced to his own webpage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 05:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Begum Rehana Jalal-ud-din[edit]

I don't see anything here that asserts her notability, unless the Lowood Garden School is significant, but I can't find any non-wiki mentions of it. JaGa^talk 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:CS. South Bay (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references pointing to WP:N - without anything telling us why this is a person of note how can it not be deleted? Trevor Marron (talk) 00:36, 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. per policy MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brer Ruthven, Viscount Ruthven of Canberra[edit]

This is an unsourced biography, and his notability seems to arise from being the son of Grey Ruthven, 2nd Earl of Gowrie, and "nobility" doesn't equate notability, and is not inherited. Russavia ^Dialogue 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Come back when he does something to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep should probably be delete per policy, but heir to nontrivial title, has his own IT consultancy, and several other minor accomplishments that flesh out the article. JJL (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Page seems to have been created by the son of the page subject, who added himself as a redlink in the first iteration. The Viscount twice expanded this article under an ip, and later under his own name. Such a conflict of interest might not have any bearing in this specific process. In my mind, this should call everything added here by those editors into question. BusterD (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another conflict of interest: if the pedia community accepts notability of this office warrants an article, then it might be important to note that the current heir to this office was the page creator. BusterD (talk) 12:02, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fate (canceled video game)[edit]

Article about a non-notable canceled video game. Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someone another 15:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the game was cancelled, I think we can safely delete.SPNic (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not because it was cancelled, but because there is no coverage about the game in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 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 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability at all. A non-game? If it never happend and there is no reference that it did then it can not be of note. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable that would make an unreleased game worthy. Is already mentioned on IntraCorp. -Drdisque (talk) 02:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John William Noga[edit]

Unsourced article of a possibly-unnotable painter, with just seven off-wiki hits from Google. Alexius08 (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable -Drdisque (talk) 02:08, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media Packs[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. A Google search for "media packs co ltd" turns up 63 hits (22 unique; as of 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)), all of which are either company-controlled or press release republishers. I was unable to find a citation for the notability claim in the article that the company is a "major brand" with 70% Chinese market share and 30% world-wide market share. Without that it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I edited the article heavily to get it into a reasonable shape before I tried to establish notability. This version is what I started with, just in case I removed something relevant to discussion. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-consumer business whose activity is mostly invisible to the general public, referenced only to what appears to be a press release. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Osmond[edit]

Fails notability in much the same way that Michael Castro's does. He appeared on American Idol in season 8 but didn't make the final cut down show much less the semi-finals. Almost all of the references are related to either Idol or to his family, not because of his own notability. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main contributor to the page is continually removing the AfD tag. So if this is deleted, please watchlist it.--User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no stand alone notability, trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically his claims to fame are being related to someone famous, and appearing as an unsuccessful contestant on a television talent programme. Neither of these meet the WP:N or WP:ENTERTAINER notability bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:36, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cadburys Tempo[edit]

Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable, sir. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but needs some improvement and expansion. Deb (talk) 11:53, 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 00:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A real product just the same as Kit-Kat and Snickers and they have an article each. It is the bones of an article, leave it and see if someone can flesh it out. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it received enough coverage in sources outside the company, the article can be expanded. Otherwise, it's a useful redirect to the company article. Either way, a deletion, especially one with no rationale provided, is not the best way to go. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 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 Dick and Dom. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Dick and Dom[edit]

Both the potion's ingredients and the show's final outcome can not be reliably referenced thus leaving little article material. I would've tried to make a stub, but all I can find in the sources is that Richard McCourt and Dominic Wood were involved and that it was for CBBC. There are no significant reviews or any sources going into detail. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we just redirect to Dick and Dom. There's no way of making sense of the content. Deb (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dick and Dom and expand slightly on the mention in the BLP (micromerge). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:13, 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 Gravatar. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Werner (web developer)[edit]

(Someone tried to list list but it didn't take, so trying to fix it. )

No notability established, or even asserted, really. No reliable sources. Seems like pure advertising for a nonnotable individual. DreamGuy (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gravatar, where he is already credited as the creator of the service. Equendil Talk 13:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while his creation might meet the criteria for an article, he doesn't. -Drdisque (talk) 02:10, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemelon[edit]

nn storage services Gaikce (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original creator of this article has few other contributions to Wikipedia. WP:SPA Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see press releases but not independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 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 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a minor photo sharing or storage online business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the links provided are to the website itself and one press release about the product. Toad of Steel (talk) 17:26, 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 The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cc fontana[edit]

Non-notable reality TV show contestant. Lots of claims of notability are made, but they all seem to be rather exaggerated (such as the claim that she is a "supermodel"). The only references to this person I could find on Google were various directory entries and the like, and IMDB does not know about her "major role" in Fast & Furious. She may be notable one day, but at the moment I believe she clearly does not meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guidelines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-time show contestant and essentially an extra in a film, doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. -Drdisque (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheAE talk/sign 04:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency. The article only mentions one runway appearance, but we can't know for sure she wasn't in more episodes. While this program didn't have the regular voting system most reality shows have, I still think applying the same rules is a good idea. Redirecting CC Fontana after moving the article to its proper title leads readers to available information without failing inclusion guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 11:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 11:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CC Fontana was one of the most popular models on The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency show. This becomes very clear if you look at her fanbase on Myspace in comparison to the others. Its shows her following (hits/friends) is significantly bigger. The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency may only mention one runway appearance on the show, but she has in fact been on The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency for 2 seasons (3 and 4) as one of the shows regulars, appearing in 13 episodes which can be verified at IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameysha1 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shiu Sin-por[edit]

Speedy declined. No indication of notability to meet guidelines and no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. (Was still in school in 2007) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF, but news coverage indicates notability under WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an announcement of his appointment to a non-notable positiong and some quotes from him in articles on other subjects. I'm not seeing any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon searching news archives, I actually think that the "Central Policy Unit" is highly notable, see: [95]. It seems to be an influential think-tank in Hong Kong. This article: [96], although not public access, is written in detail about the Central Policy Unit. Cazort (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As I argued above, I think this article: [97] qualifies as fairly detailed coverage supporting notability. Also, numerous quotes in international press, including TIME, the New York Times, BusinessWeek, and many more international papers, often in association with the think-tank One Country Two Systems Research Institute (which does not have a wikipedia page, but also has strong evidence of notability: [98]). This source: [99] also connects him to the "New Hong Kong Alliance", and this book: [100] mentions him in a government position. He is also referenced a number of times in more scholarly literature, such as: [101], and [102] which attributes a specific argument to him, originating in an article he authored: Shiu Sin-Por, ‘Victims the Losers in Court Decision’, South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), 28 November 2000, 16, There's a wealth of information on this guy...yes, it's in little tidbits and would be challenging to weave together into a rich, tightly sourced article, but it is WAAAY above the threshold for notability for me. Cazort (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the above information. It would have been good to have had some of it in the initial article. It would also have been good for it to be checked before nominating. But the nice comment made about him at his appointment, in news.gov.hk -- the first ref added above--is somewhat in the class of press releases. Cazort, I assume you take responsibility for completing the article properly? DGG (talk) 04:44, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Bovey[edit]

Prod contested on the grounds that this person has been on TV last week. However, his notability rests only on the fact he was involved in a financial scandal a few years ago, thereby failing WP:BLP1E. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Keep: He has been on TV within the last week and has large hits and people want to find out about him opposed to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.180.99 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheAE talk/sign 04:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Main claim of notability is being married to someone famous, but notability is not inherited. The other claim is pure WP:BLP1E material, just because it can be sourced, it doesn't mean that there is a pressing need to include it in an encyclopædia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I think someone with 1,070 Google News results is probably notable. He has been widely covered, and has appeared on TV several times, notably in the BBC charity boxing match against Ricky Gervais.--Michig (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although he has recently appeared as a supposed celebrity on popular UK TV series Hell's Kitchen, and does receive coverage in UK media (if mainly in relation to his more famous wife), not really notable in himself, as the entry makes fairly clear TheGrooveGuru (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anthea Turner, where he is mentioned in the section about his wife's personal life. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He isn't just known for being married to someone famous. He has appeared in a celebrity boxing match on the BBC and in a celebrity cooking show, and has received wide coverage for his business dealings: [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]--Michig (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does getting his brains mashed in by "David Brent" make him notable. Donnie Park (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources makes him notable.--Michig (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, does his other notability includes running off with a C-lister and endorsing a chocolate in some wedding shoot make him notable, nope. Donnie Park (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So he's not notable because he married a celebrity and "endorsed a chocolate", irrespective of the coverage he's received for his business interests? Good reasoning.--Michig (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article shoudld be mergerd with anthea turner because he was married to her article as a new section?

The same thing happened with jack tweed his article was mereged into jade goodys article because they were married. Sowhyman (talk) 15:48, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learco Chindamo[edit]

As pure a BLP1E as it's possible to get. The article on Philip Lawrence says as much about the 1E as is necessary, and (pretty much by definition, since he's languished in a cell ever since) there's never been a 2E. – iride scent 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both this and Philip Lawrence to Philip Lawrence murder, since both are clearly BLP1E. Rd232 ^talk 21:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that a biography of a murder victim is by definition not a BLP… – iride scent 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes. But most of the same logic applies, at least when the murder is in living memory. Rd232 ^talk 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page was created in August 2007, when Chindamo was hitting the headlines again with regards to deportation, and the Human Rights Act. The second paragraph was inadvertedly deleted and not restored. I have done that now and consider the direct references to his proposed deportation in 2007 notable enough to be considered a 2nd event. Dmn € Դմն 16:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just Act II of the same play. I really don't see the advantage of keeping it as a separate biographical article: merge to Murder of Phillip Lawrence will do just fine - especially as it seems he has been released and given a new identity, so no further info is likely to be forthcoming. Rd232 ^talk 18:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. لenna vecia 00:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E. The deportation is just a continuation of the original event, and either way I don't see that the topic is encyclopædic enough to justify the possible BLP issues presented by this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E applies. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge the relevant sources into Phillip Lawrence if they're not present in that article already, and Redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toad of Steel (talk • contribs) 17:20, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iwinch[edit]

non-notable product. A full-page spread in a local newspaper is about it, and that is certainly not enough. Ironholds (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iWinch has become one of the most recognized names in winchskating. If you google iWinch, you will find that it is a popular topic of conversation which makes it notable. The wakeboarding world has developed a need for this type of winch and the process of wakeboarding behind a winch has worldwide recognition. iWinch should remain a Wikipedia topic because it is considered by many to be one of the first on the scene.

Thanks, Iwinch (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Article does not provide any and seems promotional in nature. Rnb (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider the deletion of this article. I have shortened the article to a brief and to the point synopsis. I removed the picture that appeared to make the article promotional. I understand that the sport of winching appears to be far from mainstream, however, inside the large community of wakeboarding/skating, winching is becoming a huge success. A page of history has already been written and is continuing to evolve.

Thanks, Iwinch (talk) 01:35, 18 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 00:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google iWinch and everything you get is started by the people who make it. Wiki article is non-encyclopedic and self-promotional. Until getting dragged across a lake on a winch becomes a little more mainstream (no pun intended!) then the iWinch is not an item of any notability. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Tow it away as a desperate advertising attempt. Alexius08 (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination: a non-notable product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unreferenced, blatant spam, should have been speedily deleted as promotional spam. Drawn Some (talk) 22:43, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binyumin Hoffman[edit]

A bio of a gabbai - "a person who assists in the running of a synagogue" is not notable. JaGa^talk 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability. No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No Assertion of notability -Drdisque (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Strong Delete – Not notable, no sources. TheAE talk/sign 04:14, 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.