The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per WP:NFF. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator: Armageddon[edit]

Terminator: Armageddon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although there seems to be some kind of new Terminator that has been "green-lit", there's no evidence that it's called Terminator: Armageddon. In any case, it hasn't started filming, nor is there even a script as far as I can see. Until then it's rumours and hints and basically one big crystal ball. ... discospinster _talk 23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Would fail WP:CRYSTAL anyway. All that I can find on it is this apparent fan fiction. a little insignificant 00:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know if my opinion matters here, but I nominated this page for deletion as there is no note of the title on Google, and there is already a 'planned sequel' section in the main series article tha covers all known facts about the seque--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)l.[reply]
• Don't Delete On the Terminator franchise page, the next sequel is credited as Terminator: Armageddon so I took the cue from there. All of the other details on the page have been backed up with references which include interviews with McG and others, including Robert Patrick, talking about the movie and it's planned plot. I'm sorry but I'd like to see it kept.User talk:DarkPassenger 12:33, 14 July 2009 (GMT)
• Delete per WP:NFF and a lack of reliable coverage from independent sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since filming has not started yet. Until it does, info about this belongs at Terminator (franchise), as noted above by Williamsburgland. Cliff smith ^talk 17:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should be noted that everything on this film was posted by user DarkPassenger; clearly fan fiction--Williamsburgland (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and set redirect to Terminator (film series). And with thanks to an willing editor (call him a "fan" of not) who contributes to the project. Allow seperate article when filming commences. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFF; all there is to go on at this point are ideas that McG has expressed about possible directions for the next film. Nothing concrete, and since the project has not even really entered the conceptual stage at this point then there is nothign encyclopedic to cover about it. There's also nothing to merge, as the franchise article already covers what little verifiable info there is about possible future films. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and full-protect. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete I take issue with this page being called a fanfiction - I created it having sought out information given by the people who are making the trilogy. Again, the name Armageddon was listed on the Terminator franchise page as the sequel following Salvation - and has nothing to do with any fan fiction to the best of my knowledge since I did not add the armageddon comment on the franchise page.User talk:DarkPassenger 12:33, 14 July 2009 (GMT)

• Struck out second !vote. ... discospinster _talk 19:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing is confirmed under paper. All of it, including McG's ideas are pure and simple plans that haven't been finalized Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing out there listing armageddon as the next film's title, and this has since been removed from the franchise page...furthermore merging this article makes no sense as there is nothing to merge; every verifiable and cited fact is already covered in the main article, and does so in more encyclopedic terms. This is pure speculation painted as fact...frankly I don't understand what the debate is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsburgland (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Skull Productions[edit]

The Skull Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable video game company. No sources, and I wasn't able to find any. Article had been prod'd shortly after creation, but it was removed (along with the clean up tags) by an IP. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable sources to be found to build a verifiable and neutral article. MLauba (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• They aren't even a video game company. They make machinima (videos using footage from video games, like the "Red vs. Blue" series). They don't make anything video game related. Delete as a non-notable company. TJ Spyke 03:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East leeds got talent[edit]

East leeds got talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page deleted after PROD, now recreated. Provides an RS mentioning this talent show (created by a 16-year-old). decltype (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Okay, maybe I am stretching A7 too far. Anyway, delete at whatever speed, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just plain delete. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because purple monkey dishwasher. JuJube (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to go without saying • ∈nigma • (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing to provide any indication of notability, even within the one small area of the single city it focuses on, and for failing basic capitalisation standards. It doesn't take a talented meteorologist to forecast snow for the East Leeds shortly. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:YOURESHITTINGMERIGHT. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati International School[edit]

Saraswati International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A prod tag placed on this unreferenced article was removed with the explanation that "High schools are always notable." Is that the case here? A Google News search turns up nothing to confirm anything, let alone notability, and it would appear that the article runs afoul of WP:RS and WP:ORG requirements. What does the AfD community think? Pastor Theo (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - maybe notable. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not only a high school but an international school. Indian schools traditionally have a poor Internet presence. Consequently, time needs to be given for local sources to be researched, to avoid systemic bias, and less than a day doesn't meet the case. TerriersFan (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that "international" schools are more notable than any other kind of school is a troubling form of systemic bias. cab (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. High schools are always notable, as I noted when I removed the prod. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral not particularly biased, actively harmful, or otherwise objectionable in its present state. Expand when independent sources are located. Don't expand by quoting the school website talking about how great the school is (unfortunately, an AfD often provokes people to do precisely that). cab (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I think this article should not be deleted. It's not that the article Saraswati International School is promoting the school, it was written with an intention to show that there are many schools in South-Gujarat which are affiliated to CBSE course. In a city like Valsad, it's very prestigious to have such a school. And as we talk of High Schools, than I think that it'll remain a debate forever. I'll post the entire article again, then you guys please remove those lines which are promotive or not meet those long-clousy policies. Please reply to me. Sukhoi30mki (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a policy that high schools are always notable, primary schools have to have something else to show notability too at this point in history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there is no such policy. Wikipedia:Notability itself is only a guideline. There is only an essay Wikipedia:Inherent notability which supports this view, and this is balanced by WP:NOTINHERITED. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deserves to be kept. What my opinion is that article on every international school SPECIALLY THOSE WHICH ARE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN INDIA should be kept on Wikipedia and minimum 100-200 words should be written, because in a country like India; its a great thing to have International Schools.117.192.102.87 (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm all for keeping secondary schools, but there is no difference between a normal secondary school and one that has the word international in its name. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Offcourse there is some difference, I don't know about other schools; but I can say about Saraswati International School because this school is going to have merger with Cambridge University London in the next few days or maybe some months as the procedure is in process. Sukhoi30mki (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per general consensus on notability of verifiable high schools. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as for all secondary schools. The AfD community decided long ago that what it though was that these debates are insufficiently productive & it's simpler to keep them all, rather than argue over a possible 10% of non-notables. The actual point about international schools is that it is often easier to find more to say in the article, because of the different curriculums involved. DGG (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response That would be per the US (and possibly other countries that I don't know of) definition of an International school, in India, the word international in the name doesn't have the same connotation. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All the international schools have different curriculums, activities, special staff, special environment and lots more. So I think that all the International Schools on Wikipedia should not be deleted. Sukhoi30mki (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Above duplicate !vote struck. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fipronil. Delete the dab page as redundant (I have fixed the redirects).Black Kite 11:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline TopSpot[edit]

Frontline TopSpot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Animal flea product that doesn't assert its notability, and would almost by speediable as spam if it hadn't been around so long. Searching shows up nothing of note (just the typical ecommerce type sites).

Also listing for the same reason:

Frontline Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and the disambiguation page for both the articles:

Frontline (medicine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Quantpole (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect all of these to Fipronil. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• redirect to Fipronil, with a bit of info on different formulations added to the Fipronil article. No need for three brand-specific pages. Erp Erpington (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has determined that Prof. Harizanov meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Harizanov[edit]

Valentina Harizanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I sent this here from prod because I am not sure whether or not her scholarly record is enough for notability. A considerable number of papers in good journals, full professor at a research university, but the work is not highly cited; h index = 5. DGG (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In Google Scholar, by VS-Harizanov, I see an h-index of 8. Other workers in the fields she works in, such as Bakhadyr Khoussainov, D. Hirschfeldt and Rod Downey have much higher h-indices. Although none of these guys have articles, Hirschfeldt and Downey are already mentioned in Wikipedia in various places as discoverers or as sources. Abductive (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using VS-Harizanov instead of V-Harizanov misses a few of her best-cited papers: "Enumerations in computable structure theory" with 38 citations and "Frequency computations and the cardinality theorem" with 25. That said, it doesn't change the overall numbers that much. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Her name comes up #1, #3, #5, and #8 in a search for computable structure theory (and similarly for computable model theory), so that's a good sign. Is it a sufficiently important area that one of its top researchers can inherit notability from it? I don't know. The same searches, by the way, show Julia F. Knight to be even more well cited in the same area, but our lack of an article on Knight should not be used against Harizanov: Knight clearly passes WP:PROF by virtue of her named chair at Notre Dame. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the first author on the computable structure theory ones. Abductive (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In math, the authors are alphabetical, so you can't infer anything from the ordering. I meant that the papers with those positions in the search were co-authored by her. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. To reinforce the above comment: Deducing information from the order of authors on a research paper is fraught with difficulty as conventions vary so widely (alphabetical order, reverse alphabetical order, seniority, contribution to paper, include the whole research group on any of its papers, being the boss, honorary publication, student-goes-first (even though the student may have done no more than plod through the steps of a recipe written by the supervisor and guided every step of the way, etc. etc. etc.). Reliable sources are needed for assumptions about author order but I doubt if they exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        • A reliable source: "in mathematical disciplines, by convention, co-authors are listed alphabetically", DOI:10.1007/s11948-006-0054-3. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • An amusing source, but scarcely a reliable one! The author needs to prove that he speaks for the whole community. Unfortunately I have access to only the first page. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • Interesting. Does any review paper exist saying that Harizanov "pioneered", "advanced", "discovered" or similar language anything? Abductive (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hirschfeldt, " Degree Spectra of Relations on Computable Structures", Bull. Symb. Logic 6:197-212, 2000 says the degree spectrum approach "began with the work of Harizanov". There's a similar remark in a paper of Hirschfeldt and White, "Realizing Levels of the Hyperarithmetic Hierarchy as Degree Spectra of Relations on Computable Structures", J. Formal Logic 43:51-64, 2002. Downey reviews the Handbook of Computability Theory in Studio Logica 71:133-139, 2002; he writes that he prefers a survey of Harizanov to one that was included, one of the reasons being that the one in the book had the degree spectrum as a "notable omission". Is that the sort of thing you mean? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that would be secondary sources attesting to her notability. Abductive (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep on the basis of the above discussion and her selection as plenary speaker for the 2009 European ASL meeting. I think there's some evidence that she passes WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject’s citation impact seems to be low by WP:PROF standards; so is the h-number found by Abductive. The subject’s most widely held book in libraries, Induction, algorithmic learning theory, and philosophy, is currently in less than 100 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The subject has a strong record, and is not a Full Professor by accident, but at this point I think the article was created too early. Looking at the subject’s wide range of activities, I would say that she has a good chance of becoming WP notable in the future (through criteria 1, 2 or 3, for example), but not yet there.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: what kind of impact are people looking for? Her field, recursion theory, is one where number of citations tends to be low, cf. Google scholar |"turing degree"|. It seems to me that we should be evaluating the claim "In computable structure theory, she introduced the notion of degree spectra of relations on computable structures and obtained first significant results concerning uncountable, countable and finite Turing degree spectra" from the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: She's made a notable contribution to a substantial field, and so passed WP:PROF#1; the discussion in the introduction of Hirschfeldt (1999, Degree Spectra of Relations on Computable Structures) convinced me. Note that Hirschfeldt's supervisor was Richard Shore, one of the most respected recursion theorists. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I agree the field is a bit insular. As this is closely related to one of my fields of research, I feel I should know her. But I haven't kept up in the field. Just in case someone was expecting me to weigh in as an expert. If the statement "she … obtained first significant results concerning uncountable, countable and finite Turing degree spectra" can be sourced, I would agree she's notable. I'm not sure the Hirschfeldt's thesis should be given much weight; she is given credit in the abstract, which the Committee would have read and reviewed, and Shore probably qualifies as an expert per se, but it's a bit indirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general field in which most of her work happens, to do with computable presentations of algebras, is of obvious importance in light of the importance of algebraic structures in semantics of programming languages, and particularly in view of the criticism of the algebraic approach, that its notion of sameness for algebraic structures, isomosphism, isn't interesting because isomorphic strucrures might have no computable isomorphisms. Looking over a few papers in the literature tells me that

• The field, i.e., investigating the fine structure of computable presentations of algebras, isn't old (one source has J. B. Remmel, 1981, Recursive isomorphism types of recursive Boolean algebras, J. Symbolic Logic 46:572–594, as the first substantial investigation),
• Her contribution has been major: in her PhD she introduced the concept of "degree spectra" that seems to have been central to the field since.
• Every currently active recursion theorist I can think of has authored papers that talk about degree spectra.
• Compare |"degree spectra" algebra| (127 GS hists) to |"infinite injury"| (477 GS hits): computable algebra seems like a decent-sized part of recursion theory.

I haven't found sources that validate the claim that "she … obtained first significant results concerning uncountable, countable and finite Turing degree spectra", but that seems as much due to the fact that few works in the area seem to describe the merits of their sources or validate their work with respect to what other works say is important, Hirschfeldt being an exception. I seem to recall Stephen Simpson attacking recursion theorists for not justifying the interest of the problems— Charles Stewart (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Every discipline will have fields or subfields that are very specialized. If a subfield has only 10 active researchers in it, then the world authority in the field will have a very small citation impact, even though s/he will be “the” world authority. The result, in my view, is that the world authority will not meet WP:PROF criterion #1, because that criterion refers to significant impact in a “scholarly discipline”. I think “scholarly discipline” was meant, in the context of WP:PROF criterion #1, to refer to a broader area than a very specialized subfield. An analogy can be made to news topics related to science. A news topic becomes notable when it attracts broad interest, and this can come from very specialized science topics; e.g., discovery that may appear obscure at first glance, but that upon further inspection is found to have broad implications for society.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scholarly discipline is recursion theory, which is one of the four so-called pillars of mathematical logic. You could call modern research in recursion theory very specialised, but you could say the same about set theory. Do you think that W. Hugh Woodin passes PROF#1? What measure of broad interest do you apply in making your assessment? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that W. Hugh Woodin has had a broader impact, and meets WP:PROF criterion #1. His citation impact is definitely higher than the subject of this AfD; it indicates notability, IMHO. While assessment notability based on Google Scholar citations is not always easy, and is contingent on the area and topic, my subjective thresholds for notability based on Google Scholar citations are 150 for the top two most widely cited publications, or 300 for the top ten. If one of these criteria is met, I generally believe the person then meets WP:PROF criterion #1, which is significant impact in a scholarly discipline.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hah, I meet that criterion, if you count coauthored papers. I think that examination of citation metrics is a useful starting point, but talk of thresholds is very dangerous. James Munkres is very worthy of inclusion, but the 856 cites Google Scholar gives his "Topology: a first course" should not give you the idea that the text introduces new, influential ideas into mathematics. Likewise, there are many otherwise uninfluential academics who have written widely referenced survey articles. And again, key works sometimes don't get cited much, because the ideas they bring get referenced in other works: this happens particularly often with PhD thesis, which used to be hard to get: case in point, Harizanov's PhD thesis has 11 Google cites, but is the source of what appears to be her most influential idea. In short: citation analysis is a lousy substitute for understanding the impact of a scholar's ideas. Charles Stewart (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Charles Stewart. If she introduced a concept "degree spectra", "central to the field" and used by "Every currently active recursion theorist .." then WP:PROF, note 2 "pioneered or developed a significant new concept" applies.John Z (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep after reading the opinions of those who know the field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Per Charles. Paul August ☎ 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If one introduces a concept that becomes "central" to the field of recursion theory, one is notable. Recursion theory is the theory of computability. It explores the boundary between what computers can do and what they can't. Some might say that that is not as important as things in the interior, as opposed to the boundaries, of what is computable, such as how efficiently one can compute—a question of practical importance. But someone cited above a paper published not that long ago addressing the question of the "effective" (i.e. computable) content of mathematics, and that may be in an early stage of being understood. The fact that most mathematicians don't know what recursion theory is—it's a "specialized subfield"—has not prevented it from being important. In the present day, the concept of computability doesn't seem to be a matter of small consequence. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#A9. ... discospinster _talk 00:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barred For Life[edit]

Barred For Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NALBUMS album notablility requirement. The band does not even have an article. Perhaps they should before there are articles for their music. Gosox5555 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonanza Express[edit]

Bonanza Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to pass general notability guidelines. Has been speedied before, though now it has a little more content. Only Google hits seem to belong to the company that owns said ferry, blogspot.com or, the Nome Chamber of Commerce. Nothing in the article seems to explain why this ferry is more notable than any of the other millions of ferries out there. t'shaél^chat 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ORG, not notable. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Favonian (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom. -t'shaél^chat 23:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom. noq (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I brought this here because I could not figure it out, and Uncle G, cleared up all the problems. Object lesson to be careful at speedy DGG (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahimah Rahim (singer)[edit]

Rahimah Rahim (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination--encountered at Speedy--absurd amount of COI and inappropriate personal autobio, but might conceivably be notable anyway -- claims to have a hit song. DGG (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You have to dig really deep in there to find the rather vague mention of a hit song. There are plenty of mentions of sub-par notability, and all I could find on Google was places where to download that alleged hit song (though there are truckloads of such sites). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I concur with the above statement, but unless someone can find some actual resources about this lady, I think this should be deleted. It has absurd amounts of CoI, and is poorly written in my view. Babylonian Armor (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

• The irony here is that this person is probably a better candidate for being the primary topic at Rahimah Rahim than the Singapore Idol contestant is, given that this person has released albums, is clearly a well known household name who is still recognized by people 16 years after retiring, and that the Idol contestant changed her name to avoid the clash. Perhaps most telling is that on the Malay Wikipedia, this is the person who gets the primary topic, and the Idol contestant doesn't even have an article yet. ☺

  Oh yes, the suggestion that there's a conflict of interest here is a bizarre one. There's no reason to believe that Lyndaharapan is this person. The initial poor choice of title I would attribute to lack of Clue (as to what a properly encyclopaedic article title is) and probably having English as a second language, rather than conflict of interest.

  By the way, "claims to have a hit song" made me chuckle. This person has twelve albums, all of which have been best sellers and two of which (Gadis Dan Bunga and Bebas) went gold. "claims to have a hit song", indeed! Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look at a previous version of the article, it even says that the source of information of information is a 1st Party Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylonian Armor (talk • contribs) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it didn't. It pointed to the article on this person in the Malay Wikipedia, which it now does with a proper interlanguage link. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you're talking about. (It wasn't in the previous version at AFD nomination. DGG had taken that text out.) But that still doesn't mean that Lyndaharapan has a conflict of interest. Because it turns out that Lyndaharapan's source was a user page in Wikipedia for another account: User:Legendary Rahimah Rahim. Don't attribute to conflict of interest and sockpuppetry what is more simply explained by lack of Clue, poor English, and unwise use of a bad source. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. According to The Star, the subject was "one of Singapore’s biggest singers in the 1980s", and the article and sources now clearly reflect her notability. Good work Uncle G. decltype (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The changes in this article after the addition of sources and reorientation by Uncle G show that it clearly meets inclusion guidelines. Closer, please note that the earlier commentators saw a different article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faggo[edit]

Faggo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails the notability guideline. We can't have an article on every town in Nigeria. a little insignificant 20:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As long as it's a real place, what have you got against Nigeria? General announcement (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have anything against Nigeria, the article just didn't seem to meet the notability requirements. I'm not intricately familiar with the geography guideline, though, so there's an excellent chance I'm mistaken. a little insignificant 20:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Places are notable--per consensus anyway, if not per guideline. (Where is the guideline when you need it?) Nom, like many geography articles, it's a stub and might be one for a long time. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Places form the backbone of Wikipedia, they are by nature inherently notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. Thanks for enlightening me on this point. Nomination withdrawn. a little insignificant 21:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• commentjust as a fyi for Drmies there was an initiation to make this a guideline just no recent consensus was achieved at Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The "guideline" is actually one of the five pillars: Wikipedia is a gazetteer, among its other functions, and has lots of articles on really really tiny places. (This Polish town is my favourite. It has a population of 54.) It's established custom and practice that articles about verifiable geographic locations are notable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall, you are a fount of knowledge, and thanks to you I learned a new word in this strange language of yours: "gazetteer." Ha! Ottawa4ever, thanks to you also for the link. S Marshall, feel like performing a speedy keep here? Ta! Drmies (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thank you all, and sorry for the trouble. a little insignificant 21:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G3 (obvious hoax). Author blocked as a vandalism-only account. Blueboy96 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late accessory dorsal reflex[edit]

Late accessory dorsal reflex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod declined by IP. Unsouced original research, and a search for sources turns up nothing either. This is either a hoax, or (more probably) an unpublished hypothesis/original research/self-promotion. (Note "newly discovered" in the text; so new, there's no literature on it.) Fake or simply unpublished, either case disqualifies it from getting an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G12. A look at the Website noted by GRBerry confirms this article is a blatant cut-and-paste copyright violation. Blueboy96 21:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bnai Elim[edit]

Bnai Elim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining speedy deletion because it's unlikely that a quick deletion will settle the matter. There's only one incidental mention of the organization at Google news archives, no independent sources, and nothing that clues me in where I would go to find an independent source establishing notability. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G12. As far as I can tell, every word on the page is copied from sub-pages of http://www.bnaielim.org/, partially the lead page, partially the facts page (which at their site is copied from http://www.middleeastfacts.com/middle-east-facts.php). The whole thing is a copyright violation. GRBerry 20:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Proclamation For the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue. Concerns about the nominated article being purely a source text have been addressed by what is effectively a rewrite at a better title. Both the nominator and Agradman agree that this is an alternative name for this subject, even if it is not the most descriptive, a point that argues for a redirect that no-one else counters. If other 1830 proclamations appear that need disambiguation, then the redirect can be expanded into a disambiguation article in the usual manner. All in all, pushing the delete button seems to be entirely superfluous.

For future reference, Agradman: You could have just renamed this article to the better title and rewritten it during the AFD discussion, rather than creating a second article. Uncle G (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Proclamation of 1830[edit]

Royal Proclamation of 1830 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable proclamation (I'd even question whether the title is accurate, there were a fair number of proclamations that year, since William came to the throne then). This seems to be one of a series of urgings to piety that British monarchs would issue on the question of Sunday work, see [1] (George III, 1787), and here (Victoria, 1837. If you look at the London Gazette for the issues after William took the throne, there's a whole lot of proclamations. This one excited no comment that I can see, and isn't notable.Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Blue laws. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what? The whole article is the text of the proclamation! Plus the statement, derived from the proclamation, that it was read in church. There's nothing to salvage.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources. Drawn Some (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obscure but notable. We could make it a disambiguation page to the various proclamations that year (here), with a further recognition that the text was reused on various occasions -- [2] . See also the editorial commentary following the 1820 proclamation, reprinted in "The Republican" -- ((as alluded to, here is the version given by queen Anne: [3]

)

Agradman ^talk/_contribs 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the first two paragraphs into Blue laws, in a new section United Kingdom. The text of the proclamation itself should be deleted; or alternatively, placed in Wikisource. TJRC (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikisource, where this belongs, without prejudice to creating an article about the Royal Proclamation. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I just want to confirm that there really isn't any controversy that we're going to delete the primary-source text at the bottom of the article; the question is whether we're going to keep the stub text at the top. In fact I'm going to delete that text now and replace it with a hyperlink. (I'm new to AfD discussions so please correct me if this I'm not supposed to do this.)Agradman ^talk/_contribs 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Move to "Royal proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue, and for preventing and punishing of vice, profaneness, and immorality". We already have some content on this:

• It was made a legal document during the reign of Queen Anne,[4]--it was "Given at our court at St. James" on 25 February 1702-3 by Queen Anne in the first year of her reign [5]-- and secretary Lord Bolingbroke was "the instrument of introducing it into the House of Commons";[6]
• William Wilberforce obtained one of these (?) from King George III in 1787 [7]
• This version issued by King George III was to be read four times a year in churches, was still being published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in ?1818 [8].
• include wikilinks at Society_for_Suppression_of_Vice and Royal Proclamation
• We can itemize the various occasions (dates and places) when royalty re-issued the proclamation
• an editorialist writing in 1820 commented that:

• "There was a time when proclamations of this kind, and in fact of every kind, produced a considerable effect in this country, they were considered almost tantamount to a law: but that day is gone by, and they are now thought as much of as the king's bill of fare for dinner. They are now almost out of fashion, and we doubt whether the reign of George the Fourth will ever produce half a dozen of them or not."
• "This proclamation is now considered, both by its deliverer and receiver, as a mere usual and common place document. Those who have been present at the opening of an assize, must have perceived that the clerk of the court yawns over it two or three times whilst reading it; and it ever puts the priests to the blush, when they find it necessary to read it;"

Agradman ^talk/_contribs 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Transwiki the primary source text to Wikisource, rename and expand the stub per Agradman. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

• OK, I've created the article Proclamation For the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue, meaning you can delete this version if you'd like. I confess that it's not a particularly high-quality article -- it's barely enough to survive AfD itself, I'm afraid -- but my ability to write it was handicapped by the fact that I really have no interest in this topic. :( Agradman ^talk/_contribs 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Agradman. That new article looks very suitable. DGG (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kodh[edit]

Kodh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I removed the speedy tag from this article myself per this discussion, but this individual still doesn't seem notable enough on his own. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:N.. South Bay (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No news coverage, no record deal, no chart listings, etc. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable artist, member of Tres coronas, New-york/Colombia rap group signed with Machete /Universal Tres_Coronas / 2xWorld dj champion leader with Birdy nam nam in the french turntablism.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.131.186 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article's notability is questionable itself, and neither it nor the allmusic.com link on its page mention Kodh. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [10]there's a mention on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.131.186 (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That article isn't sourced, though. How do we know it's reliable? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "That article isn't sourced"? That's a page on the french wikipedia. It does not matter if it is sourced or not. We do not use wikipedia articles to cite other wikipedia articles, regardless of what languages they might be in. Delete. --Bardin (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um...you do know I'm in favor of deleting this article, right? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I know. Just pointing it for you. --Bardin (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect can be created if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Grelo[edit]

Melissa Grelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable reporter on local-market Canadian news and co-host of breakfast show. Four references: two from tv stations employing her, one interview from a non-notable community newspaper type website, and one dead link. Purely promotional. There are thousands of such reporters worldwide - there's no benefit in having bios of local TV personalities. Declined speedy delete. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertising. a little insignificant 20:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: non-notable person. References given do no provide significant coverage/discussion in independent sources. That she exists and has a job is evident--but this does not make her an encyclopedic character. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: The local area in question is the largest city in Canada. It may be worthwhile to factor in her value in particular to Canadian readers, versus only internationally. I also disagree that this is advertising. We would be lucky if all promo articles look this understated. Her trip to the US with Frank Stronach is also of note, but again not really huge. Perhaps as co-host she should be merged into CP24 Breakfast (and given a short bio there) - BalthCat (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to CP24 Breakfast. The article isn't advertising, but IMO the subject's notability is marginal, at least for now. Redirecting to the show on which she appears seems to be a reasonable alternative. PKT(alk) 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial mentions in the media don't make her notable, nor does being in a large market. Her job puts her on TV, but visibility is not notability. Nothing like notable awards or anything that seperate her from the thousands of other local reporters who are just as non-notable. A redirect wouldn't bother me, but she doesn't merit a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as obvious hoaxes. Author blocked as a vandal/hoax-only account. Blueboy96 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adventurer (video game)[edit]

Adventurer (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Riley Trent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Lives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HC Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Live Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The above video game violates WP:CRYSTAL, as I can find no information about it at all, and it doesn't help that the supposed company that makes it, Dynamic Industries, has an article that was speedily deleted. (The second article appears to be a character from the game, created by, uncoincidentally, User:RileyTrent.) Actually, User:RileyTrent created all of those articles. WP:SPA, anyone? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete - Dynamic Industries Inc appears to make oil-rigs, Keshaanthan Pillay and Robin M. Booysen appear not to exits - I suspect the whole thing of being a put-on of some kind. Artw (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above, it's a hoax. a little insignificant 20:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ponzi Terminology[edit]

Ponzi Terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod declined. To the extent this is a coherent entry, it's redudant to Ponzi scheme, Pyramid scheme and other pages. But largely it's not that coherent. For example, the entry tells you that Ponzi schemes use "Interest Return Payment" and "Investment Return" incorrectly. Uh, yes, and? I'm supposed to avoid investment schemes that offer investment returns? Hairhorn (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced personal essay. Drawn Some (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the article seems to say is that internet scammers sometimes use terms incorrectly. At the very most, that could be reduced to a single sentence in Spam (electronic), but I don't believe the point is significant enough even for that. Rofreg (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's unclear exactly what topic is supposed to be covered here. But it is clear that this isn't an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Truly encyclopedic content here. We should call Encyclopedia Britannica to make sure they also cover this with an article. Possibly the greatest encyclopedic legacy we could leave to the future generations.--LexCorp (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picad media[edit]

Picad media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable advertsing firm, speedy removed by IP WuhWuzDat 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The references given support the notion that the company exist, but they do not provide the significant coverage required by WP:N, nor can I find any in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everything already said, not notable. a little insignificant 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious advertising for an advertising firm. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources to establish ntoability for this agency -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- does not currently meet WP:ATHLETE standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Smith (footballer)[edit]

Lewis Smith (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy and prod. Non notable youth footballer. Not yet played a game in a fully professional league thus falling short of WP:ATHLETE Nuttah (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable. a little insignificant 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 08:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delelte, clearly fails notability at WP:GNG and more specifically, WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 08:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delelte per nom, Reserve / youth player only, no specific coverage. Recreate if and when--ClubOranje^T 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Signed with Fulham F.C., a club in the Premier League, played for A.F.C. Bournemouth, a club in the Football League Two, which is a professional league according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. --Ilion2 (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ............except that he's in fact never played a competitive match for Bournemouth -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Smith has not made any appearances in the Premier League or the Football League or any other fully professional league as required by the inclusion criteria for athletes, whether it be for Fulham or Bournemouth or any other club. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm, also don't know if any of you also noticed that the link provided has Lewis Smith with a different birthday to the DOB provided in this article! Govvy (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mladen Stanisic[edit]

Mladen Stanisic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotion, possible hoax. Previously deleted article created by SPA w/o much of a believable claim to notability. Gnews returns nothing on Stanisic or his "eco-club"; the refs used are rather dubious - Djecji klub magazine doesn't appear to exist (at least after my own search), the Boomerang mag ad looks like a gag, and a Twitter account of course doesn't meet WP:RS. The article offers nothing outside the lead on his acting/singing.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- per Nomination. I was considering to nominate it too. Total self promotion. Hitro talk 19:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as either hoax or non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Boomerang and Djecji klub exist!!! http://www.yu4you.com/items/en/casopis/item_190.html - Boomerang found on online shopping sites http://www.modriani.co.yu/sr/klijenti.html - Boomerang is published by Luxor http://ultratv.rs/ - Photo advertisement for Boomerang on the website of the leading kids TV station in Serbia You searched for "Boomerang magazine" instead of "casopis Boomerang" which is on the Serbian language! http://jutarnjiklub.com/artikl/203 - Djecji klub magazine (casopis Djecji klub on Croatian) available in online shopping stores http://online.konzum.hr/categories/5471896/products/50016202 - Another online shop selling Djecji klub http://www.eph.hr/eng/products_and_services/index.html - Djecji klub listed as a publication of EPH (EuropaPressHolding) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europapress_Holding - Wikipedia article on the publisher of Djecji klub http://pravonarazvoj.crolink.net/ - Djecji klub said to be an important magazine for kids' mental growth http://www.kgz.hr/gradska/djecji/casopisi.asp - Djecji klub available in libraries THOSE ARE 9 PROOFS! DO YOU NEED MORE?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.218.213 (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I still stand by my vote. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. The links above may verify the existence of the sources but I do not think it verifies notability of the subject. Hitro talk 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted G12 of http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2008/08/14 by Orangemike. NAC -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Victoria Justice show[edit]

The Victoria Justice show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable tv series which does not exist yet, violates WP:Crystal WuhWuzDat 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete copyvio, I've tagged it as such. Hairhorn (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyvio and WP:HAMMER, TV version. Nate • (chatter) 19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lapis (text editor)[edit]

Lapis (text editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

ProD removed by author, so here we are. Text editing software that doesn't assert notability or show significant coverage in third-party sources. - 2 ... says you, says me 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, isn't scientific publishing considered significant third party coverage any longer? I've added more sources, and notability could be inferred by reading them. But I will spell it out in the article if that's necessary to avoid speedy deletion processes. Lapis is an algorithm for information extraction with outline detection, and end-user programming. Text editor doesn't make it justice Diego (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources given, the doctoral thesis doesn't satisfy WP:N as the paper is a first-party source (being written by the software's creators), and the other sources are abstracts with passing mentions to Lapis, none are significant coverage. Generally, a software program needs to be significantly covered by other authors, not its creator. Additionally, the article doesn't assert why the program is different than other text editors. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least [11] does more than a passing mention of Lapis: it devotes two whole chapters to it.

Aditionally, WP:N doesn't require that the article asserts its notability; it does call for editors to research for it, specially if appropriate sources (such as linked scientific articles) can probably be found. (This is quite reasonable, as it allows stubs to survive the impulses of deletionists and grow into real articles). Deletion should be a last resort, so according to the guideline you should have used the ((notability)) tag instead of the delete one. Diego (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think that this application is big in computer science academia, but hasn't received the wider coverage required for a Wikipedia Article. The notability guideline operates off actual sources or sources confirmed to exist that are not online, not ones that might exist or are speculated. WP:N requires multiple examples of significant third-party coverage, I went back through the sources on the article itself, two are primary, and the remainders are abstracts. Even with the source you came up with, a few more long form mentions like that are needed to satisfy WP:N. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could expand (and rename) the article to include other similar projects in PbE for multiple selection and/or automatic editing. This would give more ample coverage and many relevant published papers on the topic.Diego (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great idea, especially since PbE as a concept seems to be very well covered. Let me know if I can help. - 2 ... says you, says me 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work on this at some point this weekend. Diego (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If it is shown to be "big in computer science academe" per user 2, it's notable, It doesn't have to be known to the world in general the same way. Notability is not popularity. DGG (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karunakara Guru[edit]

Karunakara Guru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cult leader. Only one secondary source. Previously deleted in an AfD for same reasons. Protect against re-creation. NeonMerlin 18:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff{ ^Calvin_Hobbes 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff{ ^Calvin_Hobbes 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect per nom. a little insignificant 20:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Santhigiri is a related article also being considered for deletion, I suggest it be deleted and protected as well. a little insignificant 20:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep - Article needs sourced and trimmed, but that alone is not a reason for deletion. Although Google archive for The Hindu only go back to about 2001 there are still plenty of stories about him (he died in 1999, and continues to receive news coverage to this day, which says a lot.) A quick search reveals that the subject easily passes the GNG and indeed was likely a pretty important figure in India. Some (but not nearly all) available sources: The Hindu talks about his influence Gov't of India names research center after him The Hindu calls him "one of the remarkable personalities of the 20th century" Express Buzz covers politician referencing his teachings in 2009 and so on... Also is covered in Concise Encyclopaedia Of India (not freely available online). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. protecting over 1 recreation 3.5 years after a previous AfD would be quite excessive even in the least notable case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What Thaddeus found is enough to justify a keep. I encourage him to edit the article the way it needs to be done. DGG (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very notable religious leader. Plenty of sources exist. I think the nominator has not done WP:BEFORE. Salih (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've just been editing Santhigiri and have stumbled across enough sources for Karunakara Guru to show notability for both, and an obvious hat tip to ThaddeusB too. No doubt both pages need a lot of work, but that isn't a reason to delete, especially in obvious cases like these. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per ThaddeusB. Edward321 (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santhigiri[edit]

Santhigiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an ad for a non-notable cult. No references except to the ashram's own site. NeonMerlin 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff{ ^Calvin_Hobbes 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff{ ^Calvin_Hobbes 18:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect Karunakara Guru, a related article, seems to be undergoing this same process. I recommend the same treatment. a little insignificant 20:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A simple gnews search gives 102] reliable source references, not all of them significant, but enough to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and cleanup - subject has been covered by reliable sources on dozens of occasions: The Hindu covers medical clinic Express Buzz covers VP dying The Hindu covers opening of 3rd branch healing practice mentioned prominently by Asia Times and many more. Also many otherwise small mentions saying things like "a renowned spiritual centre" or "well-known" showing that it is an important organization in India. (Additionally, there are certainly non-English sources given that English isn't the countries primary language) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ThaddeusB has given enough evidence to show the notability. Salih (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the sources found by other editors. Edward321 (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Quite a few sources showing notability. Priyanath ^talk 21:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 primarily as a copyright violation. No prejudice to re-creation if it can be resurrected as non-copyvio, non-promotional and with notability asserted. Black Kite 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosis Motivation Institute[edit]

Hypnosis Motivation Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Promotional, orphaned, and dead end article that doesn't state notability. I dream of horses (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Yes it is promotional (and needs a re-write), however it is an accredited institute of post-secondary education. A simple google search reveals this is not some obscure topic, and while the article is a bit spammy there is enough out thee to prove this notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete By accredited we normally mean accredited to give degrees, not vocational certificates or continuing education. Weak, because it is possible that real sources might be found for verification & notability. DGG (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete written as advertisement, like advertisement. Page creator and primary contributor apparently continues to consider herself the institution. User has zero edits outside of this pagespace. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, the statement that the page creator considers herself the institution is based, to judge from the link given, on the fact that her user page is a redirect to the article; however, this is a side effect of writing the article in user space and then moving it, and was probably not intentional. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the article was created by BrendaWitherspoon, and a Brenda Witherspoon is listed here [12] as Admissions Representative at Hypnosis Motivation Institute, and here [13] as having an office at the institute, so it looks as though there may well be a Conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication in the article of notability. Marcusmax says "A simple google search reveals this is not some obscure topic". Well, my simple Google search turned up plenty of advertising pages, Yellow pages listings, pages on sites that provide listings of institutions and/or promote them, etc etc, but looking through the first few dozen Google hits did not produce a single piece of independent objective coverage, let alone substantial independent coverage. If such independent coverage exists then anyone wishing to keep the article should be able to give us exact citations, not just tell us that it is there somewhere. DGG says "it is possible that real sources might be found for verification & notability": yes indeed, but they have not been found yet. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hey everybody, I added this article using info from HMI's homepage. I appreciate the feedback and will work on revising the article. HMI is a non-profit and Dr. Kappas wrote the definition of "Hypnotherapist" for the D.O.T. and I think it's important knowledge to share. Thanks a bunch for the feedback! Brenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.124.5 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 July 2009

• Response to the above comment: I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately "it's important knowledge to share" is not Wikipedia's criterion for the existence of an article. The criterion is that there is already substantial coverage of the topic in independent sources, and that has not yet been shown to be so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article appears notable, needs further outside references (and clean up). Keep it as a stub and see if others can build upon it. Aliveatoms (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as copyright violation. The text is entirely lifted from http://www.hypnosis.edu/ and from http://www.hypnosis.edu/glossary/h.asp Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaze Roxx[edit]

Sleaze Roxx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable amateur website that does not meet WP:WEB criteria for inclusion on en-Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The only Ghits I found are the official website, blogs, and sites like MySpace and Twitter. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not notable. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Wether B (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable site. Fair Deal (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paralleling[edit]

Paralleling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism invented by self-promoting "digital age" editor. I was unable to find any instance on the web or in news feeds that would substantiate the use of this word in the fashion described. Thekohser 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Ghits I found do not describe anything close to the definition given in the article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. ((Nihiltres|talk|edits)) 14:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable neologism, likely promotional in intent; article used to contain a link to a promotional website as a "source"[14]. Prose is very much That Sort of Thing: a term used to describe the process in which traditional intellectual property businesses create a "parallel" digital business.... primarily focused on the process of monetizing the digital distribution of content by leveraging the brand awareness of the company. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (NAC). Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Mania[edit]

Retro Mania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL, not much is known for the album and very few Ghits. Too soon to be created. ZooFari 16:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete page blanking, author did it. I tagged it on the blanked article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Author blanked before AfD, no need for discussion. Hairhorn (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 second simultaneous edit... ZooFari 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, okay, then. I thought I saw 2 minutes. It's gone now. Hairhorn (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Video game addiction#South Korea. Usually the history would need to be preserved after a merge, but reviewing the history it appears that no merge happened; the content at the target article was written independently of the original article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Seung Seop[edit]

Lee Seung Seop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A shabby "biography" that's really a record of a strange news event that took place in 2005. It attracted some attention at the time but has apparently had no long-term impact, and none of the three sources cited are from after 2005. Violates WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. *** Crotalus *** 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• G4 Speedy Delete. Already merged to Video game addiction per the previous AfD nom. Hairhorn (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, not recreated, so not eligible for G4. But it is elegible for deletion per the previous AfD discussion. It's been merged already, but no one got around to deleting it. Hairhorn (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wouldn't this fall under G6 since the merge is complete? Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure, but it's clear to me that the previous AfD permits deleting it right away, rather than waiting a week. That wouldn't make it a speedy, it's been waiting to be deleted since February. Hairhorn (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Delete Not important enough to deserve its own article, it's only a paragraph long and is already mentioned in other game addiction-related pages.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:ONEVENT.Clearly the merge from the last AfD didn't work. You have a non-notable guy who does something clearly stupid and pays for it. That's not notable, even if the media had nothing important to write about and decided to fill space with this silliness. Maybe if he wins the Darwin Award he so richly deserves, I'd reconsider. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Video_game_addiction#South_Korea. Alefbe (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect to Scott Adams. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapatopia[edit]

Cheapatopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism proposed by Scott Adams. Could be merged with BLP. Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It could probably be speedied, but the Scott Adams connection makes that questionable. I don't even think it needs to be merged to Scott Adams's article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Scott Adams per nom. There really was no reason to open a discussion about this (too bad there isn't a "speedy redirect" option). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is. It's called WP:IAR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Scott Adams. Redirects are cheep. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Everquest. A fairly clear WP:BLP1E. A brief mention in the main article may be appropriate. Black Kite 11:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Woolley[edit]

Shawn Woolley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly sourced article that appears to violate WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. This individual committed suicide in 2001 and this event was briefly reported in the news. There is no evidence that it has had any lasting impact on anything. There simply isn't enough here for a decent biography, and never will be. *** Crotalus *** 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not poorly sourced, but per BLP1E, we shouldn't have this. Maybe a paragraph in the WoWEvercrackquest article explaining any real-world fallout for the game from the suicide? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect into an apporpriate World of Warcraft related article. There was enough information here that it should be covered in here, but not enough to justify an article of its own. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, Everquest, not World of Warcraft. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No contest I doubt this person and the event that surrounds him is notable, because personally I could only find one or two news reports where it has a brief mention or Liz Woolley playing a minor role. I haven't even heard of Everquest let alone Shawn Woolley until I found it on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is the major news source for a particular event, then that's a bad sign. But anyway, I think this should remain in Wikipedia because it's a rather unique event and one of the earliest sparks that paved the way towards the video game controversies today. The only problem is that his mother is the only major source so we can either deal with an article with lots of unverifiable detail or a totally sparse entry that may as well just be merged into a "game addiction" article of some sort where it gets a brief mention. I don't know what to say, keep I guess.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's exactly the point here -- you think the event is notable, but not the person. Hence, BLP1E, which should be a delete result, or at most a merge to an event article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I stand corrected. Merge and redirect--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see the notability in the person or the event. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to EverQuest. Alefbe (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It's true that this article is lacking sources, but that's not due to a lack of notability of the topic. There's plenty of Google Scholar and News Archive results (the news archive results show persistent coverage, arguing against the applicability of BLP1E). If I had about 10 hours to work on it, I could easily write an encyclopedic article on this topic. Should the admin who decides this AfD not see it my way, it would probably be better to follow the suggestion in BLP1E and create an article along the lines of Deaths related to computer gaming from merging this article with Lee Seung Seop. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it, but keep it short

I could possibly see including it in the Everquest page, but then I also lean towards this page staying. This page was already nominated once and it was kept. I think Lizwol needs to stop attacking people and stop posting unverified content and this article will be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 11:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another strong keep, even if it is short for now From what I have seen, Shawn's suicide has a lot of notability due to things like its press coverage at the time, it being one of the first of a number of suicides and deaths that appear to be linked to excessive video game playing, and the effect that it had on his mother, including her creating Online Gamers Anonymous (OLGA) that provides extensive support for gamers who play excessively, as well as their family and friends, with the organization being one of the very oldest, largest and best organized in existence. Also, I believe that there are quite a few quite links to Shawn's article that will either become broken or need to be changed as well. As far as notability goes compared to other Wikipedia articles, I have for example seen many articles dealing with single television episodes of shows. IMHO, the impact of Shawn's suicide is far more than virtually any single television show episode. Finally, to the admin(s) who will decide, please review the comments made during the first request to delete since I think that most, if not all, of them are still relevant now. JoDOe (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. A mention maybe in Everquest, maybe. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travega[edit]

Travega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a disambiguation page that features mostly redlinks, and the few bluelinks lead to articles that don't mention the article's topic at all. There doesn't seem to be a special process for deleting disambiguation pages, so I brought it here. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, the creator's username is Travega, who created the article back in May 2006 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Good call, nom, since there's nothing here to link to but a non-notable Irish band. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article is actually not a disambiguation page. It is actually a single article about multiple topics. In any case, none of the material is refernced, and it is not at all clear that any of it even would justify a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha De Linda Krav[edit]

Sasha De Linda Krav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced Autobiography. May Be Hoax. Notability has not been verified. Search Engines do not provide any info about Sasha De Linda Krav (the subject), if searched with or without quotes. Unencyclepedic tone. Most probably Self Advertorial. Hitro talk 15:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, maybe A7. She's 13 years old, goshdarnit, and the article gives no sources and does not assert notability at all. Chutznik (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as unverifiable. No sources provided or found in my own search. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While WP:LISTCRUFT is not an argument, consensus here is that the article in it's current form is not salvageable. There is no prejudice against re-creating it as a sourced article though. SoWhy 11:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music camp[edit]

Music camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Uncited original research - greatest part of article is list of link to various music camps around the US. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete - I sympathize with the plea to keep the article, but it is essentially listcruft (with external listcruft being an even less desirable flavor of the species). This sort of thing would need justification with reliable sources, such as an article in a newspaper or magazine on music camps. Even then, the list of external links would be problematic. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. This could be a good article, but given that it's nothing but a list of external links as of now, it's basically cruft. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
• http://books.google.com/books?id=uQpYk9C5ORwC&pg=PA184&dq=Puget+Sound+Guitar+Workshop
• http://books.google.com/books?id=D436byuvm0cC&pg=PP7&dq=Puget+Sound+Guitar+Workshop
• http://books.google.com/books?id=FT2UURuhfaYC&pg=PA2&dq=Puget+Sound+Guitar+Workshop
• http://books.google.com/books?id=E5AINWiUxesC&pg=PA91&dq=Puget+Sound+Guitar+Workshop
• http://books.google.com/books?id=V4u9hJO5aEcC&pg=PA37&dq=Puget+Sound+Guitar+Workshop
• http://books.google.com/books?id=q_NYAAAAMAAJ&q=Puget+Sound+Guitar+Workshop&dq=Puget+Sound+Guitar+Workshop
• http://books.google.com/books?id=nKPYAAAAMAAJ&dq=Puget+Sound+Guitar+Workshop
• http://books.google.com/books?id=c5TPHakJ98cC&pg=PA726&dq=Puget+Sound+Guitar+Workshop&lr=

And that's just for the first camp. Permanoobs who can't even Google shouldn't be at AfD. Lose the external links, keep the article Anarchangel (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVILITY, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This one time, at band camp...per Scjessey but stronger. Wikipedia isn't the classified ads. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This was speediable. No sources and full of nonsense. No need to clutter AFD with obvious cases like this. Friday (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3awww[edit]

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

Delete, to me this is a borderline attack page with no references or google hits Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm no longer convinced this is an attack page, even though I've nominated as such previously. However, I've communicated with the author of the entry and it's clear that this is an unpublished (or at least minimally circulated) book. I can't even find it online. Hairhorn (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nomination withdrawn, Dontexpect (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2009 (Signature & time/date stamp added -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Galla Aruna Kumari[edit]

Galla Aruna Kumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article mentions subject's qualifications and quotes from government officials, but fails to provide any sources or external links for this information. Additionally, the article, particularly sentences such as: "Aruna Kumari is known for her sincerity, honesty and determination in politics like her father" strike me as being in clear violation of WP:NPOV as the subject is apparently an elected official.

Author has edited the article numerous times in response to flagging but has yet to improve the readibilty, grammar, or organisation of the page to a degree that would shed light on the importance of the subject. Edits have consisted of adding additional, irrelevant, details about the subject's life instead of condensing and clarifying. Dontexpect (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2009

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff { ^Calvin _Hobbes 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. The subject qualifies WP:Politician per this and this. Article should just be stubbed for now and then allow only sourced content to be added. -SpacemanSpiff{ ^Calvin_Hobbes 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Although your second article focuses on Ms Kumari, the first merely lists her name at the end of the piece, not explaining her relevance to the issue at hand. Politicians do fall under notability criteria WP:POLITICIAN, but "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability."--Dontexpect (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Please read WP:Politician carefully. Your interpretation is wrong, she isn't an elected local official. -SpacemanSpiff{ ^Calvin_Hobbes 16:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue too much with you here, as the number of English language resources available to determine more about her are few and far between. Her title as Smt. Galla Aruna Kumari, Honorable MLA^[1], in addition to her position as a Minister would seemingly qualify her as an elected official in a Parliamentary system such as India's. Regardless, this article probably does deserve to stick around as a stub (similar to Vellodi_Narayana_Menon_K, for example), edited for length and NPOV.--Dontexpect (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily passes WP:POLITICIAN as per this. I would say a minister in state cabinet is inherently notable. Salih (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs significant content editing to be up to snuff but I think it fits for inclusion per WP:POLITICIAN.Fuzbaby (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As an MLA, she clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Other issues are for cleanup, not deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chander Mulchandani[edit]

Chander Mulchandani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:N Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff { ^Calvin _Hobbes 14:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing at all on Gnews, Gsearch provides just links to ads, social networking and directory listings. I've also found out that his office requires a receptionist, but that's about it. -SpacemanSpiff{ ^Calvin_Hobbes 16:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable promoter/event planner. Hairhorn (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dines Green[edit]

Dines Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodecural nom - second PROD.

First prod rationale: "Does not appear to meet the notability threshold, and is unsourced, possibly original research. Propose deletion per WP:N and WP:V"

Second prod rationale: "Not notable. Dines Green is not a place, it is simply one of the early large council estates in Worcester. The article lacks any information of encyclopedic value. lacks an info box. Lacks references since being tagged in Sept 2008." Marasmusine (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless non-trivial coverage in third-party sources found. Difficult to tell as GNews is swamped with news stories that happen to mention the housing estate. A early housing estate in a city may have some historical significance, but I can't find anything suggesting notability myself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep but consider merge to St. John's, Worcester, as then we will have one unsourced article instead of two ☺. More seriously, this housing estate seems a bit small to have an article of its own. St John is the city council ward that includes Dines Green (see Neighbourhood Statistics website) and i think wards are the smallest geographical unit potentially worthy of a separate article. I've just found that there is some 2001 census info available on Dines Green as a separate 'neighbourhood area' though ([15] obtained from [16]), so there is at least some reliable info (if you like numbers) that could be used to check the current article — e.g. 47% of households rent from council or other socially rented, which appears to disagree with current article's statement that "the vast majority are still owned by the local authority". Qwfp (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - just needs improving and sourcing. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started on that now, I still think there is loads more that can be done though! Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant expansion since AfD. Area has its own school (a good sign for an established neighbourhood.).--Kudpung (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - excellent rescue work carried out. Can see no valid reason for deletion. Saga City (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Coverage still seems to be on the incidental side, but it's definitely a step forward from the complete lack of evidence for notability. Changing to neutral. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient notability to warrant an article it its own right due to church and school.  Chzz  ►  04:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll say keep again because after the rescue operation we still have dozens of stubs in Worcestershire that are in a worse state than Dines Green is now.--118.175.130.58 (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, yes there is lots of coverage and it does seem like it could have a distinct community, but a lot of the coverage is about trivial matters. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has been significantly improved. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep quite good enough qualtity for retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of countries by size of armed forces. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Active troops per thousand citizens[edit]

Active troops per thousand citizens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article consists entirely of material duplicated from List of countries by size of armed forces. It was made in order to sort the same table used in that article by a different criterion, but that page now has table sorting functionality that makes this page obsolete. Also, having the same information in two places like this forces making any changes in two places. Jafeluv (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a redirect back to List of countries by size of armed forces - this article isn't necessary, but is a feasible search term Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a redirect as per above -- searching for armed forces per capita seems like a reasonable thing to do. Rofreg (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a redirect as stated by others above. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criteria G3, hoax. TeaDrinker (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daimler Davos[edit]

Daimler Davos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V. Article has existed for almost three years with no sources cited, and there are no relevant results on Google. snigbrook (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message at WikiProject Automobiles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Daimler Davos: is this a hoax?. By the way, sorry for initially reverting, I searched Google for Dailmer Davos without quotes. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as hoax. swaq 15:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Google comes up with many hits; however, they're all wikis and free encyclopedias that link to each other. It also doesn't help that the two main contributors to the article are User:Tommydaimler and User:Daimlerdavos. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia:Listcruft is not policy, it's an essay and as such, !votes based on it are not very strong. The keep-!votes cite a style guideline on the other hand but fail to address the delete-!votes concerns. As such, there is no consensus for deletion but that cleanup and work on the article are maybe needed. Regards SoWhy 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cyclists[edit]

List of cyclists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is just what the title suggests: a list of cyclists, without source or reason for inclusion. If the article wants to become a better article, some criteria should be found, but then the new article would be something like "list of cyclists who won a grand tour" or "list of cyclists who became world champion". Anyway, this article should be deleted. EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced listcruft. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pure listcruft--no rationale or criterion given for what constitutes a "cyclist" worthy of inclusion in this list. I checked quickly: my friend Oliver is not on it, so "Dutch red-haired cyclists" are apparently not included. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. There could be several million people on this list, there is no apparent inclusion criteria. Tavix |  Talk  19:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The above arguments to delete ignore our stand-alone list guideline which gives an implied inclusion criterion for any list of people—they must be notable, and in this case specifically notable for being cyclists (thus we also don't include, e.g., any actor who happens to like riding a bicycle). Naming conventions say we don't include "notable" in the name of a list of people; so a "List of cyclists" is a "List of notable cyclists", properly excluding your friend Oliver (unless he's notable) as well as "several million people". DHowell (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Inclusion criteria can be surmised from Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Either rename to specify the "professional" cyclists, or delete. Even though theoretically this should be known to be "notable cyclists", you know that millions of IP editors are just waiting to add them and their Schwinn to a list like this (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Webb (artist)[edit]

Peter Webb (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST - unless the Alliance Française Art Fellowship is "prestigious" enough to confer notability. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nn...Modernist (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Deadchildstar (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. JNW (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and Userfy to User:Zhouf12/Frédéric Chopin—Fantaisie-Impromptu in C-sharp minor, Op. 66 per Deor. Black Kite 11:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Chopin—Fantaisie-Impromptu in C-sharp minor, Op. 66[edit]

Frédéric Chopin—Fantaisie-Impromptu in C-sharp minor, Op. 66 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fork of Fantaisie-Impromptu (may not technically be a fork, but definitely a duplicate of an existing article). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, Sarek, you are completely correct to use the word 'Fork'. I am guessing that the ad nauseum use of 'Fork' to label things as PoV and therefore deletable (when PoV can be replaced and is therefore a page discussion issue and not an AfD issue) has lead you to believe that Fork is not the right appellation. It is, moreso than in most cases where the word is used. That an article is duplicated is the proper definition of a fork. Well, to be utterly precise, a fork is a mirror site outside of wikipedia, that duplicates WP content, and "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." and "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines" Because of the 'deliberate' language, POVFORK says "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." Sorry if I am taking up a lot of space discussing things no one here, to my knowledge, ever said, but this misuse of terminology in AfD is a pox and the cure will doubtless be messy. Anarchangel (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, when I said that I didn't think "fork" applied, I meant that I thought they had started that article without prior reference to the original, not that there were POV issues involved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the two articles. Nominator and article creator seem to be in some type of edit-war [17]. I hasten to point out that nobody owns a Wikipedia article. Mandsford (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? He did a cut-paste move, and I reverted it. Since when does one edit on each side constitute "edit warring"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to think Sarek is correct in his assessment of the title of the article, but he is being less than fully forthcoming when he describes the history as a single edit. The truth should suffice. Anarchangel (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I would really like to see some documentation of this supposed "edit war", or I'd like this section stricken. Either one will do nicely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What I think you're not getting, Sarek, is that he already gave evidence of it. If that is the case, then please excuse my comments as a little off the mark. It's the history from the old article. You've got three edits in there. 18:57, 10 June, 15:59, 19 June, and 12:53, 13 July. That's all. No big. Just the fact of, the thing he is calling attention to isn't just the one edit on the new article. Anarchangel (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And the first two edits have exactly what to do with the creator of the other article?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Having reviewed the article histories of both the the afd'd article and original article, I can see no evidence of edit warring. Sarek has made four edits to both articles in total. [18] this first edit was a page move. Unrelated to the new article. [19] this second edit was the removal of links to add supported pages. [20] This single and only edit was the reversion of a redirect to this afd'd article. No reversion followed, therefore no edit war occured. The only edit following on from that was [21] which was the listing of this afd. Sarek has been incorrectly accused of edit warring and I do ask that the parties involved here than have made such accusations retract them. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 18:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Anarchangel (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this has a single author, delete and provide the author with a copy so that s/he can add anything sourcable (article currently has no sources) and usable to Fantaisie-Impromptu. The article's creator wrote, "I felt that [the article Fantaisie-Impromptu] is not titled adequately, and that the content is lacking. Rather than editing that page, I decided to start a new page," which is a good description of how not to act when faced with an existing article that one thinks needs work. This title violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music) and is useless as a redirect; that, combined with the lack of sources, makes a straight merger an undesirable result. Deor (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deor. In terms of content I don't strongly prefer one article over the other, except that this one lacks sources. But there's no reason why this work should be an exception to our established naming conventions. I hope editors can cooperate to improve Fantaisie-Impromptu. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Fantaisie-Impromptu. Although the unsourced content is an issue with this article, looking for sources (and adding where available, deleting content that can't be sourced) for non-redundant content can occur on the merged article. Rlendog (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deor, with the qualification WP:NEWCOMER. Content and content providers should always take precedent over even WP rules as per WP:IAR, and definitely over our use of them. Anarchangel (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete move anything new back to original article, help the creator to edit the original, and delete this one that doesn't pass a whole whack of policy (including the title, methinks) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Steven Walker[edit]

Samuel Steven Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Based on the search links on the article talk page, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, consequently the article doesn't comply with the notability requirements. In fact, I can't find anything to even confirm his existence, so possible hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as A7 with a touch of A1 hoax in agreement with the nom. I just spent time trying to find sources for ANY of the allegations of notability for this article. Feel confident to say they do not exist and the article is a fabrication. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddlers 3[edit]

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

This article has had a speedy A7 tag for over 36 hours. Celtic band with an insufficient assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's a myspace band with no notability per WP:MUSIC. Chutznik (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken strips (motorcycle tires)[edit]

Chicken strips (motorcycle tires) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTDICT. Unsourced neologism. It is very hard to find any use of this term, even in an article about motorcycling, that isn't about food. It is fundamentally meaningless and silly, which is why no motorcycle mechanics nor riding technique books mention it. The best claim to notability might be its humor value as some nonsense lore, but not enough writers find it funny enough to give us something to cite. I only found one. Dbratland (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, I found a few other references, with some digging:

1. "How London bikers measure up ; ES WHEELS; [W_04 Edition ]", Evening Standard. London (UK), p. 5, May 3, 2002, The harder you lean into corners, the more of the tyre you use. This means that a biker who rides hard will have an evenly-worn tyre. A biker who rides gently will not use the outer edges of the rubber resulting in a phenomenon known as 'chicken strips'. These are very uncool and a beacon to those in the know that the rider is a novice.
2. Neale, Brian (Jul 29, 2001), "New Yamaha offers best of sport, touring worlds; [Chicagoland Final , CN Edition]", Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill., p. 6, At our first gas stop, I was thrilled to note that the "chicken strips," those bands of virgin rubber found on the edges of most Midwestern riders' rear tires, had been burned off the Yamaha's 17-inch Bridgestone Battalax BT-20s. In other words, I was hitting some serious (for me) lean angles.
3. Weber, Bob (28 January 2007), "Read, dream, fix, wax your way out of discontent; [Chicagoland Final , CN Edition]", Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill., p. 3, Is your chain due for replacement? Are your tires so worn that only the chicken strips left on the sides remain? Replace them now.
4. There's also this 2006 Cycle World (issue unknown) snippet, also humor: "CHICKEN STRIPS NOT SOLD HERE. I can't think of anything more thrilling than hunting squids on track day. are few and far between. ..."

I created an entry on Wiktionary for this.--Dbratland (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTDICT per Dbratland; redirect to wiktionary. tedder (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a dictionary definition. Tavix |  Talk  17:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTADICT. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InterAccess[edit]

InterAccess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable little Toronto art gallery. Fails WP:N. Article also has no references - thus fail WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• also, the article has a large amount of spammy material that was added by a user account named "Interaccess". The original article was much more stubby. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 03:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although the article as it stands is poor and unsourced, this in itself is not a reason for deletion. As an organization, InterAccess is notable, and hardly a "little" art gallery (I don't understand the point of that kind of wording in a deletion nomination). InterAccess is actually a pretty important art centre in the field of electronic art and has been around for 25 years. Google books and google scholar show notability. I'll try to give it some time to properly source this. I've removed some PR language myself in the past and this could use a good thorough editing, but I think notability is easily shown here. freshacconci talktalk 04:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to withdraw my nom if the article's facts get sourced per WP:RS and notability gets demonstrated. But I browsed through the Google Scholar results, and most seem either unrelated or only mention InterAccess in passing, as a place where an exhibition was made. Also, I look forward in this AfD to learn how many, and what kind of, scholarly articles are needed to demonstrate notability: J Mann's article in Leonardo might be about Interaccess in more than passing (I haven't read it yet, dunno if my Uni library provides access to that journal), but does that count as significant scholarly attention? I'll leave it up to others to decide. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I do feel the need to point to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_House_Arts_Collective, an article I !voted to delete. InterAccess, with 25 years and an important place in the history of electronic arts certainly has as much business being here as a small local arts collective in London, Ontario. If we cannot accept academic and other print sources which are a primarily about the exhibition rather than the exhibition space, we'd pretty much need to go through Wikipedia deleting gallery pages, as art galleries tend to be, in essence, a space for exhibiting and in most cases there would be very little written about a gallery that is not primarily about a given show. In any case, as an artist-run centre (as opposed to a commercial art gallery), InterAccess' programming is an important aspect of the central mission of the organization. In other words, the programming (and the associated press and academic articles) are very much about the organization. I feel there is enough to satisfy notability, and as I've said, I'll be working on this when I get some spare time, rewriting and adding sources. freshacconci talktalk 12:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought: if all sources only mention InterAccess as a place where an artist exhibited, that would be all that could be written about the place per WP:V. Also, if InterAccess is only mentioned as a place where an artist's works are exhibited, what then is making it notable? E.g., notability is not inherited, so the artist's exhibition isn't contributing to notability of the gallery. It'd be nice to just see a couple articles about the gallery itself used for sources - if it's as you say, there should be some articles demonstrating notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An artist's exhibition isn't inherited notability for the gallery, as it is the prime function of the gallery. It is the gallery's exhibition. There are numerous galleries, artists and shows, most of whom do not get much coverage. If a gallery's shows recurrently get written about, that is a testament to the importance of the gallery. The cumulative account of shows is the gallery's history. Even well-known galleries do not get much coverage directed specifically at them in isolation: it usually occurs in the context of a show. Ty 01:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries which do not get much coverage fail WP:V, as the article content is supposed to be sourced from this coverage. If a gallery only receives coverage for its exhibitions, then one has to wonder what's passing WP:N - the gallery, or the artists exhibiting at it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tyrenius basically said what I was trying to say above, although much more clearly. In the end the notability of the exhibitions and the notability of the gallery are the same thing. I've expanded the article somewhat, added some sources, removed some more of the more promotional language and removed things that are difficult to substantiate. I think what's left shows notability. This could be expanded further, but it will take someone with a bit more knowledge of electronic arts than I have. But as it stands, I'm confident that this is salvageable. freshacconci talktalk 16:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be salvageable, I agree. My biggest concern is the non-independence of the sources that came up in the google search, as I said above. I still should see if that Mann article mentions InterAccess more than just in passing, as that might be an independent source. I still have a problem with sources associated with the artists who exhibit at the gallery, as that has the great potential to give us a walled garden - the Schilling article, for example, is written by a friend of the curator of the gallery! Art scenes can be rather consanguinous, and in Canada they have the added benefit of government grants to support their self-promotion. That's why Wikipedia requires independent sources - if we didn't we may as well close up shop and fold the site into Facebook. :-) I'll leave my vote as is, and leave it up to other editors to hash out whether this is notable or not. I think this AfD is going to get arelist anyway, as really there haven't been enough contributions yet. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether a writer is a friend of the curator of the gallery. He would only not be independent if he were an agent of the gallery, i.e. in a commercial contractual relationship. Additionally, the publisher of the material takes responsibility for endorsing its content, and there is no suggestion that the publisher is an agent of the gallery, i.e. paid by it. WP:WALL is also irrelevant, as the links are to outside sources, not just within a circle of wikipedia-only articles. A government grant would be a help for notability as it is recognition by an established independent source. Ty 03:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Canadian art community is small, and this of course actually means that writers will be writing about artists they know. But Baudelaire was buds with Manet, so this is nothing new. And given the cultural population in Canada, this is unavoidable (there would basically be no way to get any coverage otherwise). And likewise, I'm not certain what government funding has to do with anything. Europeans fund art much more generously than Canada, so the idea that government support somehow taints the work or gives it an unfair advantage is specious. The Schilling article, regardless of what the relationships may be, was used simply to verify information on the 25th anniversary exhibition. I don't believe any actual assessment of the work was gleaned from the review for this article. In any case, the publication Parachute is in no way affiliated with InterAccess and is entirely independent and third-party. The Mann article is in fact about InterAccess specifically. An online version is not available outside of academic databases. I'd be happy to send a PDF to anyone who's interested. freshacconci talktalk 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And per Tyrenius above, there seem to be many reviews and articles on the exhibitions of InterAccess published in independent sources (magazines and major newspapers). In order to include these, a section on exhibitions would need to be added (although a "further reading" section could be used for article not specifically referred to, although I personally prefer to use those sparingly). freshacconci talktalk 22:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Freshacconci above...Modernist (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep — there are many references demonstrating notability. This should have had a ((references)) or similar added if needed, not an AfD. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussions here to date. Ty 01:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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