< 18 December	20 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Austin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Non-notable individual. Fails notability requirement of having any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- the only reliable sources mention the subject only briefly, in list-form, and the vast majority of sources are for the subject's own pages (website, blog, Youtube Channel, Justin.tv channel, Flixwagon channel, etc.) This page also has the trappings of being an autobiography. - Kitegenic (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — Kitegenic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Maintenance Note: This person is not related to Sarah Austin Barry and there has not been any prior AfDs for this person so I moved this back to first nomination status. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 02:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since the article's history reveals three dozen people worked on this article over the past two years, the notion that it "has the trappings of being an autobiography" doesn't compute. Austin's show is sponsored by Virgin American Airlines, Perkett PR and TechCrunch. She has interviewed Leonardo DiCaprio, Orlando Bloom, Richard Branson, Steve Wozniak and others. She has been seen on CNBC, CBS News and ABC News. I'm going to add a line about the book Me 2.0: Build a Powerful Brand to Achieve Career Success (2009) which profiles her in a chapter of "success stories". Pepso2 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there is a chapter in a major book dedicated to what she does, then that's enough to determine notability. I also doubt the validity of this nomination, being that it was created by a WP:SPA who registered the day of this nomination and only posts to about this nomination. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To keep this as objective as possible, she is indeed mentioned on page 207/208 in the book Me 2.0 and you can view the passage here [1]. If that is enough for notability, then you can keep this article. I personally don't believe it is nor do I believe being a self-employed journalist and having interviewed major personalities is grounds for notability either. If this article is kept, the article needs to be rewritten to remove the vast amount of original research (again, the majority of sources link to her own pages) as well as severely toning down the editorializing ("In the tradition of Paul Krassner, she sometimes combines legitimate news coverage with personal journalism and prankster activities"). - Kitegenic (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the line about Krassner because wearing Optimus Prime headgear to a McDonald's drivethrough is not something one would expect Katie Couric to do. So to compare Austin to Couric would be misleading, but Krassner rose to fame as someone who combined legit journalism, personal journalism, humor, hoaxes and pranks. Pepso2 (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found enough reliable sources in regards to her positions with national TV shows as well as coverage by mulitple tech press agencies to determine that she at least marginally falls within the notability policy. As far as the WP:OR and WP:SELFPUB, AfD is not an alternative to cleanup. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (updated 02:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Delete: This woman is certainly not deserving of an article. Someone above showed remarkable restraint in saying that this article "has the trappings of being an autobiography". I first discovered Sarah Austin when watching some ridiculously vapid coverage of 2009's Intel Science competition, and was astonished to find a somewhat lengthy, certainly autobiographical wikipedia article. Being an internet reporter does not place one in the lexicon of sufficiently relevant subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.136.45 (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC) — 208.120.136.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note:The above IP's only two edits to Wikipedia as of this post are the above and a vandalism post to the subject's article. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 10:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —w^L^{<speak·check>} 06:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some cleanup is needed, but I see a sufficient number of sources available on her to support notability.--Milowent (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pepso2 and Milowent. People do not "deserve" or fail to "deserve" Wikipedia articles particularly on the quality of their work. A person may be notable for "vapid coverage". In this case there seem to be quite a number of reliable sources that discuss Sarah Austin in a more than passing way, although not in immense depth. (Unfortunately, some of these sources are subject to link rot, and finding more enduring versions would be worthwhile for contributors. I just removed a ref to ABC news that no longer went anywhere relevant.) The Nicholas Cifuentes article and the Dan Schawbel book seem particularly persuasive to me. Interviewing celebrates may not automatically confer notability, but it does contribute to it, IMO. DES ^(talk) 15:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McQueen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Lacks GHit and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took the Speedy Delete tag off because IMDB shows some notability[2] and because I didn't realise that the article was probably an autobiography. I don't think that the IMDB entry is enough. It is clear from Google that he is not the most famous person of that name. I can't see much about him at all. Maybe his profile will rise with the new film, but that is not for us to prejudge. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wresting the autobiography away from its author, I habe begun with cleanup... however the name "Mark McQueen" is common enough to make a search for sources quite difficult [3][4].

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The House of De Mann[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a noble house. I can find no information on any of these people except Michael Molineux De Mann, who appears to be the article's creator (Facebook here). No information on the legitimacy of any such viscountcy. A few Google Books hits are false positives, e.g. "Marin" mis-scanned as "Mann." Glenfarclas (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless convincing references are forthcoming. Unverifiable as it stands. Could even be a hoax. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. The family history requires 5 straight generations of producing a child at age 13. No title of Viscount was awarded in France in 1951 and I'm pretty certain French titles are not inherited through the female line. Edward321 (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magical (Studio Album)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable albums by a rapper who does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. I've gone through these first and removed unsourced claims that Eminem, Jay-Z, Kanye West, and others were featured on these albums; that appears to be wishful thinking at best and no amount of searching I did could turn up any connection between these albums and a notable singer. There is a related AfD (hypothetical future albums of the same artist) here. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, or just wait for MC Static to get speedily deleted and then delete them all under CSD A9. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MS Static has been deleted so I tagged all three for speedy deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not much to move, so I'll just delete it. Let me know if you need the content. Tone 14:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gale (protocol)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student project with zero sources. Miami33139 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom and Joe. Fails WP:N. 16x9 (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Academic protocol/system that never took off, nor has any historical importance. No secondary sources that I can find. Pcap ping 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried and I tried to find something resembling an example of non-trivial coverage from a reliable third party source. I failed. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep: You will delete, so can you move on my user page ? — Neustradamus (✉) 19:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are asking for two separate things. Can you please explain the rationale behind your keep comment? JBsupreme (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I like this protocol, http://www.gale.org/ http://wiki.ofb.net/?GaleFaq — Neustradamus (✉) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Ruck-Crimes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax. Only one mention found via google, and that is a forumn posting. if this were real, would have many online refs. prod declined. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for which I've nominated it, as a copyright violation. Agree that it looks like nonsense, as well. 99.155.206.57 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DenyHosts[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a notability claim here and a single reference. I think this is too weak to sustain this article. Miami33139 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ I find lots of discussion on blogs and fora by apparently technically competent people, the kind of widespread discussion that while no one link indicates notability, en masse tends to (but perhaps not by Wikipedia rules). I found one university page on this software, and several pages from commercial firms that might be considered reliable sources, and appear to be independent. I have added these to the external links section. There ought to be a way to source this kind of widely used open-source software that will not be much written about in traditional published secondary sources. DES ^(talk) 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of Pcap's additions. DES ^(talk) 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had deprodded this article and added the O'Reilly book ref before the AfD; true it's only a 3-page coverage, but what can you expect for software like this? Perhaps merge all of them (e.g. together with Fail2ban) in some overview article, perhaps intrusion prevention system? Pcap ping 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, Fail2ban has zero gbooks hits. It's all sourced from HowtoForge and the like; there's no shortage of that kind of articles for DenyHosts either freesoftwaremagazine.com, ubuntugeek.com, howtoforge, but being covered in a book coverage seemed more significant. Pcap ping 01:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also played a central role in this elreg story. Pcap ping 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think notability has been established after adding this. Pcap ping 02:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly: even though this sort of thing is too much with us, this seems to be the subject of genuinely independent commentary. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Nichol[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any sources for this name, the only news source for the name is from 2005 and is unrelated to any "megaluf episode" (this which was the only news story related to magaluf of note in my search.) Random Time 22:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (per my tag which is still on the page); I don't think inserting the word "famous" in an article makes a credible assertion of notability. No sources. My own checking shows that, if there in fact is a Kieran Mark Nichol, he is not a remotely famous philosopher or scholar. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I Am Canadian#Parodies. I see no harm in keeping the redirect here. Tone 14:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not Canadian[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this ~~video~~ radio broadcast. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a video, for starters; it was a radio broadcast that later circulated in MP3. That said, I don't think it really warrants an article either; it's had no real lasting cultural impact in its own right. It demonstrates the fact that there were parodies of the I Am Canadian beer ad, but we can do that just as easily by mentioning them briefly in the real ad's article. I heard at least five others besides this one ("I Am a Newfoundlander", "I Am a Torontonian", etc.); none of them are notable in their own right either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above Kyle1278 03:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest a merge and redirect to I Am Canadian but it's already mentioned there. PK T(alk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possible redirect to I Am Canadian#Parodies, per Bearcat. Airplaneman ^talk 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per PKT and Bearcat DRosin (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge significant bits to I Am Canadian#Parodies, as above. This was quite popular for a time, but its popularity stems primarily from the original I Am Canadian ad. Mind matrix 21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Am Canadian#Parodies. -- œ ^™ 07:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Thornton (baseball)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league baseball player/manager. Alex (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7, "author requests deletion" It appears that the nominator is the same guy who created the article in the first place. Mandsford (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DO NOT SPEEDY DELETE. I put these up for AfD to GENERATE DISCUSSION about possible deletion, not to get speedily deleted. By allowing these to be AfD rather than G7, it gives time for an article to be saved and for more than one person to decide whether or not an article stays or goes. Alex (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I misunderstood. I tend to agree that Thornton would not be notable under WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage. As with Jose Capellan, he did not play higher than the Class A minor leagues, and he did not manage a team at higher than that level. The debate on some other articles suggests a lack of understanding about what "Class A" means, but it's kind of the lowest level for players who aren't rookies. There are higher levels (double-A, triple-A, and then the majors). For those who don't know what those terms mean, "rookies" are people who are new to professional baseball, and "the majors" are the American League and the National League, the two highest levels of pro baseball in the United States. Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough exists on this person to make article worthwhile. --Spanneraol (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May need cleanup but not deletion. Tone 14:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Romero Ellner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

one sided WP:Attack article. 80% of the sources used in the article are opinion pieces or obscure limited circulation magazines which are not WP:RS Cathar11 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The negative material in the article is, subject to exceptions, sourced. I'm not saying there aren't necessarily any POV or reliability concerns about the article, but deletion is not appropriate. He's notable and and G10 does not apply - the negative material is generally well sourced. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Automatically notable as a member or former member of the country's parliament. - Eastmain (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are poor, and in some cases fail verification. See cite #5: http://archivo.laprensa.hn/ez/index.php/laprensa_user/ediciones/2003/12/31/2003_dejo_tres_diputados_presos_y_otro_profugo completely fails verification as it does not even have the name of the person being supposedly referenced by source. The majority of these are either opinion or low circulation and/or self published sources. Not good for a biography and certainly not in line with standards for Wikipedia's BLP policy. Moogwrench (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The La Prensa article appears to spell his name wrong (as "David Romero Eller" rather than "Ellner"), but the name is present in the article. - Eastmain (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am seeing a good deal of secondary source coverage. Which is not to say the article should not be heavily cleaned up, it should. The appropriate place to post to get some help with that, would be WP:BLPN. Cirt (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whoa here ... this fellow was a member of a national parliament. That's a prima facie keep under WP:BIO, done deal. As far as the sources being "poor," La Prensa is Honduras' largest circulating newspaper and El Heraldo is run by the same ownership group. There seems to be a misunderstanding about WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK, neither of which mean or say that the preponderance of an article's text can't be negative. In any event, that's a content dispute, which is inappropriate for AfD. Ravenswing 08:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Yettaw[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the subject of this BLP's having been involved in notable events (namely, the "Suu Kyi trespasser incidents") he yet remains, at least to this point in time, a non-public person of no notability independent from those events, whose biographical details gleaned from press reports seem rather speculative and gossipy to me. [BTW, note that I could have simply left "John Yettaw" as a redirect to the article about the event and simply removed the gossipy and heavily speculative material from out of the biographical section at that article, but instead I chose to leave this biographical material here and nominate it for deletion in order to ensure more editors review such a determination; anyway, I hope the avenue I've taken here isn't deemed to be too irregular.] ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. (Also see Talk:John Yettaw#I have nominated this article for deletion..., Talk:Suu Kyi trespasser incidents#Biography section problems and Wikipedia:Coatrack#The_Attack_Article.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Suu Kyi trespasser incidents. This dumb sonovabitch wasn't independently notable outside of ruining her chance for freedom. Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert to its previous form. Please review Wikipedia:NOTABILITY. The Yettaw article passes the test: A) "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content; B) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline; C) "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability; D) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.; E) "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. This article meets each of those guidelines. The article has no original research, all citations are from independent, reliable sources that are not published by Yettaw, and the article violates nothing in What Wikipedia is Not. Moreover, this article is well-referenced, accurate and details a historic and influential series of events. Kingturtle (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kingturtle. DES ^(talk) 15:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tony Dokoupil (Newsweek) is truly a gifted journalist----but w/regard Yettaw, too gifted, in a way, able to swell up vague recollections by John Yettaw's former family members into an ostensible background for the man. Just one example (of scores of details of this nature): Dorris Brochu (Monrovia, California) says something to the effect of that former son-in-law John Yettaw was a no-good who lay about the house all day, his contractor's license an unused piece of paper...whereas chatter I have read indicates him to have constructed and sold a number of properties in Cali and also in Missouri! In any case, IMHO, just as the former WP article for Jeffrey Vernon Merkey could not pass muster with regard to "do no harm," repetition of vaguely researched gossip about John William Yettaw is not ethical, important to be covered, necessary to be read as part of WP's line-up of encyclopedically researched and verified biographies of living persons. Yettaw remains a mystery. For example, is he a Vietnam veteran? Wikipedia and Dokoupil say no (viz):
"According to family members, Yettaw was a veteran of the Vietnam War with nearly two years of battle experience, and was once wounded in action. However, records from the National Personnel Records Center show that he was stationed in West Germany, not Vietnam"
-- whereas CNN's "American Morning" co-host/anchor Kiran Chetry says yes:
"Motivated by visions, the retired bus driver and Vietnam vet wanted to do something to bring attention to the plight of the Myanmar people. But the plan met with objections from his family."
IMO Yettaw's background pretty much remains his personal business, its not yet having passed into anything approximating "verified and accurate, public knowledge" at all. Note the quote by the associate of Yettaw's that Dirk Vanderhart and Susan Saulny (The New York Times) used in the following:
"Mr. Webb described him after the release as 'not a well man' but also added: 'I believe what happened was regrettable. He was trying to help. He’s not a mean-spirited human being.' ¶ Mr. Yettaw’s neighbors and friends said they had been praying for his safety, even while they do not fully understand what happened in Myanmar or why he went. Some thought the trip had to do with graduate studies in psychology, or perhaps a book Mr. Yettaw told them he wanted to write. ¶ 'I’ll be glad to see him back,' said one friend, Michael Assel, a retired Navy officer. 'I would not question his motives like so many people have done. In my opinion, it’s just his business. He got in trouble and for a while, it looked like he wouldn’t get home, but he did, so I’m happy about that.'"
Despite the fact that, as M.J. Stephey (Dec. 8th Time magazine) has written, Yettaw has become "a magnet for international scorn and speculation" . . .
“Wikipedia is not[...]a vehicle for propaganda[...]. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for[...s]candal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.”
---WP:NOTSCANDAL
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played an historically significant role, with a great number of major international sources to show it. the role is signifiant enough to be a major factor in any historical coverage of Burmese politics of the period. The article needs to discuss his role --the amount of personal detail in the present version seems excessive DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Elevator Men[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Only possible criterion is number nine, and I do not believe that this music competition is a major music competition (note, for example, that there were only 30 registered attendees). Singularity42 (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N. Since winning battle of the bands, the play for friends and family. Notable bands play for audiences who choose to attend. Pburka (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Singularity42 DRosin (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White and the Seven Clever Boys[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable "cartoon": as far as I can tell it was actually video game, but I can find only the most passing mentions on a couple of forums and a couple of YouTube videos (you can watch it [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edk4bcjskVc here, for instance). I've never seen a video game with 26 Google hits. Neither notable nor verifiable. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything either. PROD was removed without addressing above concerns. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm not sure if I need to say anything more since it's my PROD that is reprinted above. Thanks of to OrangeDog for listing this-- Glenfarclas (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StarLegacy (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Hi, I was the creator of the Snow White and the Seven Clever Boys page. I'd like to know what the page is missing, as it is being nominated for deletion. I was able to fix the fact that the cartoon was labeled a game and all that.[reply]
- It's not what the page is missing (though it's not going to be up for WP:GA anytime soon), it's what the page's subject is missing—notability.
Comment: Page has been moved to Snow White and the 7 Clever Boys, and more information has been added. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @052 · 00:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ask That Guy with the Glasses episodes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of web clips of somebody who isn't notable answering stupid questions, no sources, no claims of notability, nothing worth keeping Jac16888 ^Talk 20:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. The main article That Guy with the Glasses should probably go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That Guy with the Glasses is a popular website which people may want information for. Why delete it? -HaiyaTheWin (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (edit conflict) While the notability of That Guy With the Glasses has been established, there has already been a consensus to delete List of Bum Reviews With Chester A. Bum episodes, about another series by the same creator, and the same arguments made there also apply here.--Unscented (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see, I suppose, deleting the episode list, deleting the main article like Starblind said I don't like. I don't see any reason to, and plenty of reason not to: people want to be able to look up TGWTG! -HaiyaTheWin (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Walker[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a fictional person which does not state notability at all. RWJP (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly redirect to the article about Liam Kyle Sullivan who portrays this fictional character. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~and redirect~~ to Liam Kyle Sullivan. The actor is notable, but the character isn't notable enough for an article of her own. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or dab. Do not just redirect. Susan Walker Fitzgerald is a much more notable Susan Walker, and deserves to be disambiguated on any Susan Walker page. Pburka (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the creation of such a disambiguation page, given the notability of Susan Walker Fitzgerald and Sue Walker. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability independent of the creator. Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Regent Theatre[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD; notability claimed as "the smallest theatre in Britain" but not substantiated. Apart from that, it's completely unsourced, and since PROD'ded, hasn't been improved. Rodhull andemu 01:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merge into Freddie Eldrett, the principal founder. The theatre is also known as the Prince Regent Intimate Theatre and a search under that name that produces some results, such as event listings and people who worked there. Cjc13 (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage. I can find coverage for the Prince Regent Theatre in Munich, but not Hampshire. I would suggest a merge with Freddie Eldrett but on looking at the page I am not sure if that page has sufficient notability either. If some better sources come up, then I would change my mind but as it stands this should be deleted. Also if it is kept I think the list of shows should be removed, unless that is common on pages about theatres. DRosin (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some coverage as "Prince Regent Intimate Theatre". Cjc13 (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telepath RPG Chapter One[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles are about a videogame series that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. In addition, they are poorly sourced and written primarily in an in-universe style. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable web game(s) and an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a game guide. I42 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single independent reliable source. Hobit (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe even speedy. Wiki is not a game guide. DRosin (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus, but copyright concerns mean deletion is significantly safer. tedder (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noncommutative polynomial[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article refers only to a single theorem about noncommutative polynomials. Whether or not that theorem deserves an article, the topic of noncommutative polynomials shouldn't start with that theorem. It's possible a move, followed by overwriting the redirect with a sensible article, might be better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative, move the current Non-commutative polynomial ring article (actually, at free algebra) to this name (Noncommutative polynomial). This involves deleting the article presently here, so it still requires a delete result. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not seem to be about the subject but a narrow aspect of it. There might be material for an article with this name, but it's hard to see where it find it from what's here. Given this, a move might be in order but the references given do not establish notability for what is covered.--RDBury (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not a clean-up process. If you want to suggest a merge into Non-commutative polynomial ring, you should suggest that. There is literally nothing - no comment at all - on the discussion page of the article. This nomination is not apparently about the topic of the article, but about the handling of this draft, so is quite out of scope for the process. Please follow the good steps mentioned at WP:BEFORE. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, due diligence suggests googling for "Connes embedding conjecture" before rushing this article to deletion. I find this, which suggests that the correct tagging is for more context, nothing more. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an article can be cleaned up and sometimes it's better to start over from scratch. I don't see what there is in the article that can be salvaged. The title seems to have little to do with what the article is about, there is so little context provided that it's difficult to tell what it is about, and there are no references given to show that whatever that may be is notable. In light of this I think the nomination was appropriate. If delete is not in order then please indicate sources that establish notability, or indicate which article it should be merged with. The responsibility for establishing notability rests with the article's creator, not with the person nominating it of AfD.--RDBury (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems to include a number of basic misconceptions about the deletion process. I remark that by convention an article at AfD should not be moved to a new title. Therefore an article that has a poorly chosen title should not be prematurely nominated; and, further, the argument that the title is wrong when something is at AfD is then a Catch-22. ((context)) would have been a good addition to the article; talk page comments also. Having an article run off the site by specious arguments doesn't serve the purposes of the encyclopedia I write for. And I think you also should look down WP:BEFORE, to inform yourself where the onus lies in nomination. I don't think either of the Delete votes here is backed by any research at all into the content of the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles at AfD can be moved to new titles, and should, if the title is bad. That has been true since 2007. Please do not spread misconceptions about the deletion process. — Kusma ^talk 09:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means to say if a move is the required action there is no reason to list the articles here to begin with. There is no need for an AfD to facilitate a move. And if a possible rearrangement or merging of several math articles isd required, that is also something that could/should be discussed with other math editors at the wikiproject for mathematics first before listing it for deletion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, User:Arthur Rubin decided to mass-nominate four articles by User:Henry Delforn diff. It is hard to see there any attempt to treat the cases each on their merits. "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing", "Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered", "If the article is not already tagged to note an existing problem, apply a tag", "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged", "If there is no discussion then start one, outlining your concerns", "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, try to confirm that such sources don't exist", "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD", and especially "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD" are all exemplary pieces of advice from WP:BEFORE, and no attempt has been made to follow them. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly can't stay as it is. It could be moved to an appropriate title, and the current title redirected to Free algebra. If we can't find an appropriate title, redirecting without doing anything else is probably the best option for the moment, as that tells people looking for noncommutative polynomial what that should be. — Kusma ^talk 09:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see any point to having this article. It is a fork of the Connes embedding problem, another article by Henry Delforn (talk · contribs) which is poorly written but capable of improvement. Non-commutative polynomials occur in many places in the subject of operator algebras, most notably in free probability theory, to which this article makes no reference. However, it seems more appropriate to treat their occurrence separately in the correct context, rather than a separate article. Mathsci (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your point, a merge to unfork and a redirect of the title to free algebra is surely indicated. In fact I'd be content to have the content of this article placed on Talk:Connes embedding problem, for consideration, and then the title redirected. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so it can be improved through editing. Mathematicians always prefer to bite the newbie instead of doing some little work. franklin 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the little work I support is the one Kusma was proposing. franklin 01:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the content fork issues, the copyright problems involving its main contributor, and WP:NPOV issues with its too-narrow focus, it doesn't seem that this is a helpful contribution. No prejudice against someone later creating a proper article on the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by NJA (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). NAC. Tim Song (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balkee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be made up one day. Tim Song (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - Looks totally made up, and looks like it can totally fall under G3, in my opinion... smithers - talk - sign! 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced list of trivia. Not one single reference in the article to classify it as anything other than original research. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this article is merely an excessive listing of statistics and trivia. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may lack references at the moment, but I've no doubt one could find national media coverage for a large majority of winners. I can't see that this list is more excessive than, say, University Challenge#Winners. EALacey (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My final answer is keep, but try to remove those who lost on the last question. Plus, I am not the person who created this article.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Chris[reply]
Lock in keep. Maybe there are not many references in this article, but I think the article is important as a part of WWTBAM project.
Keep - trivial in the wider context of world affairs, I agree, but significant in the context of the programme. This is a world-wide record of those who have achieved the ultimate goal of competing in what is, internationally, a hugely popular show. OTOH, I would find it much harder to justify in-depth national lists such as Milionerzy notable contestants. This is actually not OR since the content can be verified against recordings of the show though, editorially, it does need significant work on sourcing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although it is a list, this list does not seem to exist in a reliable source outside of wikipedia, so it is useful. However I agree with removing the biggest prize losers, and Asen Angelov if a cite cannot be found. This list is not now OR as I have provided a few references, and I don't think it is indiscriminate as there are very strict criteria for inclusion. Martin451 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful list, part of a project, under construction, more reliable sources can be found. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blockland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software product. All the "references" provided are either forums or download sites. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added multiple references which prove the software's notability. Ephialtes42 (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Great amount of references for an article like this, and it has been featured on Shack News and The Screen Savers. Jeremjay 24 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing appears to meet GNG per last AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the Globe and Mail article establishes some notability. I do however thing the article needs help. Most of the editors are users of the game, and are single purpose accounts. This often makes for an article lacking neutrality.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be snowballed. Jeremjay 24 01:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources, especially Globe and Mail article, establish notability for Blockland. Also a comment: as Ephialtes is a Blockland scripter, he is a clear COI/SPA. Specs112 (Talk!) 01:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the active editors of that article are SPAs. I had a ((COI)) tag on for a while, and the situation hasn't improved I'm afraid.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While a lot of the editors are indeed SPAs, I don't think the article is so heavily biased that it warrants deletion, and is certainly not something that a little help from some experienced editors wouldn't rectify. Furthermore, to the best of my judgement I'd say the software was notable, as it's been written about in the Globe and Mail, on Shack News and had G4TV exposure. The original reason for deletion was poor references which has now been fixed - is there another outstanding issue keeping this nomination alive? Ephialtes42 (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right Ephi, this doesn't have WP:SNOW of getting deleted, given new refs and notability established, so this discussion is pretty much pointless. Specs112 (Talk!) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Ephialtes42.--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't care if the article is edited by SPAs. They can generate new accounts to edit this article 'til their face(s) turns blue for all I care. The bottom line is this: can a decent article be made about the subject using neutral language, citing reliable third party sources? I think so. JBsupreme (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Given that the nominator hasn't furthered their argument since, and nobody has voted to delete - can this be closed now? Ephialtes42 (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Chandler[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Wrote one book. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO; I was unable to find any reliable citations on her or her book. ff m 19:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that the author's sole book hasn't even been published yet, so this article can't have any basis except a desire for promotion. EALacey (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had it tagged as spam. Original author's username is pgchandler; created two socks to edit war the speedy-tag away. Speedy was declined. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any good coverage DRosin (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getid3[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all products with no third party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kambojas (Mahabharata)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a mess of Synthesis, Original Research, and questionable (dated) sources, with the goal of making a POV fork. Most of it is about the Kurukshetra War, which is already sufficiently covered in proper articles. Priyanath ^talk 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GSMR (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Priyanath ^talk 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based entirely on numerous verses from ancient Indian source Mahabharata. Each and every reference quoted about the Kambojas is found in the said Epic. The peoples who nominate this for deletion first need to read on-line Mahabharata and gain some basic knowledge about these ancient people. Here is the Link.

Kisari Mohan Ganguli translation (in English)

Also, to some extent read Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India by Dr B. C. Law (Pages 230-252).

One can not simply delete an article unless one is inveterately prejudiced or ignorant.

Hey GSMR (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC), can you explain in simple words as to why you want to have this article deleted?.[reply]

This article is not a Synthesis or Original Research or contains/quotes questionable (dated) (????) sources. If Mahabharata, Ramayana. Puranas etc are questionable Indian sources, them have all history articles on Wikipedia which quote these ancient sources on Indian History deleted from Wikipedia.

Google Books contain thousands of History books which have been written based on the ancient Indian traditions preserved in above ancient Indian Sources. Puranas and Mahabharata have been regarded more or less historical chronicles from Ancient Indian writers (P.E. Pargiter, M. R. Singh, K. D. Minshi etc).

67.182.188.93 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undue synthesis and original research. The Kurukshetra War article contains most of the content from this page. The bit that's not included is really undue -- The Kamboja's are mentioned somewhere between ten and twenty times in two parts of the Mahabharata, and mostly in passing, much less than many of the other kingdoms/clans, therefore there's nothing really to show significant importance of this. -SpacemanSpiff 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW. Mmm, snow. Sandstein 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon on The Simpsons[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod, so it's got to come here. I prodded it, saying "I'm not sure if there's a speedy category for this - there is absolutely nothing here of encyclopedic value." It was contested because, to quote the deprodder, "I created this article as part of Bacon Challenge 2010." I am unable to see how that can justify this article's existence. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is not a prod. I created it as part of Bacon Challenge 2010. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Completely random article, and I'm not even sure where to begin with the policies it breaks. What's next - Syrup in The Simpsons? Completely arbitrary in nature and doesn't deserve an article. Skinny87 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is really more like raw data than an article. So not notable. I could start an article on what birds I have seen in my backyard and it would be as encyclopedia worthy as this. Borock (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly--but bacon tastes much better than those birds, I imagine. Isn't there a guideline that says that every bacon-related article is automatically notable? I mean, would you delete Francis Bacon as well?? :) I kindly ask that the following, objective admins keep an eye on this process, lest we throw the pork away with the belly: User:Pigman and User:Thedemonhog, admins in the Suidae category. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of them probably taste better, and at least would be Kosher. Anyway the main point of the Simpsons is to make fun of American culture, so naturally bacon would come up now and then.Borock (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that were the case, I would imagine that every time an article was deleted, the author would recreate it, but this time by adding in a section about their association with Bacon, thus deeming it un-deletable. Ultimate inclusion tactic FTW. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. An artifact of a project likely to spawn dozens of articles of equal merit. PhGustaf (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Has this topic itself received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? Cirt (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is reliable secondary source, I doubt the author is a piece of bacon, if that's what you're asking. :) - 204.117.76.249 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry Grundle2600, but this topic hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. The leftorium 17:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless my above question can be answered in the affirmative (unfortunately :P) Cirt (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As much as I like Bacon and the Simpsons, the topic just isn't covered enough, and even if it was, it still really wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cirt, Hamster, if you have another look at the article, you'll see that the two references I added should make the topic as solid as, say, bacon and Jessica Simpson put together. Now there's a tasty thought, at least for some of you. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned! Drmies (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT - this is nothing more than Trivia. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without any reliable sources diuscussing the link between Simpsons and bacon, this looks like original research or synthesis. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 18:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, not all of us agree with a plan to have "as many bacon related articles as possible" on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love The Simpsons, but this is the definition of cruft. What next, "Eggs on The Simpsons" (remember when Homer got upset at the guy from the Egg Council?) or "Bowling on The Simpsos"? TJ Spyke 18:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Skinny87. smithers - talk - sign! 19:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously. Not a great start to the Great Unblock Experiment. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really called for. Grsz¹¹ 22:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per almost all the above comments. I'm not sure this isn't a parody. EALacey (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject per above. --John (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable fork on pork. Mathsci (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you win the instant rimshot on this AfD :). Nate • (chatter) 00:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bacon SpinningSpark 00:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bacon is delicious. But I think if I would start an article about Coffee on Gilmore Girls, Spaghetti on the Sopranos, Lasagna in Garfield, Cheese on Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers and Spinach in Popeye I would be rightfully slapped with a speedy tag. Pretty much an example of a good silly article that doesn't have encyclopedic value. Will not deny the amusement value, however. Nate • (chatter) 00:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bacon on televison where we will record every instance of bacon depicted on television programming as well as actual bacon placed on television sets. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand... and boardering on being disruptive. Humor can be taken too far. Although I do have to wonder why no one has suggested that this be speedy under ((db-spam)), as it would fit with the joke. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of ham? Enjoy some bacon. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article should be deprecated as a content pork. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete I think it is sad that this is the most interesting article I have read today and yet I feel it should be deleted. I suppose this should really be on a Simpsons fan site, but it is pretty interesting. It is with great sadness I am voting delete. I don't know if that says more about me or more about Wikipedia DRosin (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing kosher about this article. Warrah (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely ridiculous. Not even worth a merge into Bacon on television. Steven Walling 06:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too fat, fat, you must cut lean You gotta take the Bacon article to the AfD. Stub, change, take it off, super ban ban, super ban ban. Шизомби (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. I'm ignoring Smerdis's !vote because it is bias like most of his !votes. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Electric[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{- Eastmain (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete, weakly. After Eastmain's work, this is now a model for what an article about a business ought to look like. But what are their claims to fame? True, they made tangible goods and used to have a physical presence in the form of a billboard that was a local landmark. They've been around since 1920, and there was a strike in 1938. Now they're just a shell brand selling goods made overseas and the billboard is gone. I'd be happy to defer to the judgment of others if they think this story is remarkable enough to support an encyclopedia article, but I am not really convinced. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. I think that the company was once notable, when it employed lots of people and was manufacturing specialized products that had to be better or more cost-effective than competitive products (or else nobody would have bought them), and having once been notable, it still is. Perhaps someone once published comparative reviews of Eagle Electric's products versus those of competitors, or the company obtained a patent and derived a competitive advantage from it. There must be more to the strike and the union organizing campaign that led up to the creation of the union local there than just the New York Times story about the arrest of the picketers. In fact, when I am researching an article about a company, I know that I am just seeing the top of the iceberg when I am relying on what I can find online. So even if the company and its building had vanished entirely, I would argue that once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles cited show it was once notable, and that is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working Out (book)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod - Article was prodded with a rationale of "No evidence of notability". An IP posted to the talk page with, "An important book for glbt history. It should be kept on wikipedia in my view. Thanx." I took that for a contest of the prod and removed the prod tag. The article was re-prodded with a rationale of "unsourced article about a book whose author doesn't have one, backed up only by an unsourced assertion that it's an important part of LGBT culture as "the first erotic book that [gay men] could openly buy without having their sexuality exposed". Except, er, no -- the whole beefcake magazine phenomenon predates this book by at least 50 years." LadyofShalott 16:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC) LadyofShalott 16:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:V, WP:N. The only academic reference[5] I can find to this book doesn't mention the LGBT angle at all. Pburka (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anex:New Province of Ontario[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. The proposal this article refers to is notable, but this is just original research that seeks to describe what will happen if the proposal becomes reality. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

Delete - As a general rule, for topics that would strike most people as unlikely and stupid unless they saw proof, one should have citations to proof. Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL. The geography, area, and population of the hypothetical province consisting of the rest of Ontario if the Greater Toronto Area seceded are not relevant to anything until the Province of Toronto becomes a serious proposal. However, Province of Toronto indicates that Toronto's secession from Ontario is not currently being debated seriously. I don't think we have similar articles for the "rest of" territories that would result if any of the various other secession proposals throughout the world were to take effect, nor do we need such articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article created by a user who seems to want to push a POV throughout the encyclopaedia that Toronto should go independent. Non-encyclopaedic, completely soapboxy. Canterbury Tail talk 18:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this article cannot be brought in line with WP:OR. Ground Zero | t
Delete; WP:NOR violation. It isn't even a political proposal of any sort, but merely what would be left over after a different political proposal was implemented — and even that is, at this point, about as likely as pigs flying. And even if it did somehow magically happen tomorrow, there are still so many things wrong with this article that it still couldn't be the boilerplate for any of the changes that would actually need to be made to Ontario's article in that eventuality. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Soul[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Non-notable. Original research. Created by sockpuppet account with COI. Lack of independent, reliable sources DRosin (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the nominator for this AfD. A comparable AfD occurred with Adam Lyons recently and I think in contrast to Adam Lyons this article does not have sufficient sources, and the subject lacks notability. Some of the sources do not even mention him, and I couldn't find anything myself to strengthen the article. My other concern was that the article was created by an account which was banned for being a sockpuppet of an account that had a COI with Love Systems which Jeremy Soul seems to work for. A lot of original research on this one makes me think neutrality is lacking as well. This is my first AfD nomination so I might be being too harsh (or just wrong!) on this one, but I think the article could benefit from some other eyes. I think the article merits deleting, although merging with Love Systems might be useful if there are some sources that demonstrate some degree of notability. As it stands I don't think this article is good enough for Wiki, especially from what I have learnt from the Adam Lyons AfD (another figure in the seduction community.) DRosin (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no assertion of notability, nor do I expect any. It indicates he is in the process of writing a book, which might have changed my opinion if it had significant coverage, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shirik (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey there - I've added both an assertion of notability, and removed or referenced the items I found that appeared to be original research - thanks for you feedback WoodenBuddha (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts. - Keep This articles has more than three reliable sources to enforce notability and WP:BIO. I agree that the sentence on the upcoming book is not good enough, so that might have to be removed but it should not be the reason to delete this page. Deganveranx (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Stormhammer9782 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. '"Keep"'. I believe the most reliable sources are those of the reviews and experiences of his workshop students. The links to the Love Systems website provides these reviews. I agree on being neutral for it's the fair and right thing but neutrality has to come from objective facts. The book may not have coverage as yet because maybe it has not been published just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormhammer9782 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC) — Stormhammer9782 (talk) [reply]

Comment With regard to the references, what we found on the Adam Lyons page was that tabloid sources weren't reliable or independent as they were usually just PR pieces. DGG had a lot to say about this. If we examine the references used in this article, Reference 1 is a non-notable tabloid, and amusingly is in Swedish. I am not sure what the Wiki policy is on foreign-language, but even if this reference was in English it would not qualify as an independent or reliable source. Reference 2 does not mention the subject at all. It does not support the assertion that the subject worked at Love Systems. Reference 3 is in Swedish and looks like another tabloid. Reference 4 is a non-notable tabloid. Reference 5 I think is just Reference 1 but in English. Reference 6 is a commercial podcast which I think is obviously not independent or reliable. Reference 7 makes no mention of him from what I can tell. Regarding Stormhammer's comment, I do not think you understand the difference between references and external links, and what constitutes independent and reliable sources. Reviews of his students on the commercial website of the company that he works for are in no way independent or reliable. The reviews you mention are a terrible example of neutral sources in my opinion. Feel free to disagree (and welcome to Wikipedia!), but I really don't think the evidence you have cited supports keeping this page in any way. DRosin (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts. - Comment The importance of sources is that it is neutral and has verifiable information. All sources do and none are tabloids. Metro is a newspaper chain in Europe, the second sources states the facts that bootcamps are main stream activities, third source is from a newspaper in Norway, 4th is the local newspaper in Las Vegas, 5th is not the same as the first source (different newspaper), 6th yes is a podcast ran by Jordan Harbinger and people of The Art of Charm which makes it notable. From looking at the article's history, DRosin already tried to delete this article without any attempt to improve the article. I would rather see you improve articles and contribute instead of trying to disruptively delete articles that others have spent time working on. Deganveranx (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced article about someone who's citations show he's notable. I've been working on the pages inside the Seduction community for nigh-on four years now. We've got a pretty good idea now of what's notable and what's not - DRosin is a new user who's been heavily promoting Adam Lyon's page, and trying to get others deleted. Not helpful. WoodenBuddha (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is unfortunate that this AfD has some sockpuppets/meatpuppets on this now. Deganveranx is being investigated for being a sockpuppet of Handrem, who was blocked along with 5 other accounts recently for having a conflict of interest with Love Systems, who Jeremy Soul article apparently works for. WoodenBuddha was going to be blocked on Wikipedia for posting a variety of personal information, photographs etc. of some random person on my talk page. I did not pursue blocking the user because I tried to assume good faith although the information was removed by an admin. I don't want this AfD to turn into an edit war, and I don't want to fling around sockpuppet accusations with no foundation, but I would take what the users WoodenBuddha and Deganveranx have said with a small bit of salt. To address their comments, I think all of then sources are from tabloids, and that is pretty clear. The Art of Charm article is of dubious notability as well, and may be worth looking at after this article. Anyway, I think the article remains lacking notability and sufficient sources, and that the tone very spammy. The fact that it was created by a blocked sockpuppet account adds to my suspicion, but is probably not strictly relevant DRosin (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DRosin - please try and keep the tone professional - throwing around accusations of puppetry when cornered is not a good start! :-) The 'almost blocked' comments above refer to when I pointed out there existed an individual whose real name was an expansion of your username, and who had very very strong links to 4 pages that you created (and were deleted by AfD) - as a display of a potential COI. Additionally: the fact you're referring to Aftenposten as a tabloid (it's Norway's leading quality paper) seems further examples of your bad faith here. I'm sure you'd agree that if you're really keen to make a difference on Wikipedia, you'll give some constructive criticism on how you think the page could be improved! WoodenBuddha (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WoodenBuddha, my good faith is pretty much running out. I requested a Checkuser and it found that Deganveranx was a sockpuppet of Handrem. You can view the investigation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Handrem/Archive

That is about 9 accounts in total that have been blocked within a week relating to Love Systems. I'm not sure what 4 pages you are referring to, and I think only one of my articles has been deleted, but I think your editing behaviour exhibits a similar COI with Love Systems, and I would have thought you would take a break from Wikipedia after almost being banned for violating Wikipedia policy last week. I don't think the page can be improved because the subject lacks notability and the sources are not good enough. Some fresh eyes (that aren't sockpuppets) would be beneficial on this AfD. DRosin (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Jessica.mickens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep I got into the Game a few years back and I've been following the major players ever since (I'm a woman, but I find the whole thing fascinating). Soul came to my attention a few years ago and I've seen his rise to prominence since then. He's notable for advocating some of the major shifts in thinking in the Seduction Community. Before he came along, everyone was using indirect openers. Now everyone does direct game - because of his teachings and articles. I've checked through the media sources referenced and it all fits with what I've heard about him, especially from people that have taken his training program. A friend of mine actually showed me the Aftenposten piece, it was a front cover story, and that's one of Norway's biggest publications. I guess he does a lot of work in Scandinavia, given the other Swedish media coverage as well.Jessica.mickens (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 217.155.238.118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. keep Jeremy Soul is a reliable and notable technician within his field. He is widely respected and viewed as a pioneer, and therefore deserves the page. Editors and Sources on this page are accurate and viable. I can see no violation of the rules of wikipedia. 217.155.238.118 (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC) max marsh[reply]

— Fleury1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep I do not see any issues with respect to notability requirements, WP:NPOV, or WP:BIO. Jeremy Soul is a major figure in the dating science community - otherwise he would not have had the referenced articles written about him, appeared on popular podcasts, etc. Additionally, all the referenced sources are independent of Jeremy Soul. If a media outlet says Soul is very good (or even the best) at what he does, it makes sense that the article editors would quote it. Further, everything I see in this article is rooted in facts and not opinions. Fleury1985 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There seem to be enough references , with at least a minimally acceptable degree of reliability, References in any language will do, and Aftenposgten is a major newspaper--though this seems to come from their magazine, not the news section. I do not consider Metro a RS in the same sense--it is not a newspaper chain, but a chain of mainly local entertainment listings, more or less like New York--I would consider it somewhere between a RS local magazine and a tabloid. At this point for this subject, I'm tending to judge by how free from spam and how-to-do-it the article is, though of course that is not really the proper criterion, for it can quickly get changed in either direction but the ability to write an article without it does indicate that there may be something there. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after having removed references in possibly reliable sources that didn't mention the words "Jeremy", "Soul" or "Bonney", there's one Swedish English-language newspaper, and two others in LOTE. The rest of the references couldn't be regarded as reliable sources. The Swedish English-language newspaper article talks at length about Soul's work, but covers no biographical matters. I don't understand the LOTE articles, but the BLP cites them 9 times, the Swedish English once and the blog and podcast once each. There doesn't seem to be much supporting this BLP. Josh Parris 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Ljzfun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep I fail to see any violation of WP:NPOV, notability requirements, or WP:BIO. The references seem legitimate and, given Jeremy's high profile in his industry, it seems very natural that Wikipedia should have an entry to introduce him and his work. I fail to understand the objections being proposed. Ljzfun Ljzfun (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a go cleaning up the article, I think it is a bit better now without the commercial podcast bit and the promotional material. I almost would change my mind and vote Keep but the sockpuppet account with the COI that created this article influences my decision, and I still don't think this is notable enough, although the tone is a lot better (though still could do with some improving!). I actually translated the foreign-language articles and the Metro is very dodgy, while a lot of the references initially cited don't correspond at all to what they are supposed to. Also removed a Crystal Ball reference to some thesis is apparently being published at some point DRosin (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Kraanerg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep Soul is one of the best-known practitioners in this field, and most people interested in the subject would know his reputation, so I believe a Wikipedia article should exist. The media references are all legitimate from what I can tell. I agree that the initial writing wasn't neutral enough but that has now been corrected (although some informative data may have been deleted in the process). Kraanerg (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tagging this user as single-use as this is the first edit made after two years of inactivity. DRosin (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the original article prior to the most recent changes and think the article is now missing the biographical information that might give some detail about what Jeremy Soul does. DRosin - you appear to have deleted anything of importance in your quest to have this page deleted! Checked out the Adam Lyons page and half of it is not referenced.... interesting that you've deleted anything not referenced here, yet not on the page of Adam Lyons. Just who are you working for DRosin????!!

I work in media and would note that most celebrities use tabloids for their references. I had a look at the references cited for Jeremy Soul and think they are OK... most journalists do cross-reference their info so if it's in print, it should be reasonably reliable. Check the gossip on celebrity pages if you'd like an example of tabloid journalism being accepted on Wikipedia...

Back to the point, if this guy is representative of the industry - as the references appear to support - why not keep him? I find this whole seduction community thing fascinating, it's part of modern life. It's good to know about who's out there working in the field. Dstar76 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) DStar76[reply]

The Adam Lyons article was half unreferenced before its AfD; looking at the current one, every single statement is sourced, a fine upstanding example of WP:BLP and WP:BIO that probably isn't going to get much bigger. Your statement seems reckless. Josh Parris 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D.Rosin - I just corrected your spelling and referencing errors you made when changing the article so significantly. You're clearly not as thorough as you purport. Dstar76 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)DStar 76[reply]
- Hey Dstar76. Thanks for correcting the spelling mistake. Metro is not a Norwegian paper, it is Swedish, I'll correct your input on the page. I don't want to be a pedant, but if it wouldn't kill you to be civil I'd appreciate it DRosin (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist if all the uncited statements were removed from this BLP, we'd be left with "He was cited in Norway's Aftenposten and Sweden's Metro as a {company} expert on {technique}.[1][2] Recent media focusing on {company} and Jeremy Soul’s techniques include articles in Oslo’s Aftenposten[2], and Sweden’s Metro[1] and The Local, where author Christine Demsteader wrote that Jeremy Soul 'personifies what he preaches; honest, articulate, open...'.[3] When not traveling the world teaching {technique} to {company}'s clients, Jeremy Soul resides between Stockholm and London. [3]" This article needs more time to improve; if it can't be improved with all this energy fluxing around, it never will. Josh Parris 23:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see a lot less about sockpuppets on this talk page; I don't care who created this article or why, all that matters is should it be here now as per WP:BIO / WP: Notability. My initial thoughts are that the sources are inadequate and some quick work with Google suggests that Soul has not had a lot of coverage, at least in the English-speaking world. Maybe there are more Sweedish and Norwegian sources for him, unfortunately I can't verify that. But in any case, if he was that notable, would there not be more English sources too? The only English language source a bit of a PR piece, it's not standard 'newsworthy' material. I would like to see more attempts to improve the article before I make my judgement on keep or delete but at the moment I'm leaning towards delete. Shockeroo (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just made an effort to improve the article. In restructuring some of it I have found that the use of citations in the previous incarnation was rather forced; they seem to have been included for their own sake as opposed to being used to back up encyclopedic material. Please see my comments on the article's talk page. Also I still have strong reservations about notability; can anyone find some sources to deal with the 'citation needed' tags please? Shockeroo (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be the same level of coverage as for Adam Lyons (which was recently discussed), and on that article there was a pretty good article specifically about the guy. This person however seems to be covered mainly in relation to the business he works for. Quantpole (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article do not satisfy the need for reliable third party coverage in my opinion (although I cannot read the foreign language sources so I'm only going on my existing knowledge of them and what others have said). Mah favourite (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable; spent some more time looking for good sources for this guy tonight and I just can't find any. Of the 3 we have, the Norwegian one barely mentions him in the last section, the English one is a PR piece and the Sweedish one looks like it is too. If you want to save this article, go find more and better sources - but I just don't think they're out there. Shockeroo (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's note: The discussion is a mess, but without including blocked users there are some keep votes from non-SPA users, so I will relist it once for more discussion for more consensus even though it seems to be trended for a delete right now. Maybe a couple more comments would be necessary JForget 15:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Metro is a free tabloid, but it isn't guilty of the things that give tabloid journalism a bad name. I think that coverage in Metro and the other newspapers cited is independent, and on that basis notability has been established. References need not be in English to be valid, and editors wanting to confirm the information in a non-English reference are welcome to use http://translate.google.com The fact that the person's advice may not work very well does not detract from the fact that independent reliable sources have written about him, and the fact that a banned editor considers him notable does not detract from the evidence that he is notable. - Eastmain (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found. I've looked and can't find any, but drop me a message on my user page if some do turn up. The sources from The Metro and The Local are both PR fluff; I can't read the Afterposten piece but it says very little Soul at all (2 mentions in a single paragraph towards the end). Even the itself article suggests no notability other than being 'a seduction community expert on Daygame' which not even wholly substantiated by the sources. Shockeroo (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sourcing concerns, and the long-standing fact that when a wave of brand-new users show up to vote "keep" on an article, that invariably means the article is promotional in purpose. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Jessica.mickens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep A few friends told me that Soul was recently on a Norwegian radio station called P4 Radio Hele Norge, which I checked out and has it's own wikipedia page. I think he was on Anders Van Dahl's show, but as I don't read or write Norwegian myself I can't see a link right now. However, I have emailed my friends and if I find the reference I will cite on the page. Jessica.mickens (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the article has been improved, the absurd amount of SPAs influences my decision. I still don't think it has enough sources yet, maybe some day, but not now. I think there may be something to be said for merging the article with Love Systems possibly, but as it stands I think the article should be deleted DRosin (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that people wrongly support an article does not mean there are no valid supports, and more than an spa attack on an article would be sufficient to avoid deletion if there were also good reasons for doing so--we would get really weird results if we applied that principle. In this case, I think it's practical to tell them apart, but if not, the usual resort is a non-consensus close and a repeated AfD. The contamination is usually less the 2nd time. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of reliable sources or any depth to this BLP makes the subject matter non-notable. Josh Parris 01:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all articles of hoaxes except "Thank Me Later". Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drake 101[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the latest of a string of articles about albums by Drake (entertainer) to be released in 2010 and 2011. All the rest have been prodded, but will soon be brought here instead. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Better (Studio Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Drake: The Greatest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canada, My Home (Studio Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thank Me Later (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On Me (Studio Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You And Me (Studio Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy delete. Obviously. M0RD00R (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darn... I had my finger on speedy delete just one second before you tagged it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails Wp:CRYSTAL by a country mile (to quote You and Me: "It is scheduled to be released in 2013"). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete for utter failure of WP:CRYSTAL. I thought "2013" was a joke until I saw it. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on "Thank Me Later" as at least there is proof that it is a real, forthcoming album and it has some coverage, although the article is rather premature and will need rewriting on the album's release. Strong delete on the rest as they are entirely unsubstantiated. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank Me Later - That album has MANY sources and is confirmed. Delete the rest. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 06:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all except Thank Me Later. Blackjays1 (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank Me Later, lots of information on it available online. Speedy Delete the rest per WP:CRYSTAL. TheTrueSora (holla) 21:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most, Keep Thank Me Later, per WP:NALBUMS. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC) -- Revised 01:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank Me Later, speedy delete the rest as hoaxes. Chase wc ⁹¹ 02:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorge (horse)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable horse whose best finish wasn't even a show, and in an event with no page here. But he has "hopes" for the future. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the horse have archieved nothing of relevance, it seems to be just another good (but not notable) horse.Dentren | ^Talk 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. The article can be recreated when (if?) the horse actually achieves something, rather than just having hopes for the future. Dana boomer (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears non-notable but its best result is actually a win (it has won three races) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right, by "best finish" I was referring to what the article called his "most high-profile run," but obviously I picked my words badly. --Glenfarclas (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three wins out of how many races? How important were the races themselves? Edward321 (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete - I think the question of which races this horse has won is important. There are thousands of horse races every day around the world... and all of them have a winner. Simply winning a race does not make a horse notable... However, winning a notable race... something like the Kentucky Derby or the Grand National... does. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bremner Wafer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:PRODUCT. Mentions in Google News appear tangential. If the company was particularly notable then an article for the company could be created. Ash (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article appears to be all about the product. The Google News summary of the article says: "The Bremner wafer was born soon after that. and the additional flavors were introduced-just four years ago-because people seemed to want variety. ..." The other articles from the Google News archive mention it in a context that implies that the reader already knows what a Bremner waver is, which implies a kind of notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
Delete. There is no indication of notability, and it is unlikely that Wikipedia wants or needs articles on every brand of biscuit, cracker, cake, breadstick, et al. Also, ref Ash, the article states the company has been merged, so usually the former company name would be a redirect to the buyer. Sussexonian (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We are not discussing "every brand of biscuit, cracker, cake, breadstick, et al." We are discussing this particular brand, and the evidence strongly suggests that this particular brand has achieved notability. - Eastmain (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article clearly establishes the product's notability in the lead. The brand certainly isn't popular, but as is often pointed out popularity != notability.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann W. Smith[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is basically a very long press release masquerading as an article. No outside third-party sources cited or available. Scanlan (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side Note: The related Caron Foundation may also unfortunately qualify for AfD in the future as well. Scanlan (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, glorified press release (as I tagged it back in August). No independent sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this woman might be notable in her profession, but the article would would benefit from serious cleaning up and addition of independent sources. The section "Education and Licenses" is just CV material and should be removed.--Karljoos (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently a colleague of Harris Stratyner above, but less evidence of notability. I wonder how many other Caron Center staff members have had Wikipedia articles created about themselves? --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Battaglia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is purely advertising. Th only possible source appears to be two mentions in the LA Business journal of it being the 32nd largest and 8th fastest growing in the county. From my experience, these are a simple table with maybe a blurb. That is not enough to create an article for the company or assert notability. Biography notability is an even higher hurdle so being the CEO of the company does not met requirements. Furthermore, The American Advisor "radio" show appears to be a podcast "sponsored" by the company. Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "32nd largest" or "8th fastest growing" of anything is probably not notable for that fact alone. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to verify notability per WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, I created this article with good intentions; I am sorry that I have not been sufficiently expanding it; I expanded the lead and cited the source today (here [6]); if Joe is not sufficiently notable, could I create an article on Goldline International, Inc., and then MERGE Joe's article into that one? I am trying to make helpful suggestions; thank you for your consideration. Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, I have created the article Goldline International, Inc.; please feel free to review this article; may I suggest that it may be appropriate to consider MERGING the Joseph C. Battaglia article into the Goldline article. Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article does not meet various standards (yet?). I'll make some comments on that talk page.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Stratyner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Harris Stratyner article is basically a press release. No outside citations to back up claims. Scanlan (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This document is something you would see on a website marketing Harris Stratyner not on wikipedia

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The tone of the article is all wrong, but it's possible the guy could qualify for an article if written in a neutral encyclopedic style and properly sourced. Google search indicates he does host a show on local radio [7] and is the co-author of a book [8]. I don't know how notable that makes him, but it's possible he might qualify with a rewrite. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Khurai[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Khurai is a small town, nothing in this article actually details the concept of education in the town, just a couple of random statements. Nothing in this article that is worth merging back to the main article, which happens to be too small anyway. -SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -SpacemanSpiff 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khurai — we have plenty of "Education in ___" articles, so this isn't too unlikely of a redirect target. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have redirected normally, but this is a town with a population of 41,511, and with the number of split articles being created (three others redirected already, including one page move vandalism by the same editor), I figured an AfD is probably better. -SpacemanSpiff 19:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing of value here. Seems like another of the editor's efforts to push the "khurai district" meme.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searchking[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Searchking SEO. Was speedied previously under spam article SearchKing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 (advertising and promotion). Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it was cleaned up, there's no notability there. Alexa rank is 261,645. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olive, I has been searchking and searchking and I can't find that itsk notable. Popeye the Sailor Man 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Yet another search optimization advert is not the start of a useful article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the first article I've seen today that is kind of dumb (and the last article I saw was Bacon on the Simpsons episodes!) This is a poor attempt at using SEO on Wikipedia. No notability to speak of. I hope this isn't a central part of their SEO strategy! DRosin (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No credible s0urcing has emerged so the policy based arguments here are the ones for deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse Tracker[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schism Tracker, this article has no independent sources and no apparent statement of notability. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While significant coverage in books and/or the press is lacking, this software was tremendously important. For starters, it gets 50,000+ Google hits. Countless musicians who later went on to greener pastures have used it when starting out, i.e. Andrew Sega, Brothomstates, Jonne Valtonen, Infected Mushroom, and many others. Impulse Tracker was used to create the soundtracks of important games, such as Unreal and Unreal Tournament (see Unreal Tournament soundtracks), Age of Wonders, Chrono Resurrection, etc. No, I can't provide citations for these claims from books, articles in academic journals, etc., simply because tracker music has never been subject of books or academic journals. But I'm sure something can be done, some info gleamed from interviews, etc. For instance, here is a mention of Sega's IT experience. --Jashiin (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS and WP:V. If coverage is lacking, we are not allowed to compensate by using junk sources. Wikipedia is not a directory and WP:ILIKEIT does not count either. It's already been deleted once due to inadequate sourcing, if you want it kept you need to add non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, not just say that you're sure they must exist somewhere. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how Salon.com is a junk source? Or any of these:

* Gamasutra, which has an article on how Impulse Tracker was used to make music for The Sims DS/GBA: [9].

* The Times of India, which has an article about how Infected Mushroom started out using Impulse Tracker: [10]

* Thescene.com.au, same subject: [11]

* Epic Games's official page for Unreal music, mentioning modified IT format used for the soundtrack: [12]

Etc. Since I'm not sure of your definition of "junk", I'm not adding these to the article yet, but simply use them here to demonstrate the importance of the software in question. --Jashiin (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should have been in the article if you want them considered as sources. The Gamasutra article is not a good reference showing notability. It is one sentence about this software, along with mentions of other software that have been used by an artist. We want several significant length coverage of this piece of software not an article on some artist who mentions offhand that he has used the software on one project. I didn't review the rest of your sources and do not speak for JzG. Miami33139 (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The salon reference, as it applies to Impulse Tracker, is useless. Miami33139 (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, what you're saying is that it isn't enough that the software was used to create soundtracks of not one but several influential video games, and it is not enough that the software was used by influential musicians? But if there were a separate article dedicated exclusively to the software, that would show notability? Isn't this, um, against common sense? --Jashiin (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Miami33139 (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent rebuttal, dude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.48.133.2 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These links show IT mentioned in passing. Perhaps enough to verify the software for use in a broader article (per my redirect suggestion) but nowhere near enough for WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tracker (music software) or simply delete - I've been looking for sources for over a year now. I've no doubt that its popular - even influential - but if there's no way to base this on reliable sources then we shouldn't have an article on it (per WP:V policy). Marasmusine (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marasmusine. Miami33139 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Jashiin. Guaka (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to search for sources and found some evidence that published articles about this tool exist: И.РОЩИН. Изменение порядка каналов в модулях Impulse Tracker - it looks like the article about Impulse Tracker in this issue of the magazine was three pages long. Unfortunately, I didn't find the full text of this article available online for all to view. --Sspeik (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And here is another article from a computer-related magazine, discussing work with Impulse Tracker in detail (only a google saved copy is available, but as it was on the site of the magazine, it was most probably published in that Russian magazine "Мой Компьютер" somewhere in 2002). [13] --Sspeik (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Significant article about work with this software in Computerra: [14]. --Sspeik (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has this book: Mason McCuskey. Beginning game audio programming - please look, there may potentially be a significant coverage piece about this software. --Sspeik (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly redirect. I'm not sure. I do find numerous references to the software but by and large they appear to be passing references, or examples of a musician saying "I use Impulse Tracker" but do very little to elaborate beyond that. I searched Google Books but it does not tell me what Beginning Game Audio Programming‎ has to say about it. Beyond that I found a few text magazines called "Static Line", "Trax Weekly", and "Demo News" ie [15] making reference to it, and I guess if we can cite the "Wrestling Observer Newsletter" for BLP articles about professional wrestlers we might as give this subject the same treatment and benefit of the doubt. JBsupreme (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP No, i don't either have encyclopedic or verifiable contents about IT, other than the datestamps of countless files on old hard disks -- of the program itself, and of music created by myself and many others using Impulse Tracker. However, if there's no article about such a landmark piece of software on this site, this isn't Wikipedia anymore. Delt01 05:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)delt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delt01 (talk • contribs) *** sorry, didn't do the signature thing right.... *sigh* delete IT from wikipedia, is this a fucking joke????

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tail[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure pornographic magazine. No reason is given regarding its notability, as per Wikipedia standards. Google searching does not produce anything of encyclopedic value. Warrah (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub for now. Midhart90 (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you'd think of all things porn wouldn't be under-represented on the web, but I couldn't find anything at all about this other than it exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly, but if Midhart90 could send me a copy let me know. Weirdly poor attempt to create an article, some sources or elaboration would be good DRosin (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage. No references. No claim of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment in the Roaring 20's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Unemployment in the Roaring 20's

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing this here as a PROD was removed, meets CSD A10 as the subject is already covered in detail in Great Depression in the United States and there's very little info here, but I don't think contested PRODs can be speedily deleted. Cassandra 73 (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. There is nothing of value to merit a redirect. Warrah (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete for the concept of the article being inaccurate- the great depression started in october 1929- its associated with the 30's, not the last 3 months of the 20's... --Brunk500 (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably someone's homework, schools out, enjoy the holiday. It's not likely as a search term.Mandsford (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brunk500. The Great Depression is an issue of the 1930s not the 1920s. Anything of value can be merged into the Great Depression article. As a side note, even if the article wasn't completely factually incorrect with regards to time, it far too US centric Pit-yacker (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Great Depression article wouldn't be improved by merging this in my opinion DRosin (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nosajthing[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Speedy removed by original creator. I'd rather take it here.~~

~~Not a notable electronic music artist. No charting albums, no released albums I can easily find, or are in the article. Shadowjams (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn. Shadowjams (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Joe Chill (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace HIV/AIDS Programmes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Workplace HIV/AIDS Programmes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT#MANUAL for creating an HIV program in the workplace. Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a mix of synthesis and howto. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cayley–Dickson construction. Not much to merge, so I'll just redirect this. Tone 14:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trigintaduonion[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an example of the Cayley–Dickson construction applied multiple times. In theory, the construction could be applied an infinite number of times, but the resulting objects are only mathematically significant in the first few cases. We don't need an article on a mathematical concept simply because it is possible to define it. There is no evidence of notability from secondary sources and the article itself simply describes the construction while giving no information that does not directly follow from it. RDBury (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated this for CSD G1 because it's so technical, it's bordering on gibberish. Unless someone writes an accessible introduction, it's not useful for a general audience. --Mblumber (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article somewhat and added reference. Since this algebra has a specific and recognised name, it does merit its own article. The point about technicality and accessibility is a recurring complaint about Wikipedia mathematics articles, but is not grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although true that one can in principle continue to apply the Cayley-Dickson construction infinitely, this seems to be the last notable case. (Of course, there is then the apparent paradox that the sexagintaquaternions would be notable by virtue of being the smallest non-notable such algebra ;-P) Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While somewhat obscure, these do seem to appear in the literature. Regarding Mblumber's point about being technical: It's not at the moment much worse than many other math stubs. For a mathematician or math student I think it is acceptable. In the long run it will be made better. Ozob (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Merge. I was wrong. Yes, primary sources don't suffice. Ozob (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability specifies that secondary sources should be used as evidence for notability. Journal article are considered primary sources. So appearance in the literature must include books or survey articles to be acceptable for this purpose. In any case, the references given don't seem to indicate whether they have appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, so your use of the term 'literature' is somewhat loose.--RDBury (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that some journal articles would be considered primary sources and other secondary, depending on content. Those that introduce the trigintaduonions or demonstrate new results concerning them would be primary sources. Those that rely on their reading public to be familiary with the trigintaduonions already or that mention them in passing would be secondary. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone mentioned the Cayley–Dickson construction without linking to that article, so here it is. I don't know how far down the sequence you can go and find objects worthy of an article. We have articles on particular four-digit integers that stand out as notable; maybe the same could be said of the 4379th object in this sequence. But some assertion of notability should be there. I agree with Mblumber that more context should have been there, but to say it looked like gibberish is far too extreme; the nature of the topic was clear. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cayley–Dickson construction or delete. Apparently not notable at all. Appearances in half a dozen research papers are not sufficient for a separate article, and there are no organisational reasons to keep this a separate article. The topic can be much better understood if treated in its proper context. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Hans Adler 18:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is not completely finished, and there is little information on the subject, so it may take a while to finish. Distortiondude 14:19 (EST)
- I have even expanded it just a little bit, but still, it is not completed. 15:50 12/20/09 (EST) Distortiondude
Merge into Cayley-Dickson construction. It seems to me that the treatment of this algebra would be enriched by describing its provenance in the Cayley-Dickson construction and comparing its properties to those of other Cayley-Dickson algebras. Plclark (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cayley-Dickson construction. As it stands now, this little stub is a WP:DICTDEF, albeit a mathematical one. Pcap ping 15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (aka delete) unless a book or survey paper mentions it, as indicated by RDBury above. Google scholar has only 6 hits on the name. (The information that Distortiondude just added to the article shouldn't be there even if the article were to be kept, but I'm not going to remove it.) We don't even know that this is a common name for the concept, even if the concept were worthy of mention in Cayley-Dickson construction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cayley-Dickson construction. I too think the notability of these constructions ends with the Sedenions if not the Octonions. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cayley-Dickson construction and redirect. When enough information is available (from enough sources), it might warrant its own article. At this point, though, it seems that this information would be more accessible and appropriate in the aforementioned article. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All the information in the article looks like it's already in Cayley–Dickson construction, so all of the merges above really amount to deletes. Ozob (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euphony (Matthew Good album)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For good measure, the last of the unsourced Matthew Good demo tapes. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Demos are generally not notable per WP:NALBUMS, unless there is significant coverage from reliable sources. I'm not finding any in this case. Gongshow ^Talk 19:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NALBUMS. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...And In Closing (demo)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased demo tape. Mostly a recreation of …And in Closing (deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/…And in Closing) but there is a link to this source which I wouldn't qualify as reliable enough to be satisfactory. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a non-notable demo. I can not find "significant independent coverage in reliable sources", which is needed to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 19:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NALBUMS. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken (demo)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prior version was proded and deleted but I think this deserves a full AFD. Beyond the unreleased demo tape part, there's WP:BLP issues plus the lack of reliable sources. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, a demo can only be notable if there exists "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". I can find no such coverage for this demo. Gongshow ^Talk 19:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NALBUMS. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah from philly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no independent sources and the external links appear tangential without supporting the claims of the article body. I have trimmed off claims about plans and future productions but have been unable to find reliable sources. Google News finds no matches for "Elijah Spiritoso" or "Elijah United We Stand". This seems incongruous with claims that the single was a success across the entire world. Ash (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing found to support notability claim, which, frankly, is off the scale of ludicrousness -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - appears to be an obscure singer who had one obscure song from an onscure soundtrack of an obscure comedy film. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANAT technology[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This term appears only to be used by a single company. I cannot find anything to confirm notability. References given are all traceable back to that company. The article appears to have been created by a marketing representative of that company. noq (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that all the references and nearly all the search hits seem to come from the manufacturer, the notability of the subject is not established. The only information in the article on the subject is a brief "Overview" that could be in the manufacturer's article Robotics Design. If there were some independent sources and if the manufacturer provided some quality pictures and information, the article may be saved, but both of those steps seem unlikely and essentially the article serves as a page to hold links to the manufacturer's website. The article may be a recreation of ANAT Technology which was deleted ("G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion") on 8 September 2009. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:PRODUCT requirements for notability.—Ash (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent company Robotics Design. They seem notable enough at first glance. This technological term, even if used outside the company, will likely not generate the type of sources needed for an article here - Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please everyone, give me more time. I am adding a new media reference to this technology almost daily, and i assure you that this technology is notable, and does deserve its own page to improve accesability to the information it presents. Our robots and the technology behind them are studied in universities such as ÉTS, making this article an informational source for students and an enhancement to their educational experience. As for pictures, ive been having a bit of trouble with volunteers claiming that my images are possibly unfree and deleting them, but i continue to fight, and you will all have a fine selection to admire by after christmas. The information presented my sound a bit technical, and that is currently being asessed, but you must understand that this is a completely new technology in robotics where certian terms and language used have not been accepted into mainstream language, so it might take a while before the words exist to fully demonstrate these robots and their abilities in detail. A 60 second video without text available on the home page of Robotics Design Inc. (http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/) helps provide a general understanding of the technology, and might be able to help you appreciate this article more fully. If you have something to add or you want something specific re-written, pleas inform me and that it how i will be able to make improvements and show you exactly why this article should be here. the page Robotics Design was almost deleted after it was posted, and had others not given me specific problems to resolve it may have been taken down, and a fine addition to wikipedia would not be here today. In the end, i am asking for your patience and your critism in order to make this article a useful information source as it is meant to be. Work with me, ask me for what you need, and we'll get it done right.

Canadiansteve (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and for references i already put three where the technology and products are mentionned in known magazines, am i to understand that even for now three media references is not enough? Perhaps if i had five magaiznes taking about the technology, would that change everything? I read things on wikipedia half as notable as this technology with only 1 or 2 sources and they dont need a seperate page to print out warnings about the article. If i get one more magazine article before the end of the year, would that satisfy everyone or should i get two? you have to give me more specifics or everyone will be running in circles resolving nothing. thank you for your understanding.Canadiansteve (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that you have not been involved in creating? - See WP:OR. Everything so far seems promotional - and your job title as head of marketing for this company seems to tie in with that. Wikipedia is not meant to be a marketing tool - please do not use it as such. Are there any publications in peer reviewed literature? noq (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material added to this article is meant for educational purposes, and is not made to serve Robotics Design Inc.'s marketing efforts in any way. Most of the information was posted from my account, but much of it was made under my supervision by university students, engineers, and others interested and knowledgable of the company. After the christmas vacation, we will have several university students available to make posts and share their knowledge on the topic. Many ÉTS alumni made their master's and PHDs writing about and working with this technology, and it is well known by educators, students and professionals who take interest in the robotics industry. This technology represents a new architecture in robotics; a new way of putting them together and designing them. This article will serve as an informational source to the world, a more acessable freeflow of information on what many beileive to be robotic architecture of the future. And i know very well that wikipedia is not a marketing tool noq, please do not make unfounded accusations. Perhaps if you were to tell me which part of my article seems to serve only as a promotion, i could make some changes, but pointing fingers and fighting never did solve anything. Give me specifics, I apreciate critism, even if it is negative, but you have to give me more to go on then "its bad".

Canadiansteve (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No original research - either by you or under your supervision, Reliable sources - not instigated by you, Verifiability - again something that did not originate by you or your company, notability - as defined in Wikipedia. You make big claims but do not provide independent sources to back them up. You say, "Well known by educators, students and professionals" but provide no evidence for that. Similarly, "What many believe to be robotic architecture of the future" but no sources, where are the papers discussing this written by people not associated with your company.noq (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left of Normal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, non-notable demo tape. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - unreleased demo tape. --Brunk500 (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, demos are in general not notable. "They may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". I can find no such coverage for this demo. Gongshow ^Talk 19:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NALBUMS. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History Teacher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo tape. Or non-notable compilation of demos, I don't care. Either way. There's also possible WP:BLP issues, both in regards to rumors about versions of a living musician's music and more important, allegations about the person who released this tape, assuming reliable sources about it exist. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, demos are in general not notable. "They may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". I can find no such coverage for this demo. Gongshow ^Talk 19:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NALBUMS. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15 Hours on a September Thursday[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo tape. Cannot find reliable source of its existence. If possible, a redirect to History Teacher may be reasonable but I'm nominating that as a WP:BLP issue as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, demos are in general not notable. "They may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". I can find no such coverage for this demo. Gongshow ^Talk 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NALBUMS. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wave Productions[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedied twice and original creator removed it twice by different editors. I don't see any references (other than the primary source). The article itself has no information, only a bare link to a primary source (single source). Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:ORG. Warrah (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion declined but delete anyway. The article certainly makes a claim to notability, but fails to produce the goods. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 03:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert (Bob) Clarence Irwin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited. Son of Steve Irwin. May well have a notable article in the future, but not yet, plus, we should respect the privacy of people who haven't thrust themselves into the limelight. Shadowjams (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wp:NOTINHERITED. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent notability established. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THIS is not sufficient to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly redirect to article about Steve Irwin. Thus far, the 6 year old has done nothing to be notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EAbsinthe.com[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally this was an internet shop. It is now not a shop but just an information site with links to a much smaller shop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BryonyM (talk • contribs) 18 December 2009

Step 2 of the AfD nomination process (listing of article heading and links) was not completed correctly. It has been manually corrected. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It sounds like the nomination rationale is the business' current status as defunct. I have not yet tried to determine notability, but a business that was once notable does not cease to be notable if it becomes defunct. If this business was never notable, that's another, more valid argument for deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Steve Phillips[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge with an article on people with the longest amount of acronyms after their name. (Kidding). Seems to be non-notable, some better sources might change my mind, but I can't find any right now DRosin (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why is steve phillips less notable than michael pearson or john rushby who also appear on the same entry for dartford grammar school? 92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.81.151 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are extremely reputable e.g the chartered institute of building and loughborough university are bona fide respected institutions. 92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.81.151 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Steve Phillips and i dont really want to be associated with a project that thinks Loughborough University or the Chartered Institute of Building are poor sources or that the CIOB International Research prize is not a prestigous award as per the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I would have been much more impressed by your reviewers if they had cited the WP:ACADEMIC criteria rather than with unreferenced remarks. Thank you.92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that sources are used for two separate purposes: verification and establishment of notability. Both of those sources are fine for verifiability but they don't automatically confer notability when they mention a person. It depends on what they say. We are not questioning the establishments by questioning whether the references confer sufficient notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. He certainly comes close with the government working party involvement. The prize helps a little bit too. I am not sure if it is enough though. It is a pity that this is getting so personal. Whether a person is notable in encyclopaedic terms or not is not meant to be a judgement on their worth as a person. Given that notability is borderline, I think we should respect his wishes if he really wants the article deleted. If so, I recommend to make the request by email to verify that it really is from him. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If kept, the article needs to be renamed as we don't use titles. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Rosin made this personal with his jibe about acronyms after a persons name. These letters are awarded as a result of an enormous amount of hard work and it is really disappointing to see them become the object of someone's derision. Surely the point is that if i am the subject of the article and i want it removed then it should be removed? 92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the letters is a matter of the Wikipedia house style. It is not our style to list them all and DRosin was joking about that. I am pretty sure that he wasn't disparaging the qualifications behind them. It was just a dig at the writing style of the author, and a pretty mild one. I guess such things can be misinterpreted.

As regards deletion being a matter of the subject's choice, that is not true in general but such requests are often accepted in cases where the subject is of borderline notability. Subjects that are definitely not notable get deleted irrespective of choice and subjects that are definitely notable can not be deleted even if the subject requests it. (For example, a request from, say, a major politician or celebrity to have their article deleted would be denied, although they can request that inaccuracies or bias be corrected). I suspect that this article is going to be deleted anyway but if you want to formally request this you can find the contact address here. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point i am making is that Wikipedia has set out a list of criteria which defines notability. As far as i can see the references provided comply with the WP:criteria but if the reviewers dont then shouldn't they refer to the relevant criteria to illustrate non-compliance? To my mind that would be the correct way to process an editorial function rather than take a cheap shot at the writing style? If wikipedia wants to be considered a font of knowledge than they may like to consider acting in an appropriate manner. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.81.151 (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:If the article complies with WP's own criteria for notability then shouldn't the article be kept? and yes i am playing devils advocate here.92.12.81.151 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that this comment was added by Steve Phillips himself (it is the same UP address as used by Steve Phillips in the comment above) is this not a conflict of interest? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thats why i put i am playing devils advocate to indicate the conflict! Pls delete as hamiltonstone has given me the answers i was looking for with respect to your review process.Thank you.92.2.98.33 (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Delete. There are issues with regard to whether this has "received significant coverage" and whether it is in sufficiently independent sources. A number of the newsletters reporting the winning of the prize would appear to count Phillips as a student, an organisation member (eg. CIOB), prospective member etc. Given that the prize appears to be the only event attracting the coverage, i don't think this really meets the criteria for notability in any case. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The research has been published in a number of peer reviewed academic journals. Do these types of journals count as independent sources? a book was also published as a result of the work does the ISBN number count as proof of an idependent source? 92.12.81.151 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publication of research by Phillips in peer reviewed journals may assist in establishing notability for the subject of that research, but not for Phillips himself. See WP:ACADEMIC (though also note, as Phillips appears not to be a practicing academic, these criteria may be of limited relevance) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pls delete and thank you for setting out your review process it has been helpful.btw- i am a practicing academic. Steve Phillips. 92.2.98.33 (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep: isnt the CIOB International research and innovation award a prestigous international award? The Chartered Institute Of Building is certainly an establshed global organisaton and the award is,self evidently, international. Granted it is not the Nobel prize but the NP is surely the pinnacle not the benchmark. cockney dave/Cockney media (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the main contributor to the article in question, thanks for coming in to participate here. A response to your query: First, it appears not to be prestigious, outside the industry at any rate. I had not previously heard of it, and a google news search (one test of something's broader notability) turns up nothing of consequence. Second, if it were the only thing for which Phillips was known and referred to in reliable sources, then that would probably not establish notability. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for delay but i only just picked up my messages. Fair point I dont think the award would be of any interest to anybody outside of the construction industry. cockney dave/Cockney media (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am Steve Phillips....wait, not I'm not. But I can log on here anonymously and claim to be. Short of any verification, I'm not inlined to put much stock in the IP editor, who would have a clear COI issue if he is the subject. As for the delete, I don't see where he meets notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That is why I tried to encourage him to use the contact address to make a formal request from a verifiable email address. I have no idea if he did. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PST Trier Stampers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This American football club is non-notable. The highest level it has competed in so far is the Regionalliga, which is the third highest division of American football leagues in Germany, and which isn't a ~~professional~~ semi-professional league. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Changed my reasoning per my first comment below. Having participated in a semi-professional league would, in my eyes, be enough to constitute notability. I still don't see that they have done that, though. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the third league shouldn't be implemented. It seems to me as if they were playing an important role in Rhineland-Palatine and are one of the oldest still existing teams in Germany. On the list of American Football Teams in Germany, there are even worse teams with a Wikipedia entry. Trier's soccer team also plays in the third highest league. --79.206.27.80 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of those even less notable clubs on the list of American football teams in Germany, only one had had an article, which has been deleted. Unless it is not the oldest American football club in Germany, I also don't see why that should be taken into account. And while the German third tier of (association) football still is a professional league (btw, Eintracht Trier currently plays in the fourth highest division, but has also played in the second division), the third tier of American football leagues in Germany certainly is not. In the German wikipedia, having participated in a semi-professional league already is enough to prove a sports club's notability, so I assume this is the case in the English-language version, too (since I could not find any guideline referring to this, and there are articles on association football clubs that haven't participated in a higher tier than the Oberliga, which is semi-professional). So any hint that the American football Regionalliga of Germany is semi-professional (or rather, has been so in 2000) would change my opinion concerning the club's notability. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The three Google News hits show only local interest. Abductive (reasoning) 13:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be fair, you cannot judge the club's notability just on their status in recent years. In 1999 they were close to getting promoted to the 2. Bundesliga, which in my eyes would have made them notable. So the question is if that achievement, or maybe something else in their history that I've missed, constitutes enough notability or not. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaikoz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. I'd actually prefer a redirect to MusicBrainz (a related topic that mentions Jaikoz), but some other editors have suggested that I initiate an AfD to get a clear consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete I examined this article awhile back (it had a longstanding notability tag), and found no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. In reply to a response: if a redirect is inappropriate, then delete.Ray^Talk 19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect was opposed here and here. -- intgr [talk] 19:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? Keep, merge, delete? --Explodicle (T/C) 19:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep it, but I don't have any sources to help establish notability. -- intgr [talk] 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, if redirection is deemed inappropriate (WP:R#DELETE #4), deletion is my second choice. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Article seems to be a promotional effort by the software author (assuming Paul Taylor is User:Pault100). Sources are insignficant. Haakon (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~or delete~~ Only redirect if there is at least one third party source. The redirect should be a new section in the MetaBrainz article about third party software using the service and software that is mildly notable (one third party source) but not independently notable (multiple third party sources) can grow there. Miami33139 (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Update Added references are very weak for a standalone article. I support moving and redirecting this to a single paragraph mention as I said above. Miami33139 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak? Macnews, Macworld, and two national universities? Perhaps you can elaborate on your statement. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in a directory listing for a CD-ROM is not notable at all. Short reviews by magazines that print lots of short reviews do not show much notability. The university links aren't about this software, and the amount of information specifically about this software is a few sentences. The general notability guideline wants significant coverage. This coverage is trivial. Miami33139 (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The academic links are both to research into automatic metadata generation, and both cite Jaikoz as an exemplar of existing art. That is de facto notable, my friend. I suppose you can argue that the attention of a Macworld editor doesn't contribute to notability, but you'll be in the minority. Ditto for software distributed by Macworld on a bonus CD. It was on the CD because the editors of a major computer publication deemed it of particular interest to their readers. And Macworld has a lot of readers. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They academic sources are not about Jaikoz, and do not give it significant coverage, even if they cite it as an implementation. Shovelware has never been accepted as evidence of notability that I know of. Miami33139 (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now cites positive reviews by a Macnews.de senior editor and by a Macworld Germany editor writing for iPhoneWorld, cites the program's inclusion by Macworld Italy on a CD supplement, and cites two academic references to the program. It may not be the Lindy hop, but it's surely notable. I'd ask early voters to reconsider their votes. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your recent contributions and concur with Miami33139. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? They seem at least as significant as the notable coverage of Carolann B. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by the sources available, not the sources currently in an article. If you don't think my sources for Carolann B are sufficient, please bring it up at Talk:Carolann B and I'll add some more. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? You don't actually have to include notable sources in an article, you only have to believe that they exist? I'd hoped to understand what, in you opinion, was notable by examining articles you'd approved, but clearly there's more to notability than meets the eye. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yappy2bhere. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that the German articles qualify as "significant coverage", though quite weak at that. -- intgr [talk] 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While there is coverage there, it is right on the border of what I would consider significant and am loth to fall on either side of the fence. Brilliantine (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A full review (& a very positive one) in a major Mac publication macnews.de is sufficient, along with the other citations given. A merge with MusicBrainz is not reasonable, for it's only one of the programs that uses that database DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CRITICISM OF CORPORATE FINANCE[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD; reason was: violation of WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NPOV. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not a legitimate POV fork as would be the case if the "Criticism" section of Corporate finance had gotten too long and had to be spun off. This could theoretically be proper subject matter for an article, but (1) not this article, and (2) not done this way. --Glenfarclas (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 14:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. should have been a speedy deletion imo. I mean, the name is in full caps to start with.. --Brunk500 (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a repository for personal essays. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weird article, delete as per above DRosin (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. Bye. JBsupreme (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but an essay. Should be a snow closure. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like someone's notes. We're not here to be a freebie web-host. HalfShadow 22:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tōru Sakai[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(({text))} andyzweb (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (though this nomination needs a rationale). I have looked and can find no coverage of the article's subject in reliable sources (the GNews matches for his name all seem to refer to a synonymous criminal or other unrelated people). This might be him, but is too brief a passing reference to constitute significant coverage per the WP:BIO guidelines. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is more at zh:酒井亨, but the references don't seem to meet our usual expectations. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are more news sources under "酒井亨", in sources such as Liberty Times and 南方快報(southnews.com.tw) which is listed on Chinese list of sources of news. It looks like the article can be sourced to these news articles, but someone fluent with Japanese should do that in order to avoid mistakes. ja:ノート:酒井亨 is worth reading, and this article has been up for deletion twice on Japanese Wikipedia: ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/酒井亨 and ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/酒井亨20070807. The ko, zh and en versions were created by Sawahikoen (talk · contribs), who may also be ja:User:Sawahiko, who was indefinitely blocked after ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Sawahiko. user:T.Saito may be the subject. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 04:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto headband color[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a person essay about a popular TV show. Not a plausible search term. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been speedied or prodded right away. If there are any sources to verify this, then it should be merged, but the nom is correct, as it isn't something one would really search for. fetchcomms☛ 04:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been speedy deleted. Not notable, not verifiable & open to OR. --KrebMarkt 14:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think headband color is ever mentioned in the Naruto manga or anime. It certainly isn't a notable topic even within the Naruto manga/anime, let alone in the real world. Furthermore, from what I have read and watched of Naruto, I don't think the characters even do have different colored headbands like this article suggests. Regardless, this is entirely original research on a non-notable topic. Calathan (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The colors do very from character to character, but the "bandanna" (for lack of a better term) tends to go with the character's outfits. It other words, it's part of the character designs and has no other significances beyond that. —Farix (t | c) 00:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probable original research, no sources. JIP | Talk 14:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:OR. Joe Chill (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:OR, no references. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Which speedy deletion criteria could this fall under? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it falls under any speedy deletion criteria. It certainly isn't in one of the categories covered by A7. Calathan (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not outright nonsense or vandalism -- it's just not good content. As such, it's not suitable for speedy deletion (except as part of snowfall). —Quasirandom (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To nominator, this is an obvious candidate for PROD rather than a full AFD. --Gwern (contribs) 19:46 19 December 2009 (GMT)
Delete as described above. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could make very little sense of the article, but I don't it barely scrape by speedy deletion for patent nonsense. Maybe no context would be a better criteria, but that may be stretching that criteria as well. But ether way, this isn't an article, it's just random babble. —Farix (t | c) 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Naruto is a well known anime but that does not mean wiki needs every little thing about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. Edward321 (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Why hasn't this been snow closed yet? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promethus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this game is notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I like when the #1 Google hit on "Promethus" PSP is "Promethus: Worst game ever candidate?" That said, I don't see much to indicate that this is notable other than some chatter on video game forums. Nothing in what I would consider a reliable source. --Glenfarclas (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete will be notable if and when it gets released as an actual disc, but at the moment it's just an in-progress demo... and given that it's about as popular as brussels sprouts in vomit sauce, that might be as far as it gets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party of New Jersey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local branch of a minor party Orange Mike | Talk 04:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt is notable for several reasons, including DiNizio's Senate bid and Goodman's attempt to draft Perot to counteract Buchanan. greenguy89 | Talk 010:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.143.87 (talk) [reply]
Keep. Statewide is not local, and worth listing on the basis of having been notable in the 1995-1998 period. See the Google News archive hits for this organization here -- Eastmain (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.
Keep The nominator is incorrect; this is a statewide branch, not a local branch. It appears to have received significant press coverage as well. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Keep. Per all the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reform Party of the United States of America. This has been done with state chapters of other parties when there simply isn't enough for a stand alone article. Really, not much in this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Hibiki (webOS app)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this application. Joe Chill (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - neither assertion nor evidence of notability --Orange Mike | Talk 04:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Timmy Foundation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See this search at Google News archive. There are many articles about the foundation in reliable sources. – Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rewritten. Currently reads like a vanity article about the founder, and none of the links work. But your Google search indicates that the foundation has some notability, at least locally in Indianapolis. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google searches indicates strong notabiity + seems to verify the information in the article. Lots of google hits + not just the same press release popping up on each site. Alter a few sentences on the founder and the article wil lose its hagiographic tone. tagging it for POV right now. Btw, this article still has the 'new article' tag on it- IMO it was bad faith to nominate this article before it had a chance to develop. --Brunk500 (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh! (song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Boom Boom (Kumbia Kings song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Desde Que No Estás Aquí (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS. Non-notable singles, no assertion of notability, and not sourced. Attempted redirects reverted twice. Attempt to discuss ignored by creator of articles. Wolfer68 (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 06:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chelo61 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONGS, no information to bring beyond permastub status.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the deletion of the two new titles.—Kww(talk) 22:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If all that can be said about it is that's a single from the album with the same name, then it fails WP:NSONG by a mile or so. Pcap ping 13:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you're also nominating Boom Boom (Kumbia Kings song), and Desde Que No Estás Aquí. Delete those as well for the exact same reason. Pcap ping 13:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the triumvirate - If all they have is "<name of single> is a single from Kumbia Kings album Shhh!", then I think we can safely do without them. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best I could find is this Billboard article, which mentions the "Boom Boom" song a couple times but can't be considered "significant coverage". These don't appear to meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 19:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 22:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Miko[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail the notability guidelines for musicians. Google turns up nothing substantial to verify the claims made in the article. @Kate (parlez) 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 06:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without any online coverage and no solid evidence of offline coverage, a person can't be notable. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not finding "in-depth" coverage, but here are sources to demonstrate his "What's Up" cover version charted in the UK, U.S., Sweden and New Zealand, which satisfies criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 20:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per criterion 2. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO Polarpanda (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Gongshow. Joe Chill (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VMLite XP Mode[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably should be speedied but I'd rather waste people's time here.

Was a copy paste job, that was removed and it was reduced to a one line stub. It's promotional and I see a lot of google hits with identical wording, which makes me suspicious. Shadowjams (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

first time to create an article on Wikipedia, didn't know so many restrictions, trying to edit it to meet the requirements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huisinro (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Virtual Box. VMLite Workstation, which this a feature of, is a derivative of that project, but also not notable enough for a separate article for now. None of the VMLite products/features has much in the way of secondary sources. There are a few non-English gnews hist, but they appear marginal [23]. Pcap ping 13:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko Ijäs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability per WP:Creative, mentions only "several collections" and "several private and group exhibits"; only an official web site is cited. Additionally, the subject is still a doctoral student...... Lithoderm 12:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Lithoderm 12:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This merits further research. According to Artfacts.net she has work in "Jyväskylän Taidemuseo - Jyväskylä Art Museum, Jyväskylä Lönnström Art Museum, Rauma".[24] These links are given in the Finnish article on her.[25][26] I don't know how to evaluate them. Someone with knowledge of the Finnish art scene would be useful here. Being a doctoral student is not in itself any disqualification. Ty 01:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Ty 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started a notability enquiry for the corresponding article in the Finnish Wikipedia. During that enquiry, we should get clarification for Ijäs's merits. I suggest putting this discussion on hold until the Finns have had a clarifying discussion in their Wikipedia. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ijäs' "The Vincent Van Gogh and Walt Disney Collection" exhibition in Germany in 2008 was organized by Finnish-German institute and was also noted on the website of the Finnish embassy in Germany. [27][28] Not sure if that is enough to show notability though. MKFI (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rauma is a town of 40,000 so I am not willing to presume their museum notable enough to make her work being there meet WP:CREATIVE. I'm not sure I'm prepared to recognize the exhibition as significant either, unless there is some secondary literature available on it. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Lab (novel). or somewhere else if that is considered better Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six of Hearts (character)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character. Information better suited in individual book articles, or the (non-existent) article about the series. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 13:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Published on a website? Abductive (reasoning) 13:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the character may not yet be well know in the US the character is well know in Australia and New Zealand and with the release of the second book of the series in Jan 2010 the character will most likely become more recognized. The article has been linked to the pages Jack Heath (writer) and The Lab (novel) (the first book of the series currently available in the US) which each have their own article. I don't think this article should be deleted as the article is not orphaned and is linked to two other relevant articles however prehaps this article could be merged to Jack Heath (writer) or The Lab (novel). If this is best please let me know how to merge it over. Thanks! --Kayley6 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only the short story was published on the website. The series has been published by Pan Macmillan in Australia and New Zealand and by Scholastic in the US. I have re-written this part of the article to avoid misunderstanding.--Kayley6 (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/Merge~~ The character has no general notability outside of the series. I could support an independent article if examples could be found of influences outside of the books, e.g. notable musical references (songs/bands/etc/.), secondary uses of the character (~~comic books~~ graphic novels, computer games), any sort of notable pop cultural reference. The article is well written and should easily be able to be absorbed into an article on the series (if that is determined notable) or an individual book.Vulture19 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 18:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep/Merge: I guess this article would be best merged to The Lab (novel) the first book of the series which this character is from.--Kayley6 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Duplicate !vote. Pcap ping 13:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability outside the novel. I would have said merge to The Lab (novel), but that article also fails to indicate notability by any WP:SECONDARY source. Merging would just make that WP:PLOT-only article a longer plot-only article. Pcap ping 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Retitle, and use as a base for an article on the series. I agree there is not sufficient notability as distinct from the books to make a separate article justified, but we can probably take the occasion to expand the coverage beyond the single article on the author (& incorporated within it the contents of the article for the first of the series The Lab). DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Retitle, and use as a base for an article on the series. I agree with the above post. --Kayley6 (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Triplicate !vote. Pcap ping 16:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've struck the article's author's first two !votes, leaving only her most recent. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 17:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Lab (novel). Primary author seems to have indicated understanding (and, if not necessarily agreement with, acceptance) of AfD discussion and seems to be willing to merge this article to The Lab. Such a merge would undoubtedly make The Lab a better article. Vulture19 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Phantom effect[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be describing a fringe theory, though it's one that's difficult to evaluate as it's so obscure. The only references are to a twenty year old mention in a Russian, the title of which suggests even the writers then had doubts about it, and a similarly ancient paper that seems unrelated. The other link is to a commercial site which is up to date but seems just to be pushing this fringe theory. The link is to a Google translate of a Russian page, but there's an English page here. Science, especially life science, is a very active field so I would expect there to be more recent research and so references. As it is it looks like an obscure fringe theory with few supporters. JohnBlackburne (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia does not necessarily exclude fringe theories (see Wikipedia:Fringe theories). The question here is whether or not this particular theory is verifiable and has gained enough coverage (negative or favorable) in reliable sources to become notable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a fringe theory (WP:FRINGE). As such Wikipedia cannot allow undue weight to a fringe opinion. Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Although there are hits on Google Scholar, this theory seems to be related to other fringe theories such as "Wave genetics". These type of theories tend to mix up or mesh peer reviewed science with belief systems. This is what I see with the "Phantom DNA effect". Specifically I am uncomfortable with the nebulous concept "subtle energy phenomena" and "subtle energy fields that couple with the EM field". This appears to be an unidentified subtle energy field. In the 2003 version, this seems central to this theory, as mentioned in the PDF document here. At least three of the cited sources appear to be not in the science arena: references # 3, 4, and 8 - and I have to wonder about reference #1. Also a google search and a google image search shows me that this theory appears to lack notability. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable fringe theory. The refs given don't support the claims of the article. Even fringe theories need to be verifiable to be included. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah(film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found the project has commenced filming (see Wikipedia:Notability (films)); Keshia Chante's manager denies her involvement in any such project. Good faith search for sources comes up with nothing more than rumors and wishful thinking. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFF. Warrah (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNO Club Sports[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article is not notable. Article is about club sports at a university. Most universities in the United States have club sports and UNO's club sports are not more notable than any of the other universities' club sports. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —X96lee15 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete usually something like this might be an okay merge with the school's article, but this article is mostly empty and what's there is sourced to its own website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Chronicles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears impossible to improve to satisfy the WP:GNG Polarpanda (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable new RPG system. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No apparent arguments for deletion have been raised in two weeks of discussion, so closing as retained. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chu Guiting[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just based on article alone, there seems to be insufficient notability (and the article was written like a "memorial page"); delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A basic English google search brings up a lot of hits that suggest it would be overly zealous to delete this article based on its unsourced content alone. And that's after a search in English. I suspect there'd be a lot more material in Chinese. The article needs references though and a re-write for POV reasons. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly needs sourcing and a rewrite, but I've been able to find a number of Chinese martial artists who trace their training back to him. While not a guarantee of notability, it's a good start. I also found him mentioned as an excellent fighter in a December 2004 article in Inside Kung Fu magazine. FYI, I also saw his name written as Chu Gui Ting. Like Mkativerata, I would expect there to be a lot more info on him in Chinese language sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No apparent arguments for deletion have been raised in two weeks of discussion, so closing as retained. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Gibson Amphitheatre: August 15th, 2007[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a major album release, it is released on I-Tunes only. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That has no bearing of whether it should be deleted or not. It's also her first live album. Haseo9999 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being considered for deletion when many other exclusive iTunes albums/EPs aren't? For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_from_SoHo_%28Maroon_5%29.

Deaneconomos (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the way the albums are released doesnt matter. This is her first live album, its part of her discography, so it has to stay. NO matter if it doesnt have a major release, its important to her music career Fortunato luigi (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sand Canyon Review (Magazine)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable student magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Notable College Magazine. -- The page in question has been nominated for deletion; though it should be made mention that other student/campus produced magazines have wiki pages as well - The Pacific Review, to make mention of one such magazine. Pacific Review Pacific Review It also should be noted that The Sand Canyon Review has hosted work by several artists of the written word and as well as those in the visual arena. If any changes are need to keep this wiki page going, they will be made. Please understand that during the creation of this page, it was made with the best intend to showcase one of the programs from this college campus. Craftonstudent (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)CraftonStudent[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all, extremely unlikely any reliable sources exist. Rather telling that there's not a single Google News hit, even in the archives. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Starblind DRosin (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Story (Katharine McPhee song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The song fails WP:NSONGS, it failed to chart and is unlikely to grow beyond a stub Aspects (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It was officially the second single. It was played on the radio and charted in the 60s on Mediabase's Pop chart and a video was made that was played on TRL and MTV Asia. Plus, it sold over 77,000 downloads. I wouldn't say it had high notability, but it seems notable enough as an official single to have its own article as part of information about its album. I'd like to hear other opinions before I decide what to vote. Ducold (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is a Billboard review of the song [29]. Gongshow ^Talk 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since Gongshow already found at least one reliable source from which the article can be expanded, I see no reason to believe that the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One source is not enough. Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Gongshow. Joe Chill (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are two more sources for consideration. [30][31] Gongshow ^Talk 19:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Yamamoto (Composer/arranger)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kenji Yamamoto (Composer/arranger)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:COMPOSER. All sources listed in article are WP:SELFPUB. SnottyWong talk 02:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it decided whether or not a song is notable? I assumed since Kenji Yamamoto has composed or arranged such a large number of songs (most of which I haven't gotten around to translating from the Japanese Wikipedia page), he would be considered notable enough. I mean, Kenji Yamamoto (the Nintendo composer) has only 17 works on his page, while this Kenji Yamamoto can have about seven times that (if I add the rest of his work). Also, what does "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" mean? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there might well be an issue of needing to cite better sources, we have a process of tagging articles for improvement rather than deleting them on sight. There is nothing to suggest that this person isn't notable, or that notability couldn't be demonstrated. These concerns are a prime case of content that can be fixed by editing, not requiring deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy and Linkdude: Wikipedia is very clear about its criteria for notability of composers. If you can provide reliable, verifiable, independent sources about Kenji Yamamoto which prove that he has accomplished one of the six bullet points listed in WP:COMPOSER, then I will gladly withdraw my nomination for deletion. SnottyWong talk 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ATD, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

Yet again, you're too quick to call for deletion and fail to appreciate the possibility of any other actions to remedy the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, your logic is horrifyingly misguided, and it's clear to me (from this AfD and others we've both been involved in) that you're an inclusionist who will stop at nothing to halt the deletion of any article. The only remedy to this article's problems are secondary sources which establish notability. I haven't nominated this article for deletion because of the grammar of the article or any other problem that could be solved through regular editing, I nominated it because I believe the subject of the article does not pass Wikipedia's notability policies. Understand now? SnottyWong talk 13:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 03:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nidaros Dragons[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just the most obvious example (since it's just a youth team) of a hole bunch of articles on American football clubs in Norway that indicate no notability whatsoever. There are also some articles on players of dubious notability. The article on Eigil Norén, for example, doesn't tell you anything about its subject and would in my eyes be a clear candidate for speedy deletion if it hadn't already existed for years without bothering anyone. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if you are nominating Eigil Norén for deletion, but it would not be a speedy deletion candidate, as it at least makes a claim of notability. Grsz¹¹ 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I found about them was a YouTube video and an aside in one Norwegian local news article. Fences&Windows 03:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation

SAMUEL BURR SIFERS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Concerns of notability. Google search. Airplaneman ^talk 02:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyvio. Found it on a newspaper's obituary site. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third-party sources to confirm notability of a new journal published by a nonnotable e-publisher. - Altenmann >t 23:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder. No sign of any Wikipedia:Notability, academic impact or any encyclopedic interest. Created by a SPA. Abductive (reasoning) 00:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PubMed, the definitive journal search engine for medical articles, run by the NIH [32], takes this new journal seriously enough to catalog its articles using the abbreviation Int J Clin Exp Pathol. To me that indicates that it has been accepted as a legitimate medical journal. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to improve the encyclopedia?" Wikipedia doesn't go by legitimacy, it goes by WP:Notability. Abductive (reasoning) 04:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's a very new journal, and I think the most reasonable conclusion is to say not yet notable, and perhaps merge to the publisher, as there is not yet any record for how much its articles get citied--which is the key way a journal gets to be notable. I 'm quite inclusive on journals, but I think Pub Med is a little more inclusive than we should be. I'd wait until it's in at least Scopus or WoS, which do reflect the expected citations. . DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons: 1. The journal's editorial board shows that this journal was originally founded with 32 great pathologists (including 20 Chairmen from the Department of Pathology of major universities across the world) (please refer to journal's editorial board webpage and go to "Founding Editorial Board" from there for reference) in an effort to promote Open Access to Science. 2. Editor-in-Chief is an internationally highly recognized pathologist with more than 500 published papers in PubMed and one of the Highly-Cited investigator in SCI. Although this journal was officially launched in the beginning of 2008, it is already officially indexed in PubMed (2008), Scopus (2009) and fully archived in PubMed Central. Based on the available data from Google Scholar, papers published in journal have already been widely cited (please search google scholar fro reference). OpenAccessforScience (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I agree with DGG. As it seems that the journal additionally is now also included in Scopus, I think it is notable enough. --Crusio (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak delete, as Scopus recently seems to have become less selective. That university libraries have it in their "digital libraries" doesn't say much, since that doesn't cost them anything... --Crusio (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except it has no sources, and nothing encyclopedic can be said about it. Abductive (reasoning) 13:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 02:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scopus inclusion satisfies notability per Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals).Novangelis (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) did not achieve consensus. It is a failed guideline. Abductive (reasoning) 07:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for many topics, such as schools & shopping centers, the formal guidelines did not achieve consensus, but in practice they are followed at AfD, in both delete and keep directions. That's because of a feature (or perhaps a defect) of our decision making process--that a clear supermajority is required for a guideline, and consequently a relatively few objectors can prevent one, but since AfDs have to be decided, plain consensus is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate This seems an excellent case for it. The journal quite probably will be notable, but isn't yet IMHO. NBeale (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A number of universities have decided to keep a copy of this publication in their digital libraries. Mkdw ^talk 18:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors[edit]

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

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

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant advertising. OutlawSpark (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Nominator is a blocked sockpuppet. Fences&Windows 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally useful, supportive non-profit organization. Keep: primary author--EMedMD 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emedmd (talk • contribs) — Emedmd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak Keep I'm not sure about notability, but I do think the promotional tone could be removed.RadManCF (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, no refs except their own website. Other comparable organizations, such as the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors, do not have a Wikipedia page. ==MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep This group is non-profit, educates and is accessed by many medical students. Individual residency programs already have wiki pages. (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCLA/VA_Multicampus_PM&R_Residency_Program) Informational, not advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srudkin (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC) — Srudkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"'Keep'" This group is a non profit that provides guidance to both medical students, residents, and junior faculty. Most importantly, CORD is the non-profit body of EM residency directors, it is not trying to recruit members because most if not all residency programs are members of the organization. Instead, it is important that wikipedia is used to disseminate this information because all interested candidates in emergency medicine should have EM trained physicians use the CORD letter of recommendation when applying for residency training. Most allopathic medical students know this, but many osteopathic and international medicine graduates do not realize this. -- pinbor1 — Pinbor1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - If you review the article history, you will see that not only is it promotional in nature, but has in fact been copied directly from the organisation's web site. I can find no reliable sources writing about the organisation and as such, it fails to meet notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – nomination by sock of de facto banned user Pickbothmanlol. MuZemike 04:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the rationale for the "keep" votes above. We judge articles by Wikepedia standards, not by whether we admire the subject. The article does not even assert notability, much less demonstrate it. The only reference is the organization's own website. And the identity of the nominator should be irrelevant; judge the article on its merits (or lack of same). This one could almost qualify for speedy delete under A7, "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant."--MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Point of Clarification Can I ask why the AARP is considered a notable organization but CORD would not be considered one? Is it just a matter of getting additional citations. Is it just a matter of beefing up the subject matter? i.e. if there was citation of Emergency Medicine regarding CORD would that make it notable. For example the various EM organizations cite CORD, and CORD is an organizational body that puts out consensus statements regarding the education of emergency medicine residents. just looking for clarification---pinbor1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinbor1 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC) — Pinbor1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Can I ask why the AARP is considered a notable organization but CORD would not be considered one?" Are you serious? AARP has 40 million members and is considered the second largest organization in the United States, surpassed only by the Roman Catholic Church. In contrast, how many directors of Emergency Medicine residencies are there? in the country A few dozen? Maybe as many as a hundred? A Google search for AAPR returns 6 million hits, including 3700 from Google News. A Google search for the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors includes 6400 hits, including NONE from Google News. Try not to reduce your arguments to absurdity.-MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Pinbor1, this discussion really is all about the reliable sources. Wikipedia only writes about organizations that have been "noticed" in the media. If you can provide a list of (for example) newspaper and magazine articles about the organization, then that would be extremely helpful in determining notability. A feature-length article entirely about the organization is obviously much, much more valuable than a single sentence that names the organization in passing, but if you can tell us whatever you know, we can see whether it adds up to enough. The actual standards are at WP:ORG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 02:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted due to the issues with sockpuppets and SPAs. Fences&Windows 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is a reasonably good stub at the moment. Notability concerns don't seem compelling to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is plenty of evidence, as can be seen in the Google Books results, that this organization is notable, and even has a small scandal in its history. Promotional language seems to be gone. Those editors who feel that the article is too short or doesn't tell the whole story, please add information to the article. I'll watchlist it to make sure none of the negative sourced information is removed. Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search reveals lots of hits with respect to this organization. Current version is likely salvagable and does not have a spam feel to it. Passes WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as vandalism -SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Iannarelli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I just needed a screen capture image for my friend. You can delete this now. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 02:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — æk ^Talk 03:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion. - Vianello (Talk) 04:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hanson (footballer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent hoax Grahame (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fake entry. Not the first time either. [33] Digestible (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete page tagged. — æk ^Talk 03:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Abu Adnan (Mohamad Kammoun)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not seem to meet WP:Notability or WP:BIO standards, no inline citations but this person, as per the article, does not seem to have made significant advances in their field and does not seem to fall inline with any of the issues in WP Notability for an academic.

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. Teamtheo (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no notability whatsoever. DRosin (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Community Radio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously nominated for speedy. Limited claim for notability and no reliable sources can be found. The website linked when the article was originally a few weeks ago seems to have disappeared. — Rod ^talk 12:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - original article was copyvio cut-n-paste of station's website. Was stubbed to remove copyvio and little has been done to the article since. I cannot find any reliable references for the site - neither on the Internet, nor in any local media (I live in the station's target area and have never heard of it). Given the COI that exists with the article's creation, I support nomination for deletion as non-notable. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)r[reply]

Delete no reliable sources. There seems to be at least two other stations calling themselves "Pulse Community Radio", and while the other two (one in Australia) are at least theoretically more notable than this one, I'm not seeing any reliable sources for any of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Married to the Sea. Tone 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drew (artist)[edit]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/(({1))}|edit]] | [[Talk:(({1))}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/(({1))}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/(({1))}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/(({1))}|delete]] | [((fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/(({1))}|limit=999)) links] | [((fullurl:(({1))}|action=watch)) watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After reviewing sources, I do not feel this article meets WP:WEB or WP:BIO criteria for inclusion. Although the article has been here for over two years, I do not see the evident notability. Refs are either not independent of the subject matter, or blogs, which are not reliable sources. Fbifriday (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would've said keep, due to the association with Slate, if I didn't see articles for Married to the Sea and Toothpaste for Dinner, the first of which is basically a bio of his wife. I'd suggest that we merge these all into one Toothpaste for Dinner article, since 99% of the Drew article's quality content is about this single topic. I'd like to see most of the personal stuff stripped out if it can't be properly referenced.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems that his wife might have more exposure than him. Although the references in the sources on Married to the Sea are all stretches, they are from legit sources. Mostly mentions in lists, not actual articles. Maybe a joint article for Drew / Natalie? Ideas? --Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above, failing that, just delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and Toothpaste for Dinner into Married to the Sea. I'll probably merge Kompressor (musician) in there too. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 15:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Karamudini[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Grandiose claims in this article on an Iranian academic cannot be verified. I searched by his name in Farsi and still found nothing. Bringing to AfD in case I have overlooked something. Abductive (reasoning) 13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of academics are translators and publish papers; glancing around on this article, I noticed evidence of having research cited in other works, or other accomplishments that meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Also, is there a Wikipedia guideline about English-language notability as opposed notability only in a specific other language? I seem to recall one, but I can't find it. --Closeapple (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding non-English notability, I'm not sure. WP:NONENG and WP:WORLDVIEW are relevant but don't seem to explicitly address this. WP:ANYBIO and satisfying regular article requirements would seem to permit it; it seems to me it's analogous to someone who has English-language notability within their field, but not outside it. Шизомби (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNKNOWNHERE "some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable."

It seems possible he's notable and verifiable, but I don't know. Is there a good way to solicit help from Farsi speakers [Category:User fa]? Шизомби (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searching by Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is what I did. You'll note the lack of sourcing extends into Farsi. He really should be evaluated as a translator, I am not even sure he holds a professorship. Abductive (reasoning) 04:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't verify much of this biog, and can't see undeniable notability. Even when I find a book, like this isbn.ir record which matches the book on his homepage, he isnt mentioned in the credits, and there is no worldcat record.
He might be able to satisfy these criteria of WP:ACADEMIC:
"The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.", or
"the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education."
But I can't see evidence that these textbooks or Roshd Biological Education are notable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vivita[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no reliable sources. Hairhorn (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable source provided. South Bay (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," per WP:ENT. She's in the "rest of cast listed alphabetically" for Awakening, which means Man with M16 and Zombie #37 were billed ahead of her; and for all her involvement in Frankenpimp it doesn't seem to be a notable film, IMDb shows it was filmed for $30,000 (Canadian, no less), and I can't find significant coverage of it. --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Galactic Guide[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found a ref from 2000 on the BBC about this website. It also received a very large 141k Google hits.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits don't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I am just saying that it isn't just a made up website someone added to advertise.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. SnottyWong talk 12:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:N, WP:WEB. Couldn't find any sources other than the above-referenced BBC page. — æk ^Talk 03:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the plus side, I was able to use Google Scholar to find a research paper that describes the site, although there is no indication of where (or if) the paper might have been published. On the minus side, the "BBC" reference that TParis00ap found is actually a wiki page, not a report from BBC news, and therefore doesn't count as a reliable source. So with only one maybe-reliable source discovered after three relists, I think it is safe to say that there is not enough WP:RS coverage of this site to demonstrate notability. --RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Loew's Cemetery[edit]

The result was Keep - Arguments for retaining the article have adequately addressed the notability issue. A merge discussion for the two related articles can proceed on the article talk page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject seems to lack notability. Sources to not mention any notability about cemetary, and nowhere could the name "Loew's Cemetery" be found in any sources. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its not the name that is important, it is the concept. Name changes are discussed on the article talk page. The references already listed show notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no less notable, and just as bizarrely noteworthy, as many, many other pages of its ilk. Suggest that the article needs to be expanded with much more info re: the headstone in the parking lot. Seduisant (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hadn't seen the article since I edited it almost four years ago, and it's just as notable. The reliable and verifiable sources covering the cemetery, especially the article in The New York Times, establish notability for the site and the article. Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no inherent notability for cemeteries, and WP:N does not appear to be satisfied for this one. The "Other stuff exists" argument is unconvincing. Wikipedia is not a mirror of the NY Times. Edison (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, is not the sole reference, but you already know that. Wikipedia says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This plot has no notability to justify an article. Apparently the author thinks that anything mentioned in a newspaper deserves its own wikipedia article. Torkmann (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, is not the sole reference, but you would already know that if you read the article instead of just looking at what the previous person wrote and commenting based on that. Wikipedia says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read or re-read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Edison (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't hand me the bible and say "all the answers are in here, just read it". Cite a chapter and a verse if you have something useful to say. I am not assuming bad faith when I am confronted by bad mathematics, and I correct the person citing the bad mathematics. We are adults here, I can tell someone that 2+2 is not equal to 1, when they try to tell me it is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced well, includes photo, comprehensive enough. Only complaint is that there's no link back to this cemetery from the Mary Ellis (spinster) page, which seems to be a duplicate of this page for the most part. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements since nomination. Good job! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, Merge to Mary Ellis (spinster), the lady in the grave has sources too, see [34], [35]. Her grave is sourced to a book and the NYT, and less reliably, the "Weird NJ" and "Roadside America" books/websites. This is similar to the Couch tomb in Chicago's Lincoln Park or this case in South Carolina I found while looking for sources, and doubtless attracts Wikipedia users wondering why this gravesite is in a movie theater's parking lot. Abductive (reasoning) 04:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A collection of irrelevant non-notable halfwits from eleventy-seven years ago does not an encyclopedia article justify, whether or not they are interned in your local movie theatre car park. Just because this was mentioned in the newspaper does not make it memorable or significant. Lots of things are mentioned in the paper. Wikipedia should not resemble the New York Times on a "slow news day." Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, is not the sole reference, but you would already know that if you read the article instead of just looking at what the previous two people wrote and commenting based on that. Wikipedia says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article. Please keep your comments civil. I believe you had been admonished for your tone earlier in this discussion. Please sign your posts as well. Thank you. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am always civil. But if your math doesn't add up, I will point it out to you. Math is not subjective, anyone who actually read the article can count the number of references. Someone not reading the article and repeating the error that the first person wrote: that the New York Times is the sole reference in the article, should be admonished for repeating that error. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For other disruptive nominations of my articles by Gerbelzodude99 see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp. I think he is lashing out because I caught him commenting at an AFD without actually looking at the article. If he had read the article, at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery he would noticed that the New York Times was not the sole reference in the article, instead he repeated the error of the previous voters stating that it was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only "lashing out" I'm doing is lashing out to strike down articles of dubious value and notability. Merry Christmas. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable - the coverage in Old burial grounds of New Jersey is fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mathematicians[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band does not clearly meet the general notability guideline. Most of the references are self-published, and the article appears to be a WP:COI creation. There are some local news sources. The only thing suggesting wider notability is a story in the San Francisco Chronicle.[36] Such coverage is sparse, so I'm leaning to weak delete. ~YellowFives 15:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the exact same article being published in the Times Union add any to the notability, I wonder? Olaf Davis (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am a fan of this band and have been watching this page. I am in favor of a weak keep, however, I am somewhat biased on the matter. I do feel there could be an article, as there are several small news sources which have covered this band. CD sales are relatively low, around ~5000. They are primarily a touring band. They used to have their own website at themathematicians.net, however is seems to be gone now. Danski14^(talk) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe Mathematicians website still exists at themathematicians.com[37] though it was down for about a month.--Mofyoakley (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the band fail WP:MUSIC. Fol de rol troll (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per snowball keep. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EFi-X[edit]

Contested prod. Computer hardware with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author of the page has went and removed a speedy tag and an AfD tag from this article, as well as another article. This hardware is non-notable, and has no WP:RS to support such notability. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This product gained wide attention in geek circle. the product has been reviewed by most publication of this area ( tomshardware, gizmodo, cnet ... ) article should be rewritten though. --Dwarfpower (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show us specifics? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search will show you the specifics. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The many news stories about it show notability. --Itub (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above two; it seems notable enough. Even if the sources are not that impressive, there a lot of them. VG ☎ 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a few news articles on Google. Article needs to be expanded. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. wrong place. non admin closure TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeenaz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Marathi word for "chicken" is hardly apt to be searched by someone who simply wants to read about chickens. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just a minute, I meant to lsit this under redirects for discussion… — The Man in Question (in question) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In general it seems there's consensus to suggest the subject-matter is not notable enough. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bizon Computers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no notability for this company. None whatsoever. Just because a company puts Mac OS X on regular computers does not make it notable. Cman (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the given sources seem to be about a different company. I was unable to find any significant coverage of Bizon Computers. Haakon (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete average company doing average things. a below-the radar system builder pre-loads OSX, yawn. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Merge as a short section in Macintosh clone. As far as I can tell, the sources are about "Russian Mac", which is the name Bizon uses for its range of computers. This is interesting because there are very few companies (three?) preinstalling OSX. That is the only reason why this company is notable. ComputScientist (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is the company not notable but based on the outcome of the Apple vs Psystar case (Apple's protection methods are protected under the DMCA) it is questionable if their Mac-Clone product is legal in the US or EU.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DRosin (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge, it has some reputable coverage, like from SoftPedia --SF007 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Olin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was PRODed as not notable, and template removed before expiry. Majority of references are not reliable sources. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent sources as far as I can see. Seems like an advert. Some good sources and I'd change my mind, but delete as it stands DRosin (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marinol (Dronabinol)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by a new user (this is his first contribution) under an incorrect name. Per pharmaceutical naming conventions, articles about medicines must be named with their International Nonproprietary Name, here that would be dronabinol. Dronabinol article existed some time ago (and was previously moved from Marinol), but then its merger with Tetrahydrocannabinol was discussed and the result was to merge because these are two names of the same substance; so at the moment of creation of the article, dronabinol was a redirect to tetrahydrocannabinol, and the latter article contains a section that describes the medicinal use of the synthetic substance in detail. So now this newly created article represents an accidental fork under an unsuitable name (no one will look for this information through this name, people would look either for a brand name Marinol or for INN Dronabinol, not both of them in this combination). I propose to delete this fork (not even a redirect is needed); if necessary and absent in the existing article, some information may be moved there (i.e. to Tetrahydrocannabinol#Dronabinol). --Maxxicum (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Maxxicum (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. I cannot find any novel content that should be preserved, even as a redirect.Novangelis (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy The Vampire Slayer Season Eight (Motion Comics)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

falls foul of a comic-equivalent of WP:HAMMER. We've got no idea when it'll be written or produced, who is working or it or.. anything. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One report of a rumor on a sci-fi website does not get this past WP:CRYSTAL. --RL0919 (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:HAMMER. iT's all just speculation --Brunk500 (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Oboe concerto No. 3 (Handel). An AFD is not required here. I will inform nominator. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oboe concerto in G minor (HWV 287)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created page with an incorrect name HWV258. 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Oboe concerto in G minor (HWV 287) page, but immediately realised that I didn't select a good name for the page. Six minutes later I created the replacement Oboe concerto No. 3 (Handel) page with identical information. Nothing links to the page being nominated for deletion. Entirely my stuff-up. Sorry. HWV258. 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kemp[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Wisconsin county politico. A better claim to notability than some, but he does not meet WP:BIO or or WP:ACADEMIC. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Has the sources, but is right at the edge for notability on both the political and professor sides. Royal broil 02:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although there are citations, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:POLITICIAN. Being a city council member, college professor, and head of a county party does not make one notable in my opinion. And having a long, well-cited article does not change that. --Baron Larf 05:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Did some research but unfortunately I am not seeing enough coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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