< 24 April	26 April >

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

The result was merge to Books of the Bible. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unnecessary and redundant of Books of the Bible —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point to the instructions for how to discuss merging redundant articles, but you seem to know what they are already. If you want an article merged, merge it! AFD is not a way to force other people to do work that one wants done, is able to do, but doesn't actually do. Don't keep renominating an article for deletion just to get a merger done. Do the merger! ((sofixit)) applies. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response But I would merge it and then mark the redirect for deletion, as it is an improbable search term. What's the difference? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - … and people would have rejected deleting the redirect if you had transferred content from the one to the other, per the requirements of the GFDL. Deletion is not involved in any step of the article merger process. Either you want this merged, or you want it deleted. The two are not compatible. One cannot have one's cake and eat it too. You marked it for merger a year ago, so presumably you want it merged. Certainly, a number of editors in the first AFD discussion did. A number of the editors in the second AFD discussion did, too, and none of them wanted an administrator to hit a delete button, moreover. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge, and an improbable search term. DGG (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is, as was spotted by Afalbrig in the second AFD discussion. There's a whole load of Eastern Orthodox apocrypha missing from the supposed target, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

missed that, probably due to the multiple gaps in the present article. eg. The RC canon not containing Job! i would not consider adding the material to the main article a merge, just an addition. The present article is too unreliable to use. DGG (talk)

Merge To Books of the Bible. Two articles on the same subject are not required. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that's properly sourced to books of the Bible. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 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 09:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table of prophets of Abrahamic religions[edit]

Almost entirely unsourced speculation and original research. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think almost everything here can be very easily sourced--and most of it is. Some of it I have some doubts about. Some I would like more authoritative sources. Needs a little work. DGG (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abrahamic prophets, since there is a lot of convergence here, is a useful category and the article, with more sourcings, is a good example of what Wikipedia can do.--Moloch09 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how this can be considered an unsuitable topic for an encyclopedia, as this has for the last one or two millennia been one of the main subjects of research in the parts of the world influenced by these religions, so I'm sure more sources can be found. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article would benefit from editing, but I believe it provides an important contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of religion. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure, it needs some work (especially the inclusion of material from the Q'ran, to match the title of the article.), but that is not a cause for deletion. I don't see the OR here. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:22, 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 09:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Worship of the Actual God[edit]

Obscure religious group with no sources or assertion of notability, article reads like a press release. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent coverage. WillOakland (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:RS and WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly falls short of WP:RS.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. Webster's covers this group in two seperate publications: Codifying: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases and Prophets: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. Both What I would call reliable sources. Here is another from google books, which appears to be self-published and a little less reliable. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:26, 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 09:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me Tell Ya 'Bout Root Beer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Let Me Tell Ya 'Bout Root Beer

Unverified demo tape. Could not find any significant coverage of the demo. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, significant coverage? It's an unreleased demo. I don't know how to upload a external link/reference, otherwise i would. I found it on incubusview.com Iwishiknew (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this record doesn't exist? It does. This Wikipedia page qualifies as significant because it lets people know that something exists. And that is the general point that any page tries to make. Iwishiknew (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreleased demo that has not received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately existing is not the sole qualification for having a WP article. This cup of coffee on my desk in front of me exists but I'm not going to write an article on it, even if it is very significant as the first one my boss has made for me in weeks. Subjects need to demonstrate notability to have an article (see WP:N), and this demo does not do so -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' - An album isn't a mug. People who like this this band should know that they had a demo album. You can't just erase this album from Wikipedia because it didn't chart, or the mass population doesn't know about it. If you want to see an article on an Incubus mug, go to ebay.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AstraNOS[edit]

No assertion of notability, no sources, nothing to be found on google. Declined A7 on the grounds that the subject is software, but from what I could figure out from their homepage, its just a be a website that mimics a Mac OSX like dock/ desktop [1]. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 23:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. WillOakland (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihaela Dinu[edit]

Singer is non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterflies in My Stomach. my name inc 22:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band doesn't meet notability requirements, highly likely its lead singer doesn't either. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 23:15, 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 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple motor neuropathy with conduction block[edit]

This article is an unsourced fragmentary outline that has existed for a month with no attempt by the author to flesh it out, and no response to a query. It isn't even titled correctly; it should have been called "Multifocal motor neuropathy with conduction block". With that title, it would be a valid topic for a Wikipedia article, but the article should not continue to exist in its current state. If the creator desires, I suggest that the content be userified. Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if the creator requests it. Otherwise, or if the creator cannot be reached, Delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relevant customary term is apparently "multifocal motor neuropathy" The abstract of the authoritative Cochrane review on PubMed seems to explain the situation. The present Wikipedia article does not seem helpful in starting a real article on the condition. The phrase itself is based on a single article: [2]. DGG (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After reading through the relevant sections in Merritt's Neurology, the appropriate article is Multifocal motor neuropathy with a section for that with "conduction block". There is very little in this article that is worth keeping and taking across to the (currently unwritten) main article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:32, 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 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inventive thinking support systems[edit]

Contested prod. Neologism. When prodded, the article clained that the term was coined earlier this year by someone who appears to be the creator of the article. When deprodded, that story had changed to something more vague. Regardless, there is no assertion of acceptance of this term by the community at large. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:RS's, I think the Inventive thinking needed better support systems for this one. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources covering this topic -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. Wrong venue. As this is a redirect, it should go to WP:RFD. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banca Centralle della Repubblica di San Marino[edit]

Wrong spelling. Banca Centrale della Repubblica di San Marino exists. MMMMM742 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your correct spelling, and the older incorrect spelling, both redirect to Central Bank of San Marino, making this a moot point. I don't see the need for this to go through an AfD discussion at all. Mandsford (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close AfD - Should be at WP:RFD. Tevildo (talk) 22:11, 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 merge to Exposition (literary technique). after merger of only relevant information, please leave incluing as a redirect Nja²⁴⁷ 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incluing[edit]

Apparently a neologism, but I can't find evidence of wide use. Google Scholar and News searches turn up nothing but misspellings of "including". Only references currently are a newsgroup faq, and the livejournal of the (admittedly notable) author who coined it. Quote: "This is totally a word I made up when I was fifteen".

If reliable sources can be found, there could possibly be something on the concept to salvage into Exposition (literary technique), but I very much doubt it. the wub "?!" 21:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a useful word, and I wish it well, but I can't find evidence that it is in wide enough use to satisfy WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms and (I regret) it isn't Wikipedia's business to help publicise it. I would support a mention in Exposition (literary technique), but I don't think it's ready for its own article. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a single source: [3] however, it mentions the word in a quote of Jo Walton, taken off her blog. I can't find any evidence that the word has achieved any other notable use. Cazort (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. The term is widely used in litcriticsm, especially in science fiction circles and the failure of the editor putting this up for deletion to find examples should not be reason to delete an article that has been up and maintained for some five years now. Wikipedia is made to have articles on relatively obscure concepts and this article doesn't need to be deleted or included into something else, it just needs to be left alone. Here's a better Google search showing use of incluing btw. --Martin Wisse (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out any sources that are not self-published (i.e. blogs, forums, personal pages?). Per WP:N, self-published sources are not to be used to establish notability...the sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. E.g. an article in a literary magazine, a book published by a reputable publisher, a peer-reviewed journal. I did a thorough google search and found nothing but self-published sources. Cazort (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Exposition (literary technique). While the term "incluing" is an abomination, the thing referred to is important, and should be discussed in encyclopedic terms in the main article on the subject. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Exposition (literary technique) leaving Incluing as a redirect. It doesn't justify a separate article but I agree it should be discussed in the main article. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could be mentioned at Exposition (literary technique), but not really worth a full-blown merge. Eusebeus (talk) 15:05, 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 09:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Knight[edit]

No independent references, not apparently notable AndrewHowse (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am finding a few sources: [4] and [5] both mention her as a "Celebrity Psychic", and I found a press release too. I was unable to find any evidence at all that her books are at all notable. I don't think this small amount of coverage gets her anywhere near notability. Cazort (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Aticle doesn't contain any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources discuss this BLP subject sufficient to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kurdish nationalism. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan independence[edit]

Unreferenced, POV article. 85.104.153.78 (talk · contribs) tagged it for speedy deletion because the article was "[p]ure vandalism and racist Turk-bashing". Cunard (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete on the material. I agree 100%, it is wholly unencyclopedic, unreferenced, and POV. And we already have an article on Kurdistan and it is a quite good one, I might add, although controversial and a target for dispute and vandalism. Maybe contemplate recreating a page, or a redirect to Kurdistan. A google scholar and news archive search shows that the term "Kurdistan independence" has received some use. (i.e.: "Iraq: Pan-Kurdish conference debates Kurdistan independence - BBC Archive - NewsBank - Nov 14, 2005" or see Action Party for the Independence of Kurdistan) Cazort (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is pure POV-pushing. The topic is important and notable, but it is already covered in Kurds in Turkey and Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. Looie496 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep . I have fixed and deleted a lot of the point of view pushing. I have also referenced almost everything in the article. CashRules (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kurdistan and maybe build a section about the separatist movement. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kurdish nationalism. If this particular subject is to be covered in Wikipedia -- and it should -- it should be discussed under the heading Kurdish independence movement because the subject should be discussed as a movement per se. But until an article is written about the movement, we should use a redirect to the closest related topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think this is a good interim solution. If people later want to take on the work of spinning off a separate article, that would be great. But right now that article is much better-written and better-sourced than this one! Cazort (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

move done but can people help with the editing. thanks CashRules (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish_nationalism#Kurdish_Independence_Movement

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

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

The result was Snow delete, no need to give blatant hoaxes the benefit of the full seven days of AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trisk[edit]

This is a hoax. In response to my request for sources, the author Oldeagle (talk · contribs) inserted the initial statement about it being based on "recent discoveries in the hand scripts" of Democritus and Leucippus. According to their articles, any hand script from Leucippus would be sensational news, as only one fragment of his works is known to have survived, and we only know Democritus' mathematics "through citations of his works in other writings."

Searches in Google and Scholar on "Trisk" or "Trisc" or every combination of them with "Democritus" or "Leucippus" turn up nothing relevant, e.g. [6], [7], [8]. The author has helpfully included links to "Trisk" on our sister projects, but none of them has anything about it.

Moreover, the mathematics is nonsense. If the equation given for a "trisk" had an equals sign, it would define an infinite surface in 3-space - to see this, consider that if we hold any variable, say z, constant, x can go to plus infinity (i.e. get as large as you like) while y goes to minus infinity, or the other way round. The area of this surface is infinite, not "πR3". The equation as actually given has a "less than" sign, so what it defines is not a surface but a set of points on one side of that infinite surface, occupying half of 3-space.

Delete as hoax. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Del hoax/OR. close to being speedy. --Salix (talk): 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A really good hoax, written with the aura of higher mathematics-- but still a hoax. My favorite part is that since the area of a circle is pi-r-squared, the area of a "trisk" is pi-r-cubed. The "recent discoveries" of work by Democritus and Leucippus "in their hand scripts" was a nice touch. Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unsourced WP:OR at best and HOAX in all likelihood. Plastikspork (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is evidently a Greek hoax: three IPs have contributed, each WHOIS resolves to Greece, one specifically to the University of Patras. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. CanadianNine 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absoulutely no sources, and I don't think there are any reasonable sources. ArkianNWM (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Blatant hoax, tagged. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 23:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is worthless crap. The title is a neologism referring to something for which standard, and quite different, terminology exists. The claim of ancient Greek origins must be considered "OR". Michael Hardy (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though I find it amusing. — Emil J. 15:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Handwriting of Democritus? Codswallop; we wouldn't know the handwriting of Democritus if we found it. Delete Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Honor killing (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Crimes[edit]

Original research essay conducted on behalf of/by a non-notable society organisation. Propose redirect to Honor killing. SGGH ^ping! 20:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close AfD. The proposed redirect has already been implemented. Tevildo (talk) 20:42, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R+L Carriers[edit]

This is a thinly-veiled promotional piece for its subject. It is the sixth attempt to establish this article by User:TruckTech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), whose contribution history suggests that he has a proximate relationship with the subject, creating conflict. (The first five attempts ended in deletions; cf. the log].) In addition to its promotional bent, this incarnation struggles with asserting notability per WP:CORP; I think it does not meet the standard, but you may disagree — hence its nomination here rather than a prod. (N.B. Several of the article's external references relate to the subject's sports-related marketing campaigns and must be disregarded.) Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see this as overly promotional, and the company is sufficiently notable to have an article in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't yet done enough research to give a "keep" or "delete" opinion, but I would like to point out that there is no reason why coverage of the subject's sports-related marketing campaigns should be disregarded. If this coverage is by independent reliable sources then it establishes notability just the same as coverage of any other activity. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ARticle needs work, but I agree with Looie. Subject is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It'd contribute more meat to the debate if editors who comment would explain their claims of the subject's notability. Granted, this company has some bulk, but size and marketing money alone don't satisfy the requirement. Consider this guidance from WP:Notability (companies and organizations):

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

Consider the depth and breadth of each reference cited in the article:

Reference 1 is a case study done by Sprint in furtherance of its own business. It's not independent journalism by anyone's measure and is targeted at narrowly at Sprint's current and prospective customers.

Reference 2 is a 13-page trade-press article in which the subject is appears by name once in a list among 99 other carriers; it is also mentioned once in the prose.

Reference 3 is a list on a website in which the subject is mentioned by name once. It is not press coverage.

Reference 4 is a case study for GOSOF.com in which the subject's use of GOSOF.com's product is discussed. Same commentary applies as for Reference 1.

Reference 5 is a mention in a list. According to the list's publisher, the information about the subject was supplied by the subject itself, thus making it a primary source.

Reference 6 is promotional and reads like a press release.

Reference 7 is a brief piece from the sports section of the Times-Picayune that announces the subject's sponsorship of the New Orleans Bowl.

Bottom line? No independent journalism is cited save for the last reference, which is tangential to the company's business. I'm unconvinced that the criteria of WP:CORP and WP:Notability (companies and organizations) are satisfied. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, and "notability" means what the majority of editors take it to mean. My view is that fame and importance are sufficient to establish notability. I'm not sure I can claim the support of the majority, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Looie496 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (Disclosure: TruckTech asked me for assistance when s/he was re-writing the article, details on my talk page) I do not see real evidence of promotional language in the article. Heck, I don't even see any adjectives in the article. Furthermore, the company has received coverage in independent sources. It may not be extensive, but it is there. Finally, while TruckTech may have a conflict of interest, s/he has been very upfront about it and does seem interested in writing a neutral article. TN X Man 15:26, 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. Icewedge (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kovacs method - Iteratively eliminating range voting[edit]

Contested PROD, a method apparently developed by the contributor (early versions use "I"), no Web references. Apparent original research. Acroterion _(talk) 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to original research. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely just OR. Looie496 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all three above. TheAE talk/sign 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear OR. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evident OR CanadianNine 16:27, 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 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Bucharest earthquake[edit]

Three reasons for deletion. First, Vrancea County lies on a fault line and earthquakes there happen routinely. Second, 5.3 isn't that big, and it was a magnitude 3-4 quake in the capital, Bucharest. Third, according to this and this, there were no material damages or injuries. Yes, it made the local news (naturally), but it's hardly worth an encyclopedia article for every relatively minor tremor along the Vrancea fault. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco also lies on a fault and earthquakes happen there routinely. The other arguments may be correct. DGG (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recentism at its worst. Nominator is correct that a 5.3 magnitude quake is not really notable; in fact, there have been four larger (and still non-notable tremors this month [9] at 6.3, 6.6, 6.7, 6.9. Mandsford (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Magnitude alone isn't a criterion for inclusion or non-inclusion. See the 1960 Agadir earthquake, which was a 5.7. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, you are correct, and I could have phrased that better. The 1960 earthquake that Blanchard refers to killed more than 15,000 people. I'm the last person who would exclude an event on the basis of a measurement (such as "I require at least 20 deaths for a plane crash"). Thanks for setting that straight. Mandsford (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence so far that this is more than trivial. Looie496 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't have (and shouldn't have) an article on the 6.3 earthquake that shook Montreal, Boston, and New York City in 1988, which did no damage except around its epicenter in central Quebec. This one seems to be even less memorable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this does turn out to have any notability then the title should be changed - the epicentre was a long way from Bucharest. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The epicenter of the 1977 Bucharest earthquake and of the 1940 Bucharest earthquake - the two modern ones that really matter - were in the same place, but the sources primarily call them by that name. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recentist trivia of what isn't by any accounts a notable event. Incidentally, I've felt it and, thank goodness, it was not a notable occurrence. Dahn (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless Wikipedia wants to have 800 articles per year dealing with earthquakes that have insignificant effects, this article must be deleted. Kostja (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd have to agree that the article fails to assert that the event was notable -- it even says "no damage or injuries occurred". Thunderstorms would be more notable. Matt (talk) 01:17, 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 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Luce di Vita[edit]

Declining speedy deletion, taking to AfD per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Italy&oldid=286085658#Hoaxes.3F. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following two pages, created at about the same time, also asserted to be hoax Italian soap operas, despite the fact that one title is Spanish:

Delete All My attempts to find evidence verifying these soap operas has been fruitless... wihch shouldn't be the case given the grand claims in the articles. Townlake (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 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 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XTERRA Triathlon[edit]

No sources on the page at all and no assertion of notability per the guidelines on notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

obvious keep. Not a well-written article (yet), but the subject is certainly notable. Even on the article page as it stands you can see that the champions include an Olympic gold medallist and an Olympic silver medallist. The article's flaws re sourcing, etc will be fixed in due course, and are not a reason for deletion. NSH001 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per NSH. After ITU and Ironman events, possibily the 3rd most important triathlon series of events. Yboy83 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NSH001. Notable international sporting competition with plenty of international reliable source coverage available to satisfy the general notability guideline and WP:ORG (see a gnews search, for example). I don't know what to think of the article's claims that Nissan named their XTERRA SUV after the series, or that the series is "considered by most to be the de-facto world championship of the sport", but it doesn't need those claims to survive. Lack of sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion unless it's not possible to source the article, which is not the case here. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IF the article is kept (I have no opinion), it has to be moved to Xterra Triathlon per WP:MOS. TJ Spyke 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is reason to keep it, it's not on the page as there is not a single source that asserts notability. If I WP:PROVEIT down to what's sourced, it'd be an empty page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly entitled to WP:BOLDly remove contentious, unsourced claims from the article, and see whether a consensus develops in favor of your edits. I would not recommend removing uncontentious material from the article, or blanking the page, as you suggest you might do. It's not necessary to have citations for every uncontentious statement in an article, and given your expressed intent to delete the article, pageblanking might be construed as a POINTed effort to evade the consensus that simple lack of sourcing in an article is not grounds for deletion. Quoting from WP:PROVEIT:

it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

I recommend you make such efforts before removing material. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article may be in bad shape, but the subject is clearly notable as even the most cursory search will reveal. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 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 09:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Callow[edit]

This BLP isn't a biography at all. There's practically no biographical information, rather it speaks on his crime spree, conviction, incarceration, and the events following his release. If kept, it should be moved to a different title. لenna vecia 19:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to a different title, as suggested by Jennavecia. Perhaps "The Crimes of Paul Callow"? CanadianNine 22:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of sources for this person. btw events in a persons life is bio info. --neon white talk 23:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Events and legal issues are notable. Shouldn't be kept as a biography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:41, 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 09:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KTechlab[edit]

non-notable software using wikipedia as free advert (for three years). I can find no thirdparty reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 16x9 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only sources I have been able to find are a subchapter of a computer book written in Spanish (six-paragraphs long) and a webpage on linux.org. If these sources are not enough to confirm the notability of this software, perhaps this article can be merged to a Linux-related article? Cunard (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable, independent, extensive sources as spelled out at WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mr.Z-man 20:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, plus the fact that according to its own web page the project is defunct. Looie496 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Online quizzes. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Quiz[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is non-notable web content that has no third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Online quizzes per the lack of reliable sources to establish the independent notability of this topic. A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search return no related results. I have scrolled through the first seven pages of a Google search and have been unable to find any significant sources. A brief mention in Online quizzes (which appears to be a notable topic) is likely the best option. Cunard (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If no reliable sources are found (or mentions for that matter) mean this article is made up. There is not much content to merge. 16x9 (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The topic exists (it's used by a number of journalists from The New York Times). A brief (one-sentence) mention in Online quizzes should be sufficient. Cunard (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge If it was discussed by many journalists from the NYT it is notable. DGG (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The word/concept was not discussed by journalist. Two journalist mention the phrase "blog quiz" in a post nothing about what it is, where it came from, nothing to be able to write a wikipedia article on. 16x9 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you;re right, changed to merge. DGG (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to Online quizzes. There are some sporadic mentions by a few reliable sources, but I am not convinced there is enough source material to write a reasonable article from. Given that, the best option would be to merge and redirect to the more inclusive topic, until such time as enough source material can be gathered to support a seperate article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Cunard/Jayron32. At best, this is a dictionary definition, at worst its a non-notable neologism and original research. Either way its not an acceptable article. Mr.Z-man 20:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jayron32. I see no evidence that this is an important enough phenomenon to separate out from online quizzes; it's just an online quiz on a particular form of website. Rd232 ^talk 13:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If it were merged to Online quizzes how would it read? something like Some call/another name for is Blog quiz. ^{[citation needed]} because I can find no source that says that, just a few that mention blog quiz (leaving the reader to determine the definition). 16x9 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged some basic content to Online quizzes. Though I can find nothing that specifically mentions the definition of "blog quiz", the information I merged just states that blog quizzes exist. I added a sentence about how blog quizzes may be about a wide range of topics, including verbs. I used this blog as a source for that statement. It should be an acceptable sources per WP:SPS, since "[l]ongtime N&O journalist Pam Nelson" (a journalist from the The News & Observer) is a credible source. Her blog is "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article". Cunard (talk) 01:33, 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 nomination withdrawn. No !votes other than to keep and over 24 hours since the last !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinu Ghezzo[edit]

A rather minor figure who receives no more than passing mention in the various sources that bother to mention him. This self-promotional autobiography, Mr. Ghezzo's sole contribution to Wikipedia, should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I guess enough sources have been shown to confirm notability that we can move to writing a more impartial biography. Thank you, and my apologies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous recordings of his works are available, as well as sheet music for them. He has been mentioned in academic articles and books. It should be enough. Looie496 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful if we had secondary sources to validate the importance of that and verify it, as opposed to Ghezzo's own claims. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This page lists a bunch of published reviews. It generally takes a bit of effort to verify notability for people who did most of their work before the Internet became ubiquitous. Looie496 (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though he is a minor figure, he appears to have made some contributions in his field and may continue to do so. I say the page is worth keeping.Kpstewart (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article certainly needs a lot of work done to it, but it looks as through the subject is sufficiently notable to justify having an article. --Klein zach 11:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Google Books [10]; Google News Archive [11]; this article from a Romanian newspaper [12]; this confirmation of his award (Order of the Star of Romania) from the Romanian Government [13]. The article needs a big clean-up and is seemingly an autiobiography, neither of which are reasons for deletion . Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 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 09:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSurface[edit]

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced per WP:RS, can find nothing about the company online MuffledThud (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

surface computing is a new field and only few real providers are out there. i think this the only provider (SmartSurface) in Asia. if u think this article is an advertisement please improve it and give it more time so people start write about it. Homam.Alghorani (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Spam, unreferenced. tedder (talk) 00:43, 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 09:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hainsworth[edit]

Non-notable person. Only has one supporting credit listed according to imdb IndulgentReader (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article establishes notability. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notabiliy to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:52, 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 09:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fade Dogg[edit]

Non-notable musician, only released on his own label, and I cannot find evidence of individual notability. TN X Man 18:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:42, 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 09:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signifyin'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Signifyin' (2nd nomination)

Fails WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:OR. Oh, and it's utter gibberish Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently the concept is significant enough that multiple influential scholars have studied it. The lead paragraph of The Signifying Monkey actually covers this subject better than Signifyin' does, but we need an article on the concept and The Signifying Monkey should focus on Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s book. I'm not thrilled with the title, the article may need a name change, but WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't preclude articles on notable topics with problematic titles. The article's other problems merit editing, not deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember when this came up at Proposed Deletion. Nswc5 contested it before I could. Baileypalblue is right. There is plenty of scholarly source material on this (including, for example, specific studies of Signifyin(g) in the works of Zora Neale Hurston and other writers of the Harlem Renaissance). Nswc5 (writing on the article's talk page) is right, too. This source material is sometimes esoteric and difficult for the layman to follow. However, neither technicality of sources nor difficulty for a non-expert to write are reasons for deletion given in our Wikipedia:deletion policy. We wait, in the expectation that someone will come along who is capable of writing, and improve the article. Most of our articles have developed this way. AFD is not cleanup, and is not a hammer for hitting editors over the head with in order to force volunteers to perform cleanup to one's own timetable. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for heaven's sake. Significant. Where the heck is Deeceevoice these days? Antandrus (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that this was a considerably more sensible article before a series of recent edits by Nswc5 (talk · contribs), which introduced quite a bit of OR into it. Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Give xem a break. Xe was attempting in good faith to respond to several requests for cleanup on the talk page (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I was responding to the tone of the deletion nomination -- somehow I don't think the earlier version would have provoked that reaction. Sorry, but I'm calling it as I see it. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've overlooked, then, the part of the talk page where the earlier version already had provoked that reaction and Nswc5's response. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. yes it's in dire need of a rewrite by someone who knows how to write clearly and is familiar with WP standards, but the subject is 100% deserving of an article. (and to Looie496 & Uncle G: yes, i tagged a previous version as needing a rewrite when someone turned a vague near-stub into painfully abstruse OR. the fact that the latest rewrite hasn't really helped is a reason to keep the article tagged for rewriting, not a reason to delete it.) Sssoul (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a worthwhile topic. I wish it was written in a way so that someone who didn't already know what it was could learn something about it by reading the article.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:47, 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 09:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan can the area[edit]

Doesn't seem to be rescue-able, article doesn't make much sense. Oscarthecat (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As best I can tell, this is an attempt to describe the economy of Taiwan, which would make it a fork of Economy of Taiwan. Whatever the article actually is about, it would have to be re-written completely to make sense; there's nothing salvageable here, nothing to merge. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author's English is better than my Chinese, but this cannot be fixed into a readable form by most editors. Maybe someone will shout out "What an excellent article!" as with the recently-kept embarrassment "Traditional Chinese star names", but this one can't stand as is. Perhaps someone can e-mail the author and assist in phrasing this in colloquial English. What this says, essentially, is that the island of Taiwan can be considered to be divided into seven areas (Taibei, "Peach Garden Area" (Taoyuan), Hsinchu, Taichung, Jiayi, Tainan, and Gaoxiong), and attempts to describe these. Can we phrase this better? Yes. Can we have an accurate article after drawing our inferences about what the author meant? Not necessarily. Mandsford (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's an unreasonable characterization of the star name article, since that one is written in proper English and is tabular/list in nature. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like its machine translated. If so, then might be a copyright violation. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a really bad translation of zh:台灣都會區, which would not be a copyright problem, but is a problem in terms of being coherent. Ironically, a machine translation through Google Translate would be of much higher quality than this version. Google Translate indicates that the original Chinese article should be translated as "Metropolitan area in Taiwan" and generally renders the article into better English than this version. For example, a sentence that appears here as "This area present to be at the development fast condition" is translated by Google as "The region is currently in a state of rapid development". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable - Whpq (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Engrish, or clean up. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gainesville powerlines[edit]

The article is about unremarkable "powerlines", although the article itself takes about tracks and a cave. From the article none of them seem to be notable. Passportguy (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, certainly not notable. Ironholds (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just what we need, directions on how to find an abandoned quarry, some caves, and high-tension powerlines. "Proceed at your own risk" was a nice touch. Hey, which way to the haunted elevator shaft? Mandsford (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not for directions on how to get to the local powerlines. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and lots of other nots as well - I thought power lines carried electricity! MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there are a lot of power lines in Florida, not really sure why these are so special. Sounds more like a survival guide to the quarry. Renaissancee (talk) 23:53, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arcata and Eureka Community Recycling Centers[edit]

Non-notable company --Ged UK 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough, especially given the "green" culture of the Eureka/Arcata area, and a simple straightforward article with nothing objectionable. Looie496 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks OK to me too. Peridon (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

above should be disregarded as per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It_looks_good. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little third party coverage Google news search. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This opinion should be disregarded -- a "news" search is not appropriate, because it only picks up recent articles in newspapers and other news sources. Many highly notable things give empty news searches. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree, this google search was ALL DATES LibStar (talk) 23:52, 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 15:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, notable. This will probably not become one of WP's most popular articles but it is useful to a person who wants to learn about the Arcata and Eureka Community Recycling Centers. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSUSEFUL. --neon white talk 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial local coverage, as appropriate for something non-notable. The two sources given merely mention it in the context of something else. DGG (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a few trivial mentions here and there but nothing significant to suggest notability. --neon white talk 23:59, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laubegast Niederpoyritz Ferry[edit]

This German ferry service fails the GNG. Appropriate online searches in both English and German did turn up no useful sources. A request for speedy deletion (A7) was declined by a non-admin. After that, I redirected the article to the service's operator, Dresdner Verkehrsbetriebe, which has been reverted by the redirected article's creator. For similar reasons, I am also nominating the following articles:

-- Goodraise (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion the article(s) do (now) meet the GNG. The request for speedy delete was denied because it seemed to have been raised without fully reading the article (it cited the notability requirements for an article on a company or organisation, but the article is clearly about a piece of transport infrastructure). I too have searched the web, and my non-online resources (aka my library), and come up with three secondary sources, which are now referenced. -- Starbois (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. The movement of the article content to Dresdner Verkehrsbetriebe skewed that article. Having seperate articles also makes more sense where there are (as in this case) multiple access routes to the information. For example from the Elbe article. It is messy following what looks like a link to an article, and ending up in a section of an article that in total is not particularly relevant to your access. -- Starbois (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The articles still fail the GNG, because no matter how many reliable, independent sources are added, if they can only be used to cite the services' locations, that does not constitute significant coverage. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess that all comes down to how you read Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The Bradt guide (see [14]) certainly does more than give location; it explains why ferries are important, gives times, what can use and fares. But then I'm an instinctive inclusionist, I think WP long outgrew comparisons to paper-style encyclopedias. -- Starbois (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge all 3 articles. WP:NOT a directory. Coverage of something like this needs to demonstrate, say, cultural or historical significance, not ferry times. Rd232 ^talk 04:17, 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 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant transport service. We keep articles on them. Dresden in a major city, and we would no more combine these articles than we would combine NYC subway routes. DGG (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Each of the three articles is about the service of a single ferry, as opposed to a route traveled by several. If each NYC subway and bus had a route of its own, on which only that specific vehicle traveled, would each of them be entitled to an article? Look at the picture. It's not a huge ship either. It's a boat the size of a large car. And as far as "major city" goes, the area depicted doesn't exactly strike me as down town. - My closest grocery store is located in a major city, has ten times more customers a day than that ferry, and I can certainly find reliable sources to cite its location and busines times. Does that mean you would vote "keep" if it were AfDed? -- Goodraise (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A city includes more than downtown, be it NYC or Dresden; & the size of a ferry vehicle is not the determining factor in notability. DGG (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't size, then what makes a transport service "significant"? Also, what makes a transport service in a non-downtown area of a city more notable than a transport service in a rural area? -- Goodraise (talk) 02:36, 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit[edit]

Per WP:NOTDIC. Relevent Comments can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red cunt hair (2nd nomination) ... MistyWillows ^talk 15:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Comparing this article to the one mentioned by the nom is, well, bullshit (there really should be a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST to go with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Just because an article is on a word, doesn't mean that it falls under WP:NOTDIC, and this one certainly doesn't. Its written from an encyclopedic standpoint, not a dictionary one. Its also reasonably sourced, and I'm sure more can be added. In short, there's no reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, there is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, who knew? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is irrelevent. The REASON that Red Cunt Hair was deleted equally applies here I justr didn't want to have to retype every given argument, which is as applicable here, as it is there. ... MistyWillows ^talk 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an important enough word that it should have an article explaining it. Where else but WP could a person find this information? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary would be the obvious answer. DreamGuy (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, I take it that's a Delete, right? ... MistyWillows ^talk 07:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is far more than a mere dictionary/wiktionary entry. It is written in an encyclopaedic style. The article needs some work, but that's no reason for deletion.The Bearded One (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is exactly the reasoning the people who wanted to keep Red Cunt Hair used. But the prevailing arguments, were that it was still an article about word/phrase usage. The same holds true here: Bullshit is just a word, and the article is just an article about the word usage. that is the essence of WP:NOTDIC ... MistyWillows ^talk 06:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It borders on wiktionary content, but there's enough encyclopedic content to warrant it staying around. Shadowjams (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and there's definitely enough encyclopedic content on it. Tim meh ! 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is bullshit.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes this is bullshit. This nomination reminds me of the time someone nominated garbage heap of history for deletion. Everyone knows you can't throw an object onto itself. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bullshit. Extremely important concept, in addition to being, after hydrogen, one of the most abundant substances in the known universe. We all produce it; we all complain about it; we all need to read about it and understand it. Without this article, there would be no bullshit in Wikipedia, and that would be a sad thing, in addition to being quite impossible. Oh, it's also verifiable and reliably sourceable, and not just to bovine orifices. Antandrus (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above three keeps fall under WP:ILIKEIT, and for the third one maybe WP:ITSFUNNY. What's bullshit, is the idea that bullshit is encyclopedic. ... MistyWillows ^talk 06:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- no -- read what I wrote. It's verifiable and sourceable. Look at the "Further Reading" and "References" sections, please. Antandrus (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being verifiable and sourceable and well referenced, by itself, does not make something encyclopedic. bullshit is still just an idiom, Red cunt hair and Clusterfuck, were well referenced, verifiable and sourceable, they were deleted because they were just idioms, not encyclopedic topics. I could easily find plenty of source material to write an article about, Yay, Kiss my ass, Fucktard or even Grody. WP:NOTDIC is meaningless if you could just turn a word into an encyclopedic, just topic by having a bunch of source material to reference. ... MistyWillows ^talk 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above comments by the nominator mistook the intention of this editor's pithy statement. Bullshit as a word has a 100 year history within the language. I agree that the article could use a clean up, and I intend to cleanup the Bullshit article if it survives the vote. Although the following will be refuted with one of the WP:Whatevers, there exists articles on other subjects of a similar nature (FUCK) which also have wikitionary articles. Consider also that the Bullshit philosophy section could not be incorporated on the Sister Wiki. Further, the above vote stating that this was bullshit was not because it was "funnie" or "the editor likes it," but rather because the nomination was bullshit due to the various reasons already expressed here in many more words. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Covered adequately in Wiktionary. Anything useful that isn't there can be transwikied. WP:NOT#DICDEF.--Michig (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article about "bullshitting", i.e. the activity, could possibly be encyclopedic, as this is the part that apparently has sources available, but the rest is pure dictionary definition and surely must go. The article is currently an extended dictionary entry about the word, and that doesn't belong here.--Michig (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, but move the Uses of "bullshit" section to wiktionary. bullshit has been the subject of significant encyclopedic work (On Bullshit for example). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and as per Lucasbfr, move uses sction to Wiktionary. The further reading alone justifies the existence of the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any policy reasons for deletion. Per Doug et al. Other AfD doesn't seem relevant. Verbal chat

Comment How is it not relevent? The cases are nearly identical ... MistyWillows ^talk 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's etymology, usage and synonyms - nothing but dictionary/thesaurus material. WP:DICDEF is a policy and this article blatantly fails it. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article offers more than a dictionary definition. It includes literary uses and commentary on the term as used in society. Cbl62 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So did the other words deleted because of WP:NOTDIC. ... MistyWillows ^talk 22:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with the comparison. The "r-c-h-" phrase is one that I had never heard before. "Bullshit", on the other hand, is a pervasively used slang phrase in the English language. Its origins, usage, and social significance merit an article. It's more akin to Fuck you, Asshole, bitch, queer, motherfucker, cunt, pussy, fag hag, bimbo, wanker, twat, bollocks, arse, faggot, bugger, jack shit, cock tease, crank, nerd, geek, jock, beaner, gook, redneck, hillbilly, gringo, wigger, Pickaninny, wop, kike, honky, polack, redskin, shiksa, mick, chink, cracker, Jap, macaca, Limey, Mackerel Snapper, son of a gun, FUBAR, BOHICA, Newfie, Monkey hanger or other pejorative phrases. This list is offered not just as "other stuff exists, but all of these phrases have legitimate articles on Wikipedia based not only their definition but also their etymology and social significance. Let's not "cleanse" Wikipedia of words and phrases based on their potentially offensive content. Cbl62 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost all of those articles, are just about the words, and fail WP:NOTDIC. If you want an article you their social significance, perhaps they could be merged into the artlcle Vulgarity,. And this has nothing to do with cleansing Wikipedia, I have no objection to Bullshit (game), Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, or On Bullshit, which are all legitimate articles. ... MistyWillows ^talk 03:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- "just about the words". I fear that content may play a role. (If not, why are the only comparisons proffered to other "offensive" words?) The argument to merge all such articles into a single article on vulgarity defeats the purpose of a comprehensive encyclopedia. Sociolinguistics and etymology are no less important to an encyclopedia than biology. The "merge with vulgarity" logic could be used to suggest we don't need separate articles on turtle, crocodile and snake, as they could all be collapsed into a single article on reptiles. For that matter, why have articles on verb, noun and adverb, when they are "just about the words" (to borrow Misty's phrase) and fall into the broader article on parts of speech? Cbl62 (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not quite a fair comparison to make, since the examples you give (turtle, adverb, etc.) are all categories, rather than specific tokens. But in this case, you're right anyway, since this is a word that has enough stuff to be said about it that it warrants an article (as do turtles, crocodiles, and snakes). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. My specific analogy was strained, but you get the point. Cbl62 (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better example is the article on the word "Thou" -- a thoroughly written piece that is "just about the word." It should not be relegated to a broader article on pronouns. Some words have sufficient historical, sociological, cultural or other significance to merit an article. "Bullshit" is one of those words. Cbl62 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article goes beyond a mere dictionary definition. I just added information on how the expletive played a part in a radio advertising controversy in the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Yes, the article needs to be cleaned up. Yes, it focuses more on usage and definition than a Wikipedia article should. But the word itself is an encyclopedic topic and there is enough information out there to write an article about it, rather than just a dictionary definition (words can certainly be notable and can have articles written on them...for other examples, there is Lesbian, a word article that is almost an FA, as well as the usual suspects like Gay and Nigger). Need for cleanup isn't a good reason for deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: needs clean up. Passes WP standards for inclusion.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly merits inclusion. As said above, it goes beyond the realms of a dictionary definition and has plenty of social significances. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you are in favor of deletion, please do a little soul-searching and ask yourself if your opinion of the word's usage is coloring your opinion. It is irrefutable fact that the word is spoken behind closed doors in professional office environments (such as my own). Anything less than objectivity is censorship. The dictionary argument is weakened by the nature of the article. The research and links are far more than a dictionary entry requires. A dictionary user is looking for a utilitarian working understanding of a word, but an encyclopedia user might be searching for a particular piece of information or a detailed overview, complete with history and analysis. The dictionary article lacks this in-depth information as it should. We the users may have to define this divide ourselves--between the dictionary and encyclopedia--as the digital age matures. kevinthenerd (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The censorship argument is a motherfucking red herring, this has nothing to do with censorship, or any fucking bullshit like that.... All kidding aside: Articles about words really have no place in an encyclopedia, this is just another example of trivia, and from what i've seen here, people vote to keep trivia if they like it. Well even though I actually LIKE articles about swearwords, I have to be honest to say that they don't really belong here given WP:NOTDIC. And I think that all the people who are voting Keep need to ask themselves why they want it here. Personally I would like to see all the information in articles about words being moved to wiktionary, in their entirety, expanding the scope of wiktionary to be more than just the minimal definitions of words. ... MistyWillows ^talk 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bullshit is not a word; rather, it is a social and linguistic practice that is named by a word, and the article goes into some depth about the nature of the social ritual named by it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:11, 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. Cirt (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jones (artist)[edit]

Despite the references, notability is not established. Cited reviews are thin, and the mention which features prominently in the article is a dubious support for significance. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. JNW (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blueboy 96 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NBC is a non-trivial source. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that in this article, NBC is not a source. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 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 redirect to Shivaji University. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engineers Of India[edit]

Recently launched local student newsletter, no secondary sources. Non-notable. —Zener 15:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable, unsourced, bordering on vanity page. Yintaɳ 15:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete. This newsletter is a student activity and is published only for engineering students of a particular university giving them information about recent technologies, Success mantras, Overall Students need and many more. It does not bear any political, economical, organizational etc benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajjoblaster (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As you say, it is published only for engineering students of a particular university . In other words, it doesn't meet the criteria for notability. There's more information about this at WP:N. Yintaɳ 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This newsletter is published. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? Yintaɳ 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recently started, non-notable, unsourced, local newsletter. Salih (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see no reason to have an article about an unnotable local student newsletter. Clearly fails our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and mention in Shivaji University ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Thailand relations[edit]

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies and only 2 relatively minor agreements [15] LibStar (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - random, unsourced, non-notable pairing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of any substance, and nothing that can be expanded. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:42, 25 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-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 13:21, 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]

WP:NOHARM as you state is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: The "keep" vote is clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On this one, I'm afraid I agree. The nominator should have exercised due diligence in his nomination, rather than just slapping a tag on it solely because it is about relations between two relatively unknown nations. However, that said, there is nothing of note between the two countries. HJMitchell You rang? 14:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I looked for evidence of notable relations such as the Cypriot foreign ministry website before deciding to nominate for deletion. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 2 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 08:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mem Shannon[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSICIAN. He may be signed on to a record company, but he has had no chart places, awards or significant coverage. Another reason why this article is being deleted is a lot of other pages that are more notable then this are being PRODded, and this is not in the same league. Koshoes (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The musician is being covered in reliable sources. See [16], [17], [18], [19]. I know those are subscription sources, but it shows Shannon is (or was) being significantly covered. Timmeh! 22:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Put these references on the page if you are so amazingly sure. Koshoes (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not my job or my interest. I'm discussing your nomination of this article for deletion, not how to improve the article. It should be kept, although it does need work, preferably to be done by the main contributor, Bluesedit. Tim meh ! 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided above show that the subject is notable. We are all volunteers here, so the people responsible for editing the article are those who want it to be edited, who would seem, from the above comments, to include Koshoes. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 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 08:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn O'Connor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shawn O'Connor

Autobiography or biography written by a person closely related to the subject of the article; non-notable person; written like an advertisement or essay —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 14:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 14:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this article at all problematic. Mr. O'Connor is a well-known, public figure in the New York gay community and the world of entrepreneurship and education. I deleted the stuff about his early life as too personal, unimportant but I think the rest is very pertinent. I would oppose deletion of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.150.9 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC) I also don't think this profile should be deleted...Shawn is known on the West Coast as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.205.126 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're aware of any reliable sources that demonstrate his notability, please add citations to them to the article. Shadowjams (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very close to G11, entirely promotional. Essentially an advertisement for his test preparation service. DGG (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant puff. No references to support the claims made in the article. pablo_hablo. 20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable businessman, article full of self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Pablomismo's comment is unacceptable. You can't just delete a page because he is a puff. Koshoes (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe he meant Wikipedia:PUFF :-) Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE If you look on any of the law school discussion boards, etc. references to Shawn O'Connor and TestWell New York abound...will try to add references to these later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyceditor77 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 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 08:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourping[edit]

Newly made-up game; prod removed Rcawsey (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. It's a non-notable and possibly made-up game that doesn't seem to have garnered any popularity or attention. Tim meh ! 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - absolutely no attempt to show notability; looks like vanity -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't for things that were just made-up. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:04, 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 merge to List of locations in the Honorverse. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson (Honorverse)[edit]

Non-Notable fictional Star-Nation in fictional Honorverse; Tagged for issues over a year ago and little progress. More than adequately covered in List of locations in the Honorverse#G. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the discussion there seems to be fuller. Certainly no reason not to at least redirect, so deletion is in any case inappropriate, and it should not have been brought here. DGG (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of locations in the Honorverse . This is a major location is a bestselling novel series, and is the prime location for some stories. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no independent notability for this fictional thing is established by any reliable sources in the Realityverse. Then redirect to list of locations etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. List of locations in the Honorverse. The information noted here would be of more importance to that page than being deleted or on this page. Renaissancee (talk) 23:20, 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 08:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Front[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Political party founded in 2007, without national nor regional representation. No notability, nor representation in italian provinces - It's just one of several ecologist parties and one of numberless parties running for next European elections. The english name of this party seems to be fully invented - Invitamia (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I closed the first AfD as "delete" per consensus. Another admin restored the article apparently because the author was not notified of the AfD. [20] So here we are again. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a poor response to go against consensus. It's not required that the author is involved or notified, if someone objects to a decision then it can go to deletion review. The first consensus still stands. --neon white talk 00:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as last time. — Jake Wartenberg 22:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to earlier discussion --Invitamia (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per last discussion...--Unionhawk ^Talk 02:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The restoration was a mistake in any case, it should have gone to DRV as Neon White points out. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it is a minor party, but that does not mean it is not relevant. (Point taken, BTW, I'll take it to DRV next time instead.) —Nightstallion 17:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It.Wiki is unfortunately not as good as en.Wiki and there had been many deletions of articles about parties that had parliamentary representation there, so I don't understand how a deletion in it.Wiki can be relevant here. The Green Front is a small party, but is more relevant than many others in en.Wiki: it took part to the last general election within the For the Common Good coalition and I think that we need this article to give complete information about the coalition. --Checco (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"more relevant" is a purely subjective term with little context and is not something that is going to be considered a valid reason to keep. For the Common Good probably fails notability too. --neon white talk 10:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous Afd ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the party ever becomes notable then it can be re-created. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:30, 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 08:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani-Greek relations[edit]

Yet another random pairing of countries. A search of google news turns up the usual visits by politicians, trade agreements, etc, but nothing out of the ordinary. Mergellus (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although I normally vote delete for almost all of these random combinations, the Greek government has some interest [21]. they both also have embassies which I wouldn't expect. LibStar (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first, no secondary sources discuss the relationship; second, what sources do talk about Azerbaijan and Greece involve the usual low-level stuff: "aims to boost relations", agreements to supply gas; energy cooperation memoranda, and the like. To the extent the gas deliveries are notable, mention them in a much more logical location like Nabucco Pipeline. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My work is continuing on this article, there appears to be something here and plenty of secondary sources to prove it. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But more work needed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable to speak of. Dahn (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I quote from this source "Due to its important geo-political position and energy resources Azerbaijan is of special interest to Greece". We also have difficulties here, a debate about military cooperation here and this may be worth a look. Smile a While (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the above sources. It is such things as trade agreements and high level visits by politicians that make up international relations. DGG (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True. But just as we don't record the weekly speeches delivered by and the meetings chaired by the CEO of Microsoft or Wal-mart (companies with budgets larger than many countries'), there's no reason for us to have a record of visiting parliamentary delegations and ambassadorial briefings. Taken out of context and dumped in here for the sake of "expanding" an "article" that no one asked for and the absence of which would never be noticed if it hadn't been created, such snippets abuse the very notion of what an encyclopedia is for. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But one of the sole purposes in deletions is to see if you can't improve the article first. I quote from WP:AFD "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." And as many of these have shown, they can be improved to the point where they are encyclopedic. What makes this article different from others is that there have been high level meetings between the two, visits between heads of states, many trade deals and as Smile a While shows also a military co-operation. That my friend is what bilateral relations are even if they aren't the biggest ones in the world they still fall into the scope of what relations are. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the work made on the article and the source that have surfaced, and as is common with oil-exporting countries and advanced ones to share notable relations.--Aldux (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, anyone who knows about the connections between these two former territories of the Ottoman Empire will know that their historic roots and rivalries are deep. Both countries also have complex relations with Turkey. The article can be improved, but the topic is definitely encyclopaedic--Moloch09 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although they do have historic roots and full embassies in each country, I don't believe it requires an article of it's own. Renaissancee (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM is not a valid rationale. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Moloch09 and also the first source is specifically about the relationship, for at least efforts to improve it! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pending Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations outcomes and working groups' recommendations. -- Banjeboi 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assess the notability of the topic, and try not to invoke as a "keep" reason a discussion that will drag on for a long time and may not even reach a conclusive result. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see plenty of sourcing on this article and these one by one noms rather disruptive. To me it's rather foolish to even nom them as one can find numerous sources to support the topic. What's more helpful is to establisha guideline how best to integrate the material to best serve our readers. hence I fully appreciate those willing to work on a task force dedicated to exactly those issues. We aren't in a rush here. Shorthand, keep unless that working group works out a more appropriate solution. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever sources happen to meet WP:GNG here, they are trivia -- news that would never make it into actual articles that editors didn't feel compelled to "expand" artificially. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is your opinion, we can agree to disagree. The point is that the subject is written on, is notable and sourcing exists. Thus this is an article per WP:AFD that should be improved through regular editing. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources present clearly demonstrate the subject meets and exceeds the inclusions standards of WP:N. I see no reason to think this is a highly unusual article that calls for a highly irregular result. Wily D 15:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Secondary sources clearly indicating passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 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 08:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film Production Software[edit]

I'm hesitant to nominate articles purely on grounds of notability, however, this article does not, and makes no attempt to establish the notability of its subject. It reads as somewhere between a poor stub on a non notable subject and a tin of spam. Added to which, the only link is to another Wikipedia page and there is no context provided by this article into the work of the company- notable or otherwise, indeed, on the matter of context, the article doesn't provide any at all and is a mere sentence long. HJ Mitchell Articulate 11:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC) HJ Mitchell Articulate 11:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and it seems to be more of a dictionary than encyclopedia entry to me. CanadianNine 22:38, 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 delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orkan Avci[edit]

*Keep - he plays the Swiss Super League, FC Vaduz.[22] Please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this article is kept, it should probably be moved to Orkan Avcı which seems to be the correct Turkish spelling. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the source that Vejvančický provides indeed shows that Avci plays for FC Vaduz...however, it also he confirms he has yet to make an appearance, which means he fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me, GiantSnowman. --Vejvančický (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it - he's a young keeper. poor chap has to live in vaduz. it would add insult to injury if you wiped off his wiki entry. Dribblingscribe (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, as he has never made a single appearance for FC Vaduz. --Angelo (talk) 08:19, 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 08:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phichit FC[edit]

The article makes no attempt to asset notability and the team are not fully professional. If a minor league baseball player must play at least one fully professional game in order to be notable, why should the rules be any different for footballers. Further to which there are no WP:RS and the information provides no more context than "it's a football club in a league"HJ Mitchell Articulate 11:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC) HJ Mitchell Articulate 11:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - eligible for national cup competition and play in a national level league (see Football in Thailand and Thailand FA Cup) so according to WP:FOOTYN as a club it's notable even if semi-professional -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blue Square Thing. Giant Snowman 22:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator only gave a reason why individual players for this team shouldn't be considered notable, not why the team itself shouldn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator didn't cite any reasons to delete article, but talks about how a player should be deleted. This isn't a player, it's a team. Nfitz (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. matt91486 (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night Cowboy[edit]

Non-notable song; see WP:SONG Mergellus (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Isn't really noatable enough to have it's own article. Per nom Kingpin13 (talk) 14:56, 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 as a deletion nomination by a sockpupppet of a banned user. Anyone with editing privileges who is willing to legitimately renominate is more than welcome to. (Non-admin closure)--Disturbed Nerd999 (Delete!) 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Escape From Paris[edit]

~~Non-notable song, see WP:SONG Mergellus (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck comment of a sockpuppet.--Disturbed Nerd999 (Delete!) 19:39, 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 speedy delete. (G10) Unsourced attack page (I consider saying someone can't stay in a relationship without proof an attack). Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Breesey[edit]

Hoax biography, borderline vandalism. Albums listed are by completely different artists, all other biographical data very likely also false. Passportguy (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. If this were a real person it would be unsourced BLP, a borderline attack page, but it seems to be complete fiction. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence that this is a real article. Tim Ross (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as fictional. Even if this was real, it shows nothing to show notability. Mm40 (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 08:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian fish names[edit]

Prod was removed. Translation of english fish names into various Indian languages. Passportguy (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an English-Indian dictionary. Yintaɳ 11:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a List of fishes of India, one can add these names there.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful. The Indian fishes page is a scientific page meant to be used by advanced users, the names and conversions I have mentioned is for edible fishes found in India, this especially useful for people who have to travel across and unable to know what the local names are. Patients allergic or toxic to a particular fish can find this page very useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denzy (talk • contribs) 14:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument for keeping a page. The contents of this list are more appropriate to Wikispecies and Wiktionary. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete International travellers should carry a pocket dual or multi-language dictionary or use a translation website. This is not WP's job. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:54, 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 08:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Rap Rock[edit]

Unverified; non-notable neologism. Description of supposed genre doesn't differentiate itself between related terms that are better-verified. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of references to prove this is an actual genre, not just the invention of some Wikipedia editor. I'm skeptical. --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This genre doesn't exists. All musicians are either rapcore, rap rock or alternative hip hop. Mentions NN person "Brad Gilmore" as the "father" of this non-existent genre. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism for non-existent genre. Some rap rock bands may be considered "alternative", but this article is not about that, and does not make sense even if taken on its own terms (Kid Rock?). Meanwhile, the Rap rock and Rapcore articles suffice for all this stuff. 86.44.34.151 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-existent (if not then very obscure) genre. ~EdGl ★ 23:47, 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 08:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Computer Music[edit]

I'm not finding significant coverage of this in 3rd party sources. This is a self published book (Mort Aux Vaches Ekstra Extra). References provided are mostly to blogs. The author may be notable but this article doesn't appear to be. RadioFan (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently contributing to the development of the article about Radical Computer Music, I agree to your remarks, but this will all happen as I go along. I am in contact with Goodiepal about the issue and he is contributing with background info and sources. I hope you will allow the article to continue and only delete the article called Radical Computer Music, Mort Aux Vaches Ekstra Extra, which is a double. The Radical Computer Music article could potentially be merged with the Goodiepal article, but I have set it up separately as I find it is too comprehensive a subject to be included in the biographical article. Die Luzi (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added references to the Radical Computer Music article as evidence of Goodiepal's theories - will this type satisfy Wikipedia's requirements? More references to follow. Die Luzi (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party references have been added to the Radical Computer Music article. Die Luzi (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment blogs aren't considered 3rd party, and they make up a substantial number of references in that article. JamesBurns (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I would like to point out that out of the 14 references, currently applied to the Radical Computer Music article, 4 of them refer to third-party sources, including profiled magazines such as The Wire and Frieze. 10 references source Goodiepal's own lectures and releases about the issue, only one of these making reference to a blog. As this is a particularly qualified blog, seriously elaborating Goodiepal's work, initiated by the notable Scottish musician Momus, I consider it a valid reference to make. Only one other blog is listed in the External Links section refering to a discussion of Radical Computer Music by Danish art critic Torben Sangild, a notable danish scholar/art critic. Die Luzi (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both The Wire and Frieze have their archives online but I'm not finding the articles specified in either. There is no doubt that there is sufficient coverage of the artist to warrant an article, but not of this book. Being a self-published book, it's going to be harder to find reliable sources covering it. This article should be summarized, references cleaned up, and merged into Goodiepal.--RadioFan (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles refered to have been printed in the respective magazines, hence my quotation, the following URL directs to the online archive of Frieze: http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mort_aux_vaches_ekstra/ - with regards to The Wire, the article is not itself online but listed in the table of content, issue no. 298, found here: http://www.thewire.co.uk/issues/298/ If these references are still considered unsubstantiated and therefore cannot be accepted by Wikipedia, the article will be merged into the Goodiepal article. It is a pity though, as the topic is meeting great interest and currently is being taught in academia and discussed in scholarly work (yet to be published). Die Luzi (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relisting the article for further discussion - I haven't developed it since my last comment, as I have been awaiting instructions regarding its chances of survival. If it will improve these, I will continue to develop the article with careful referencing - as my knowledge of Goodiepal's theory derives from numerous live/online performances, lectures, articles, interviews, and blogs, it is a bit of a puzzle to trace where everything has been disseminated first and last. Being in email contact with him, he is currently giving advice, and so I still hope the article can stay on Wikipedia! Die Luzi (talk) 16:34, 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, MBisanz ^talk 10:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and (so far) unestablished term for one man's approach to composing computer music. Yintaɳ 11:09, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fitzgeoffrey[edit]

The first sentence said about the subject: "was a minor Elizabethan poet and clergyman". This search didn't satisfy me either. Alexius08 (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm assuming that this article has been nominated because the subject is considered to be non-notable, although that isn't made clear in the nomination. The fact that Fitzgeoffrey has an ODNB entry implies that he's a "significant, influential or notorious figure", which is precisely what WP:BIO requires. Tevildo (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tevildo. If he's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's minor in ultimate historical terms is still unquestionably notable, if the ODNB thinks it's not too minor to be included. Notability is much less than famous. Everyone they give an article to should be included here. The word "minor" in the lede paragraph however needs to be sourced, presumably to them. DGG (talk) 20:24, 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.

Quyne KayVi[edit]

The result was Speedily deleted, as there was no claim of importance/notability. TN X Man 14:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced article about unnotable writer. A search at Google yielded 50 results. Alexius08 (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article about a non-notable high school freshman with BLP issues (suggests the subject had a romantic relationship with Sean Michael Afable when she was 12 or 13 years old). Unsurprisingly, no reliable source coverage to establish notability exists on the subject under her name or any listed pseudonyms. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, the article doesn't even attempt a claim of notability, or even importance, beyond the assertion the subject was an extra in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, so the article can probably be speedy deleted A7. I'll apply the tag. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:58, 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 08:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProSystem fx Office[edit]

Disputed PROD. Non-notable accounting product; blatant advertising. 9Nak (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising that doesn't assert notability, and it doesn't appear to be notable. Verbal chat 09:30, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fons Hickmann[edit]

Unsourced biographical article possibly authored by the subject. A Google search yielded 10000 matches, excluding Wikipedia. None of the first ten hits are reliable sources that could be used for the improvement and sourcing of the article. Alexius08 (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has apparently published numerous books of his works, at a professor in a major school. As for the gsearch, first I've heard that a source not being in the first ten hits is to be rejected. DGG (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A ridiculous nomination. How does the fact that ten unreliable sources exist prevent any of the other 9990 sources from being valid, or, more pertinently, those found by Google News and Google Books? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Mexico relations[edit]

another completely laughable random combination from the obsessive creator. extremely limited relations, only minor agreements, non resident embassies and no trade agreements. http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/2558.html LibStar (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it is a "completely random combination", why has the Estonian Foreign Ministry got information on it? Did this information randomly create itself? The MFA lists several agreements, since when does a trade agreement confer notability and the other agreement on culture, education, sports and technology do not? Martintg (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a completely laughable combination of random trivia. Mergellus (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So what does "completely laughable" mean? "Estonia and Mexico, LOL!!!" or "Estonia and Mexico? ROFL!!!!" I missed the mirth on this one. Still, there's not much here Estonian foreign ministry statement beyond some small agreements and visits, not enough to merit its own article. Mandsford (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of references discussing this relationship; the fact of non-recognition of the occupation is noted here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information on this relationship outside of sources linked to the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It's not a notable relationship. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:02, 26 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, 26 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 Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found some Estonian language references. In the process of adding them now. Martintg (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not uninteresting, but let's pick this apart. We have a friendship treaty, which by its very name indicates it's likely purely symbolic (we don't have secondary sources saying otherwise). Sure, the 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship is notable, but Estonia-Mexico I have my doubts about. (By the way, was it actually signed in Washington, or in Washington, D.C.?) Next come the names of a couple of ambassadors - interesting, I'm sure, but there's no indication they themselves are notable; moreover, something like List of current ambassadors from Poland should do the trick. That Ilves and Luik have served in Mexico is easily mentionable in their own biographies. And then the usual routine state visits: yes, they happened, but can their relevance be demonstrated through secondary sources? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:51, 28 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]
Delete Non-notable, and the expansion is cruft, based on things that are either irrelvant or out of place. Dahn (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. Everything in this article belongs into articles specific to one of the two countries or is excessive detail. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: Two of he three "keep" votes are clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:56, 2 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 speedy delete. Wizardman 15:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Piercefield[edit]

Hoax. Created in September 2008, speedily deleted and recreated in April 2009. According to the article Piercefield "began" to play in MBL on April 11, 2011. MBL 2008 first round selection doesn't mention his name. Article contains mainly informations about player's career in 2010, 2011. I've nominated it for speedy deletion as not notable bio, User:Ged UK recommended me to take it here. Vejvančický (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax: article claims he's with the Tampa Bay Rays but their article does not show him; all the stuff about 2010 and 2011 is a ludicrous breach of WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax Not a real person, probably a player the kid created in his video game, speedy as hoax.--Giants27 ^T/C 13:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any mention of this player in reliable sources, and most of the content is obvious misinformation. Wronkiew (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - hoax - not referenced by Rays or any MLB related info. Amd he's a Lions fan Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia–South Korea relations[edit]

another random combination from the obsessive creator. only 32 Koreans living in Serbia [23] only 2 agreements, 1 to establish diplomatic relations, 1 for air transport [24]. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, implausive search term. Mergellus (talk) 11:14, 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 - the only salient fact, that South Korea recognises Kosovo, is noted here. Other than that, nothing notable to see in this relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 25 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 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 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. 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[25]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:24, 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) 09:50, 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 14:08, 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) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial, non-notable, subject; optimistic clutter. Dahn (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: The three "keep" votes are clearly invalid since the discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:52, 2 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 Speedy G3 by Closedmouth. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spit Squadron[edit]

I'm not even sure they exist. Googling "Spit Squadron"+"Under Black Skies" turns up zero hits for a record that supposedly went 9x platinum (9 million+ copies). Theoretically, they have sold 36 million+ records, but I can't find any mention of them on google. Terrillja _talk 08:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating all of their records for the same reasoning.--Terrillja _talk 08:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Probable hoax. Might technically merit an A1 (no context), although it is apparent that the article is about a band (of dubious existence). Tevildo (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zdenko Loncar (footballer)[edit]

Footballer who has not played in a fully professional match and therefore fails the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. No sources provided to suggest he meets the more general standards of WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suspect the whole thing may be a hoax: the article has been subject to heavy IP vandalism, but even the version provided by the original article author MuppetsUnited (talk · contribs) contained a reference which was actually to another player, and searches don't throw up any confirmation. JohnCD (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is he does exist he fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not play at national level, fails WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 08:18, 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 Speedy delete as an A7. Fram (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Clinic (Band)[edit]

Unencyclopedic ramble about a band with no reliable sources, does not meet WP:BAND, part about looking for a replacement bassist "suitable for their style" heads more into the realm of WP:GARAGE Terrillja _talk 07:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fails WP:BAND. Also written from a WP:NPOV. Tagging for speedy deletion would probably have been the best first course of action. I42 (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, so tagged. No indication of importance or significance. JohnCD (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete concur with speedy. It's a sad day when a garage band can't even be bothered to even put in their myspace page. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Textbook WP:GARAGE, fails WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 17:58, 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 08:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lost Planet: Extreme Condition characters and adversaries[edit]

Impenetrable list of characters in a computer game. I think this is unencyclopaedic and would be difficult to rewrite and restructure. Also completely unreferenced. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this article is badly in need of improvement, character lists are legitimate spin-out articles to keep the main article from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if they lack the necessary sourcing and therefore notability, which this one does. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If kept, should be moved to a more standard title like simply List of Lost Planet: Extreme Condition characters. Nifboy (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, in-universe information with significant game guide content. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.All we need is a little bit of hard work and lots of research and then this article would be fine. Sadly, there is so much stuff in that article that it would take a very long time to save this article.-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 02:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in-depth plot information unsuitable for inclusion in WP (WP:GAMECRUFT) Marasmusine (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would tend to agree with Edward321. I have made an initial attempt to salvage the quality of the article. It still needs a lot of work though. AtticusX (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "I'm working on it" isn't enough to to justify notability. If the article is to be kept, it will need reliable sources to establish notability. Such sources should be presented to establish notability now, not at some arbitrary date in the future. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a bunch of WP:GAMEGUIDE... Delete...--Unionhawk ^Talk 13:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the work that's gone into this, it's still gamecruft unless someone can demonstrate now that it's notable. Subject matter for a fan site, but not WP. Letsplaydrums (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as excessive fictional detail, this is an action game with enough plot to see it through, yet this is listing every Tom, Dick and Harry no matter how trivial their existence. Character lists/articles can be very strong but there should be a need and good sourcing available, in this case it's just undue weight piled on characters which no more need listing individually than those in Project Sylpheed or most other games. Someone another 16:21, 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 08:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor Live 2009[edit]

An article consisting of only a setlist and list of dates: fails WP:DIRECTORY. I42 (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the proposal of deletion.

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Sandstein 16:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert V. Gentry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:Notability The article tells us three things about Mr. Gentry: He wrote a self-published book, he filed a lawsuit which was dismissed, and he testified in another lawsuit in which his side lost. These things did get some press notice but it does not seem like enough to merit a WP bio. The article was AfDed in 2006 and kept based on the argument that other articles linked to it and if it were deleted red wikilinks would result. I don't think this is enough of a reason to have an article on a not so notable person. Borock (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn my nomination due to more info added to article. See note at bottom of page.Borock (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Creation geophysics#Radiohaloes where appropriate, with remainder going into List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: mention in The Creationists turns out to be far more extensive than coverage in article would suggest -- easily enough to establish notability on its own. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be of marginal notability but it is well sourced and it is a unique perspective that is of interest to the creation-evolution controversy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Although he's not in the same league as (say) Duane Gish, Gentry's contributions to the creationist argument are well-known in the field, and the article contains adequate sourcing to demonstrate this (IMO). Tevildo (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable in my opinion. He seems to be selling alot of books and alot of people follow the author. He even has Scientists coming out to condemn his views. The article should not be deleted.[26][27][28] NorwalkJames (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To revise the case for deletion: "He wrote a self-published book which a lot of people have read, he filed a lawsuit which was dismissed on a technicality, ... The article was AfDed in 2006 and the arguments for keeping made then still apply." The fact that I don't agree with him is irrelevant. I want to be able to use wikipedia to check on who he is and what he says. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to check on drug dealers and gang leaders in my neighborhood, but I don't think it's WP's job to help me check on people.Borock (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they'e notable, yes it is. And if they're well known, or having a significant effect on your neighbourhood, they may well be notable. I think that your making this comparison betrays your motives. You want him out because he's wrong, whereas the suppositiion that he's wrong (which most of us agree with) is irrelevant. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he's wrong about the age of the earth, but that's not why I nominated the article. Hrafn has added some more material to the article which makes him more interesting. However I still don't think notability is established if his book is only self-published. A self-published book would generally not be accepted as a source on WP. How can a review of a self-published book be? And how can the author of a self-published book (if that is his greatest claim to fame) be the subject of an article? Borock (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"How can a review of a self-published book be?" When the reviews are made in, or cited by, a WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Gentry's notability extends far beyond his "self-published book". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have just added 4 articles, in high-impact scientific journals, to the bibliography, supporting this point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Science and PRL published multiple papers of his, and multiple scientists have reviewed the book, and Nature has actually published an article about him discussing his work, no matter how dismissively, he's worthy of being taken seriously, no matter how far fringe. It makes him notable fringe. DGG (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Due to added material and sources, thanks guys. The original article did not fully explain his importance, or at least the amount of attention he has been getting. Borock (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 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 08:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wadenpfuhl[edit]

Unsourced, orphaned biography of an unnotable musician, only returning two copies of the article from Google (both of which cites the said page as the source). Alexius08 (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person who fails WP:MUSIC. The above search by the nominator returns no sources. Another Google News Archive search returns 10 results, all of which are passing mentions of this individual. There doesn't appear to be a viable target for a merge, so the only option is delete. Cunard (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. I can only find fleeting references to this artist. Hazir (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 11:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This can be deleted for copyvio. It's verbatim from his bios on the Boston Symphony Orchestra and New England Conservatory of Music web sites.[29], [30]. He does have two recordings, each of which includes one of his compostions [31], [32]. They're listed/reviewed in a few specialist publications, e.g. Fanfare (v. 13, nos. 5-6, 1990): "a gorgeous disc; real music where one expects mere dazzle"; The Horn call: journal of the International Horn Society, A Descriptive Discography of Horn Music Based on the Curtiss Blake Collection, and The jazz discography. According to this biography of William Thomas McKinley, He premiered a piece by McKinley (Huntington Horn Concerto) which was written for and dedicated to Wadenpfuhl. But that's about it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 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 and salt by PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) per WP:SNOW. See the deleting admin's comments below. (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree ali[edit]

Recreation of a speedily deleted article, trying AFD this time to make it stick. The article appears to be a truthful article about a real person. However, this person does not appear to meet the requirements set forth in the inclusion criteria spelled out at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). The article is long, but there does not seem to be any indication that this person has been noted extensively in independent reliable sources, and as such, probably does not merit an article at Wikipedia, no matter how lengthy or truthful that article is. Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was about to nominate it myself. I'm not finding any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) to establish notability. --aktsu ^(t / c) 05:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of independent sources provided tends to lead me to think that the subject is not notable. A Google News and Google News Archive search doesn't appear to turn up any relevant news coverage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, does not establish notability, no matter how long it is. ^blurred _peace ☮ 05:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for long blocks of original research. Alexius08 (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Note: also twice-deleted as Sheree Ali. I42 (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt. I wasn't able to find "significant coverage" or "reliable sources". Even her IMDB page doesn't support what's in this article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the reasons above. Was previously speedy deleted as "Sheree Ali". Pages should be protected and user blocked. Drawn Some (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails WP:BIO / WP:CREATIVE - a search has revealed a complete absence of reliable sources and regardless I just can't see what is notable about this person. Nancy ^talk 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt under both spellings. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - if you read the article's talk page, you'll see a long screed which admits that this is purely autobiographical, and which I read as a special pleading (addressed to me, for some reason) to ignore COI and notability rules (the latter, she claims, are damaging Wikipedia's reputation). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleting, salting the title and blocking the account. I was just alerted to the same talk page screed at an alternate spelling of the name. If no one has any objections, I'm about to make this go away. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Is that perhaps a little overhasty? I know I'm supposed to be this eviallllll deletionist, but it seems a bit harsh compared to the slack cut for somebody like, say, the perenially-autobiographical Gary Husband. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Normally, I wouldn't have acted in such haste; I'm an "eeeevil deletionist" as well. However, each and every one of this account's edits over the last month have been to this subject. That screed really tipped me over into the "let's get rid of it now" category. I have no objections if any other admin wishes to restore it in order to ride out the AfD, but I'm thinking this is an issue covered under WP:SNOW. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:14, 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 08:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Edgar[edit]

Unsourced and it may be a hoax as a Google search doesn't turn up anything. Canuck85 (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax--nothing to be found to back up these statements. Nom, please sign. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 04:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --aktsu ^(t / c) 05:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., definitely a hoax. Pmlinediter ^Talk 14:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is necessarily a hoax; it might just be a run-of-the-mill minor league player who does exist but isn't particularly notable. Either way, though, it's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 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. Subject is notable and verifiable. My apologies, again. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 04:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohl's Plaza (Colonie, New York)[edit]

The article does not mention how the subject notable, but I'm not fully sure because it has a good deal of sources, especially from business journals, et cetera. It might be possible that if some notability is found from these sources, and is explained in the article, it could be kept. Opinions? The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 04:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I disagree. This area is mentioned many times in local news and business journals which serve as the major newspapers for this area. I spent quite a bit of my time developing this article. I did not simply make it up off the top of my head. To be honest, if well-researched articles are going to become candidates for deletion, then I guess I will cease spending my time making any further additions to Wikipedia. But I could point out that there are a multitude of articles with no sources whatsoever all over Wikipedia. Yx7791 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points. The shopping center is on a major business road in this area. Like any other shopping center, it is of interest to those interested in retail history. It has been mentioned in fifteen different newspaper articles. There were a number of articles talking about trying to fill the vacant space when one big box retailer closed. There are more articles about it than have been sourced. But, the bottom line is this....it is a well-researched article which took time to write. When I go around Wikipedia seeing so many articles with no source or few sources, it makes me wonder about enforcement. My articles typically have double-digit numbers of sources. But if after taking this amount of time and identifying more than ten sources (which is ten more than the number of sources in quite a few articles here), my work is going to be deleted, then as I said before, I don't need to waste my time making contributions on this site. Yx7791 (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there was a slight error in communication here, my apologies for not making it clear. There is no doubt in my mind that the article is verifiable— that is, no doubt that such a place actually exists. What I was referring to is that the article doesn't mention how the article is notable— that is, why the subject is important. If you look back at my nominating statment, I said that that I wasn't sure if the article was notable, not that I didn't believe that it was true. Essentially, it needs to be said somewhere in the article's subject that it is signifigant. I'm not saying that the subject's not signifigant, I'm just saying that it needs to be proved more carefully. Anyway, I'm closing this AfD, you're right. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 04:33, 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.

Miniature Schnauzer (insult)[edit]

The result was speedy deleted G10. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitfield Parish Glossop[edit]

The article does not meet WP:RS nor WP:ORG standards. Article fails WP:N and the references provided are WP:RS has no reliable sources where to find reliable information. WP:ADS. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo Bus Routes[edit]

This information may be more appropriate for the bus company's web site. This list is not encyclopedic. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not notable in anyway and is more of an advertisement than anything else. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly incomplete listcruft that should be a subsection of an article on that city's public transport infrastructure, if at all. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This isn't a bus company, but the municipal bus routes of the city of Colombo, the capitol of Sri Lanka. We generally have bus route lists of major cities (List of Chicago Transit Authority bus routes and List of bus routes in Queens for examples). There's no reason to start systemic bias against this one.--Oakshade (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - We already have loads of perfectly acceptable and encyclopaedic lists of bus routes, not sure why this one has been singled out! Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is a mess, and needs a complete clean-up, but deletion is not clean-up. As a subject matter, the list seems perfectly acceptable, even if it is poorly executed here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hate to do this, but the creator of this article seems disinterested and it will probably never be improved. This is the only article they have ever done. The question is, who will contribute the required edits? Would anyone who has called for the article's retention have created this mess if it didn't exist? Sadly, I agree that it should be given over to the Daleks and exterminated! -Secondarywaltz (talk)

Keep We wouldnt keep articles on the individual routes, but we should keep the combination article. Not just the author but anyone can improve the article from sources. DGG (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree in theory; but its been a week and nobody wants to take it on. It would be worse than researching the article from scratch, and that is why I have challenged somebody, anybody, to improve this bad, bad, article. Incomplete list, unreferenced material, no external links, no wikilinks, no related bus company, etc. Where would you start? Lists for other cities relate to existing articles about the bus companies and agencies that operate the routes and that is why they have some validity. I hate to delete anything needlessly - I want to be informed.-Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an article. This is rubbish. FairFare (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bus routes in a major city are a valid topic for an encyclopedic article. Sure, this needs work but there's no time limit. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help. The list appears to be cut and pasted from some unknown source but could also be entirely fictional without references. Now things are at least tidy. All I can find are references to bus bombings!!! Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not a public transit guide. Routes change all the time, there is no article here.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Has a good start, but I believe it needs more information, as it doesn't really tell us anything except which stations go where. It needs more basic information. Renaissancee (talk) 23:50, 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 08:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vikramjit sahney[edit]

Article lacks secondary sources to verify the notability of both the person and the organization. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 06:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this artical to the best of my knowledge is original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldpunjabi (talk • contribs) 06:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, it might be original research. Sorry, but we can't accept articles like that. Alexius08 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS and reeks of WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I came across this while trying to find sources for Shri Vikramjit Singh Sahney (also created by the same editor). It appears that the articles are near-duplicates of each other, so I've changed Shri Vikramjit Singh Sahney to be a redirect to Vikramjit sahney. However, I wasn't able to find any sources that show his notability, so I'm saying delete. Closing admin: if the result is delete, please get both, ok? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Vikramjit Singh Sahney. Padma Shri is one of India's highest civilian honours and the subject as a a Padmashree awardee (for social work) is definitely notable. The article needs a rewrite to add references, remove peacockery and correct tone, but that is not a reason for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 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 03:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only 2095 people have received the Padma Shri in over 50 years in a country with a present population of well over a billion. How can any recipient be said not to be notable? Let's use a bit of common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Leader in his field and has won substantial recognitions. Hopefully someone with access to sources in that area can improve the citations because Google isn't much use. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Herr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She may fail WP:POLITICIAN, but she definitely passes WP:BIO. There are multiple sources from Lancaster Newspapers, Inc, as well as a multitude of sources from the Elizabethtown Chronicle. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of which are minor, local newspapers and exactly what I'd expect. Is there any wider coverage from more reputable publications? Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources cover in detail Lois Herr and her political aspirations. She passes WP:BIO#Basic criteria and WP:V. All of the sources I cited above are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". How are these local newspapers not reputable? Like The New York Times, these "minor" newspapers also have an editorial staff. Cunard (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times covers events of some importance; therefore, stuff covered by them is probably quite important. Local newspapers, however, cover local news; it is no evidence of wider notability. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but what's wrong with having articles for local politicans (as long as they pass WP:GNG)? The significant coverage she has received in her local newspapers means she passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People who run in the election for national level posts after winning the nominations of major parties in a two-party system should be considered notable. We've not always done it, but its time we should. It would avoid these recurrent disputes. All we need to do to meet the GNG is decide that for these cases, local sources are sufficient. DGG (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 keep. withdrawn by nom DGG (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs of Africa[edit]

Dinosaurs of Africa is an abandoned and incomplete page. Since there are 67 dinosaur genera listed in Category:Dinosaurs of Africa, I think it makes more sense at this point to let the category do the work. J. Spencer (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 02:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 02:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to List of African dinosaurs. Per longstanding precedent, lists and categories can and often should coexist. The reasoning is that while editors tend to be able to use categories proficiently, the end-users of the encyclopaedia usually don't even know they exist, so lists are a valuable way of finding and sorting information for them.

The fact that the article is abandoned and incomplete is no reason for deletion. See ((sofixit)).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have very substantially revised this article since the nomination. Nominator's comments were accurate at the time he made them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep with S Marshall's tremendous improvements. Rename per S Marshall's suggestion. Ladyof Shalott 13:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per S Marshall. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: With LadyofShalott's endorsement of the idea, I've moved this article to List of African dinosaurs.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: I still think that the category works better for this, but I'm cool with keeping it if you see a use for it. J. Spencer (talk) 22:40, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Sub[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Planet Sub is just as popular of a restaurant in the Midwest as any other regionally-based sandwich shop. As the entry stated before the deletion nominator had his way with it, there are many location spread out through the Great Plains, i.e. this is not simply a single location. In addition, Yello Sub, Planet Sub's predecessor, enjoys a long and upstanding history in the midwest and college towns in general. Finally, this entry has survived edits and views by many upstanding wikipedians with no recourse for more than three years. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia, i.e. to spread knowledge of that which isn't known? Simply because an editor from Maryland has never heard of the restaurant and has no idea to its history, does that make it eligible for elimination? Flibbert (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've still not established notability of this article through reliable sources. I cannot take your word on how notable it is. If it's so notable, there must be reliable sources that confirm it, riiiiiiiight? SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess we will let the majority vote decide its fate. However, a simply Google search brings up 23,000 hits. Does this make it notable? Some would assume so. However, once again, simply being unknowing of an entity does not mean that it is unimportant nor non-notable. Maybe you have never done research on restaurants outside of your own personal space. Maybe you have never been out of your own state. Who knows? I tend to "accept the knowledge of others" when I don't understand something. Research 101, I guess. I personally have never heard of "Rogers Heritage High School" and a Google search of that brings up a mere 1,720 hits...you may notice that there is not a AfD on that. In addition, I appreciate your sarcasm through this article's fate as well. You have established yourself as one who dislikes looking anything that isn't simply physically in front of you. Riiiiiiiiiiight? Flibbert (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And yet still no reliable sources added to corroborate notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So maybe you could help out. Do some research..contribute! Be Bold! Flibbert (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Although the nominator of should do some research first before nominating, the onus on providing sourcing is with the editors advocating they be kept, especially if they are the article's creator. Telling somebody else to be bold and do the research when you haven't bothered to do it yourself is poor behaviour. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interspersed between press releases and event sponsorship announcements are also actual article in newspapers including [33], [34], and [35]. There's more including what look to be more substantial stories behind pay walls but this should be enough to establish that there is notability and more sources can be found. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ines Crnokrak[edit]

A little iffy - has a few arguably worthwhile credits, but nothing that makes her notable among hundreds of others with the same resume, and there are no sources to show for it. Previous prod removed with addition of LiveJournal as an EL. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 04:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found this 1232 I know that each article should have its own merit, but I have to mention that looking at others articles in the same category they all have more or less the same. If this article is to be deleted then all the other should also. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forums and photo galleries? Only MyNewsNetwork amounts to much as a source, but to me it's not significant coverage (although it's a start), as it seems like Crnokrak was interviewed simply because a model needed to be interviewed, as opposed to being chosen for being notable, but maybe that's just me. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really understand your point and it should be a rule applied to all the articles in Wikipedia, but is not the case. Only a few articles that some editors take interest to read or to come across are the ones to be nomitated for deletion. Please take a look at the following articles in the Category:Fashion biography stubs. Those don't have also repubable sources or references: Adrienne Vittadini, Walé Adeyemi, Carlota Alfaro, Shami Ahmed, Alberto Makali, Christopher Cortez, Sophie Albou, Pegah Anvarian. As I said before, I know that each article should be discuss and nominated for deletion on its own. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So I went and looked at those articles to nominate them for deletion. Guess what I found? Cortez won a TV show, Makali has tons of coverage on Google News ([36]), Vittadini is incredibly famous, Alfaro has an institute named for her, Adeyemi won the Fashion and Design Award...need I go on? If those articles are in a bad shape, fix them up. What matters (unfortunately) at AfD is not the state of the article but the notability of the topic. Besides, this charge of selective nominating is without merit. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she is verifiably working as a model, but there is no coverage about her aside from the one from NY News network which is rather insubstantial. Some quotes in [37], and [38] but taken altogether, it does not add up to enough to meet notability. The sad state of other articles on models has no relevance to this AFD.-- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq, who correctly spots the lack of in-depth coverage (coverage beyond a quick mention or a quote). Drmies (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ancient Rome#Society. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Roman society[edit]

Declining speedy deletion; tagger's rationale was "This article is a duplicate of a section that was already in existence in the article Ancient Rome. This article was originally created as part of a page split that was reversed in July of 2008 and has caused some (or a great deal) of confusion due to it not being deleted at that time." It does seem to be a content fork that doesn't add anything substantial. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge = The article is in place almost exactly as it is on the article page in a section of it's own at Ancient Rome.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't reach for a deletion nomination tag as the tool of first resort. There are other tools in the toolbox. One such, simply redirecting the article, is clearly appropriate here. The title of the section is Ancient Rome#Society. "Ancient Roman society" is thus clearly the name of a sub-topic, and redirects for sub-topic titles is one of the reasons we use redirects. There's not even the worry that this is an unlikely subject name. Even a simple Google Web search, let alone a Google Books search, provides convincing evidence that this isn't some idiosyncratic name for that sub-topic that is peculiar to Wikipedia. ☺ (Witness the Britannica article titles, for one thing.) You could have solved this problem with just one edit, Amadscientist, without need for an AFD discussion or administrator involvement. Uncle G (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reply = *Sigh* You are mistaken on several points. First off I didn't reach for a deletion nomination tag as the tool of first resort, second, Admin stepped in and offered the AFD which I accepted. This is a duplicate page and Wikipedia does not need multiple copies of articles or sections. Please stick to the discussion of whether the article should be deleted or not. Your in-civil approach to this AFD with the lack of knowledge to the situation shows that you are not as informed as you are alluding to here. I have no idea of what you are suggesting here other than to say that even a duplicate article created in a reversed article split should remain. Also you seem not to know even how to use the AFD discussion. You certainly do use a lot of words for saying very little sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, yes, you did. There's nothing uncivil here. Someone telling you that you didn't take the obvious course of action, which would have taken one edit on your part (rather than, this far, eight on your part, four on Dank55's part, and two on mine) is not uncivility. The correct approach to duplicate articles is Wikipedia:duplicate articles. Deletion nominations are not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not a message board. Please confine your opinion to talk pages. You are in-civil by directing criticism in the incorrect place. Regardless of what your opinion of which tools I decide to use I am within the my rights. My first action was to request speedy deletion. That was the "Incorrect" tool. To be honest, if you feel the article should remain, I am not even against that. Let it stand. However it has caused much confusion because of accusations of cut and paste and copyright infringement. There is not single correct approach and it is in civil to suggest that myself and the admin are wrong for doing this. A more civil way would be to make the suggestion without the accusations accompanying them.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a discussion page. I said nothing about copyright. And pointing out what you did wrong without accusing you of anything is exactly what you will find above. Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have used this "Debate" to do nothing but criticize myself and the admin that assisted me, without a single constructive suggestion on the actual subject. Again. I did nothing wrong.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete -- It would be legitimate to have a separate sub-article to Ancient Rome, dealing with its social history. However the present one appears merely to be the result of copying and pasting the content of the main article: that makes it an undesirable duplicate article. For the present article to be a legitimate one, the section in the main article would need to be summarised, leaving the detail for this one, but the present main article doesa not seem excessively long, as yet. I say "probably" because (as indicated) there is a potential solution that would enable both to be kept. I would also comment that the "military" subsection of Ancient Rome is so long that it ought to be a main section. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 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 to delete, default to keep. Icestorm815 • Talk 00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet killer[edit]

See also: List of Craigslist killers (AfD discussion) and Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users (AfD discussion).

Original research and duplicate of content from List of Craigslist killers (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Craigslist killers). None of the sources used in this article actually support the subject of an "Internet killer". This subject was created by a Wikipedia editor and does not exist outside of Wikipedia. No secondary sources on the subject can be found. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please NOTE that the title of the "Internet killer" article was changed by to "Internet homicide" by ↜Just me, here, now … 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please also note that the entire topic is 100% original research and the 14 words pulled out of Psychiatric mental health nursing on Google Books is not actually a definition as the editor is claiming. It's a bogus article and a misuse of sources. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was created just two days ago, and there is only one comment each by two editors on the article's talk page. This AfD is premature, as is the claim "No secondary sources on the subject can be found." Шизомби (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is a duplicate of the original research found in List of Craigslist killers. I cannot find any secondary sources on the subject. There is nothing premature about that observation. The creator of the article is using Wikipedia as place to publish their origianl research on the subject, and repeated discussions with the creating editor on various pages (including Talk:List of Craigslist killers) have made that perfectly clear. If you have actual secondary sources for the subject of an "Internet killer" please provide them. I looked, and I found none, which is why I nominated this article for deletion. The sources in the article are not about the subject of an "Internet killer". Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See the books listed on the talk page. More to follow. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it, and don't see any explicit reference to the subject of "Internet killer". Perhaps you would be so kind as to give a passage. Again, you are interpreting sources to fit your theory. That's OR. We need a source that directly refers to the concept, defines it, spells it out, provides examples, and discusses it. None exist. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. No secondary sources on the subject of an "Internet killer" exist. This is a personal research project by the creator of the article. Wikipedia isn't used to publish original thought. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re: Duplication: This article received material last night (look up the history) during a time when the Craigslist killer page had been suddenly blanked and then changed to a one-line dab by an editor caled Justmehernow. A discussion to move the material from Craigslist killer to this page and reduce Craigslist killer to dab status was underway at the time, on the Craigslist killer talk page -- and it seemed to me that although Justmenowhere acted unprofessionally and prematurely (and caused Viriditas to become quite enraged), the move was going ahead, so i acted in good faith on our previous discussions and inserted the Craigslist material here -- never thinking that it was to be duplicated that same night at the List of Craigslist killers page -- which i had not yet seen. I believe that the page to be deleted should be "List of Craigslist killers" -- a badly planned name for an article -- which is, by the way, currently in discussion for merging into the newly creating page called Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users, another page i think should be deleted. Re: Viriditas' charges that "no secondary sources exist" and that this page is "original research" -- secondary sources on "internet killer" do exist. Please allow time for me and others to bring them in. See the talk page. Note also the several uses of the term as a character name ("The Internet Killer") in fiction, added just last night, and dating back to *before* the first actual real-life case was thus dubbed by the media. Be patient; this is a large topic (larger and more substantial than "Craigslist killer") and it also has substantial sociological links to Online predator, which deals with crimes against children, primarily, and tangential sociological links to Internet suicide as well. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic doesn't exist. You invented it. You say that secondary sources are coming Real Soon Now. Name an author and a reliable source where I can find more about the topic. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT It was sort of a Three Card Monte deal: (1) I did move Craigslist killer to List of Craigslist killers (2) but it was the brand-new disambiguation page (freshly named Craigslist killer, after the original article had migrated to its also-new "List of" title) that had ended up being turned itself into a redirect. Super-convoluted, I know -- but!...just so everybody knows! ↜Just me, here, now … 06:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Topic not obscure at all, with every likelihood of contributors' further fleshing it out! ↜Just me, here, now … 06:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it! Name a single author in a reliable source who discusses the topic. It doesn't exist. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what you're saying doesn't exist and what would constitute a reliable source for you. Шизомби (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no reliable source that discusses the subject of an "Internet killer" using those exact terms nor the content of the current article; If there were, you could point me to one. This is pure original research. Read WP:RS to see what is classified as a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your reading of NOR, RS, Synthesis, etc. is far more narrow than the texts of those policies. Honestly, try and take a step back; things between you and cat got ugly on both sides, and I think you're taking it out on the article and making specious justifications for it. Have murderers used the internet to find victims? Have they been labeled an "internet killer" or some variation thereon? Have police reports and the news articles about those police reports discussed this? Have other writers discussed this? Have films and books taken made use of this idea as well? Yes in all cases. Is there some OR in the article? Yes to that too. There may be a better name for this article, and better sources to add, and some stuff that should be taken out, but it's not original research on the whole. Шизомби (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You have described an interpetation of the concept. You cannot provide a single RS because they don't exist. We don't write articles based on interpretations. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. In any article, I should be able to verify a particular statement in a source. Please show me a single source where I can verify the statements and conclusions in this article. They don't exist. When I point this out, one of you tries to change the article title to make the facts fit the OR. But after the third page move, the OR is still in the article. What can be salvaged? Provide me with one source that briefly discusses the topic. You can't, because this article is a personal essay based on original research. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 27 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, as I already commented at the AFD discussion for List of Craigslist killers, this article is novel synthesis and original research, and Wikipedia should not be coining terms and defining phenomena. --MPerel 05:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(see further comments below supporting rename to Internet homicide, given the addition of sources to support it.) --MPerel 19:38, 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 Internet killer 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 the public might think they're not welcome as patrons because of their brogue dialect 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 … 08:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a single reliable source that discusses the subject of an "Internet killer" 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 the article called "Internet killer" 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 "Internet killer" represent the opinions of the editor who wrote it and nobody else. The subject of the topic about an "Internet killer" cannot be found outside Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, we're really talking past each other here, doncha think? ↜Just me, here, now … 11:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple. Sources are the foundation for our articles. Without them, we delete. Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 content -- chock-full of sources! -- 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. 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...... ↜Just me, here, now … 12:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source in Internet killer directly supports the subject. This is a classic case of original research. To counter my claim, please provide one single reliable source that discusses the subject. Just one. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Comment] Viriiditas, if you had not put an AfD on this page within 2 days of it being created, it would already be redirected to Internet homicide, the logical counterpart to Internet suicide. A batch of sources (some of which use the tefrm Internet homicide and some of which use the term Internet killer) were already listed on the article's talk page when you wrote here that there are no sources. I shall be incorporating them into the article, and i want you to stop interfering with its development now and let the rest of us get on with our work. cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 100% original research and you haven't provided any definition for "Internet homicide". You merely grabbed 14 words from Google Books and claim that it's a definition of some kind. There is actually no evidence that is true. If it is a definition, you will provide evidence. You can't because it doesn't exist. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you've already renamed to internet homicide in the middle of an AFD? That only confuses the discussion and process. Even under that title, there still needs to be sources that actually describe the phenomenon and there are none. The article even explicitly claims "internet killer" is a journalistic term, yet provides no sources that actually use such a neologism describing the alleged phenomenon. The other article you mention as a logical counterpart, internet suicide, appears to have some synthesis issues as well since the sources only specifically discuss the particular phenomenon of Japanese suicide pacts, not the more broad phenomenon implied by the title. --MPerel 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you mean by "you." You seem to be addressing me (catherine), since your note comes in reply to mine -- but i did not make this redirect. I found it this way this morning and simply continued to work on the article.

I also do not know what you mean by "no sources." Doesn't the definition in "Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing" cut any ice with you? If not, then what, exactly, would you consider a "source"? Please be specific.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mistook the anon ip (I'm assuming you are identifying yourself as the ip) as doing the rename, but it appears Justmeherenow did it (though his/her jumping the gun without consensus in the middle of an AFD is not the best way to handle it, but I do think it is an improvement). I also didn't initially catch your recent addition of the source describing "internet homicide". That's the necessary element here to avoid synthesis. I can support the rename since the addition of sources for "internet homicide" resolves the issue and merits a keep, though the article still contains some original research that will need cleanup. Thanks for your helpful work on this. --MPerel 19:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirect or disambig or see also Craigslist killer to it. There may be a better title for the article, some stuff to add and subtract from the article, but this can be done through editing and the talk page if people would make proper use of it. It is definitely a recurring, recognizable, recognized thing in fiction and reality. Шизомби (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please NOTE that the title of the "Internet killer" article was changed by to "Internet homicide" by ↜Just me, here, now … 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- And it is still 100% bogus. No such definition exists and the source is being misused to claim a definition exist when it actually doesn't say that. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This entire article was invented by Catherineyronwode/64.142.90.33. There is no single reliable source that actually covers the subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

Viriditas said, "This entire article was invented by Catherineyronwode[...]."

Well, yes, it's true that Catherineyronwode suggested the title and started its page. Absolutely. But, the real question is...How do we determine if a topic is encyclopedic? And the answer we would have to give to that is, Well, what is encyclopedic is supported by reliable sources. But what does that mean, practically speaking?

- - -

Say we're compiling a list? Which list can be determined to have relied on reliable sources? And, well, to answer these questions, we have to examine very carefully the make up, the parameters of the proposed topic. And, sure enough! if a proposed topic must rely on so-called "original research" and/or "novel synthesis" in order for us to sorta guess at which members to add to it...well, it then should be said that that topic has been conclusively determined to be un-encyclopedic. But, be that as it may, for considerations of OR or SYNTH to present a bar to some topic's or list's inclusion in Wikipedia, this OR or SYNTH must be organically inherent within the make up of the topic/list itself:

Eg (BAD): Say an editor started a page called "List of offensive rappers" -- but...without the editor's specifying "offensive to who"! In any such case, absolutely the only way any Wiki-contributors could figure out which otherwise-notable rappers to include in the list would be for them to engage in unsupported POV-mongering.
Or eg (GOOD): Say the page the editor started instead was titled "List of gangsta rappers." This would be OK because Wiki-contributors could then use reliable sources to figure out which notable rappers have been associated with the qualifier "gansta."

- - -

So then let's now go to our question at hand, shall we? That is, whether "Internet homicide" is/is not an inherently encyclopedic topic. So then how should we go about determining this? Well, the answer to that question requires the asking of an underlying, "controlling" question -- a 64 thousand dollar question, we could say -- which is, Can Wiki-contributors figure out if any one particular, notable homicide cuold reasonably be qualified by the word Internet in order for it to be added to the list, without our Wiki-contributors NECESSARILY having to indulge in unsupported conjecture? I/e are there reliable sources out there pointing the way so that any random group of Wiki-contributors who would rely on them would end up contribute the exact same members to the list? And IMO I think the obvious answer in this present case would be yes. ↜Just me, here, now … 01:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That straw man argument is irrelevant. "No original research" is a core content policy. It is non-negotiable on AfD. Whether "Internet killer" or whatver you choose to call it, is or is not encyclopedic is an argument that has never been made in this discussion. You bring it up to distract away from the actual discussion, the same as you did with the page moves. These types of gambits are old and tired. Unless you can point to a single reliable source that supports the topic, including its so-called "definition" and major points, then you must admit by default that this article is OR. The sources in the current article are being misused to promote this article. I have made queries to the primary editor on the talk page, asking for page numbers and brief quotes or passages supporting the material. To date, the editor has been unable to do this. This is a personal essay written by an editor who is using Wikipedia as their private publishing house. We simply do not do that here. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you call a straw man I call an elegant description of the projects' actual EDP -- the "/e/ncycopedic-ness(/unencyclopedic-ness) /d/etermination /p/rocess" -- which is to say, What actually goes on when WPdians determine topics' appropriateness for inclusion. Plain and simple. It's elegant cos applying this process to currently actually existing WP articles -- as though these articles were being proposed and their inclusion/exclusion from the project were to be determined by whether they pass the Test presented by This Process -- would produce a result that reflects what topics are really and truly included in the encyclopedia In Reality.

- - -

OK here goes. According to your conception of the process, would the list-article "Family of Barack Obama" and the list-articlesection "Homelessness#Linguistic titles for the homeless around the world" be in the encyclopedia? Let's see. According to your conception of inclusion criteria neither article passes muster as there are exactly zero! sources! that! say! "the Obama clan is an established topic of study blah blah" or "different ways of saying 'homeless' is an established linguistic study discipline." Nada. None. However, let's apply the EDP. And when we do we find that, sure enough, both of these lists pass muster. Why? Cos (1) the Obamas as a group are notable, and (2) cos any random grouping of WDdians will add the very same members of the Obama family to the list, given the reliable sources (without their having in any way to resort to engaging in OR/SYNTH/POV-mongering/&c). And ditto for the list of linguistic expressions meaning "ppl who are homeless" ((1) each of which is notable as an expression used in a particular context and place for the notable condition of note of homelessness; and (2) which don't require WPdians to conduct original research, the results of which would produce varying results. IOW each WDdian would come up with the same term, given the context and place and the reliable sources.) ↜Just me, here, now … 02:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with basic deletion guidelines, such as Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You haven't addressed my request for reliable sources, and the straw man argument you are making, WP:UNENCYC, is automatically invalid. The fact of the matter is, the primary contributor User:64.142.90.33 (cat yronwode) has already admitted merging List of Craigslist killers into Internet killer, in effect defeating the purpose of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Craigslist killers (see this diff for her admission). This is another gambit, continually moving the article under deletion into a new article and changing the name every 24 hours to confuse people. It's the same content as List of Craigslist killers, and experienced Wikipedians have made good arguments on that AfD showing that this content is simply original research. Please stop pretending that we are dealing with a different article. It's the same song and dance. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete or maybe listify. this article contains 2 things which are potentially worthy of notice:
1. a popular speculative assertion that the internet would be good hunting grounds for serial killers (an assertion, incidentally, which is highly doubtful, and has no reliable research behind it)
2. a list of crimes in which the internet was (in some way or another) used.

The first is interesting as a popular culture phenomenon, along the lines of sasquatch and having someone knock you out and steal your kidney, but it's being presented here with an obvious attempt to elevate it to factuality. the second is semi-specious: there have been untold numbers of cases in which people where lured to their deaths by phone calls, but wikipedia doesn't have a page on 'telephone homicide'. otherwise the page is gibberish. --Ludwigs2 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- keep per above--Sugarcubez (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I found this article interesting, and did not think the information was as fully covered in other articles. This is a serious issue and should have attention in its own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.159.2 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 71.164.159.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's Prohibition-era Smallville and we're assigned to write about the last ten years of there being electricity. We make a draft that could best be headlined in screaming caps, "Five Electrocuted Since Electricity Brought to Smallville." A wise editor takes us over to a cabinet and pulls out clippings: So-and-so kicked in the head by a horse last week; so-and-so smothered in a coal chute. "Tone it down," he says. Fast forward a century. A librarian is writing up Smallville's history. "Each death from electrocution was covered in intricate detail in The Smallville Times especially during that first decade after power lines from the Edison Electric Company were strung to the town," she writes. My moral? (And I do have one, as Ellen Degeneres would say.) The topic of their town's electrification isn't too obscure for Smallvilleians but should be approached from a perspective that's as informed and elevated as possible; likewise the subject of Internet-related homicide isn't too obscure, it just needs to be treated with intellectual respect. ↜Just me, here, now … 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment²: I have to say, I find the name itself to be an irritating misnomer. can we change that please? the internet never killed anyone, and the internet was not an integral or necessary mediator in the act of killing anyone. it's simply a way of locating people. the only thing 'internet killer' or 'internet homicide' does is make an erroneous distinction between these serial killers and other serial killers, and play into already-rampant urban legends about evil people that lurk on the net. it's a pure neologism, and wikipedia is not in the business of promoting neologisms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 April 2009

Note: I've started a thread WRT the article's name here: Talk:Internet homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 05:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The article has been renamed to Internet Homicide, which is better than Internet Killer. There are plenty of sources given and the page forms part of a series with Internet Crime, Internet Suicide, and Online Predator. 71.170.204.214 (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 71.170.204.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer Ludwigs and the nominators rationals made here. I just read the article and agree with both of their comments. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) As an uninvolved editor in all of the articles now listed for AFD I want to add to my reasons for deletion. First, now in the lead there is a wikilink, Journalese, which to me explains why, in part, the article should be deleted. This article seems to be scraps taken from other articles and the article seems to try to make it an article to help journalist usify this/these terms. The article is also miss using core policies such as WP:Syn, WP:OR and possibly WP:COI. My reasoning for confict of interest is that it is my understanding that the editor writing this article is a journalist. From reading the other AFD's, there are enough articles already to make this one moot to boot. (sorry couldn't help myself.) And one final point is that an editor states, I believe it was Ludwig, my apologies if I am wrong, that the title is stating that the internet kills. I also agree with what this editor states about this. Thank you for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this point, I simply cannot see how this isn't somewhere in the neighborhood of synthesis. Perhaps "Internet homicide" may become more of an accepted term in the vernacular, but I don't see it now. There is nothing that I see that distinguishes this in any way from the myriad of ways that killers find victims. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You may not see what "distinguishes this in any way from the myriad of ways that killers find victims" but the news media and book authors certainly do. Also. it is not uncommon at Wikipedia for editors to create -- and accept the creation of -- articles titled as cime-by-contact-venue when old crimes are historically identified by contact-venue (e.g. Piracy) or when old crimes acquire new contact venues: Piracy, Skyjacking, Carjacking, Computer crime, Cyberstalking, Internet crime, Internet suicide, Cyberterrorism, Internet fraud, Vehicular homicide -- which would argue for the use of Internet homicide, although the term is rarer at google than Internet killer. However, even when the contact-venue is notable, there is inconsistency at Wikipedia; for instance, note that Highway robbery redirects to Robbery, but Cyberstalking does NOT redirect to Stalking, which is a separate article. I have described this phenomenon more fully, with further examples, on the article's talkpage, in the section titled "Name" [39]. Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internet homicide - which appears to be the best place to put all of this notable material. While Afd is not the place to discuss mergers, in this case it seems to be working out O.K. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ludwigs and synthesis problems. And especially per Crohnie. Verbal chat 08:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ludwigs2 and Crohnie. momo ricks 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another in a long string of articles that's cooked up out of thin air with some random term and using original research to throw a laundry list of items together under that term. Waiting for articles on Telephone homicide, FAX homicide, iPhone killer and Actually talked to someone in person and then killed them. I mean, come on, good grief, people. DreamGuy (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the topic is based on a random term or not can't be based substantially on the titles of existing WP articles. ("The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist[...]."---WP:OTHERSTUFF)
Man Bites Dog. Most murders are among those well acquainted,* with a few among strangers or else people recently acquainted -- and I suppose it is out of this last group, mostly, where the public takes particular note these days of murders among Internet friends. (*Note also: "List of women who have murdered their husbands.") ↜Just me, here, now … 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mistakenly think what you say has any relevance to this AFD (your arguments aren't even trying to follow Wikipedia notability standards), or do you just have the pathological need to respond to what everyone else says? Just curious. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justmeherenow's first observation about your post is correct. You're making what appears to be a slippery slope argument. Your description of the article is hyperbolic; it is not "cooked up out of thin air," a "random term" or a "laundry list." There's no reason to believe articles you mention will be created. Good grief, indeed. And recall Wikipedia:Etiquette; I'm not always good at it myself. Шизомби (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think probably the pathology. ↜Just me, here, now … 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of people killing people they met on the Internet is notable, whatever you precisely call it ("cyberkilling", "internet murder", "internet killer", "internet murderer", "online killer", "online murderer", "internet homicide", "cyber killer" etc.). It's not a random list, it is well-defined. And there are plenty of sources: This source discusses the concept in detail:[40]. The author is critical of the concept, but the very fact that he's discussing it in a book adds to the notability; 'Internet killer' admits murdering women he met in online chat rooms; Life for internet killer; Jury Recommends Sentence For Internet Killer; Internet killer gets life term for 'vicious crimes'; "Er soll der unheimliche Internet-Killer sein, der mindestens zwei Frauen getötet hat" (also a phrase in German; Love link to 'cyber row killer'; Used in fiction in the show "Homicide" in 1999; Woman 'confesses to internet murder';Help To Halt Online Predators. Internet Murder: Tips Every Parent Should Know sounds like a how to guide; [http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/118/118226_internet_murder_boys_told_never_see_each_other_again.html Internet 'murder' boys told: Never see each other again; Internet murderer 'saw the eyes of Jesus'; First Internet murder; there's even bad fiction about the topic:[41].—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fences and windows (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Internet homicide would be the better title if we were to have an article on this nebulous and ill-defined concept, but I expect that the encyclopedia is better served when we restrict ourselves to topics rigorously identified by reliable sources. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 06:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about all the reliable sources cited by the article and linked to in my comment above? What about the fact that journalists have repeatedly labelled people as "internet killer"? It's not a neologism - it is now in common use, as attested to by an abundance of sources. Fences and windows (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge the Craiglist pages into this article as a way of reducing the disregard of NPOV in the latter pages. I'd rather rob NOR to pay NPOV, rather than the other way around. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:37, 2 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. The total lack of sources means that this content is inappropriate for a merger per WP:V. Sandstein 04:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Black Panther[edit]

The topic appears to be unnotable. There are no references establishing notability, and I cannot find any after a web search. Locke9k (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Phantom cat. It's always difficult to find reliable sources for pseudoscientific subjects but the Appalachian Black Panther seems to fit in with the general definition given in the other article and doesn't seem to be notable or different enough to merit an article of its own. Cosmo0 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per cosmo and possibly redirect. fits nicely into that article and doesnt merit its own. untwirl(talk) 19:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, Huey P. Newton does sound like the name of some hillbilly redneck. This is mind-blowing... a totally unsourced article about a legendary creature that has no legends written about it. Mandsford (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To those proposing a merge: could you point out what material you think should be merged? To me, with the total lack of references, none of this material is salvageable and the article thus merits an outright delete. Locke9k (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was going on the fact that the material in the article seemed to fit naturally into Phantom cat. Of course, it still has to meet the threshold for inclusion and if no reliable, third-party references can be found (I can't find any) then it should be removed. I still think it would be worth leaving a redirect to Phantom cat. Cosmo0 (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sourcing. AGF aside, there's no reason to believe this isn't somebody's hoax. BusterD (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the article really says is somebody said something might exist. No references are given even for that.Borock (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A notice of this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology. Ladyof Shalott 02:18, 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 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make It[edit]

Non-notable promo single that didn't chart or win an award and lacks coverage in reliable sources. Only other appearance besides the album is Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, which is trivial. Disturbed Nerd 999 19:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it also doesn't assert notability (and is from the same album as "Make It"):

Delete both, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: no significant coverage, non charting songs with no covers or awards, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Merge both to Aerosmith (album). They don't have any stand-alone notability but their appearance as songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith means that there is a likelihood that people will look for these songs and we should not leave them high and dry. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, I guess a merge could work for them. That is if we can find enough verifiable information for the songs that isn't already in the album article.--Disturbed Nerd999 (Delete!) 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Make It, that shouldn't be too tough since it basically says it's on GH which isn't too hard to reference. Movin' Out makes a more extraordinary claim that it is the first song that Aerosmith wrote as a band. This article states this is the first song Tyler and Perry wrote together. And that was with a very brief search effort on my part. The description of the circumstances (sitting on the bed etc.) may be in some Aerosmith bio so it may be sourceable too although I'm not going to expand any effort on it unless the concensus is to merge. So in essence, we can merge the material to the album and even provide sourcing for that material. I don't see a good reason to delete given these circumstances. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per JamesBurns. Mergellus (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you believe a merge is appropriate? -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...er "implausible search term"...? guess not. Merge then. Mergellus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    - I'm a bit suspicious about Mergellus, considering his initial !vote was deletion per JamesBurns, and JamesBurns had been blocked indefinitely earlier this week for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. See also Mergellus' contribs, his first edits were related to an AfD about a song (Escape From Paris), so I highly doubt he's a new user.--DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 15:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was thinking someone should step into the breach, as it were. Unfortunately I was unable to stay in character. Mergellus (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Note – This user (Mergellus) is a likely sock puppet of Hilary T and has been blocked indefinitely.--Disturbed Nerd999 (Delete!) 19:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Christmas Island. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Christmas Island[edit]

This article exists solely to state that the subject of the article doesn't exist. Seems a bit pointless to me. roux 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christmas Island. Not an implausible search term. Tevildo (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christmas Island. No reason for anvarticle saying it doesn't exist, but a reasonable thing someone might look for. Ladyof Shalott 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would solve the problem. Borock (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article was gutted since I took it off my watchlist, I will fix it tonight when I get home. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christmas Island, and if there is no coat of arms, someone needs to clarify this in the infobox of that article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I've now replaced and updated the gutted text, please all give it a second look, I don't think it warrants deletion or redirect now. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

404 on the one reference, and no sources for the "capacities" in which the unofficial emblem is used. My opinion is unchanged. I should also point out that neither the emblem of the Shire or the unoffical emblem (for which we just have a text description) is a coat of arms, a shield (as a minimum) being an essential component of that type of symbol. Tevildo (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The page doesn't appear to actually exist, there's no other reference for this 'unofficial' COA, and the emblem pictured isn't a coat of arms. What exactly is the point of this article? //roux 16:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the comments above. There may be an unofficial logo, but not a coat of arms. If any information can be verified, merge it into Christmas Island. Ladyof Shalott 17:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the above. Note that the Shire of Christmas Island is a different entity to the Territory of Christmas Island, which this article purports to be about, so including information about the logo of one in an article about the other is inappropriate in my mind. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete This seems to come close to failing WP:MADEUP and it doesn't seem appropriate to turn it into a redirect given that the target article doesn't mention the coat of arms (for the reason that it hasn't ever existed) Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and set redirect My own search found two: an entirely different coat of arms with just as much claim to legitmacy as the one in the article. Not enough on either to support a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a Logo...not a Coat of Arms. Article is about what it is not--Buster7 (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first line of the article itself says it all. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say merge, but this article has one single factual claim (that this is an unofficial coat of arms), and it's false. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audi Performance and Racing[edit]

Non-notable, just another automotive parts company who supplies a specific brand. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 04:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some references to support notability and added them to the article. Wronkiew (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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 00:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a strong case, but there seems to be enough coverage and notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:04, 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 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Film Location Guide[edit]

I see nothing particularly notable about this book, and can't find the slightest coverage other than a couple of reviews, which demonstrate that it exists but not a great deal else. – iride scent 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book itself is non-notable although its information is probably of interest. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been expanded and sourced. It has received favorable reviews. If I'm ever in London, I want this book in hand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the article is a bit thin; and fails to say anything particularly substantive. Unless someone mounts a rescue effort, then delete. Kbthompson (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did a bit more expansion and sourcing of the book detailing 750 locations for notable films shot in London. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Could always be merged if author or series of guides exist as target. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up as needed. Sources presented are reviews one would expect for a book like this, seems sufficient to build from. More sources would be better of course. -- Banjeboi 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:36, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L'Altra Sicilia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page describes a minor political grop which represents particular interests. Trash nomination in it.wiki seems to proceed successfull [42] Invitamia (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:58, 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 00:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, seems to be plenty of news coverage here. Unfortunately, I do not read Italian so I have no idea how relevant it is, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep From a quick look at the sources it's clear it's notable enough for significant coverage. The discussion at itWP ended in a keep. They go by counting votes there, and it was 16:9. The negative argument was it was not the encyclopedia's "core content", (they used the English phrase) but the majority concluded it doesn't have to be core content to be notable, saying, in my opinion correctly for us also, that coverage of small parties was an important thing to do: here's the debateDGG (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if it is far less relevant than Green Front and Decide! that are undergoing a similar deletion process and I would be astonished if this article will be "saved", while Green Front and Decide! are deleted. --Checco (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No representation --Invitamia (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. —Nightstallion 23:50, 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 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi Drag Race[edit]

Was previously prodded with the reason "unreferenced. google turns up little in the way of sources." Since it's not unthinkable for such sources to be in paper sources or even in Arabic, I don't relying on a simple google search makes it an uncontroversial deletion suitable for a PROD. If sources truly cannot be found, it should be deleted, but just a google search is not enough for this particular topic. Mgm|^(talk) 22:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Yes, there may be sources in Arabic, but motorsports have an ardent global following and one would expect to find some hint of sourcing in English or discussion in motorsport forums and blogs. I can find none. Searching for the article title yields nothing. According to the article, the official name of the race is "Ashraf vs. Hamawi" which also turns up no joy. The race was supposedly held at a track named "Al Bateen" but I cannot even verify the existence of such a motorsport track / speedway / drag strip. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 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 00:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a joke. Two guys raced their cars and then wrote a WP article about it. Borock (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amhurst Aztecs[edit]

The article was PRODDED because it didn't provide third party references. However, it did make claims to notability in mentioning the team's wins and the nominator apparently made no effort to look for sources as determined by WP:BEFORE. Since unreferenced articles can't stick around forever, I'm putting this decision to the community. Mgm|^(talk) 22:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IGLFA, and spin back out if any one wants to make an article about this. I don't see enough in the article or in a search to say that the team independently notable [Google search, and I don't subscribe to the stub theory; and while an international competition is notable, the prize for winning a competition isn't necessarily a place in history. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete team doesn't seem notable. Giant Snowman 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:54, 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 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Soccer club. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You think the article should be deleted solely on the basis that it's a soccer club? Erm, OK...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate that this club meets the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsbank searches come up blank, and Google hits seem to be limited to the occasional Gay Games result list and Wikipedia mirrors. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:10, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Lyons[edit]

I'm contesting a prod. It said that she doesn't meet WP:BIO, but she wrote two books with a notable publisher (notable if you compare that to musicians) and the listed awards make me think deleting this is far from non-controversial. The lack of reliable sources could be a bad choice by the author of the article. Deserves some eyes. Neutral Mgm|^(talk) 23:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commentThe proper way to contest a prod is to simply remove it and state why on the talk page. I think there is a posibility that the subject has notability, but that has to be proven using outside sources. Publishing books, however, does not give notability. Please see WP:notability and find one aspect of the criteria that the subject meets, then argue for it on the talk page. Mrathel (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
requests nominator withdraw nomination before someone meaner than me casts as "delete" vote :)Mrathel (talk) 19:05, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (per nom, I suppose). WP:CREATIVE is the relevant guideline, and it's at least arguable that she has "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and/or "significant critical attention", if the "reviews" page on her website is accurate. Certainly a lot closer to the line than most authors on AfD. Tevildo (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a very good article but she seems to have attracted some notice for her books. Borock (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--I'll go with it, MGM, but there's a lot to be cut in that article. Right now I'm trying to verify that Golden Gateway (doesn't seem very notable anyway) and can find no evidence--I'll let them stand but tagged. But I'll accept the notability of the person, given the suspicion that there might have been awards? Eh...who wrote this? Drmies (talk) 04:03, 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 08:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical definition of God[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination per decision to relist at DRV. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this essay to Names of God. JJL (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The biblical definition of God comprises far more than the name alone. Please read the sources cited. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment thanks, but I'm not going to read 6 books to comment on one AfD. I don't doubt that theologians have studied how the Christian bible imagines the term 'god' to be understood. The article is an essay on some specific biblical commentaries that can be redirected to anything listed in its See also section. Are you sure it's helpful to tell everyone posting here what they must do to satisfy your standards for commentary? JJL (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a discussion, not a vote. Points are raised and discussed. If you wanted a vote where one didn't have to discuss things, you came to the wrong place. ☺ (Indeed, lack of discussion is why this AFD discussion even exists in the first place.) You say that you are unwilling to read sources. As such, how, logically, can you have any foundation for stating how deletion policy, which deals in sourcing, applies? Please put in the effort to actually look at sources. They aren't cited for decoration. They are there to be read and checked. And they are the prime focus for AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As was pointed out in the original AfD, we have a _very_ large number of articles on God - this one does not add anything significant to them, and, as it stands, fails WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Tevildo (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Where, in our existing articles, are (the Biblical) God's gender and immateriality discussed, for example? And, given that everything in the article clearly comes from a source, several of which are directly addressing the biblical definition of God head-on, you need to provide more basis for your claim to original research than just an unsupported assertion that it is so. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gender of God and Transcendence (religion), to answer your specific questions. On the more general point, there is no evidence in the article that the topic is discussed by any of the sources under the heading "Biblical definition of God", or anything similar to it - it's just a collection of (adequately sourced _individually_, I'll grant you that) paragraphs that the contributing editor(s) consider to bear on the topic. I fail to see how that does not come under WP:SYNTH. The point mentioned below that the first sentence of the lead denies the existence of the purported topic of the article is also relevant, I feel. Tevildo (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe the original AfD concluded with the appropriate decision. I am personally baffled by some of the language in the article (God engaging in commerce with other deities?) and the article cherry-picks the Old and New Testaments to create a distinctive concept that strays too far into WP:OR territory to satisfy NPOV standards. I don't think this requires salvaging, as existing articles already cover the very few salient points raised here. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That "cherry picking" is called, in more usual Wikipedia parlance, "being a stub". See below. And as for the claim about existing articles, I suggest that you, too, attempt to answer the question posed above. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article starts out by saying that there is not one biblical definition of God. That is what I have always understood. How can there be an article about it then? Borock (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because sources exist that both (a) say this, and (b) go on to discuss the definition, such as it is, that the Bible does give. Some of them are already cited in the article. Have you looked at what sources exist? Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The brevity of this article, and the specialized selection of material, give the aura of original research. When there are already many articles on a topic, a new one like this should be integrated in some way. I don't see any discussion showing how this fits well with existing articles. Duplication or inconsistency seems inevitable. Even those who voted Overturn in the DRV do not seem to have had a specific idea of what to do with this article. They seemed to hope it would develop. UncleG opened the DRV because nobody noticed he had added new sources. Now that the sources are here, it is still baffling where to take this. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For "brevity and specialized selection" you would do better to substitute "stub worked on for just 2 days". These are the nature of stubs. Stubs are brief, and they are not comprehensive. Are you truly making the argument that just because something is a stub it therefore has the appearance of original research (despite not actually having the substance), and that therefore a stub should be deleted?
  If you want to know where to take the article, try to find more sources. The place to take the article is where sources have already gone. The article cites several. If you actually look, you'll find yet more. You'll find Lewis Sperry Chafer, for example, whose Systematic Theology (ISBN 9780825423406) covers the same ground as this article, and a fair bit more besides, in chapter 14 ("The Attributes of God") which covers personality, simplicity, unity, infinity, eternity, immutability, immensity, and sovreignty, all as part of the biblical definition of God (chapters 13 and 14 explicitly being under a heading of "Biblical Theology").
  Claims that this is original research are not based upon looking even at the sources in the article, let alone at what sources exist. Theologians have studied this, and have studied it specifically, and directly, as the subject of how the Bible defines God, and what it defines God as. Chafer is one such theologian. There are others. Indeed, the first 400 years of Christianity's existence was replete with them, according to David M. Knight and Matthew Eddy (ISBN 9780192805843 pp. 333). Further evidence that such theology exists is the fact of theologians such as Emil Brunner criticising it, as he does in Dogmatics I, for being "unsatisfactory", albeit "not so dangerous as the speculative method". Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Synth/OR. Eusebeus (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're going to have to justify that, as explained above. A bare statement doesn't do, in the face of sources such as (to pick but one example) Sonsino, which addresses this very subject and analyses it in this very manner. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I transfered it to http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Article_Heaven/Biblical_definition_of_God for posterity. Cheers! <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikademia (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure before I start: I am an atheist, and I feel that while Wikipedia should certainly have content on the tremendously notable Biblical God, we have more than enough God-related articles already.

I think comments about the present state of the article (in particular, WP:OR) should be disregarded because the sole purpose of AfD is to determine whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia. In other words, it doesn't matter if the existing content is OR or not (and for the record, my position is that it isn't). What matters is whether appropriate content could be written.

Disregarding several earlier comments therefore, I think a certain amount of useful discussion remains, but two questions are being conflated here.

The first question is whether well-sourced, encyclopaedic content could be written about the Biblical definition of God, to which my answer would be "absolutely" (and with all due respect to the ingenious arguments from previous editors, I feel that Uncle G is incontrovertibly in the right about this and the opposing position is not tenable).

The second question, though, is whether the well-sourced, encyclopaedic content should be in a separate article with this title, and my position is that it should not. I mentioned in the DRV how many articles could contain this information (and there are a lot), and I feel that further fragmentation of Wikipedia's content on the Biblical God risks creating more confusion among encyclopaedia users than it resolves.

So on balance, I feel that this content belongs in God in Abrahamic religions. I would not object to it being in Conceptions of God, or another similar alternative, if this is felt preferable.

If Uncle G is opposed to this suggestion, which I have now made several times, I do not understand on what grounds.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with above. Content may be valid. Article is not in the context. --Sabrebd (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tough one. Yes, some valid content, but not in the right place. What this article addresses are traditionally described theologically as the Attributes of God (currently a re-direct to God). The material in question would best fit in God in Abrahamic religions, and I would suggest Merge and redirect to that article. (as an aside, if dealing with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, one would speak of an identity of God, not a definition). Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:33, 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 03:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video 125[edit]

Not notable, the only reference is from the company's website. Article seems to be used for promoting the company, even listing a product and forum. ZoeL (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated in nomination. ZoeL (talk) 09:34, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this subject might be appropriate to cover somewhere on its own or merged and mentioned in a broader subject. But this article is an advertisement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda AIDS Orphan Children Foundation[edit]

This seems like an awesome charity that does really noble work. Still, being an awesome charity is not one of the criteria for inclusion listed in Wikipedia:Notability or in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There does not appear to be any independent refrenences about this organization which one could use to write an article, and the entire article is cited only to the organizations own website. Given that, there does not appear to be the bare minimum of notability, as defined in the guidelines above, to support keeping this article around. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 05:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've added on reference which, although not from a strictly reliable source, satisfies me that the organisation exists. With that in place I'm willing to turn a blind eye to WP:N in this case. 9Nak (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added an additional link highlighting the Orphan crisis in Uganda. I hope this passes the Notability criteria. Thank you. 20:63, 22 April 2009 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timp111 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The entry has been significantly improved since the original AfD; while the cited sources aren't exactly The New York Times I think they just barely satisfy the notability criteria that were the original concern. 9Nak (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The Tidings (newspaper) is independent and it's a whole article on the subject. Squeaks by WP:N. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not as notable as Angelina Jolie's humanitarian work but the article now has references to meet our threshold for general notability. I'm sure that in the future more coverage will be available for this international orphan support organization. --J^mundo 20:44, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Graveley[edit]

Software developer vanity page, fails WP:N. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 17:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:50, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: whoever made that page didn't take it seriously: is the provided picture of the subject encyclopedic? Alexius08 (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - three "sources", a webpage, a blog, and a PDF that looks like a scholarly paper, but doesn't seem to be published anywhere. The claims for notability are potentially good, but there are no sources to verify the accuracy of the claims. That's a swell picture of him though. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mann's Men[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mann's Men

A high school acapella group. Very little coverage in sources, even the blog references in the article make either passing or no actual mention. Nothing substantial on google related to this group. Fails WP:BAND Iam (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A high school band could be notable if extensive, independent references could be found, as spelled out at Wikipedia:Notability. Alas, no such sources appear to exist to support keeping this article around. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources, no coverage in 3rd party sources, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC) JamesBurns and the nominator are sockpuppets of one another, and both have been blocked indefinitely. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability for this small local group. JJL (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. Alexius08 (talk) 01:27, 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. Fram (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California College of Music[edit]

This article covers an apparently non-notable for-proft limited liability company in Pasadena, California that does business as the unaccredited California College of Music. I can find no reliable sourcing whatsoever for the subject; every Google News archive hit I was able to find refers to the College of Music at USC. It appears to fail WP:ORG, and as such I am listing it here for further discussion. user:j (aka justen) 18:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much either. I searched on "Pasadena International Music Academy", the previous name, and only got one significant piece, which was a podcast interview with the founder hosted on a local newspaper website. "Pasadena's California College of Music is one woman's dream come true" But it's been deleted off the site and the abstract makes it appear to have been more about the founder than the school anyway. So I'd agree that it does not meet the notability standards and should be deleted. Will Beback talk 18:56, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete no evidence of notability; would change if sources produced. JJL (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 02:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 03:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only article ProQuest has for this includes "University of Southern..." first. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two references on current page. One is to the org's own page (self-published) and not sufficient to establish notability. The second is to an unlinked news story in a single city's local newspaper. A search of the news archive for the dates given didn't turn up any record of the headline. So, no sources to help it pass notability guidelines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiara Glorioso[edit]

Non-notable presenter of traffic news on local radio. The only reference does nothing but confirm she exists and works in radio - ie. no evidence of notability Astronaut (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This travel presenter is very notable simply by listening to the station's on which she presents (BBC WM, BBC Shropshire etc etc), which are available to UK residents on the BBC's iPlayer for seven days after each transmission. She is also available to listen to on Traffic Radio midlands every weekday between 09:00 and 10:00 (BST) which can be listened to worldwide at www.trafficradio.org.uk

It is not customary in the UK for traffic and travel presenters to have profiles at stations, particularly at the Licence fee funded BBC which has strict editorial guidelines.Kevincoy (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, to increase the notability, I have added links to the broadcasts on which Chiara Glorioso can be heard, that are available live or on an on-demand basis, with the times to look for. Kevincoy (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "I'm a traffic broadcaster" isn't enough to justify a page in my mind, and the sole reference is to a brief article in an online publication. Chiara's name doesn't appear on any of the linked pages and broadcasts of just her broadcasting (traffic reports?) isn't enough to establish notability. Requires evidence of extensive coverage in independent media. Not everyone on TV and radio gets their own wikipedia page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not received substantial independent coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:14, 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 03:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Scabtree[edit]

Marilyn Manson pickup band that played only two gigs and released no recordings of its own, is so non-notable that even some of its members can't remember who was in it. Article created by User:Scabtree, and mostly edited by him/her or apparently related anon IPs. Described as "just a bunch of friends having fun on stage [by] crossdressing, painting their faces black, and insulting members of the audience." Which pretty much sums up why it's not notable. All relevant content (and more) duplicated in articles on known band members. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator's rationale. No allmusic entry. Nothing of note on Google either. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – The above user has been blocked for using sock puppets to vote-stack at AfDs.Rlendog (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only two shows, neither broadcast? At best merge into a footnote of Manson's page. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC and the trivial and self-published sources aren't enough in my mind to justify a keep. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomington Brothers[edit]

Non-notable comedy group using Wikipedia for advertisement. McNamara's work on the "Cold Feet" movie does not confer notability upon the duo. JaGa^talk 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability, sources are dubious. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tentative vote in favor, pending a reliable source for the TV pilot. Thedarkpenguin (talk) 19:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the IMDB is not enough to justify notability for either member, and doesn't even mention them as a group. That their main sources of interest are self-published (myspace, youtube and the dubious IMBD) isn't a good thing either, and the whole article reads like self-promotion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information and Documentation Center on NATO in Republic of Moldova[edit]

Given the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information and Documenation Center on NATO in Republic of Moldova, and given that this is essentially a duplicate (plus images), this too should be deleted for the same reasons. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baleet Per above 96.255.93.227 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a repost of an already deleted article. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a ((db-repost))-able candidate; if it wasn't notable before, what has changed now? Doesn't need relisting to generate debate, needs removal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny Meixner[edit]

Non-notable, has had no major achievements in motorsports and is one of thousands of drivers who now own their own racing teams. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 01:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources, virtually no context, virtually no assertion of notability. Tevildo (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reference does mention Meixner if you dig a bit, but it's self-published and therefore not useful for passing WP:N. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made submission on this page. I feel the Ronny Meixner had a good career inc winning Daytona 24 hours. Also as a team owner he is one of very few people who own a team in the American Le Mans Series & is a large multinational organisation with hqs in Germany & the US. I would like to expand & complete the piece and list external credits. Can I appeal the deletion system? As I am only getting used to Wiki the appeal system has slightly confused me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfatech (talk • contribs) 09:45, 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.