The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That is, do not delete; no consensus about a possible merger but that can be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle oil[edit]

Motorcycle oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. The entire point of this article is to answer the question "What oil should I buy for my motorcycle?" That is, how do I maintain my motorcycle? Here is some reliable material on motorcycle oil: "Motorcycology", "Why don't we want to use...", "...energy conserving friction modifiers...". According to Chilton's Motorcycle Handbook [1], this is a hotly debated issue with no authoritative answer. If all of the secondary sources only offer how-to instructions, and no encyclopedic content, then there is nothing for Wikipedia to work with. There is a Wikibooks page which can more adequately deal with this, fwiw. Dbratland (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I disagree, dbratland. There are reliable sources discussing this and talking about the difference between motorcycle and automotive oils. That's a sufficient reason to keep- because there is a difference. It may need to be rewritten, but not completely deleted. tedder (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I see as the issue with the existing sources is that they are only writing how-to manuals. Which means to make something encyclopedic out of that source material, the Wikipedia editor has to reframe what the source is saying and change it into something other than what was meant. This would be fine if at least some sources wrote encyclopedic topics, but when the entire article is stitched together from how-to advice reformed into something else, it becomes a problem.

It could be that what we really need is a new article Motorcycle lubrication, that begins with the early rider-operated, total-loss lubrication systems and traces the development since then, while avoiding getting anywhere near discussing what SAE grade or brand or type of oil they need.--Dbratland (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)::[reply]

It's more than a how-to to say "auto oils contain X, moto oils contain Y", especially combined with the mcnews survey of however many years ago. However, you have a point- a "history of motorcycle lubrication" article, probably named what you suggested, would be wise. tedder (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep acceptable start to an article. Manuals for motorcycles are very much more detailed. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to motor oil. This is something of a content fork of a bunch of articles gathered in one place. It seems to me that it would make more sense for an encyclopedia to stress the peculiar requirements of motorcycles in those places. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed above, but lose the OR section on cooling. — Brianhe (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Culling WP:OR out of the article can fix the WP:NOTHOWTO concern. That said, is this a WP:CFORK of motor oil? Maybe. Does it have to be? No. I think this article can be fixed; if someone tries and cannot, that person should propose a merger on the article talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: This is something that should be merged with motor oil. South Bay (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Allgemeine Verunsicherung[edit]

1. Allgemeine Verunsicherung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable uncharted album, completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Quantumobserver (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is utter rubbish. There are links to other sources of information to support the article. It charted in Austria so this is a charted album. --Cexycy (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I concur... what do you mean unsourced? Look at the page history and the sources were there long before your AfD. AfD's are for non-notable or poorly-sourced. This article could use some independent reviews, but that should encourage improvement by the community, not an AfD. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can you point out the significant coverage of this album that is required for it to have a Wikipedia article? It currently doesn't show any references. Rapido (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the general precedent on Wikipedia is that if a band is notable, their full-length commercially-released albums get articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G10. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burd[edit]

Tim Burd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unreferenced (apart from a link to an open forum, which doesn't count) article about someone who may or may not exist. Appears to be original research and essentially an attack on a biography of a (possibly) living person with no references to back any of it up. I42 (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Why wasn’t this tagged as an attack page? Done so now. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 00:09, 31 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Café Passé[edit]

Café Passé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable uncharted album, completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is utter rubbish. There are links to other sources of information to support the article. It charted in Germany and Austria so this is a charted album. --Cexycy (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Leave this artist's albums alone. The artist has achieved WP notability and per the protocols of WP:ALBUMS the album articles are worthy of development. Add a stub tag or edit tag to improve the articles, rather than an AfD. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can you point out the significant coverage of this album that is required for it to have a Wikipedia article? It currently doesn't show any references. Rapido (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the general precedent on Wikipedia is that if a band is notable, their full-length commercially-released albums get articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  06:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancemania[edit]

Dancemania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album series. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article is in a fairly sorry state, but nearly all of these were significant hits, and some of them got to #1 in the Japanese (Oricon) charts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep... and improve after someone establishes a viable page for i-DANCE. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If substantial coverage can be located for this album series I would be in favor of keeping it. Where can such coverage be located? JBsupreme (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a new, well-sourced article on this or a related subject.  Sandstein  06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinism[edit]

Kinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

All sources provided are unreliable, and there is no proof that the subject possesses WP: NOTABILITY on its own, although perhaps a mention of the subject could be added to Christian Identity, Anglo-Israelism or some other such article. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I trimmed a lot of unsourced negative information, and what's left is still under-cited for what it asserts. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this is deleted for a third time, I suggest we either salt it or make it a protected redirect to somewhere appropriate. Note that it had recently been PROD'ed for the full 7 days, before an admin noticed the topic had been previously deleted by AfD. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Sorry to say at this point. I was able to find a few references in places such as Google Scholar, as shown here [2] and Google Book as shown here [3]. In addition, I did find their web-site here [4]. However, to me, this does not delineate notability in that there is no Significant coverage of the group. A viable fringe conservative Christian group yes. A notable fringe right wing conservative Christian group no. Sorry. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Christian Reconstructionism. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. There appears to be a distinct racism connotation to this which seems to distinguish it from Christian Reconstructionism, so I don't think a redirect there would be wholly appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt per past discussions and above. Completely non-notable and merely a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain I am unable to figure out which references if any refer to this particular group. The term seems to have been used in a variety of ways over the last two centuries [5]. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any verifiable content and redirect to Christian Reconstructionism. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if Christian Reconstructionism is an appropriate redirect, as Christian Reconstructionism is generally viewed as non-racist, while Kinism is obviously racist. Christian Identity and Anglo-Israelism don't seem to fit perfectly, either (although they'd be a better fit than C.R. would be). See my comment below. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Or, this page could be merged into R. L. Dabney, since Kinism appears to be based on Dabney's philosophy. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Idea: Personally, if we must have a redirect, I would suggest creating a short new article called Christianity and race or Christianity and racism, which would briefly summarize the positions that different branches of Christianity (both modern and in history) have taken on racial issues. The article could mention that modern Christians generally oppose racism on Biblical grounds, but that there are exceptions, one of which is Kinism. Any verifiable content in this article could be merged there, and Kinism could redirect to that article, as a protected (salted) redirect. The existing article on Christianity and slavery which is about a related (but not the same) topic, could serve as a model. How does that sound? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a solid idea, but it would be a completely new and unrelated article, so that can be done regardless of the outcome of this debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to this either, but in order for Kinism to be a valid redirect, it should appear in the target article. I'm not yet convinced that any' RS sufficient to meet V exist, so call this cautious optimism. Of course, the suggested article can exist whether or not Kinism is made into a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. None are cited in the article, and I couldn't fine any in my own search. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cycle (Absurd Minds)[edit]

The Cycle (Absurd Minds) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This album does not pass WP:MUSIC. It has not charted that I can find and does not contain any references to assert or establish notability, so it fails WP:GNG also. ArcAngel (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a knowledgeable person can come up with some sources that establish notability. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this album; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow ^Talk 02:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Lee's 2 Hour Long Late Night Radio Show[edit]

Iain Lee's 2 Hour Long Late Night Radio Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article of a fairly new radio talk(?) (variety?) show makes no assertion of notability that I can see and there are no external references at all. I was not able to come up with any reliable sources in my search, so this fails WP:GNG in my book. ArcAngel (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non notable radio show (lots of radio shows exist) Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing on Google News and nothing else I can find to establish significant, reliable 3rd party coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian blad[edit]

Brian blad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Local mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN as he isn't a national or highest sub-national level (i.e. state) politician. No non-trivial third party sources... 2 says you, says two 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the usual outcomes. Mayor of the chief city of a metropolitan area of 83,000. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Move to Brian Blad (politician) as there is a hockey player/coach with the same name. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 2 says you, says two 14:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pocatello is 51,000 population, and we almost always keep mayors for small cities of that size (from memory of recent AfDs, the cutoff seems to be somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 -- in the absence of special considerations of course. In Pocatello has a newspaper, there ought to be considerably more information available. Even if it does not, there will be the election returns. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
• Redirect to Pocatello, Idaho as there is only one information about him, that he is the mayor of this city. Armbrust (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I followed my own advice, and actually looked in G News Archive. I added his occupation, and the vote tally, There's more where that came from, and I leave it as an exercise for those who were so sure there would be nothing that they did not bother to look before nominating or !voting. Time to require WP:BEFORE,to eliminate the wrongly nominated articles at AfD, so we have time to better consider the many that do need to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect, as I recall WP:OUTCOMES, people whose only News hits are a mention in an article entitled "Group raises money for dogs held at Pocatello Animal Shelter" and his appearance in a caption of a photo in local news of his election aren't notable. And the cutoff was 50,000. Abductive (reasoning) 05:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject passes WP:GNG. See this article from KPVI and this article from KIFI-TV. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Under the Pink. SilkTork *^YES! 13:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anastasia[edit]

Yes, Anastasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Page fails to establish notability and falls under fancruft Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Under the Pink, album track, never a single. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per starblind. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Under the Pink, which is the best alternative deletion. I have searched for sources about this single and have been unable to discover anything that substantiates notability. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil recipients of the Padma Shri[edit]

List of Tamil recipients of the Padma Shri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The Padma Shri article contains a comprehensive list of all the Padma Shri awardees. The information in this article is hence redundant. Besides the award is at the national level and therefore should not be listed state-wise. Jovianeye (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's rationale.(not with the national part but with the redundant part) The main awards articles have state information in a sortable format. This article is redundant.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sodabottle Hekerui (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swifty[edit]

Swifty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable rapper. Has no notable work of his own. Allmusic [6] shows a handful of performer credits. Billboard doesn't list him at all. As an individual artist, has no significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Niteshift36, this artist is not, as of yet, notable. JBsupreme (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You can't delete him and not the other members —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.84.46 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. mrmewe (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 30 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) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physiospect[edit]

Physiospect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Borderline spam that fails WP:N. Complete lack of reliable sources. Zero PubMed hits, zero Scholar hits, zero Google news hits, one unrelated Google books hit, no websites in Google that would be reliable sources for a medical article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertisement for a non-notable device with no reliable sources. Alison22 (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Prodded this a while back, but forgot to check in with it - my bad. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I started reading this with interest, until I realised the complete lack of reliable references. Once these guys publish in a mainstream journal, the article can come back. GyroMagician (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have read with interest the comments calling for Delete but would just like to point out that Physiospect is certainly not fake. I and other members of my family have personally experienced the system in Belgium. It is used by several practitioners in Continental Europe, particularly in France, apparently quite often with positive results. I certainly would not have written the article if I had not had evidence of the existence of the system. I would invite interested parties to take a closer look at some of the websites documenting the system. For example, the information at Physiospect-002 corresponds very closely to the system I have seen in operation. There are also several interesting sites in French, e.g the ones from Eric Fleury, or Pysioscan, the Swiss distributor. There is a French site [7] listing some 25 therapists using the system. I have also seen a number of articles on the system in the French Belgian press although these do not seem to be accessible on the Web. The problem with some of these "alternative" developments is that they often attract hostile reactions from the established medical community. But to be as objective as possible, I have also found sites which are quite critical of Physiospect, for example [8]. However, as the article does not seem to have attracted very much interest, it is perhaps not worthwhile researching any further. If I am the only one interested in keeping it, then I should bow to my peers. Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I am concerned that this article is quite simply an advertisement for a piece of non-notable equipment. Only a handful or places use this and its still described as experimental. I have not been able to find any information regarding its trials, development history, how its changing the industry, and generally found very little academic information about it from an independent and credible third party. Mkdw^talk 22:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete :used by several" practitioners = not notable. There needs to be some actual RSs, not the sort of websites with advertising and reader comments that we see here. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 31 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 Survivor: Samoa. Notability rests on the TV show, therefore comes under WP:BLP1E . I noted the comments that he is to appear in another series - however, it is essentially the same event - he is not notable outside of that particular show. Refs supplied by Cunard are about the show, not the person, though they do mention the person. Suggestions to merge to Survivor: Samoa make sense - the relevent material can therefore be kept in the appropriate context. Searches for Russell Hantz will be directed to the show/event for which he is notable. SilkTork *^YES! 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hantz[edit]

Russell Hantz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article is about a non-notable gameshow contestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondance2607 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Moondance2607 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin note: this !vote is from the AfD nominator. tedder (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does making it to the showcase round on the price is right and losing make you notable? This guy didn't win the million dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.252.17 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Accomplishments outside of Survivor aren't particularly notable. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete memorable contestant, but not a winner. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although he did not win the million, he was the runner up. He won the Sprint Fan Favorite Award (worth $100,000) and had a tremendous impact on the season Survivor: Samoa. Although winning the million dollars is a sufficient criterion for notability, I don't think it's the only criterion. However whatever (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Given that he has been selected to re-appear on an "all-star" season of Survivor, I think that adds to his notability and to the arguments why this article should be kept. However whatever (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Survivor Samoa. Article focuses on his accomplishments on the show. His non-survivor activity doesn't make him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.138.16 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although he did not win he was clearly a notable character. Also there is much anticipation that he might make it into the next season and therefore the article should be kept in anticipation of other accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon100 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The arguments that this article should be deleted just because the contestant did not win are ridiculous. Memorable players on Survivor have gotten pages in the past (Rupert Boneham, for example, lost twice, but has his own page) and Russell Hantz essentially was this season's entertainment. He took the intricasies of the game, and essentially cracked every one of them. I mean the man found the immunity idol three times (a feat never previously accomplished), and he played what could arguably be the best strategic game in the show's history (His political game needed some work). I think that deserves its own page. NeoAC (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notable accomplishments outside of Survivor. 170.170.59.139 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Contestant is appearing on a second season of the gameshow, which makes deletion a borderline case (not exactly WP:BLP1E). Suggest keeping with another AFD in 6 months; there's no timeline to Wikipedia, and it's going to be hard to judge notability at this moment. tedder (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to survivor somoa.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. 74.73.17.216 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This discussion doesn't even make sense. Russell is one of the most notable survivors ever, and will be one of the few contestants on multiple seasons. If you delete Russell, you should delete about 1000 other wiki articles as well. 173.31.124.1 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would normally vote delete on an AfD like this, but I think Hantz is more notable than your average Survivor contestant. He attracted by far the most airtime and publicity of the Samoa contestants, was the runner-up, won the sprint award, and will compete in a second season this year. I think a lot of Survivor contestants pages should really be discussed again if this page is deleted, because he's just as notable as other big name Survivor contestants like Cirie Fields or Stephenie LaGrossa, and I say this as someone who really doesnt like Hantz at all. (Kyleofark (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Russell is the greatest survivor player ever though he was not the winner. He has significantly changed the game and specifically controlled Survivor Samoa. It is significant that he is returning to Survivor 20 as a notable villain. The page should be kept and clean-up according to Wikipedia's standards. Trimenes6 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Russel is probably the most popular contestant for Survivor of all time. He was a great player, probably the most cunning and influencial player of all time. Although he didn't win, he does atleast deserve a Wikipedia page. He is confirmed to be in the next season of Survivor, and deserves a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.195.172 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Starblind. JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of how popular some feel he is (which is entirely subjective), the fact remains he was nothing but a contestant on a game show and that isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He's more than just another contestant.

1. He was the runner up and had a significant impact on the game
2. He won the Sprint Fan Favorite Award (which is worth $100,000)
3. He was invited to participate in a second season (an offer extended to very few contestants).

By your reasoning, even the winner is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. However whatever (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I wouldn't particularly mind if most Survivor winners were deleted from Wikipedia, with the exception of Hatch and perhaps a couple of others. It's really only by convention that they're kept here. Few of them are actually notable, and I would say that most of them are far more forgettable than Russel Hantz. (However, with this comment, I'm not suggesting that Russell's article should necessarily be kept.) Bueller 007 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is no assertion of notability outside the show. Shifty333 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC) — Shifty333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  7  00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm somewhat confused by this comment. Is notability outside of (one or two) TV show(s) required? In other words, are you basing this !vote on WP:BLP1E? In your mind, does appearing on a second season render WP:BLP1E moot or not? I'm not contesting the vote, but I'm honestly trying to understand your full rationale. tedder (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --MW talk contribs 00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, gets an awful lot of page views, 5778 in 5 days, which means people think we should have an article, no? Abductive (reasoning) 05:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Tedder, this is not a BLP1E. Furthermore, the subject passes WP:GNG / WP:BIO with this article from the Los Angeles Times (titled Survivor': Has Russell secured his spot in the final two?) and this article from the Montreal Gazette (titled Survivor villain Russell Hantz faces 'memorable' vote). Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beast1333[edit]

Beast1333 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable musician. Majority of references here are social networking sites and sites affiliated with the artist. The rest may not meet the standard of 'multiple, non-trivial, reliable works'. Two of the three references are interview pieces, one of which is reprinted on myspace, and the other, "Zocalo Urbano" may not be a reliable source. Cannot find any notable media coverage of this artist through a Google search. Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

• Delete. I see nothing notable here. When this goes, so can the album. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not notable Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP. Mkdw^talk 22:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - ADDED MORE RELIABLE SOURCES TO PROVE AUTHENTICITY AND NOTABILITY OF ARTIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariovega0 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. One free mixtape and one self-released MP3 album, which according to the article sold unimpressively (and that's putting it kindly). Andrew Lenahan - 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Underground Hip Hop artist, independent from corporate label, he satisfied notability for this genre and highly recognized by the underground hip hop community. User:mariovega0 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Mariovega0 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Comment While the main coverage appears to be hosted by the usual suspects (Myspace & Co), I find this artiste somewhat different from the normal run of rappers. He appears to be somewhat intellectual and coherent, unlike the main bunch who to me seem to be regarding dumbing-down as an art form. (Exception: K'naan, of course.) While the references given aren't what is required yet, I feel there is a possibility that notability may be achieved. This is, of course, provided that an intellectually inclined rap audience exists.... Peridon (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a discussion of whether he's smart or not, we're trying to determine whether he passes WP:MUSIC at this time. As you state, there aren't really any reliable sources or indeed much of anything besides Myspace and the like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's a comment - I personally find a slight degree of notability in it but not enough under Wikipedia criteria to vote keep. Peridon (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Chicago's Radio Arte WRTE 90.5fm radio station is cited as doing an interview and releasing information about the artist in articles published. Also independent journals/magazines have published articles on Beast1333 such as the ones cited (Indypendent and Zocalo Urbano). MarioVega0 1 Jan 2010 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Mariovega0 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - Satisfies #1 of the WP:MUSICBIO (Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable). Beast1333 satisfied the underground hip hop genere. HU. 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.190.230 (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)— 99.135.190.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP - I don't see why it should be deleted since the article does cite multiple authentic sources and satisfied the WP:MUSICBIO with option #1. This article satisfies regulations according to Wikipedia for the reasons mentioned. User: DanielHumms 09:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.36.220.220 (talk)
• Keep: Secondary sources are cited in the article. 69.175.10.10 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per WP:BLP: Secondary sources cited (Zocalo Urbano, The Indypendent, radio interview with DJ Rev, WRTE Radio Arte Monthly) and per WP:MUSIC 1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable (secondary sources mentioned above).AlexV0 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) — AlexV0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Despite all impassioned voting above, this is still a straight failure of WP:Music. Inadequate non trivial secondary sources and inadequate releases on notable lables. --A1octopus (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO; the cited sources are things like Twitter, MySpace and blogs, certainly not reliable third party coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the basics of WPMUSICBIO. RichardLowther (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisfies basics of WPMUSICBIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbeacon (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) — Kevinbeacon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Hmm, 6 out of the 7 non-duplicate keep comments (according to my count) are from IPs or SPAs...curious? Cocytus [»talk«] 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and the creator of the article, User:Gh7mysterio, is a blocked sockpuppet. Hmmmm... TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The music Industry is changing and labels are now irrelevant, you guys are like dinosaurs i call for WP:MUSIC basics to be reformed. The rules must be changed Beast1333 is an Independent Underground well known Artist. The rules must be disputed, they must evolve with the ever changing music industry this is Wikipedia not Nazi Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.143.180 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3Crowd[edit]

3Crowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Declined speedy, but I don't see how this fulfills WP:CORP, very recently founded startup with no third-party sources or assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 19:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All I can find is this, and that's not enough. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the google news sources revolve around getting funding at this point, and from being tied to a notable founder (Barrett Lyon). I'm also concerned that we're WP:Crystal balling with this one, as it's in "Stealth mode", and so far we only know it will have something vaguely to do with "crowsourcing" which is just a buzzword. As for why the speedy was declined I checked with the admin on that one, see discussion. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a business founded in December 2009 in stealth mode? MEGO - especially if what's planned is just some kind of PR startup; that kind of business needs to meet a fairly high standard to begin with, and nothing founded within the month should ever pass muster. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass WP:CORP; not enough significant coverage in reliable third party sources to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-with edits I would ask for re-consideration, based on Barrett Lyons track record. This is going to be interesting going on, one has to start somewhere. As such, please consider keeping if the stealth mode marketing term is removed, I agree that isn't a 'pedia' type term to use. Note, Barrett will be on NPR Fresh air on January 21 and will be speaking at RSA conference. I must qualify he is a friend, but really this is a start of a story worthy of WikiPedia Sorry If I am not editing this properly.newtonke —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• You're doing okay with your edits. Certainly removing "stealth" will help. OTOH, even if this is deleted, you can ask a friendly admin to restore it when the company meets the notability guidelines, or your friendly admin can move it to your userspace for safekeeping to work on further. tedder (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• will-change Thanks, I will give it a look and ask you to re-consider. Appreciate the advice. I will find out more about when announcements will come. But, I recommend keeping until Feb. This launch did make 'the rounds' in tech. I also suggest, Jay Adelson may not be as publicly famous, but his endorsement by investing is tremendous. newtonke —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• changed newtonke —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nayrok[edit]

Nayrok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable musician with no albums released. Only off-wiki reference used here has the statement "Information from the artist's site" at the bottom, and seems to be a simple local band list service. May become notable in the future, but who knows? Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--not notable (yet). Drmies (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails several points of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. I was unable to find any google news hits for this person and they are an unpublished artist by any notable record company. As far as I can tell, the only pages that truly link to this person as part of them being the primary topic is a myspace page and a few articles by non-notable media. This artist may become big later on in life, and should that happen the article may be recreated, but until they have not WP:CRYSTAL prevails. Mkdw^talk 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete might pass WP:MUSIC someday, but not yet: unsigned and has no releases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  fetchcomms☛ 03:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Music to the point of vanity. Will indeed become notable if her first record sells by the million but we don't do up and coming without several non trivial secondary sources, of which I can find none. --A1octopus (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as she fails WP:MUSICBIO. Good luck to her, she might pass the guidelines someday, but it's premature at this point in time. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" arguments about the unreliable sourcing are more persuasive than the several "keep" comments that just assert she's notable without further argument.  Sandstein  07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Jansen[edit]

Nadine Jansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication that the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Porn performer in a handful of nn production, so trivial she isn't even listed in most of the standardly-cited-here porn indexes. GNews and GBooks hits negligible (although the searches do show a much more notable jazz performer of the same name); Ghits on lots of galleries but no relevant substantive content. One prior AFD summarily deleted, apparently as coatrack for personal abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A filmography/list of work was removed from this article by a vandal, then "officially" by a notoriously content-hostile editor. (Note: Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged...) Nadine Jansen is a well-known model in English, German and Japanese media. (ナディーン ヤンゼン in Japanese.) However, I'm not getting involved here since content-destruction seems to be the main purpose of the project which presumably over-sees this subject, and she falls outside my particular area of work. If another editor wishes to put in any effort in saving this article on a notable subject, feel free to contact me and I'll do what I can to help. Barring that, there's no sense in fighting a losing battle over a subject that doesn't interest me though. Dekkappai (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been almost fixed. Needs some cleaning up though. But the fact is that she was 2003 Newcomer of the Year as voted by the Voluptous Mag. That is notable enough. Norum 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding back all the unsourced content previously removed from the article is not "almost fixing" it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sources if you look towards the bottom. The sources are there. I just could not make it click-able. Norum

19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources under WP:RS and WP:BLP, which was why all the rubbish was removed to begin with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If link from Vuloptous and the Score magazines and especially her own website is not enough, then there is obviously something wrong with the person that is trying to get her entry deleted. Norum 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails PORNBIO because Voluptuous Magazine award isn't a well known award. Fails general notability guideline because none of the sources given in the article and found through google books and news are reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's fine. 69.105.85.184 (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 69.105.85.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep She's notable enough. I'm not sure if the instigator of this motion is some religious prude or just a jobsworth, either way I don't think they have any proper reason to want this bio deleted. 90.211.186.163 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — 90.211.186.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's notable enough. There's no reason aside of the deletionism to remove this bio, and that's not good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.21.112 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' - She had her several TV show appearances in mainstream German media. See here for a bit more detail from an ealier article version. That clearly makes her much more notable than someone who just did a few photo shoots. I saw those features myself - and unless you claim I am lying, this then all becomes about the fact that proving appearances in TV shows before the internet age is tricky. For an erotica, not porn, artist, she is clearly notable. Most people may not care about the notability of such performers, but that is not a reason for deletion - in her field she is huge (pun coincidental, but appropriate). Ingolfson (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there ought to be coverage satisfying the GNG, which nobody has turned up. No article at the German Wikipedia, either, it seems. And TV appearances in 2002 and later years aren't "before the internet age." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that you lose, Hullaballoo. She's notable enough. Norum 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only is there no evidence of significant coverage by independent reliable sources - a requirement of the general notability guideline and the basic criterion given in the specific criteria for people (of which the criteria for pornographic actors is part) but there doesn't appear to be any coverage by reliable sources at all. The current article is copy pasted from an older version but it only gives apparently unreliable sources such as IMDb as well as obscure, unreliable, non-notable pornographic websites and magazines including http://www.amontillado.it/ and Voluptuous Magazine. Whilst I have to admit I am not familiar with these publications I would imagine that the information contained within them is designed more to titillate rather than to be an accurate source for a high quality encyclopaedia - I can find no evidence that any of the sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This a biography of a living person, the fact that the individual works in a industry from which individuals do not receive a lot of mainstream - or other reliable - coverage does not change the fact that no reliable sources should mean no article. Guest9999 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, which is the standard we have to apply since her main claim of notability seems to be having big boobs. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable in her field. Spurious proposal for deletion at best. --80.192.1.168 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. No WP:RS coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Her magazine credits at http://us.imdb.com/name/nm1305322/publicity are probably correct and there's another minor award in there, but the problem is there doesn't seem to be much to say about her beyond listing her credits, which is already done elsewhere. Also, it is so annoying to try to do a web search with all the WP mirrors and even book searches with the Icon group print mirrors! I rather wish Wikipedia's licensing did not allow that, because it's ruining the internet. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Brandt[edit]

Doug Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. Played 1 game at AAA. Indy leaguer now. 4.88 ERA. Not notable. Alex (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Why is there a page for this guy? A non-notable orphan, with one AAA game and currently playing indy ball? Delete without prejudice. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I searched for this guy on Google News and found some mentions of him in game recaps, prospect reports and such (This is fairly typical). However, there is nothing that I would consider substantial coverage of Brandt that shows notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is somewhat outdated and player didnt advance past AA... If he was still in the affiliated leagues I'd advocate a merge but Indy leagues don't cut it. Spanneraol (talk) 17:50, 31 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) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3dpaintbrush[edit]

3dpaintbrush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

3D graphics software, no assertion of notability, developer is redlinked, no third party, non-trivial sources. 2 says you, says two 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Added references : Zoso 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zosoin (talk • contribs)
• Weak delete. This is a news peace in Digit (magazine), no editorial comment. The stuff on informer.com is the very definition of WP:SPIP. Blogs, more primary sources and youtube videos don't really count towards establishing WP:N. Pcap ping 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think the developer being redlinked is particularly relevant to the discussion but I agree with the sentiment to delete, and agree with 2's comment that there's a lack of good sources out there. I find Pcap's reasoning sound. I find some things in google news: [9] but they seem to mostly be recycled press releases. The articles seem to have only made minor changes to the formatting, suggesting that they essentially passed on a press release as-is. This hardly qualifies as a reliable source for establishing notability. Cazort (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Zoso 11:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC) : Thanks for the comments. Regd informer.com, refer http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/informer.com . Getting listed on pages owned by Google and Rhino3D doesnt count in establlishing notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zosoin (talk • contribs)
  • Alexa internet is well-known for boosting the rank of sites used by SEO people. (I'm actually working on that article.) informer.com has no discernible editorial policy or "about us" page on the staff. Pcap ping 12:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Pcap about the editorial policy. As far as I'm concerned, traffic rank (for which Alexa is just a coarse proxy) is totally irrelevant for establishing reliability of a source. I would consider traffic rank as perhaps a minor factor in considering the notability of a website, but not the reliability of the website as a source for establishing notability or sourcing any content of a wikipedia article. Alexa's #2 and #3 websites are Facebook and Youtube, both websites with mostly user-generated content, generally not valid as reliable sources except in certain very unusual cases. Cazort (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet; no other support for deletion. Merge discussions can continue on the talk pages. Fences&Windows 00:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Barbossa[edit]

Hector Barbossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

James Norrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Captain Teague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tia Dalma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Weatherby Swann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joshamee Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pintel and Ragetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kraken (Pirates of the Caribbean) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Potential redirect to Kraken in popular culture)

Sao Feng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

These Pirates of the Caribbean characters do not hold any notability outside of the fictional universe as there is a lack of third party, independent and reliable sources to back the content up. Therefore, the articles are excessive plot summaries. WossOccurring (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect them all to the respective movies. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least Barbossa and Tia as major characters in arguably the most significant new film franchise of the decade. The others might be better served by merging, although none of them are so egregiously minor that an article is completely unacceptable. Sourcing should be no problem given the enormous amount of media coverage of the series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:IMPORTANT and WP:NOTINHERITED. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least Norrington and Barbossa, they should have plenty of external sources, I'll go look for some now. Barbossa especially since sources point to him being in a 4th. The rest should be Redirected to a Characters of PotC page. Tphi (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:NOTINHERITED. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some or mergeinto a combination article . Inappropriate group nomination, as they are not of similar importance. I must admit I too do not know the works involved, but at least I read the main Wikipedia articles and can see that much. A combination characters article is appropriate for all important works of fiction. Combination articles have contents that must meet WP:V but need not individually meet WP:GNG--for if they did, they would be separate articles. And character ≠plot -- they are separate aspects. The "cast" sections in the individual film articles are inadequate--for a franchise like this, it's better to keep all the characters together. And at least to me, if not to some of the people at the film project, characters and cast are also separate related things, each needing discussion. Retelling major amounts of the plot for each character's position in it is usually unnecessary if they are grouped in combination articles, which is another advantage. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:IMPORTANT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - a totally absurd ignorant, unproductive delete suggestion. Keep all articles. More information is better. if you want to delete stuff, people are totally easy to go ignorant. Stop this nonsense. 174.16.239.106 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This comment fails WP:ILIKEIT, WP:VALINFO and WP:PA. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all these articles to one, not giving undue detail to each character. Giving a separate article to each character isn't necessary. Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Barbossa and Norrington (they appear in every film and must have some sources). -- deerstop. 07:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:IMPORTANT and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, especially Barbossa and Dalma. These articles contain lots of useful information, they're not just one- or two-paragraph stubs. I find the whole thing of deleting articles on notable fictional worlds quite absurd. --89.31.118.248 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:ITSUSEFUL WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely keep! Barbossa is a major character that is vital to the plot, for heaven's sake, and should have a separate page. It serves no purpose to deleting this and the others that are also targeted. Also keep Norrington.PNW Raven (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:NOHARM, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:IMPORTANT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing administrator and future AFD !voters - The majority of the above !votes appear to be based around the fact that users like the subject issue. Please remember to comply with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions when airing your views. WossOccurring (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, not my !vote: personally, the only pirate movie I like is Errol Flynn's Captain Blood (1935 film). While we're at it, I don;t see any other comments based on that argument either--though a few seem to be based only on its obviously important. DGG ( talk )

• Comment I usually don't venture into the AFD area, but randomly ran across this one. While I agree that articles about movie characters may not be notable enough for separate articles, I would like to note that most of what WossOcurring in regards to failing WP argument guidelines could be applied to his nomination in the first place. I would vote to merge most of these entries into the list of minor characters in PotC. Clegs (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my nomination fails the guidelines? WossOccurring (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Barbossa, there should be material in the 2000+ Google News hits to make a decent verifiable article.[10] e.g. these articles about Rush's role:[11][12][13][14][15]. As the nominator obviously didn't bother looking for sources for this one (WP:BEFORE) I have no faith that they checked for sources for the others, so keep or merge the rest. Fences&Windows 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Norrington and Barbossa, and merge and redirect the rest into List of Pirates of the Carribean characters. There are several lists of non-notable-enough characters like this, and it is a valid middle ground. And before you tag me, I am aware that my comment may fail WP:OTHERCRAP. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 21:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Per above and WossOccurring (talk · contribs). I don't see how these are a problem (WP:ILIKEIT). And WossOccurring, for responding to single keep !vote. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:51, 31 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. All deleted WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax or WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Buckley[edit]

Bruce Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Mãos Da Verdade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can't Stop Now (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Colorless Dreams (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Colorless Dreams (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can't Stop Now (single by Bruce Buckley) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Davis J. Johnson (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One Time (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles about a 13-year-old Portuguese singer-songwriter and his records appear to be a hoax. The articles are completely unreferenced; see the main article's talk page for searches, which turn up absolutely nothing relevant. The record label's website does not mention him, there is an Allmusic entry but it's someone else, and there are no articles in Portuguese Wikipedia. From this old version of the user page of the author Salgado96 (talk · contribs) it appears that he himself is "Bruce Buckley". JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, apparent hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete preferably speedily. This is an unreferenced (and unreference-able) blp of a minor. I'm virtually positive this is a hoax. See Davis J. Johnson on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Same photo, same "real name" given for the artist (Renato Miguel Salgado de Freitas). And worse, the Portguese WP reveals the name of his school, as well as an exact birth date which also appeared in an earlier version of the Bruce Buckley article [16]. Voceditenore (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:MiguelRob has now created Davis J. Johnson (singer) here (also edited by Salgado96). I've added it to the deletion list along with a spurious album article One Time (album). Note also the extensive edits to Salgado96's user page by two IPs attached to the vodafone network in the UK.[17] . Voceditenore (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lot. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment thanks, Voceneditore, now I look, there is undesirable personal information in the history of this one, too. It's a clear enough hoax that I am now happy to delete it WP:CSD#G3, and all the others can go WP:CSD#A9. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 30 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) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Dreams We Fall into the Eternal Lake[edit]

In Dreams We Fall into the Eternal Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, demos are only notable if significant coverage exists from reliable sources. I can't find anything to indicate this demo meets these standards.  Gongshow ^Talk 17:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NALBUMS.--Cannibaloki 02:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge: Agreed. Merge historical content to Soilwork. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this page and merge any relevant info into the band's article, per WP:NALBUMS. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinaman[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)).

Dinaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

non notable publication WuhWuzDat 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral a weekly news magazine in a major country certainly could be notable, but the article is written so poorly it's impossible to tell one way or the other. It's possible some editing might save this, but as written it's hopeless and might be better to delete the whole thing and start over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's now back to being a stub. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of its sponsorship by the major English-language Indian newspaper and the notable editors. I agree that's indirect, more so than I would like, but it's all I can do at with the existing cultural bias. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Couldn't believe my eyes 1 minute after I added some categories: Good job SpacemanSpiff! --Crusio (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. easily meets meets WP:NMEDIA. Its from the TOI group and that itself is enough to meet "significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" --Sodabottle (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many of the editors and sub-editors of the magazine are recipients of India's two major literary awards -- Sahitya Akademi Award and Jnanpith Award, but most of the info is hidden behind paywalls or not previewable on gbooks. I've added what I had accesss to, but the article can be significantly expanded by someone with access to sources. -SpacemanSpiff 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUST KEEP Dinaman was a great magazine and anyone familiar with Hindi journalism, and we are talking a population that may be half of the size of the most spoken language in the world. we should improvise it and get more information. Dinaman set the gold standard and we need to understand that. I am surprised someone had the wisdom to talk about it.

• Keep Most notable publication in Hindi. 25 years with Dinamaan were a high point in Hindi journalism.
• Comment Apparently this magazine's time on WP has come... There is a second article on this journal, Dinamaan, that was created yesterday... --Crusio (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd article was redirected to the 1st, as it was a blatant attempt by the original article author to get around this AfD. WuhWuzDat 11:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Its interesting to see how what was historic has to be defended in a world where its unknown. Edit it, improve it but please figure out a way of not losing good because we don't know it. Dinaman was clearly a notable magazine and it should have been on Wiki a long time ago.
• THIS WAS A GREAT MAGAZINE. HOPE SOMEONE DOES JUSTICE TO IT ON WIKIPEDIA. THE TROUBLE WITH THE STUFF ABOUT BEFORE DIGITAL MEDIA BECAME PROMINENT IS THAT IT TREATS THE REST AS IF IT DID NOT EXIST. AM GLAD TO SEE IT HERE. HOPE SOME OF THE MILLIONS OF ITS FANS IMPROVE THE WRITE UP.

whoever calls it non notable probably has a lot to learn. it will be great if this person could achieve a millionth of what Dinaman was in the quarter century it enlightened the millions of Hindi language readers—Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.128.76 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to anonymous IPs: Please stop yelling. There is not a single "delete" !vote apart from the nom and many "keep" !votes, so this is not going to get deleted. --Crusio (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep that's good news. may be the one who nominated it should lose his rights to nominate. wish he took the same precaution as others did. i think the problems seem to have begun with the nomination.
• Weak keep and expand. Seems to be notable per notability guidelines and some current sources; an increased number of reliable sources needs to be incorporated. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep it will be good to improvise it. some history, some writers, editors, key contributions etc will be helpful
  • Struck out the duplicates by IP hopper. -SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A mention may be made in the Halfnelson (band) article that the band made a demo of this name - though a redirect wouold not be appropriate as the title is an unlikely search term. SilkTork *^YES! 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing Demos (Unreleased)[edit]

A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing Demos (Unreleased) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this unreleased album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete a demo, never commercially released (should not be confused with the undeniably notable 1972 album A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing). Demo recordings aren't notable except in truly unusual circumstances. "Weak" delete because I really can't bring myself to vote full delete on a Sparks record. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete/Merge: My Weak Delete vote is for the same reasons as Starblind above, because there is historical interest and notability for the associated artists. If the decision here is to delete, then the informationin this article should be merged into thr History section of Halfnelson. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:05, 31 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 reliable sources. Books are self-published, and the main source website is her own. SilkTork *^YES! 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Om[edit]

Chandra Om (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. she is an author and recording artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.175.110 (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It could be deleted, but you know that somebody wants to look it up and find them, and + she's an author. I say keep. Old Al (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the closest thing to a reliable source I could find is a two-paragraph mention in Yoga Journal magazine March 2008. Nothing else at all that I could find, and I don't think that by itself is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to concerns over verifiability and hence also notability.  Sandstein  07:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Rumyantseva[edit]

Elena Rumyantseva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No sourced autobiography Истребительница (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wow, this one is really quite something. I do not have a definitive opinion yet but at the moment I am leaning towards delete, based on WP:V and WP:BLP concerns. The article is clearly relentlessly self-promotional and looks to be a WP:AUTO or WP:COI case. I looked through the talk page of the ru-wiki version of the article and people there are also complaining about not being able to verify various things, about WP:RS issues with sources cited etc. Various googlenews, googlescholar and googlebooks searches for the name of the author (both in English and in Russian) also produce fairly little, which is hard to reconcile with the grand claims made in the article (here is a sample search in Russian[18]). I tried to do some worldcat searches for various versions of transliteration of the subject's name but did not find anything that looks like her books (maybe someone else should give it another try, though). This is all pretty strange given the grandiose claims made in the article. One thing that does check out is the "best economist" prize but the people at the talk page of the ru-wiki version of the article claim that the organization that made the award is not really notable itself. Basically, I have no idea how we here can untangle this mess and decide what is and what is not verifiable from the information in the article and the current text does not look salvageable to me... If someone with some economics background and some knowledge of Russian can comment here, that'd be good. Nsk92 (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. By the time that a BLP gets to AfD it is required that notability be demonstrated explicitly. The extensive researches of Nsk92 have failed to turn up anything of deciding substance. GS gives two cites of 36 and 18, which is nowhere near enough. The genealogical evidence is charming but would confer notability only on the close family of a reigning monarch. If further evidence appears I am prepared to change my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• KeepComment. Looks notable to me.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to be more specific? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

an author of 35 books.Biophys (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google books and Google Scholar with -author:"Elena Rumyantseva"- gives zero relevant hits. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Do you really suggest that all book references that are currently included in this article were fake? They do not look fake.Biophys (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepUncertain article needs trimming down to proper size , perhaps 1/10, and translation from google-english, , and made less like a CV, but the presumption is that an author such as this is important. I'm looking further to try to identify the books. The google translation of the Russian talk p is fascinating [19] -- there is a repeated assertion that her noble origins are what make her important, and a discussion of whether the degree of her noble ancestry is sufficiently distinguished, but that's the part I think we would all remove here as totally irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC), I have not yet succeeded in identifying the books. Reading more of the talk page, it is seriously questioned whether all the supporting material are actually independent, or were written also by her. It is hard to judge the reputations of people on another WP, and I would appreciate it if Biophys or someone else actually knowledgeable could comment in detail. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She appear to be a notable person based on the article in ruwiki. Sorry, but I do not have time to actually find and read her books. And I do not care if this article kept or deleted. Let's delete. Not a big deal. Biophys (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ultimately I don't see the article's text as salvageable and don't see how to separate verifiable from non-verifiable bits. In this case I think WP:V and WP:BLP concerns outweigh the other considerations. Nsk92 (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a sample book listed in the article, «the Technique an estimation of productivity of agrarian reforms. Calculations on 51 country of the world» (1999; ISBN 985-6320-51-8), and tried to check the library holdings for its ISBN number. Worldcat has no entry for this book[20], Open Library also has nothing[21], Internet Book Database has nothing[22], Karlsruhe Virtual catalog has nothing[23]. This suggests to me that either the ISBN is invalid or that the book is really obscure. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per Nsk92, this fails WP:V, one of our core policies. It's possible there is a core of notable truth to all this, but we're not going to find it by sifting this article. I tried Google news (for her name in Roman characters) but found only a French-language story from 2005 about a stampede at a party that killed a college student from Murmansk by the same name. There are several other stories about different people named Yelena Rumyantseva but I'm not sure whether any of them match the subject of our article and in any case there still doesn't seem enough to go by even to stub this down to something believable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this mess of an "article" for failing WP:V, the topic might be allowable if properly written and sourced. Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 15:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAPI drum[edit]

HAPI drum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. According to its website, HAPI is trademarked. DaveCW (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further research shows that a number of commercial and hobby versions of this instrument are being produced, which I think makes them of interest. They are all basically steel versions of slit drums or tongue drums, and could be included in the existing articles on slit drums - an ancient and non-trademarked instrument. DaveCW (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cant say its highly notable, but the drum manufacturers website lists 2 testimonials from notable drummers (they have WP articles that are not currently disputed). I can see an argument for merging with slit drums, but i must point out that "things made up one day" and "trademarked" are not valid arguments for deletion here. trademarked products can and should have articles, if they are sufficiently notable. "things made up" doesnt mean things manufactured, it means things thought up. anything patented, manufactured and sold with any degree of success is a prime candidate for an article or mention in one. i did have trouble finding other references for this product, though. maybe someone else will have better skill at it. oh and googling "hapi drum" in quotes gets 78900 hits, pretty impressive (though i know raw ghits is not a pure argument for either keep or delete, it does seem to show name recognition). article of course comes off as somewhat promotional, but that, again, is not a rationale for deletion if evidence of notability is extant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, I am new to this, I think there is an abbreviation I should be using, but "things made up one day" is indeed a valid argument for deletion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day As for the trademark, I cite it as evidence of a non-neutral point of view. Title the article "Steel Tongue Drum", or tell the reader why HAPI is significantly different than other brands of the same basic instrument. A patent would help convince me that there is a difference, but I don't think they have one. DaveCW (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, things made up one day can be a valid argument. it applies to ideas or objects not in the pubic sphere yet, such as neologisms or unmarketed prototypes of objects with no press attention (i have this nutcracker in the shape of a polaris missile that i made, its cool and it works-that sort of thing). this product is manufactured and distributed, so the argument doesnt apply. its absolutely ok to have an article that is a copyrighted brand name. just check out the numerous articles on businesses and products here. we can use trademark images in articles as well, its fair use, as long as its limited to articles significantly about that trademarked item. i believe their website shows they have patents. the rename suggestion doesnt work, as this is in fact about this brand, not the idea of a metal tongue drum. the debate here must, and will, focus on the companys and its products general notability. i believe its notable enough to deserve an article, but others may not. the article could become a section of the slit drum article, of course. I do agree that an important part of the article should be how this product is different from other slit drums, but that alone is not necessarily an argument for deletion, only improvement. PS i have no conflict of interest. in fact, i have the opposite. i personally knew the person who probably was the first westerner to make and sell small wooden slit drums in the US, but they never patented, copyrighted, etc, and others copied them, eventually leading to this major music instrument category. Since this persons work in this area was not documented at all, from WP perspective it doesnt exist. sad but true. i would personally prefer they have an article on this person, and am annoyed that they will never get credit for what they did, but WP is not a memorial site. and since they never sold a lot (though they did sell to at least one MAJOR musician), its almost as if what they did was a thing made up one day. of course, i really hope someone else will comment here. we will not be able to decide this alone. hello out there?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I guess what I am looking for is a new article on steel tongue drums - on the general idea, how to play... i.e. 99% of the contents of this article, and then this article would be confined to what is unique about the HAPI. I would say the same thing about an article on the "Fender Stratocaster" - I would expect that an article exists on "Guitar", and the "Fender Stratocaster" article was limited to what is unique (in construction, in who plays it,...) about it. I suppose I could do that myself, but I don't want to be autocratic. Hello out there? DaveCW (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, has one Google News hit which doesn't look like a good source, and nothing else. Sources in article are not reliable. Abductive (reasoning) 05:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article do not suffice to establish notability because they are not independent sources. Cunard (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article should be moved to the Hank drum article as HAPI is just one of the companies selling Hank drums --Sonicwarrior (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lampshade hanging[edit]

Lampshade hanging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Dictionary definition. I have been unable to find any reliable sources at all, even when throwing in key words. Either toss outright or send to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Afd1 subst:ed onto page one day after AfD page's creation. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weird. Twinkle must've glitched. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:V, the original source is probably TVtropes.org. Polarpanda (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonnotable neologism, apparently from a blog TVtropes. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 18:41, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toa_(Bionicle)[edit]

Toa_(Bionicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article is a clear example of Fancruft, something which Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOCRUFT)(WP:NOT). And given that another Wiki exists, devoted specifically for Bionicle (http://biosector01.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page), this page should be deleted. (Actually, two Wikis -- http://bionicle.wikia.com/)

Apparently, the first attempt to delete the article reached No Concensus (between 5 members), and the second a Keep (between 6 members). Nevertheless, the issues pertaining to it have not been addressed.

Since this is the 3rd Nomination, and the article has been tagged since early 2009, it's best to delete it.

"So Neutral that I may as well not even vote" Neutral Im really in the middle here. I can see that the nom makes a point but it doesnt seem like we should just delete it all of the sudden.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article cannot be deleted because it explains a very important part of Bionicle, the main protagonists in fact. If it ends up deleted, readers will have a hard time understanding exactly what a Toa is, especially give that we can't squeeze all the info in one section. The Toa are the main protagonists from 2001 to 2008 and will be returning to that role in 2010. I think that what this article needs is some heavy-duty clean up and having the Toa Nuva's info compressed while the other Toa team's expanded.--Twilight Helryx 16:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of real life info (the creation of the original sets, for example) may also help smooth things out. By the way, the number of nominations is no reason for the article get deleted and fancruft can be fixed. Again, the addition of real life info would clear this as a fancruft article.--Twilight Helryx 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep character lists are considered acceptable for fictional works. I'd like to see better sourcing and some cleanup, but there's no compelling reason to delete at present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Taprobanus (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Character lists are acceptable spinout articles to keep main articles from growing too large. No legimate reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn. tedder (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zascha Moktan[edit]

Zascha Moktan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Was a very clear copyright vio. Speedy removed and turned into a very good A1 or A7 candidate. I'm taking it here instead. No assertion of notability. There are two albums but I don't see any sources for them either. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article currently exist on de.wikipedia with reliable sources here [24]. Would need translation performed; however, a rough translation shows that she has charted passing WP:notability. Calmer Waters 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom withdrawn - Editing since revealed the charting hits in Germany. I didn't find those sources initially (didn't help they were in German). [Any other editors that agree are welcome to close (barring any intervening dispute)] Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 30 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. unsourced = unverified = delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Mormonism[edit]

Reform Mormonism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a second nomination, the first having taken place in 2007. It was deleted then and has since been re-created. Due to the fact that the original discussion was almost 3 years ago, I didn't feel good about just speedily deleting this, but a PROD was recently declined. Since 2007, not much has changed with this article. It's still difficult to find any sources on this subject that are not blogs or self-promotional material. The movement is real, but I can't see anything that indicates that it is notable or that we can satisfy WP:V. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--It is important to keep all the articles about the various sects within the Latter Day Saint movement so that they can continue to be listed in the List of Latter Day Saint sects and thus provide easy access to the various beliefs all Latter Day Saint sects for the benefit of scholars and researchers. Keraunos (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--The references in the article to the Liberal Democrat website and the article in the "Times and Seasons" LDS Internet magazine show that the movement is notable in that it has attracted attention from third party sources and thus there are sources in the article that are not just "blogs and self-referential material". Keraunos (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite. Times and Seasons is a blog. Democratic Underground is a site where anyone can post messages; the linked-to "article" is nothing more than a post by a member who has signed up. It could be self-promotional or not, but it is certainly not a reliable reference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while this may be useful to some people, it's about a subject that appears not to be notable because of the lack of reliable sources, and thus we can't write a proper article about it. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge If there isn't a minor sect article it should be created. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Uh I'm reluctant to say this, after Harvard Div, but I doubt to what extent this is a continuous group of Mormons who morphed their beliefs into this confession, or is it perhaps a group of outsiders who have managed to take over an identity and rework it to their likings. Those movements occur in religions of many kinds, and anyone could ask that about many of the groups in 'modern religion' that bear little resemblance to their namesakes of earlier centuries (it's called 'reform' without an LDS tradition of the word 'reform' - as Calvinism has), but a case could likely be made either way. MaynardClark (talk)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, although it may become so. The whole thing is rather self-generated, or so it seems. The first two sources were the founder's own site and the record of his registering his new group with the state. The third is a blog discussion of the WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge While the article is not exactly in-depth, it is related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a very controversial religion. Perhaps best to merge this article. RayJazz21 (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that every fact about a "very controversial religion" has to be included in its article. Of course liberal trends in Mormonism or the Mormon community should be covered in WP's articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no requirement. However, I think this is notable enough to be included in the larger article, just like other sects who have been scattered across news channels the past few years. The point is that Reform Mormonism may very well (and probably will) become quite notable. Take a look at other reformists. I say merge it. RayJazz21 (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, probably to the section on other LDS faiths. This subject is definitely not worthy of its own article yet (it looks like Reform Mormonism is only recognized by one U.S. state) but it is worthy of a few sentences in the main article, especially since it's so different from other offshoots of the Mormon church. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't seem to find any media coverage on this subject.--PinkBull 04:00, 30 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) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is actually highly unsourced and potentially unverified. In the 5 references: 2 blogs and a yahoo group. In the external links it directs to a Myspace page, 3 blogs, French Wikipedia article, and a festival page. I have removed them from the article as they are unreliable sources and cannot be used. Aside from its .org website, I have been unable to find any third party websites of notability and zero news media stories about the sect. I have a feeling this is a very small group of religious people that would hence fail WP:GROUP. Mkdw^talk 22:53, 30 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) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyWebFace[edit]

MyWebFace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is not an encyclopedia article -- it is an advertisement for a freeware program, complete with how-to instructions. Two attempts to Speedy Delete the article were rejected (incorrectly, IMHO). A wishy-washy Prod tag was put in place, but I thought we could use more eyes on this to confirm its lack of notability. A Google News search only turns up a self-promoting press release: [25]. Warrah (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this reads as though it were a brochure from the software's creator, with instructions and trivia like the privacy policy, which really isn't even about the software. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V. Given the part about the privacy policy it seems pretty likely this is intended as an advertisement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, db-web. Woogee (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, quite like an advertisement really, but after the privacy policy part is deleted it seems better than before.--219.79.1.245 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't really think this article should be deleted, at least it provides information such as age requirements of the software.--Tingo Chu (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this software notable? Woogee (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Half of the article is an advertisement talking directly to the reader. No indication of notability. Eik Corell (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which part in particular?--Tingo Chu (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can't find any sources to indicate that this is notable. And for a moment I thought it looked pretty cool, until I found out it's a browser toolbar you have to install. I can't imagine what sort of spyware features it must be loaded down with.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus not to delete; any merger or transwiki can be discussed on the article talk page.  Sandstein  07:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of FTP server return codes[edit]

List of FTP server return codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Move This page is rather a HowTo than an encyclopedic content. It should be moved to Wikibooks as it is written here and should be added to the current FTP tutorial. Ftiercel (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I see nothing how-toish about it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. ThemFromSpace 23:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to File Transfer Protocol; information here is encyclopaedic, not a howto. The WP:NOTGUIDE argument is better, but still weak in my opinion. If the article can't be kept it should be merged to the main FTP article, but I think it would be valid to leave it as a separate article and link it from FTP.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These type of articles are actually quite popular and these are much more of a summary than a how-to. I'd like to see this one expanded so that we end up with something more like what we've done with List of HTTP status codes. We now have ((cite IETF)) to help cite RFCs and other IETF documents as well. One of our most popular pages is HTTP 404 (currently averaging ~2.8 million page views per day, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Popular pages). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Popularity is not the problem. It's not a deletion but a migration. People read the article where it is placed, even it is at the right place or not. Ftiercel (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You are obviously free to export and merge content into Wikibooks if you'd like, but there is nothing wrong with having such articles on Wikipedia and WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply here. As for popularity, List of FTP commands has been averaging about 250-300 hits per day [26] and List of FTP server return codes has been averaging about 100 hits per day, [27] so clearly these articles serve a purpose to the community. List of FTP commands would also be much more useful if it were restructured more like List of Internet Relay Chat commands, which currently summarises and references half a dozen RFCs. We could really use such an article for SMTP too. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge Acceptable spin-out article. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Wikipedia is an excellent source of information and more and more we're becoming an authoritative encyclopedia. And as such I believe we have to keep ALL the knowledge available. --PJonDevelopment (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - seems like a reasonable fork. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is useful information, to be sure, something I would expect to find in, oh, say... a manual. Alas, WP:NOTMANUAL (Wikipedia is not a manual) nor should it be one. I'm not sure what the best WikiMedia alternative would be, WikiSource perhaps? Or WikiBooks? I find it strange that so many people find this to be reasonable information for an encyclopedia to cover, and yes, I realize, once again, that my viewpoint is in the minority. JBsupreme (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice: Transwiki to Wikibooks, that appears to be the most sensible option. JBsupreme (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - and expand. There is nothing resembling a manual or a how-to; it is perfectly sensible information to be covered. --Cyclopia^talk 15:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Encyclopedic content that is probably best handled in a spin out article rather than in FTP. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of FTP commands[edit]

List of FTP commands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Move This page is rather a HowTo than an encyclopedic content. It should be moved to Wikibooks as it is written here and should be added to the current FTP tutorial. Ftiercel (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to File Transfer Protocol; information here is encyclopaedic, not a howto. If the article can't be kept it should be merged to the main FTP article, but I think it would be valid to leave it as a separate article and link it from FTP.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These type of articles are actually quite popular and these are much more of a summary than a how-to. I'd like to see this one expanded so that we end up with something more like what we've done with List of HTTP status codes. We now have ((cite IETF)) to help cite RFCs and other IETF documents as well. One of our most popular pages is HTTP 404 (currently averaging ~2.8 million page views per day, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Popular pages). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Popularity is not the problem. It's not a deletion but a migration. People read the article where it is placed, even it is at the right place or not. Ftiercel (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You are obviously free to export and merge content into Wikibooks if you'd like, but there is nothing wrong with having such articles on Wikipedia and WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply here. As for popularity, List of FTP commands has been averaging about 250-300 hits per day [28] and List of FTP server return codes has been averaging about 100 hits per day, [29] so clearly these articles serve a purpose to the community. List of FTP commands would also be much more useful if it were restructured more like List of Internet Relay Chat commands, which currently summarises and references half a dozen RFCs. We could really use such an article for SMTP too. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge Acceptable spin-out article. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Wikipedia is an excellent source of information and more and more we're becoming an authoritative encyclopedia. And as such I believe we have to keep ALL the knowledge available. --PJonDevelopment (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - seems like a reasonable fork from the main article. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — æk^Talk 02:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainy Davis[edit]

Rainy Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Is this atrociously self-promotional article worth retaining in some vigorously paired down form? Her only notability that I can see seems to be as co-writer of a song Sweetheart (song), covered and made famous by someone else. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN BY NOM PER BELOW.[reply]

• Keep – Rewrite yes. I agree with nominator that the article does need to be pared down. However, that is an editing issue not a reason for deletion. Regarding notability, I believe being nominated for a Grammy Award, as shown here from an independent source [30] fulfills our requirement for inclusion. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree: sorry, I didn't notice the Grammy nom. Withdrawn. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Not a problem. With all the fluff in the article, it was easily overlooked. Happy Holidays. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 18:21, 30 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! 15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Peru relations[edit]

Australia–Peru relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

noting that there exists no agreements between these 2 countries except 2 weaker memos of understanding. yes there have been state and ministerial visits but it always under the context of APEC multilateral forums and meetings. no significant coverage of any notable relations [31] LibStar (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No refs to show it is more than one more criss-cross listing of two countries out of the hundreds in the world. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no evidence of a significant relationship. Australia doesn't maintain an embassy in Peru, and there doesn't appear to be any state visit between the leaders of the two nations. Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no notability in these bilateral countries. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable bilateral relationship. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's coverage of Australia's relationship with Peru doesn't indicate that there are or have been notable ties between the countries. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I sourced A$1.5 billion of foreign direct investment from Australia to Peru, with a number of minerals and mining companies listed. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the amount of trade is not a criterion, notability requires third party coverage as per WP:N and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing to find more and more Australian investment and direct ties to Peru, and if there was a strong Mining in Peru wikipedia article this article would make a lot more sense. WP:ITSNOTFINISHED is reason to keep, and just because the article doesn't yet have third party coverage included doesn't mean it's not there from sources we haven't located (the specialized mining trade press and the Peruvian press are underrepresented). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added two more refs today (on agricultural trade), specifically referencing upcoming trade talks. The relevance of this article is getting more obvious as I work on it more. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is WP:ITSNOTFINISHED a policy or guideline? it does not appear to exist. I'm not convinced by the additions, most of the companies you list Rio Tinto Group, BHP Billiton, SKM operate in many many countries not just Peru and Peru is not their main foreign operation. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is a distinct lack of non government sources ie independent third party sources to describe these relations. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep folowing improvements by editor Edward Vielmetti. Even with the scarcity of non government sources, there seems to be a good IAR case to keep bilateral relations articles like this, due to the clear accademic and practical value. For example to businesses assessing the prospects for trade. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL for businesses it not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAR arguments dont need to be valid in the sense of according with policy, as long as they show there would be an improvement to the encyclopedia. If you and Biruitorul dont like the pro business angle, what about the benefits for world peace and international co-operation, for example when delegates are at a summit they can check on the relationships other participants have with each other. IPE theory teaches that the more information is available, the better the chances of optimun outcomes being reached! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're still using a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. we don't relax notability criterion so people can find it useful. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom and Mansford. This topic falls under the general notability guidelines which require that there be direct detailed coverage of a topic in multiple reliable, independent sources if we are to have an article about it on wikipedia. I'm not seeing that for this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as stated, no coverage of the topic exists in independent sources. And no, FeydHuxtable, we're not here as an investment prospectus for businesses, but as an encyclopedia. Learn the difference. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is simply not an encyclopedic subject, and crystallballing to make it seem like one is an old, tired, sophistical tactic. Dahn (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As illustrated above, this intersection between Australia and Peru is not encyclopedic as of yet. JBsupreme (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The mere existence of the pedestrian functions of govt. doesn't make the relationship notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Trade relations count. In this case, they are major trade relations supported by multiple sources. They are natural trading partners, as are most nations immediately across an ocean from each other. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but are they are notable relations, there is a complete lack of third party coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libstar, there's coverage now from three newspapers (two Australian, one Peruvian) referencing upcoming trade talks. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upcoming talks? You mean talks that haven't happened? Let me gaze into my WP:CRYSTALball. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh_Predators[edit]

Edinburgh_Predators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

non notable UK university sports team, which fails WP:GNG as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints

What exactly is it that defines this team as non notable? The BUAFL is an American Football league, recognised by the NFL^[1] and reported by such media outlets as Channel 5^[2] and The Daily Mirror ^[3].

The BUAFL has its own wikipedia page and, as such, surely there should be information provided by all the member teams. Perhaps this information should be included in the BUAFL article but with 56 teams in the league, the largest university American Football League in Europe^[4], that would make the article unwieldy.

Of those 56 teams, 46 have wikipedia pages. Many of those pages feature a greater depth of information than the Predators page but that is largely down to their having played in the league for nearly 20 years. The Predators are in their first season, so the page cannot be expected to be in such depth as, say, the Bath Killer Bees.

In the topic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, one of the points made was this,

"The university football and rugby teams dont have pages and they are far greater in terms of participation and interest at UK universities"

That may be true of Durham University, but at the University of Edinburgh there is a wikipedia page for Edinburgh University A.F.C., Edinburgh University RFC and Edinburgh University Boat Club. If these clubs are granted an article, despite not playing at the highest amateur level, why can't the Edinburgh Predators have a page.

Finally, I would argue that wikipedia is a point of reference, a tool for finding information about things that you are interested in. For example, if someone was interested about the village of Torphins in Aberdeenshire, Scotland they could come onto wikipedia and find some basic information about that place that they could not on the wider web, since such information cannot be found. In articles such as these, it is the collective general knowledge of people that form a comprehensive, if short, summary of the topic. My point here is that, while the BUAFL or the Edinburgh Predators might not be notable to you, they may be notable to others. Other people may wish to use wikipedia to view the Edinburgh Predators page as means of reference, to supplement the limited information provided on the web (what is provided is cited in the article).

Thus, I see little reason to delete the page (my sincere apologies for the extended response!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.111.101 (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The reason that the team are not notable is that they fail to meet the guidelines set out for notability at WP:Athlete. This states that 'the highest level of amateur sport' is needed, since this is not the highest level of amateur sport, even in as minority a sport as University level American Football, which receives little to no interest in the UK in terms of media coverage and attendances, then the notability of any of the teams in this league is not sufficent for wiki entries, as established in the Afd for Durham Saints.

Regarding your sources, the channel 5 clip shows a discontinued(?) late night sports programme on a minority channel, for the main part, laughing at the names of the teams in the league. Besides, the notability of the league, which those sources support is not the question here, but the notability of the individual teams within the league. Some sort of table showing the teams in the league should be included on the league page, but all these individual entries with pointless facts and match by match accounts which are only of interest to those that played in the matches are unencyclopedic. I was active on bringing Durham Saints through AfD and will put each of the other pages through in due course, none of them are likely to be notable enough, but each should be able to make its individual claim of notabililty. This particular team looks to have played less than ten matches in a non-notable amateur univeristy sport league.

Re your argument regarding the other university teams, you should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as an aside my personal view is that i agree with the contributor in the AfD for Durham Saints who stated: "they (football and rugby) are far greater in terms of participation and interest at UK universities". Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, which I believe would apply to most if not all other articles on university American Football teams in the UK. Pfainuk talk 19:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in my arguing further, since I'm somewhat over a barrel in terms of the rules stipulated in the articles that you suggested I looked at. All I will say is that regardless of how popular a university sport is, if you are to delete this article for failing the WP:Athlete notability criteria, then you must also delete the university football, rugby and rowing articles, since none of them meet those criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.111.101 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, we won't be getting rid of the football team: as a bare minimum, you have to take part in your country's national cup. They've done that. (I can't vouch for the other two, though.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:17, 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) 02:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Seems to be the British equivalent of the NCAA. Top amateur level there. Grsz¹¹ 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCH Sharks. Grsz¹¹ 17:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The top amateur level in the UK is British American Football League. This is not a BAFL club, it's a BUAFL (university-level) club. Saying that this is the British equivalent of an NCAA club is misleading for two reasons: firstly, it implies that the profile of university sport is equivalent to that in the US, and secondly it implies the profile of American Football is equivalent to that in the US. Both are false.

University/College-level sport in general has a very low profile in the UK. Most university sports fixtures - and American Football is no exception - get few if any spectators who are not actually members of the clubs concerned. American universities have stadia so that people can watch their matches. Spectators at British university sports matches generally sit on the touchline. In all but a very few cases, the idea of televising university sport in the UK (as in the US) would be absurd - even for a high-profile sport like (Association) Football or Rugby Union.

But American football is not a high-profile sport in the UK. It has a very low profile in the UK. And what profile it has is almost exclusively geared towards the NFL, rather than the domestic game. The profile of domestic American Football in the UK is not much higher than the profile domestic Rugby Union in the US. I would argue that, even if a club is at the highest available amateur level of a low-profile sport, it is not necessarily notable, particularly in the absence of independent reliable sources. This is not a case where the highest available level is the Olympics or something.

In the US, the NCAA produces a high-profile format of a high-profile sport. In the UK, the BUAFL produces a low-profile format of a low-profile sport. There is no equivalence between the two. And we cannot assume that a team in such a league is notable - particularly in the absence of independent reliable sources from which a policy-compliant article could actually be written. Pfainuk talk 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - American football at university level has pushing zero public profile in the UK. In the States, university sport is highly notable; in the UK, with some limited obvious exceptions, it is no big deal. It is also not the highest amateur level; that is the adult British American Football League. TerriersFan (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment. There's a whole bunch of these teams. Most of them have wikipedia articles as seen at Template:BUAFL. Not sure if the nominator wants all of them deleted or just this one, although I can't imagine there's a significant difference in the notability of the individual teams. I suppose merging them all into British Universities American Football League would be one approach, but the article may become a bit too large. --PinkBull 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Strip out everything that fails basic policy requirements such as WP:V and WP:NOR, and in most if not all cases you're left with nothing to merge. Pfainuk talk 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator and TerriersFan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 30 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.