< 20 July	22 July >

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

The result was merge to List of Zatch Bell! characters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Mizuno[edit]

A relatively minor character, mostly comic relief, in Zatch Bell!, I fail to see the reason she should have her own article, quite honestly. Despite having worked on the page a lot myself, with the merges happening here, this one kind of stands out as a bit of overly detailed fancruft, compared to Brago and Sherry Belmont who are the primary antagonists in this series but got merged. I don't think this article should get merged as the characters article covers the basics, and beyond that there's no encyclopedic requirement. JuJube (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Zatch Bell! characters. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Zatch Bell! characters, Suzy is a reoccurring character that appears frequently through most of the series. Therefore, outright deletion is not appropriate. --Farix (Talk) 02:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Zatch Bell! characters. Edward321 (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough information to warrant her own article. A merge would destroy 90% or more of the article's content. Dream Focus 06:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Length of the existing article is not a reason to keep it. 90% of the article is just mere plot summary, so there really is nothing to preserve beyond what is already on the character list. Also the character hasn't show any coverage by reliable third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 11:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont like the cluttered List of Zatch Bell! characters section and see it has alot of problems of its own (Maybe fix some of them before merging more stuff?). Other characters such as Kido and Dr. Riddles, and Tia and Megumi Oumi have their own seperate articles without references so why not this one? Its a work of fiction other than the cast who plays the character, references will be hard to come by. Knowledgekid87 (Talk) 11:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not liking the target page is no reason to oppose a merge. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the target list can use more cleanup, that is not a reason to oppose a merger. Nor does WP:OSE give a valid reason to keep an article on a subject that should not have an article in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 18:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is an easy thing to do and things are usually forgotton about soon afterwards. As someone pointed out too, she is a reoccurring character that appears frequently so I dont think deleting this article is best nor do I think merging will solve anything, the issues will still be there. Not liking the target page i could agree isnt a valad reason but this merge would also make the target page more cluttered and that is a problem I have noticed.Knowledgekid87 (Talk) 18:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that making the target list "more cluttered" also isn't a valid reason to oppose a merge; it's an argument for cleanup, and nothing more. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge And decide elsewhere. The one thing that is inappropriate is deletionDGG (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Zatch Bell! characters. She isn't really a very important character in the series, just popping up every once in awhile to flaunt fruits with faces (comic relief). She doesn't need her own article and can be covered in the list just fine. AcroX 02:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We are neither a fan site nor a wikia. Each character articles should be able to demonstrate a modicum of notability. People complain about the state of the characters list, you should blame those who screwed this list up to the point where it became a self-serving justification for individual characters articles. I'm tired the dogma of more articles means better coverage. --KrebMarkt 20:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Zatch Bell! characters. She may not be particularly important, but she's recurring so should be on the list; no indication of independent notability has been demonstrated. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:00, 27 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. Not yet notable per BIO. No prejudice to recreation if his career does take off. Black Kite 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarron Vosburg[edit]

Unsourced BLP. No notable roles, no reliable sources found. SummerPhD (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Bit parts as Guy #1 and minor appearences don't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went and did some expansion and sourcing to learn he grew up in Oak Ridge and has been involved in theater since before he was 10. Most of it is "local boy makes good" stuff. He's now about to enter his sophmore year at college in Los Angeles. His career may grow and the article might be welcomed when he makes a few waves on the west coast. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His career may grow and he may make waves. If so, he would then become notable. As of July 2009, though, his career hasn't reached the point of being notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has now been expanded and sourced. Notability has been assorted. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment There is no meaningful assertion of notability. All of the known roles are minor, an unsourced claim of a future recurring role is not notable. Yes, it has been sourced: as with all actors, notable or not, he has an AMG page (proving he exists is not notable). He has small town press clippings in the "Oak Ridger" and a non-notable mention in a newletter of no import. Notability, asserted or not, simply isn't here. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS evidence as to WP:N. "His career may grow" observation per User:MichaelQSchmidt above is WP:CRYSTAL - it may equally (or more probably, given the success rate of aspiring actors) not. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:16, 27 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 merge to Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama. Black Kite 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama in Hawaii[edit]

Another editor, Wehwalt, doesn't think this article should exist even though he states it is factual (not POV). I am helping him create an AFD. He mentioned that the article might be merged. User F203 (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Abstain and comment. Presidential boyhood homes are notable. Info on Obama homes are scattered and not in one location. The Honolulu newspaper thought the subject is important enough to devote an entire article on the subject as has a few other papers. Interest in the subject is there as there are tour companies that show the locations. No politics is discussed in this article.User F203 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question - I think the only problem here is WP:NOT (perhaps WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, or WP:INFO). The article seems neutral and as yet unaffected coatrack efforts, but even if it isn't, it's better to fix articles than delete them (except in hopeless cases). Formal notability is not an issue but for the "NOT" policy... there are indeed articles and books written about this subject. The facts in the article are by themselves encyclopedic. It's really a question of whether we want to gather them all in one place and present them in this way. If we do, why do this for Obama and not all biographies of very famous people? That would certainly go so far, so what's special about Obama that he needs an article about his relationship with his birthplace? Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to merge and the original nominator (I did the work for the nominator, Wehwelt) doesn't object. However, the BHO article is quite large that I don't think they will like it there. Besides, that article is a battleground as evidenced by ArbCom involvement so separating a non-controversial portion may be wise.User F203 (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point regarding separating non-controversial sections of controversial articles. Unfortunately, for some, at least, (not me, BTW), the inclusion of President Obama's birthplace, while (IMO) well source, is considered controversial. Good work on this article, though. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Delete/Merge - Don't really see the merits for a separate article on such a narrow time frame of Obama's early life. Early life and career of Barack Obama is a relatively short article, so whatever material here that isn't there can just be merged. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said that the article shouldn't exist, I said that similar articles are often considered for merger. User F203 is freaking out and I don't understand why this should be so.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder of WP:Civil. Perhaps you'd consider refactoring your comment to remove your description of User F203's actions? --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I appreciate the reminder but have you read what he left on my talk page? Shouting "NO!" at me and urging me to block another user, together with repeated comments without waiting for a response there, here, and at TT:DYK, yeah, I would say "freaking out" is a fair description. And it's not a pejorative, it is merely descriptive. Thanks though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think there is any need for another new article. There is already an article that deals with Obama's early life and childhood. --Pstanton (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - At first glance, the content that isn't forked from Early life and career of Barack Obama could easily be incorporated into it. Content specific to notable buildings and locales could be incorporated into articles for those locales. Obama will visit many notable places, but a list of them is not required. ~~

Delete Seems to mostly be based on fringe sources and/or unwarranted speculation and synthesis of sources that aren't specifically about this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC) striking vote and abstaining from comment: after a closer look at the article, it's more about a directory of places and stuff than what I thought it was about (based on t he DYK discussion from what I arrived here); my earlier comment is not really relevant. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Content fork. MickMacNee (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that Presidential boyhood homes, schools, and workplaces are notable, and overall I find this article interesting--there's something fascinatingly different about a President's Hawaiian childhood--but I don't see why the sourced, non-duplicative content shouldn't be part of Early life and career of Barack Obama (especially since a chunk of this article is actually about Indonesia).--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete to early childhood article. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Early life and career of Barack Obama; it's worth mentioning that if any content is merged, the article will have to be redirected, not deleted, for GDFL reasons. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and then redirect to Early life and career of Barack Obama --4wajzkd02 (talk)

If there is a merge, then a merge to Honolulu may be more appropriate.User F203 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Early life and career of Barack Obama. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge only relevant information to the aprobiate articles.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak delete or merge with Early life and career of Barack Obama.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Early life and career of Barack Obama per the above ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by others. Crafty (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts about not merging but keeping There is certainly many people thinking that it should be merged. I see what these people are saying. I would also like to point out that this article is very non-controversial. People like it. Some say it is chatty. This will make it harder to fit with the Early Life of Barack article, which is one of the many Obama articles where there are heated edit wars. It is not impossible but could be the start of some conflicts. So a separate article is the way for less conflict. There are also other articles in print about Obama's Hawaii but I've not edited this one more because it does look like a merge is what will happen. That extra information is much more scholarly than a list of addresses and places. The Wall Street Journal had some good information on the front page a few months ago, which I might be able to find online. In short, while it is very likely that an admin will merge it, please consider the above comments and when you merge it, merge it carefully. I've done some of the work for you, such as intertwining sentences in the right place. User F203 (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested on my talk page to you that you consider using much of the same material in an article, Hawaii boyhood homes of Barack Obama, limiting it to his residences as a child, and I think that would be a useful addition to WP. Give it a try?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge Firstly, and mostly, because there is a place for this already (per Tarc) - some of this info is already there and some of the pertinent other can be incorporated. Secondly, because these painstakingly elaborate descriptions of the President's early years' locations are foremost in response to the indefatigable "born in Kenya" wingnuts who rely upon any fuel to the fire - however inadvertant or well-intentioned - to justify their talk radio employment. It gives their theories unwarranted credence. An article on the boyhood homes of the Texan-to-mah-bones George W. Bush could conceivably be seen as just as coatrackety and pointy, for example but that isn't a disputation of fact as it is with a hardcore group that doubt the President's place of birth. And F203's rationales for its retention: that it is very non-controversial. People like it. Some say it is chatty are about as good a set of reasons for Keep as a simple facepalm is for a Delete, whereas (a) separate article is the way for less conflict statement is touchingly - and irrationally - naive. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is notable enough to have its own topic. By the way, the Barack Obama article is very big, so making this article seperate from Barack Obama makes it easier for readers. -- 科学高爾夫迷 21:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No editor suggested to merge it into his main article. Please read the responses.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There really aren't any persuasive arguments for not keeping this as a separate article. There's nothing wrong with having a detailed article about one part of his life. After all, he is one of the most notable people in the world and in modern history.--Pink Bull (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Bull, I agree with you that a more detailed sub-article is appropriate, but could you please clarify why you think that article shouldn't be the already-existing Early life and career of Barack Obama?

To be honest, I'm not that proficient in Wikipedia policy, but figured that if a subject is notable and has enough information to make a healthy sized article it should not be merged into another article. Especially when the target article is quite large already. --Pink Bull (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Early life and career of Barack Obama. I think it's clear that the material is good, but just doesn't need to be kept separate. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Early life and career of Barack Obama. Article by itself doesn't warrant it's own article; there isn't exactly an article on "George Washington in Virginia", is there? Cheers, I'^mperator 20:27, 28 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, default to delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundman[edit]

Non-notable musician who improbably claims to have invented Ragga, Hip Hop, Dub Step and Hardcore plus some audio software and a computer language, all totally unreferenced of course. Only 17 Google hits - no of them from reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. Astronaut (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability provided, and someone with that kind of reputation would certainly turn up more than 17 hits. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loads of unsourced BS. Hairhorn (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clean or Stub. While Antonio Straughn has a impressive discography with tracks on both indy labels and music giants such as Polygram, Columbia and Telstar (thus meeting the requirements for notability), and indeed seems to be a pioneer of jungle and drum'n'bass -music since 1991, this article is trash, with unrealistic claims. May be a form of WP:Attack. You can find (some) his discography here [[1]]. Not sure what to do with it, as documenting the events of underground dance music on Wikipedia is a road fraught with perils - very poorly documented, online or otherwise. Casimirpo (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned it. Good luck digging up references to this guy, although I am sure there are dozens, his artist name makes it difficult. Maybe this deletion could be re-considered now that trash has been cleaned up. Who knows, I might even add to the article tomorrow. Casimirpo (talk) 00:00, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For this to be kept, it needs reliable sources. Otherwise, it's a BLP violation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation FOUNDATION[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:ORG Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 05:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 8 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) 00:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn and doesn't seem important enough to merge. JJL (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cool points aside, there needs to be coverage before we can reflect it here. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:19, 24 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First2Save[edit]

Possibly fails notability guidelines. I am not able to locate any sources that confirm it being the most successful eBay business; possibly a spam hoax. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 8 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) 00:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to verify claims of notability. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 19:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This eBay store is mentioned in a couple of articles about the owner, Mark Radcliffe. [2], [3]. But coverage about the store itself in those article is very thin. Insufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 27 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 am not implementing the suggestions below, as I have little knowledge in the area. lifebaka++ 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oncofertility[edit]

Neologism, content relevant (without all the namedropping) but best merged with chemotherapy (the main cause of fertility loss in cancer treatment). JFW | T@lk 23:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Oncofertility consortium, This group has clear notability per PMID 18080669 and review, review, review, news story, news story and news story. However the term is not yet used widely, so the field itself is not yet separate from its originating organizaion. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and redirect, per the wide coverage shown by Tim. But keep the redirect as a likely search term. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be a notable interdisciplinary field worthy of a separate article, not just a neologism.--Pink Bull (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that almost all of the papers using this term were published in a single 2007 issue of Cancer Treatment and Research. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:31, 28 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. Closing this discussion is a bit difficult, but the debate has been open for three weeks, and I don't think further discussion will make the result much clearer. Ironically it is because people have behaved and discussed the issues here, instead of just asserting opinions and votes that closing this has been tough. I have had to review the article as well as the points made here in order to evaluate the merits of the arguments made here. In the end, I find that deletion is the option which best reflects consensus, although creating a new article on the same topic, written in a more neutral manner may be a possibility.

On "vote count", there is the nomination and ChildofMidnight voting for deletion, and Pink Bull supporting inclusion. In addition Floydian makes a comment supporting inclusion but rewrite, while Abductive makes a comment indirectly in support of deletion. Nerdseeksblonde's comment is somewhat ambiguous as to whether the article should be kept or not, and appears to suggest the possibility of a merge, but at present there is no way to do that.

On arguments, I find the WP:NOTDICTIONARY policy citation a bit spurious; the article does not look like a dictionary entry. I do find the concerns over conflict of interest as particularily grave. Also, the question of notability appears to be of some merit because the sources listed appear to be from advocacy groups, and lack the level of independence to prove that the subject (i.e. "Housing First", not "homelessness" in general) is of wide interest. The awards mentioned by Pink Bull need to be independently sourced in order to contribute to notability.

In closing this way I have taken into account the fact that nobody has wanted to keep the article in its present form due to the promotional/essay-like tone of the content. While this may appear to be a surmountable problem (WP:SURMOUNTABLE), the tone of an article as an advertorial piece rather than an encyclopedia article indicates a fundamental problem with the article, where mere cleanup will be insufficient and rewriting will involve removing most of the content. The presence of articles not written in an unbiased manner, and with a conflict of interest to boot does harm Wikipedia's standing as an unbiased and neutral encyclopedia. Problems of this nature are more urgent than routine clean-up operations, (which are more about presentation than content) and apart from some formatting changes, there have been no improvements to the article.

Based on policy, the article's violation of the WP:NPOV policy is too gross for me to close a debate like this one in a manner which keeps the article online. The lack of independent, secondary/tertiary sourcing also causes a problem with notability guidelines which have not been sufficiently addressed.

If any of the involved editors, or anyone else, believes the content may be of value as a basis for producing a new article, or because parts of the content should be incorporated into another article, please feel free to contact me or any another administrator so that the article may be provided to you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: After closing this, I have noticed that Wikipedia has an older article entitled Housing first, which covers the same concept but in a more neutral manner. I recommend anyone who wants to contribute to this topic to look at that article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Housing First for Homeless Families[edit]

See WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Furthermore, there may be a conflict of interest when the article was created, as evidenced by the page creator's username. ThePointblank (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The mortgage problem is thought to relate to subprime and has various issues related to class and race differences. Depending on what group does, it may be a candidate for inclusion into some related lists or topics on classes of groups, such as community activist groups who received some passing non-local attention but may not individually be notable. Certainly all the foreclosed homes create a problem and opportunity and wiki readers may have interest in related groups- not suggesting soapboxing, just a possible list topic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines and reads like an essay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 8 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) 00:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this page should be cleanup rather than deleted... However, it reads like an advertisement and the username that created it backs that up. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The voters above are correct that the article read somewhat like an advertisement, but the method that is the article's subject is notable as evidenced by the awards the method has received. The name of the article less a dictionary definition and more a name for a method, which is described in the article.--Pink Bull (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find supporting evidence for any awards, and the article's claims that this method has been adopted by national organizations is not direct. I suspect that the method of rapidly finding homeless families a place is not an invention of this outfit, and that this article was written to claim ownership over the idea. Abductive (talk) 06:28, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Honeywood[edit]

fails WP:BIO, very little third party coverage [4]. LibStar (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 3 hits on Google News, Books, or Scholar. Very little independent coverage of the person. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:24, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real assertion of notability. Almost no independent coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:10, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight Kiss Music[edit]

Procedural nomination. Previously nominated four days ago for speedy deletion due to notability concerns, but I declined it as I was unsure whether this was a notable label or not, and so I've taken this to AfD for a fuller discussion. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. 12:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I See Stars (Band)[edit]

Not enough notability provided on such band. The band website is only a MySpace link. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources - Whpq (talk) 16:26, 27 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) 01:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calquon[edit]

Does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. A made up "game" with no evidence of notability provided via reliable sources, let alone ~~notability~~ existence. Mattinbgn\^talk 23:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the nominator makes clear, fails the notability guideline - has not been the subject of significant (or indeed any) coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nor is notability even asserted - essentially the article is a "how-to" guide for a game made up by two brothers one day, and played in their back yard. Might be a fun game to play on a sunny afternoon, but doesn't meet the criteria for an encyclopedia article. Euryalus (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails verifiability with no sources provided and none that could be found in a search online. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 27 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taunia Soderquist[edit]

Subject of article does not meet a single criteria of WP:BAND. SPA created vanity article. Chuthya (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bar singer and classified-ads 'vocal coach' - doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. No WP:RS evidence found to provide any WP:N. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:53, 27 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 Mario television episodes#Super Mario World. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Scoopa Koopa[edit]

Non-notable episode of the show. Only this episode and one other one actually have articles. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Mario television episodes#Super Mario World. Might as well, redirects are cheap and I don't see a reason why these episodes need to be split out from the season list. BryanG (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BryanG. I actually just came across this page while looking through the notability backlog. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:15, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Winyard[edit]

only known for WP:ONEVENT for posting a reward for Madeleine McCann. [5], note there was a tennis umpire in the 1980s of the same name, this is not the same person. LibStar (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, someone who is notable for only one event. Rnb (talk) 15:01, 22 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expressive commerce[edit]

"Expressive commerce" seems to be a complex strategy for marketing auction services to buyers and sellers. The primary source for the content of the Wikipedia page is an article by a computer science professor identified in the article abstract and elsewhere as the founder, chairman, and chief scientist of CombineNet, Inc.

User Esourcerer (talk), article creator and single-purpose account with an apparent conflict of interest, apparently considered the following three edits sufficient to remove the ((prod)) (neologism / original research / spam) which had been added at 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC):

17:18, 12 June UTC (Added link to Purchasing.)
18:08, 12 June UTC (Fixed typo in THe.)
15:15, 17 June UTC (Removed company plug. Removed proposed deletion notice.)

The subject may or may not be sufficiently notable but, to quote db-g11, Esourcerer's version "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." — Athaenara ✉ 09:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, more make money fast on the Internet twaddle, obvious advertising whatever its notability might be: ... electronic market paradigm that provides participants with rich forms of communication.... Allowing market participants to richly express their willingness to buy and sell items in a form that directly corresponds to their preferences significantly increases market efficiency.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. If this system is allowing the inventor to trade billions, why is he bothering to tell Wikipedia about it? Abductive (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is flagged as needing more sources or references. It currently has more than a half dozen from independent and reliable industry analysts alone, a recent textbook from a reputable publishing house, plus another half dozen from a various industry participants. How many more references are needed?
As more references are found (and published), they can and hopefully will be added to the article. That has already happened since the article was first created.
How is the article written like an advertisement? It defines the subject, provides more detail in bullet lists, lists benefits and drawbacks, mentions usage. The excerpts from the definition that Smerdis of Tlön references for arguments that the article is make money fast on the Internet and WP:CSD#G11 do not apply: the article has nothing to do with making money fast or on the Internet. And the definition applies to the industry, not one participant.
The definition nowhere says that expressive commerce is a "strategy for marketing" (of anything). Markets and marketing are very different terms.
The sourcing industry is moving in this direction, as noted by the references. Maybe because it's not a glamorous industry, many people have not heard the terms and might consider them neologisms. The terms are used in the industry, again as noted by the references.
While not necessarily relevant to the AfD discussion, here's the motivation: billions are being sourcing using expressive commerce, and those billions affect lives. (Because the effects result from improved economic efficiency, they are positive, though that's even less relevant other than it should suggest that the cause will survive.) Examples include better matching of suppliers and buyers, and less wasted fuel due to more efficient transportation networks.
I won't address the ad hominem arguments. Or arguments that rely on correction of an obvious typo. - Esourcerer (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The basic problem that I see in the article is that is written like an advertisment. This topic might be a valid one, but we can't tell because the sources we find by Google searches are press releases or otherwise self-published. Given that you are immersed in this field, you can't help but write this article in this way. That is why COIs are problematic. If it were truly interesting to people, a non-involved person will notice and write a Wikipedia article on it. In the meantime, the world will survive just fine without the article (although it might be a better place because of the technique). Abductive (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm an active researcher in a closely related field, affiliated with a research university but with no affiliation to CombineNet. I can attest that Sandholm's work on expressive commerce is academically noteworthy and goes beyond his company CombineNet. The term expressive commerce is a generalization of the classical combinatorial auction. In the combinatorial auction, a bidder may specify a valuation for various combinations of items, known as non-linear valuations. (The auction/market articles on Wikipedia are still generally very lacking when compared to the large bodies of mathematical, economic, and computer science results on the topic.) Expressive commerce is a method by which bidders can specify compact rules for their valuations; expressing these rules in a normal combinatorial auction would be completely intractable in such cases. CombineNet is a very cutting-edge company with respect to algorithms research, known for being a research leader in the industry. A number of established professors in the computer science side of combinatorial optimization are affiliated with this company while maintaining their university positions (e.g., Craig Boutilier at U. of Toronto, David Parkes at Harvard, and Subhash Suri at UCSB, which are a few off the top of my head whose work I'm familiar with). Tuomas Sandholm's expressive commerce idea was good research that also happened to be very profitable. I completely agree that the article needs work; it does read a little like marketing-speak and it could stand to use some more formally defined examples, ideally a domain-specific example used and expanded upon consistently throughout the article. I argue that this article should be kept and improved. However, if my voice is in the minority and the community does delete this article, I strongly argue that expressive commerce at least be redirected to combinatorial auction and a section of the combinatorial auction article be devoted to expressive commerce. Halcyonhazard (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes there are lots of sources, but all they are doing is saying that the term exists. The article generally is full of management twaddle and the vast majority is based on two sources, both of which are by Thomas Sandholm. Reviewing the sources does not give evidence of this practice receiving independent coverage. Quantpole (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The commentary above re-affirms my original view of the article (as per ((db-g11)) "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic"). If it would be a reasonable redirect to Combinatorial auction, as Halcyonhazard remarked, I recommend that it be deleted and re-created as that redirect. Otherwise simply delete. — Athaenara ✉ 22:47, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek life at Kennesaw State University[edit]

Non-notable organization within a university with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities. Article does not comply with the notability requirement in WP:UNIGUIDE. --Scpmarlins (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to the article about the school. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is also not a website. At best, this should be merged with Kennesaw State University. --13² 04:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic directory failing a variety of notability guidelines. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is on target. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:10, 22 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 to delete. lifebaka++ 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rice rocket[edit]

WP:NOTDICT. Wiktionary defines rice rocket sufficiently. Unsourced neologism. Dbratland (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it's a neologism, there are sources available: Google Books, Google News (filtered). These results are mostly about "rice rocket" as a definition of a car, not (always) a bike. Even more precision shows that it is definitely used in terms of motorcycles: books, news. The article should probably refer to both, and have (at a minimum) a seealso link to Rice burner. As a personal aside, I'm somewhat surprised and disappointed that it is so well-sourced. I wouldn't have guessed. tedder (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If the article actually discussed, for example, the vehicles as a class, or maybe the sociology of the "sometimes derogatory" term and those who use it, it might be worth keeping. It is currently simply a dictionary definition (well, three really), and no one seems to have done much substantive work on it for quite some time. Cnilep (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is WP:NOTDICT for WP:NEO's. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rice burner Edrigu (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why merge? Two different things. Proxy User (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a very old neologism, if such a thing is possible. While I agree all the above, it would appear to me that the article should be disambiguation page. At present it has information already in the articles it would disambiguate. I would suggest that it be moved to Rice Rocket (disambiguation), with content perhaps something like this:

Rice Rocket may refer to:
* Japanese-made sports bikes
* modified imported Japanese sports-cars
* Non-stop flights between New York (JFK) and Tokyo (NRT)

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Disambiguation pages are normally used when multiple article titles are similar enough to be ambiguous (see WP:DPAGES). They tend to contain only a list of non-piped links. Therefore, Sports bike, Import scene, and NRT seems like an inappropriate list of pages for a DAB. In the spirit of Shirt58's suggestion, it might be possible to make Rice rocket a redirect to Import scene, perhaps with a hatnote directing readers to Sports bike. Given the current state of Import scene, though, I don't recommend this position - just trying to be neighborly. Cnilep (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Tedder. Proxy User (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tedder.--Pink Bull (talk) 20:26, 28 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. There is sufficient consensus that the subject of the article does not meet our notability guidelines. — Aitias // discussion 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cowlin[edit]

Contested PROD. Relies entirely on self-published sources, is promotional in tone, and nothing in it satisfies any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR as it stands. Rodhull andemu 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom. Chutznik (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly promotional article on non-notable person. Most contributions to the article seem to be by a single IP editor, whose other contributions seem limited to the subjects of books published by this person. Little grape (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable writer or publisher. Fences&Windows 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have a bit of coverage ([6][7][8][9][10][11]) which can raise some questions particularly in relation to WP:AUTHOR#3. Either way, these sources and others I saw in search results indicate that this subject at least passes the general notability guideline. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 09:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having looked at Milenko's sources, I'm very unimpressed. The GNG, which he says the subject at least passes, specifically holds that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Almost all of these sources are about this quiz book and not about the one of several co-authors mentioned, although Mr. Cowlin seems to be the most frequently quoted of the lot; surely Milenko knows that a source, to be valid, must be about the subject, and not merely mentioning his name in passing. WP:AUTHOR#3 requires a "significant or well-known" book, but for a book to be deemed such under its own notability guideline: "Some of these [sources] should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." This is what we're seeing here. Ravenswing 21:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Milenko is on target. The fact that an article may prove difficult to expand beyond a stub is not a good reason to delete it. Perhaps it would be better to merge the content into an article about the publishing company, but since there is no such article that's not an option. The "news" section on Cowlin's own website shows more than 25 radio interviews in the last few months, averaging about two per week, quite a few with the BBC. (It's in a frame without scrollbars, so you have to fiddle around with it to get it scroll.) Plus newspaper coverage, coverage of individual books, etc. So the coverage is out there, but probably hard to access online. But sources being hard to access is very different than sources being hard to find. And WP:AUTHOR allows notability to be demonstrated by a "well-known . . . body of work", which has been the standard applied by consensus to creators of works (like comic books) that are individually ephemeral but collectively noteworthy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And if there was an actual "well-known body of work" that would be another thing. If you can cite any sources suggesting that this line of local football club quiz books is deemed notable or well-known as a body - as opposed to local punters and fans being aware of the existence of their hometown version - please do so. Those radio interviews, on the BBC or otherwise, are specifically rejected by the very clause cited (and quoted) above: that of authors advertising or speaking about their own works. Ravenswing 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Comment. I do not understand the argument that you are making here. Are you really saying that if an author is frequently interviewed in national media, that those appearances are not evidence of notability? That makes no sense whatever to me. The language you quoted above does not deal with media interviews, but with "media re-prints" of promotional material. This addresses sources like PR Newswire and such which serve only as conduits for promotional material, newspapers (typically local ones) which fill space by repeating announcements verbatim, and other repackaging. It doesn't apply to original interviews. Whether particular claims the interviewee makes in interviews may be used in articles under WP:RS is a different question. And the lists, and sometimes reproduces, a nontrivial number of print articles about his books -- the most frequntly reported on books, by the way, deal with movies and TV, not local football clubs. The question is not whether the existing article cites adequate sources, but whether sufficient reliable sources exist to support an article. The ubiquity of the subject in the British news media indicates that they do. It will take time, and probably a local editor, to get the article into better shape. But thzat isn't a reason to delete the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These are not "interviews." They're booked promotional spots. Talk station morning shows do this all the time; "And this morning at 10 we'll have Ignatz Bartoziak, who'll tell us about his new book ..." Plainly you don't agree with my argument, but I'm at a loss as to what you are unable to understand, and doubly so at your rebuttal; I'd find it hard myself to rebut an argument I couldn't figure out. Ravenswing 09:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebutting everything is not necessary. We are trying to reach consensus here, not win an argument. If it helps though, I myself am getting confused as to why notability for books is being quoted like it is when this afd is about the author. The questions raised by WP:AUTHOR#3 (if read with the commas in place) do not rely on the inherited notability allowed by that policy, and the search engine test still leads me to believe that the subject is worthy of inclusion. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 13:15, 22 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) 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

280 Zzzap / Dodgem[edit]

Similarly related to another article; a variant of a classic game in arcade format. There's no content here, and there's no indication that either are notable. Shadowjams (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is a mess. i looked for evidence of notability on Google, and found none. I'm open to being swayed in the other direction if reliable sources are produced. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless some more information can come out about it. Are there targets for redirect? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazing Maze / Tic Tac Toe. The apparent obvious redirect is Dodgem, which although a real game, is not really notable enough to spin off to other topics. This isn't really a plausible redirect term either. Who types in "280..." as the beginning of a search for a game with another name that's apparently more well known. Shadowjams (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject matter appears non-notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:51, 25 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. WP:G1: Nonsense. Could also fit under WP:A1. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Maze / Tic Tac Toe[edit]

A variant of tic tac toe and another game rolled into one. First there's the problem that it's a dual article (two subjects), there's no content here anyway, and there's no indication that either are notable (tic tac toe has its own article and this is not a redirect worthy article name) Shadowjams (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:56, 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tchiroe[edit]

per WP:MADEUP WuhWuzDat 20:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted. The article even says the language was made up by an anonymous user on a site designed to allow users to play with the language construction process. If this is allowed to stand, so must every other language created on such a site. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this article, google yields no results, delete per WP:MADEUP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcurtis5 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:OR..South Bay (talk) 22:05, 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 Redirected to Maremma Sheepdog and nom withdrawn. NAC -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abruzzenhund[edit]

~~Non-notable dog breed that is unrecognized by national kennel clubs. No sources and quick checks don't show any.~~ Redirected and deletion request withdrawn. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could have saved you a lot of trouble with a redirect to Maremma Sheepdog, which I didn't get in quite quickly enough after my deprod. It's the same breed. Abruzzenhund is the German name for this breed from Abruzzo. Your "quick checks" weren't thorough enough. Fences&Windows 20:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I typed some alternate spelling of Maremma into our search engine before prodding it a few days ago based on some web page description. In any case, let's close this then. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to Lucy spy ring. (X! · talk) · @709 · 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy circle[edit]

The article is poorly written, a Google search returns no results for the agent. Possible hoax. Jayson (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I believe the author intended to write about the Lucy spy ring, whose article clearly already exists. I have asked the author about this on his talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WikiDan61. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:50, 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 speedy deleted under CSD A7. lifebaka++ 23:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Thomas Allen[edit]

Apparent hoax. Two users have been back and forth editing this hoax article, changing facts when the "facts" they had introduced were proved wrong. No indication that this player has ever existed at any notable level of play. Speedy deletes and prods declined. (Do I smell a sock?) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not notable even if it isn't a hoax. Enigma^msg 20:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where a speedy was declined. I tagged it. This should not have to wait for an AfD to be closed. Enigma^msg 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. My poor recollection. A prod was denied (the original article was prodded because a claim of notability was made, but it was pretty surely a hoax.) Other articles by the same author have been nominated for speedy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete hoax or notRcurtis5 (talk) 22:03, 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. (X! · talk) · @709 · 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Zoom[edit]

Neologism for a rather ordinary concept. No sign that this term has caught on; the only one using it seems to be Steven Berlin Johnson, the author mentioned in the entry. Neither example mentioned in the lead (Powers of Ten and Google Maps) use this term. Gratuitous mentions of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Ontology, Semiotics, etc. Hairhorn (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant usage Triplestop x3 19:56, 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. (X! · talk) · @709 · 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onetoronto.ca[edit]

Non notable group/website/organization started just a week ago that appears to be promotion by a COI editor. Despite assertions of notability, I was unable to find evidence that this passes WP:N. This also appears to be a one-event thing, in violation of Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS Triplestop x3 19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteered for this group last week. Has been covered over 30 times in the Toronto star, Toronto Sun, Globe and mail, CityTV, Globabl News, CP24 News and the CBC. Has involved over 250 volunteers throughout the city. Not sure why anyone thinks this isn't legitamit, contact any of the City of Toronto Ministers, Councillor and MPPs that have been involved -camerocw — camerocw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I just reviewed the reasons for why an article can be deleted, if you look at this article and compare you will clearly see it fits none. Not sure why triplestop wants it deleted, legit organization, if he was from Toronto he would have seen the hordes of volunteers out and seen them and their media coverage. check thier page for a list of articles published on them -Camerocw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camerocw (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto is in the middle of a garbage strike. It's harldy a count against this article that it was created a week ago. Hairhorn (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not news. Triplestop x3 19:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not news, a group that was created in response to a current issue, a group that has been helping a lot of people Camerocw (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)camerocw—Preceding unsigned comment added by Camerocw (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here, this isn't an entry about a news event. The flaw in this page is notability, not the "one event" rule. Hairhorn (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, my initial aversion to this page was that it appeared to be self promotion by a spam username blocked user. Triplestop x3 19:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who made it? I assume since you marked as spam it was the organization? Not like they're going to get anything out of it, although I will probably volunteer again Camerocw (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)camerocw[reply]

Delete. Blatant self-promotion of a purely locasl organisation. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I still hung up on this, I totally understand the aversion to it, but it seems to be only because its localized issue. Its a HUGE issue where it is, and I don't see anything stating that a thing be local is grounds for deletion 142.106.187.210 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)camerocw[reply]
- I don't see any harm from this "self-promotion", as this organization is not selling or using Wikipedia in any way to get money. This is a grassroots organization to clean up a very dirty Toronto. --Aatoth (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Self-promotion is unencyclopedic, that's why.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - wheres the proof its "self-promotion"? I take it from triple's comment that an account that seemed to be related was used to create it, but that doesn't mean it was the organization, AND even if it was it is still relevent and useful to have up 142.106.187.210 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)camerocw[reply]
      - If your username is User:Onetoronto.ca, and you're editing an article called Onetoronto.ca, I think it's fair to assume they have a conflict of interest.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I've noticed quite a few single purpose accounts on this discussion.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- grrr if you guys would just use google... grrrr 76.67.17.93 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)camerocw[reply]
- I registered my account last year, but never really felt the need to use it. --Aatoth (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the link on the homepage of Onetoronto.ca, writing this article was clearly part of their PR launch. --Padraic 16:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as spam. It may be well-intentioned spam, but it is spam. At this point, the organisation is essentially a news item. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 27 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. (X! · talk) · @708 · 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axialent (consulting firm)[edit]

The references in the article are only to the company's own websites, and I have been able to find few external references and none of any substance. The page was mostly edited by an unacceptable user User:Axialent, which appears to have been removed; now it is being edited by a user which has only just been created and has not edited any other pages, which suggests - but does not prove - that there is still a Conflict of Interest ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Probable WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article does little more than toot the company horn. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious advertising: ...focuses on the human dimension of business and works with organizations to align their culture and behaviors with their business strategies and values. Yes, but what do you do for a living? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, reads just like their website. sashankita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashankita (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 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 merge to Selkirk College. Black Kite 20:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selkirk Students' Union[edit]

Non-notable organisation, at a community college. 24 Google hits for Selkirk Students' Union, and 33 Google hits for Selkirk College Students' Union. No reliable sources. Prodded and deprodded some time ago. Abductive (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the schools article. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge To Selkirk College. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:13, 27 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. Some notability asserted, but unsourced and appears to be very peripheral. No problem with re-creation if sources asserting notability can be found. Black Kite 20:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dahl[edit]

Vanity page for non-notable artist. Tagged with prod but creator removed. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Rather belongs at WP:CSD~~. Promotional ownpagesque job without WP:RS to support any notability. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, notability isn't supported, but it is claimed at least, so (in my mind) it was a little stronger than a typical CSD candidate. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What am I like? Notability claims preclude a speedy. Struck that bit. Good call, ESkog. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:39, 28 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 The Fab Faux. Clearly no indepedent notability, all sources are in terms of the band. Black Kite 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Agnello[edit]

Not sure how this person is notable. The only press mentioning him is about a Beatles tribute band called The Fab Faux. Article also seems to mention touring, session or similar work, although it also makes clear that he's not a full-time musician (he has a day job at ASCAP.) Hairhorn (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is as notable as the other musicians here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.228.192 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)— 96.48.228.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of musicians on Wikipedia, with wildly varying notability. So it doesn't help much to say that he's just as notable as all the rest. Hairhorn (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like he's trying hard for notability, but ain't got it yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agnello was mentioned in a big article in Rolling Stone. He has also been on the Letterman Show, the Howard Stern Show, etc. He has worked with some big name acts also.

--You want a pizzia of me (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)You want a pizzia of me[reply]

The article wasn't about him. A mere mention doesn't count as significant coverage. Hairhorn (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Written about in article as "an accomplished songwriter"

http://www.popmatters.com/music/concerts/f/fab-faux.shtml Return-to-moon plan (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Return-to-moon plan[reply]

Again, that's only a mention in an article about a cover band. And the phrase "accomplished songwriter" appears as part of a long, lazy journalist quote pulled from his bio. Hairhorn (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a noteworthy article to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.51.241 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC) — 70.69.51.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and redirect to The Fab Faux. Doesn't individually meet WP:MUSIC to yet warrant own article (viz. 'working on own first album'). Plutonium27 (talk) 22:28, 27 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 merge to Safe. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewelry safe[edit]

per WP:NOTHOWTO WuhWuzDat 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I have trimmed off copyrighted materials. Source Site. Hitro talk

Keep- While perchance stubby, nothing says "Delete me!" at all.

|W| (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Safe. This is more than merely stubby, it merely defines a jewelry safe. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is one of the worse written articles but the subject matter is worthy of an encyclopedia. Plenty of good information can be put into the article such as safe companies, the design of jewelry safes, which are different from other safes. I have a picture of a jewelry safe. If this article is not deleted, I might write on it but I need a few days.Amthernandez (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to safe. I can't even say merge because there's nothing to merge. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:28, 22 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew T. Ryan[edit]

local politician (mayor of the small city of Binghamton, New York) that won't have any nontrivial coverage outside of the Southern Tier. Fails WP:POLITICIAN ccwaters (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Politician this politician is not elected to a first level subnational office and has no other factors for notabilitiy such as signifigant press coverage. Rcurtis5 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks pretty non-notable. Local coverage about stuff that every mayor does, but that's about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per se notable as the mayor of a city that is the center of a media market - the largest city in the Southern Tier. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) BTW, Binghamton has 47,380 people, and its MSA has about 240,000. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. WP:POLITICIAN says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion...." Bearian (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since WP:POLITICIAN says "are likely to meet", there is no per se notability rule for mayors. A google search for "Matthew Ryan binghamton" returned only 67,400 results[12], a substantial portion of which came from his own websites and/or the city's. Google news returned 69 results for the same search.[13] Tim Song (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a Southern Tier emigrant: I'm interested enough to routinely skim through local news, but distanced enough to not be blinded by civic pride. WP:POLITICIAN does not say any mayor gets an automatic pass. If anything, Juanita Crabb is a borderline candidate for an article, more for her work at Sister Cities International than as mayor in the 80ies. Between her and Ryan, there where about 2-3 mayors whose names I cannot recall. Any press outside of the area for Ryan is most likely to be trivial quotations in the aftermath of April's shooting. 2008 census estimates have Binghamton at 44k+ or just slightly above the average turnout of a Philadelphia Phillies home game. ccwaters (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 250 articles at least mention him in his role as mayor of Binghamton: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=mayor+binghamton+(%22matthew+t+ryan%22+OR+%22matt+t+ryan%22+OR+%22matt+ryan%22+OR+%22matthew+ryan%22)&btnG=Search&hl=en&ned=uk&um=1&scoring=a. 1/5, or 50, of those stories are specifically about him: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=(intitle%3Amayor+OR+intitle%3Aryan)++binghamton+(%22matthew+t+ryan%22+OR+%22matt+t+ryan%22+OR+%22matt+ryan%22+OR+%22matthew+ryan%22)&btnG=Search&hl=en&ned=uk&um=1&scoring=a. Where does it say that local press coverage never "count" for notability? Fences&Windows 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence this person has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Brief mentions in various articles are not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mayor of a city with a population of 50k surely received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Pink Bull (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article survives, I request that it be renamed per naming conventions and disambigged from Matthew Ryan. I don't think there's any real pattern of him being called "Matthew T. Ryan". I believe it was just the creator's own attempt at disambiguation. ccwaters (talk) 00:51, 29 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 18:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherearth[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:REF, WP:CRYSTAL: non-notable (and unreleased) game with no references from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL. User:Swatcat (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per what of WP: CRYSTAL? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a project homepage: "Here are a couple of images of the 3D models being created by our very talented modelling team." Delete on grounds of notability, verifiability and neutrality. Marasmusine (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Advertising for a future release, with no WP:notability or WP:reliable sources. It's not notable yet, and would need a critical rewrite. Most information is not released yet and has been entered by an insider. By that logic, the entire thing would have to be gutted if kept. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:34, 22 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 under CSD G11. lifebaka++ 23:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleForce, Inc.[edit]

spamtastic article on non notable firm, speedy removed WuhWuzDat 18:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is currently being edited to conform to a suitable format. Page should be re-evaluated prior to deletion. 2:27pm, 21 July 2009 (EST)

Delete Spammy, not notable entry. Triplestop x3 20:11, 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 17:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VieNue Testosterone Cream[edit]

This doesn't appear to be a notable brand - few google hits, all either promotional or non-RS webforums. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product. Despite original author's comments in first edit summary, article seems promotional and is bordeline CSD G11 IMO --TheSmuel (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable product. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the wiki contributors considering this article:

Thanks for reading my article. I'm not trying to promote this product. I do a lot of research for testosterone therapy, and I found this site being promoted on some blogs. I researched it as much as I could, and wanted to post a non-biased informational article about it, in case anyone was considering purchasing it. If there's a product out there that claims to do something, and we can help consumers be more educated about whether or not it actually does what it claims, what difference does it make how notable the product is?.

I tried my best to sound impartial in my article. If my article sounds promotional, please tell me what I can do to change that and I will.

Thank you,

--Tmccarter (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, You've made me feel bad now. I agree with you in some respects, but we can't change the policy (as much as I would sometimes like to) Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 09:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Me too; for what it's worth, I was assuming you weren't trying to promote it (the article is far from promotional in tone, and would be a good article on a more mainstream product); the point is that I don't think it's mainstream enough that there are lots of reliable third-party sources about it. There are so many types of jollop out there I don't think wikipedia ought to cover every little brand. I know this makes me a bit of a deletionist, and respect the views of people who would be more inclusive. I guess if there are lots of places offering "homeopathic testosterone" then the phenomenon could be noted and appraised on the testosterone article, perhaps Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tend to agree too. As has been said above, the product is non-notable and a short article (though clearly written in good faith) that focuses on that product alone, including listing the ingredients and linking to the product's web site, is likely to come across as promotional. --TheSmuel (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable project lacking WP:RS coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Effort to be impartial is laudable, but there's no amount of effort that can make a good article without good sources. By the way, it's clear to people familiar with homeopathic terminology what "5% homeopathic testosterone" is: it is water. Looie496 (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spongefrog, Pseudomonas (love that name) and Smue - please don't beat yourselves up any. This coyly-disinterested, well-meaning apologia by Tmccarter-non-user-page reads like woo-salesman concern trolling IMHO. I cannot WP:AGF for a claim of impartiality that states of the product: "While it is unclear exactly what 5% homeopathic testosterone is, the supplement most likely boosts your body's testosterone production using natually derived ingredients." This is wank in tap water claiming to be a legitimate 'supplement' product, with a few weaselly caveats of semi-apologia to hopefully boost the outside chance of a Keep and the subsequent 'expansion' once eyes are elsewhere. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:21, 27 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. lifebaka++ 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lou La Luz[edit]

totally non-notable autobio-spam vanity article WuhWuzDat 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, copyvio of http://www.defenselink.mil/News/newsarticle.aspx?id=54592. Author removed Speedy template, and edited out several sentences, but the ones that remain are still verbatim cut & paste copyright violations. Previously speedied once already. Hairhorn (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note the .mil domain. Material created by the U.S. government (including the U.S. military) is automatically in the public domain, but the source should be acknowledged. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I forgot about US public domain law; but this is still uncredited and still a non-notable subject. Hairhorn (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably notable as a bodybuilding champion. I am not certain whether the U.S. military's American Forces Press Service should be regarded as a reliable source. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Luis Laluz -- Eastmain (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are considered an accredited press service. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should think that the American Forces Press Service is reliable -- at least as reliable as any other government pub. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep but cleanup -- former Mr America is notable. per new information below Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a first pass at some cleanup. Ideally more should be added re his bodybuilding as that is the source of his notability. Perhaps the foto from the .mil website can be added? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a reasonable little stub about a notable former muscleman now, I think. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Mr. America is an amateur title. Since there is a professional level to the sport of body building, winning an amateur title won't get him past WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point but is not Mr America "the highest amateur level of [the] sport" given that there is no Olympic or world championship competition in bodybuilding? If so I think that makes him notable per WP:ATHLETE. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "highest amateur level of [the] sport" would have been the AAU Mr. Universe, organized by the same people as the AAU Mr. America competition that this articles subject won. WuhWuzDat 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it though; they are organised by two different bodies -- the AAU and the IFBB. The highest IFBB amateur contest seems to be the Mr. Universe event and the highest IFBB seems to be Mr. America. If I am wrong; let me know. I am certainly no expert in this matter. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IFBB Mr. Universe was a separate competition , mutually exclusive from the AAU Mr. Universe. WuhWuzDat 21:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so then he does, in fact, fail WP:ATHLETE. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick primer: The AAU is a minor force in amateur bodybuilding. The NPC is the primary organization in amateur bodybuilding. The NPC is by far the more prestigious of the two. NPC (and AAU) shows are divided essentially into two groups, local/regional shows and national shows. There is actually no single "highest level event". National shows (of which there are several) and the NPC Championships can be a venue to compete for a "pro card" Based on the size, strength of the field and the prestige of the show, a show can award the male and female winners (and runners up sometimes) with a "pro card", making them eligible to them compete as professionals in the IFBB. Since there is a professional level, the amateur level shouldn't be an issue for WP:ATHLETE. The IFBB is mainly professional. Their amateur extension is the NPC, although they do run one amateur championship, the World Amateur Bodybuilding Championships. BTW, the biggest IFBB title is the Mr. Olympia, not any America/Universe/World etc title. To me, saying that a former Mr. America passes WP:ATHLETE would be like saying that since a guy played NCAA football, he passes, while we ignore that there is a professional level like the NFL. In short, the AAU is a minor "league", there is a professional level to body building and the Mr. America is not it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with cleanup. Article shows notability Triplestop x3 20:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate to do it because he seems like an admirable guy, but he doesn't really pass notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:42, 22 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 17:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zorin OS[edit]

Yet another flavor of Linux, out of beta for three weeks with a whopping 1500 downloads. Notability not found in first several pages of non-wiki ghits; zero gnews hits. Article has been deleted twice via prod and recreated, so taking this as a sign the deletion is not uncontroversial. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ZZZChris here. Firstly about the nearly 1500 downloads, here are the links to the 32 and 64 bit downloads: 32 bit http://www.zshare.net/download/619781508aac3381/ and 64 bit http://www.zshare.net/download/620170359b344c54/ . At the bottom it says how many downloads there were, currently it is 1338 so I rounded to the closest 500 and I got 1500. Unless there was an error with the counter on zshare for 21 days that is how many people downloaded it. Also on notability, Google search "Zorin OS" (including the quotation marks) and see what you get. Camara, an Irish charity is currently testing Zorin Os in Africa and may use it. Camara will get feedback from africa in a few months. Zorin OS is on softpedia and ibiblio.org and will soon be in the distro list on distrowatch. If you need me to change something please tell me or change it yourself. Please don't delete the page. Try to keep it for at least 2 or 3 months until Camara contact the Zorin OS Team with feedback. Please give a proper reason for deleting the page other than claiming that the search results aren't good enough. Mythdora isn't on gnews but is still on wikipedia. Thanks for your help and advice. ZZZChris (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent, third-party reliable coverage supporting a verifiable and neutral article to be found at present, no indication that this currently meets our inclusion guidelines. No prejudice against later recreation if reliable sources start covering it in the future. MLauba (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of right now this OS simply does not meet the notability requirements, if in a few months this OS has become more notable for some reason it can be readded but since we cannot predict the future(see WP:Crystal) it should be deleted. Also see WP:Scrabble, when it is notable then it can be added, it cannot remain just because it may one day be notable. Rcurtis5 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet notability criteria, simple as. Relies on primary sources only. Rehevkor 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concerns but how notable do you have to be to stay on wikipedia? Portable firefox is still not notable enough even though there have been dozens of reviews made about it. How come large scam companies like jamba are on wikipedia but small, trustworthy companies like portable apps and software like Zorin OS and portable firefox that are useful, are not good enough for wikipedia? It's time that wikipedia should start helping small scale projects like software, and stop supporting only large companies which are often corrupt and useless, like jamba. Wikipedia started off as a small project to help educate people and was barely known. Without the help of others it wouldn't exist. Its moderaters and other users should stop driving away people because they aren't "notable" enough and should start rating articles by content not by links. Wikipedia should stop acting like a mafia where only the rich and famous can get in and should start helping everyone. ZZZChris (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take the time to read Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline, as I suggested earlier on my talk page, to find out exactly how notable something needs to be. For better or worse, the Wikipedia community has decided that there are minimum standards to be met before inclusion here, and notability is one of them. (Being rich, however, is not. Publicity that is bought isn't independent of the subject, and won't qualify for notability.)

You also should read Wikipedia:SCRABBLE#Scrabble. I'm not in any way implying this is something you made up; I just think it might help you understand notability and the little guy a bit better.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 22 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. Consensus here is that the subject fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Younes Baltahaam[edit]

non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played for a professional team Spiderone (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays in the Libyan Premier League, the highest division of Libyan football championship. The players are at least semi-professional. If the league is notable and the clubs are notable, the players are not notable? --Ilion2 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes this is quite often the case unless there is solid evidence to prove that this player is notable by himself. Spiderone (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As Ilion2 has admitted, the league he plays in is only semi-pro, meaning he fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:N and WP:V. Giant Snowman 09:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unsourced BLP of someone who does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:Athlete or WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently fails ATHLETE having never played at required level, fails GNG having no significant coverage focussed on subject, CRYSTAL says no article should exist yet. Recreate if and when.--ClubOranje^T 08:25, 28 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan de Paul[edit]

No evidence of notability and the league isn't professional Spiderone (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for a club in the Libyan Premier League, the highest division of Libyan football championship. This league is the 4th best in the Arab world. The players in this league are at least semi-professional. --Ilion2 (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly semi-pro isn't good enough to pass WP:ATHLETE and secondly "4th best in the Arab world" (what about Egypt, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia etc.) is opinion and also not necessarily enough to make him notable. Spiderone (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is not opinion. Is that all you contribute in your AfDs? I recognized this now in estimated two dozens discussions since yesterday. Instead of trying to find sources for notability of the player or the professional status of the whole league, you just create an AfD for the article and give comments which does not really help. Please read Libyan Premier League, there you can find the reference for the statement that this league is the "4th best in the Arab world". --Ilion2 (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Hmm just found this statement "The players that play in this league are semi-professional, although there are some professional players currently playing in the league." Any proof that Stefan de Paul is a professional? Spiderone (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not play in a fully professional league. matt91486 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:ATHLETE as stated above. --Angelo (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:Athlete or WP:N. Noting also the lack of sources in the article and and to be found through a Google search. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:31, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Lakian[edit]

Unsourced BLP stub. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lack of current sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator could have better contributed to the encyclopedia by searching for sourcing & fixing the article rather than sending it to AfD as there are 285 Google News hits and 47 Google Book hits for this individual. He is a successful businessman, was the Republican candidate for Mass. Governor in 1982, was a Republican primary candidate for U.S. Senate in 1994, and vocally sued the Boston Globe for libel in 1984. He has received extensive coverage for all four aspects. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that simply running for candidacy is not going to satisfy WP:N. Neither does Google hits. If you can find enough sources in those Books to source his bio properly, I'll withdraw my nom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you honestly think all 332 hits are trivial mentions? Being covered in depth by multiple sources is what makes one notable. Running for office doesn't make one notable, of course, but being covered extensively for said run does. failing to get elected doesn't take the notability conferred by coverage away. Additionally, he is covered for 4 distinct things: 2 failed candidacies, running a successful business, and a prominent libel case. There is no requirement for two biographies to be written about him, merely that he be covered by 2 sources in depth which has clearly happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that the number of hits does not necessarily correlate to accurate hits, much less non-trivial mentions. Keep in mind, this is a BLP: we need enough information to accurately create a bio of him from the sources, not just say, "He ran for office X times and lost. Then he was involved in a court case." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article was recently turned into a stub. It used to be more extensive, and it used to have at least one source (if not more). But there were also BLP issues and users who were editing to attack the subject. There may be some salvageable stuff from the page history. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what drew me to the article & prompted the AfD. If we can't find enough BLP compliant material to make a biography, there shouldn't be an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Delete After reviewing the Google Book hits there is nothing in there that would seem to satisfy WP:N, there is no biographical information, it is almost all mentions of his candidacies. None of the hits of Google books were widely published. Definitely does not meet WP:POLITICIAN for his political activities. The only thing he might be notable for is the libel case in relation to his candidacy which resulted in a Time magazine article ([14]). I'll try to do more research on this but if I don't get the chance it seems like a Delete.Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: failed candidates are not automatically notable, but that doesn't mean they can't be notable as candidates if their candidacy had a significant affect on the election. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have rewritten the article using a tiny portion of the available material. Extensive expansion is still possible, but the article current version should be sufficient establish notability & remove BLP concerns. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Based on the re-write, there's enough notability and verifiable sources that a neutral article can be written. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! If he got an article about him in Time, he meets WP:N Treedel (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the refs in the present article. DGG (talk) 02:32, 23 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) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity (Australia)[edit]

This had been a re-direct, which was recently changed. SoWhy declined my speedy for a good reason, but I disagree that notability is inherited from a previous group which merged to form this one. While a search is hard because there are many things mentioning the concept of solidarity in Australia, I find no evidence this group is notable. Perhaps either ISO needs to be moved to this title and Solidarity should be a section of that. But there's no evidence this group is independently notable. Since it's controversial, I've brought it here. StarM 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to explain the declined speedy: They are probably not notable but imho the fact that one of their previous groups was indicates importance/significance and thus fails A7. Regards So Why 12:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this raises some interesting questions, to which I have no answers. Firstly, regarding the inheritance of notability: if the ISO was notable, since Solidarity is substantially the same organisation, and in fact larger than the ISO, even if it has not done anything public that makes it notable, it seems reasonable to presume that it will be soon enough; I can't say whether this is sufficient to merit keeping the stub, though, since I don't know what the standard practice would be in such situations, though this must be a situation which has arisen before. The second issue, which I already raised on the article's discussion page, is whether the ISO article should be moved to this page. Certainly I think either we should keep this page OR move the ISO article: what I think would be absurd would be to keep the ISO article while refusing to have an article on the successor organisation. mgekelly 12:25, 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, Deville (Talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the murky world of Trot groupscles, the ISO is quite notable. Therefore this unity project is too. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What's the point of deleting an article that provides Wikipedia-searchers with current information about the successor organisation to an organisation deemed notable in the past? Surely the purpose of Wikipedia administration is not to deprive the user of potentially useful information? Opbeith (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. It does inherit notability from its predecessor organisations; to suggest otherwise without reason is a bit ridiculous IMO. Rebecca (talk) 06:30, 26 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flintloque[edit]

Not notable, article was tagged in April and no sources have been added since then to make article conform with guidelines for notability. Repeated searches turned up no reliable sources regarding this article's subject. Article also appears to be advertising for the product as well as retailers selling it, which may in part explain its provenance. Wolfhound1000 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a severely pruned version to the company's article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has no sources and my own search brought up no reliable sources. The company's wiki page seems to have even more problems than this page of one of its products so would suggest that a merge is not in order here. Jewish-wargamer (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search brought up nothing reliable in terms of sourses, zip in google books either. Prussian-Hussar (talk) 20:59, 27 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) 03:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copeland Family[edit]

Article seems to be, or to be promoting, original research with no reliable sources supplied. Can find no reliable references, news or otherwise to the Copeland family in this context TheSmuel (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no conventional folklore sources for the tale this article wants to tell. May be some kind of attack page or personal aggrandizement in disguise. Sources do exist for haunts at Highgate Cemetery, but that's a highly notable cemetery for other reasons, and any information could just be added to that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Smerdis of Tlön on this issue. I don't see any reliable sources proving the claims of this article. Apart from that it is written a bit sensationalistically. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 24 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 per G3 by Syrthiss. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky bilge ardiyan[edit]

Likely a hoax and/or an attack autobiography. Lacking reliable sources to indicate notability of an individual (see Google News search).

Prod was added and removed, so taking to AfD. This is not the first time this article has been created. tedder (talk) 15:02, 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 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anshoo Malhotra[edit]

Non-notable, no news coverage, no citations. Prod removed by article creator. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If that page is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, then my dad would have his own article. Delete per WP:N SuperHamster (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still doing his PdD, doesn't pass WP:PROF. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:50, 22 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. withdrawn by nom. DGG (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius von Senestréy[edit]

Resolved- withdrawn

Long service, certainly, but NO assertion of notability, and I can't find anything warranting this article. Delete/merge (though I'm not sure where). King ♣ Talk 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Bishops are akin to local politicians yes sometimes no one seems to know them other then their immediate district but they are clearly notable. Keep.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the german wikipedia article here seems to indicate that several sources regarding the subject exist, if not in English. And it has been argued before, perhaps incorrectly, that bishops of larger denominations are more or less always notable, given the amount of material which almost certainly was written about them during their lifetimes. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Th Catholic Encyclopaedia which lists some of his contributions as a bishop; there are also some other Gbooks hits - mostly German. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the general precedent is that all Bishops are notable. Even ignoring that, the references provided above prove notability in this case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ThaddeusB. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, talk about a learning experience. Withdraw. --King ♣ Talk 18:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is there a guideline or precedent established from AFDs that every bishop of every church is inherently notable? I dispute the assertion until better proof is given. I'm pretty sure we have deleted some bishop articles, even those of major denominations, when it was an honorary appointment in a state where few congregants were to be found. Certainly a bishop of a small denomination with few church members under his jurisdiction and little coverage by independent and reliable sources is probably going to get his articles deleted. It is far from the inherent notability of legislators. Edison (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting alll religions that have bishops be included, however even as a non catholic i have to admit the huge role that the Catholic Church has played and still plays in our world. It is unrealistic to not include these major players of the organization. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:15, 22 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. The vast amount of hand-waving and incivility in this AfD by those seeking to keep the article don't make any difference to the central premise - it doesn't matter about the professional status of the LoI, and it equally doesn't matter about the professional status of Galway, because there's one overriding factor here - Walsh has never played a game in the LoI for Galway. The claims of bias are laughably wrong - if this was a young player for an English professional side who'd never played for them, it would be a clear delete - and I suspect we wouldn't have seen the unseemly procession of comments that pollute this AfD. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Molloy (footballer) - now there's an AfD where there's a genuine discussion to be had. This one? No. As ever, no prejudice to re-creation should he become notable etc. Black Kite 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niall Walsh (Irish footballer)[edit]

Has not made an appearance yet in a fully-professional league, thus failing notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. Lack of non-trivial secondary sources also fail WP:N and WP:V. International youth football does not confer notability either. --Jimbo^[online] 13:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 13:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; multiple notability failures. Giant Snowman 13:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The LOI is as professional a league as you're going to get in a country like Ireland. The continuing attacks on LOI players via these deletion requests demonstrate a level of ignorance or just plain stupidity on the part of the idiots that keep filing them that's frankly astounding. Get a life, muppets. Dahamsta (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's hardly an attack on LoI players as players from all sorts of leagues have been nominated. I'd also like to point you in the direction of WP:CIVILITY. --Jimbo^[online] 09:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Fails WP:ATHLETE and the general notability requirement of coverage of the article's subject in independent reliable sources. All that exists are team listings or brief mentions of the type 'Walsh did X'. Nuttah (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - It may not be an attack but it does demontrate an certain level of ignorance about the game.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The player and league are notable; all clubs in this league pay their players. I don't understand this little campaign to delete all these articles of Irish top-level players. There's too much reference in these debates to ATH, which is not a policy, and not enough use of common-sense and reasonableness. Jhealy (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not policy; but it is a "notability guideline...[a] generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." Giant Snowman 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what about its mummy and daddy - WP:N and WP:BIO?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of references are trivial; match reports where he gets a surname mentioned, or squad profiles. Not enough to meet WP:N in my eyes. Giant Snowman 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thankfully your eyes (eyes which is blinded by your interpretation of ATHLETE) havent formed the concensus on recent AfD's - and there is a growing concensus that that guideline is so flawed as to be ignored. Also your opinion on this issue seems to have flip flopped dependant the mode of your cronies at the FOOTY Project.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This player plays for a notable team in a notable league, he has been in two under age Irish international sides. There are vast amounts of sources on him and I feel his page meets wikipedia's criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80SRFC80 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the league is notable, it doesn't mean a player playing in it is! On your rationale, every plumber and office worker playing in the Bristol Downs Football League on a Sunday morning would be notable...Giant Snowman 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are becoming more and more spurious. If the Bristol League was the top division in the country then you would have a point - but it isnt and you dont.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of their position on the pyramid, both league aren't fully-professional. Giant Snowman 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our difference is that I do give regard to the leagues position in the pyramid.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plays for a professional club at the highest level of Irish club football. 8lgm (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8lgm, I don't believe that his club is professional - are you sure about that? --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am - it is.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller - the club may be professional but the league isn't, and so he still fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to be blunt - FUCK WP:ATHLETE. Its a deeply flawed policy and anyway is trumped by WP:BIO and WP:N. Most of these players have turned down the opportunity to play for third and fourth rung clubs in England (which you consider automatically notable) in preference of staying the FAI Premier Division - which is a far more notable league!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language please! Let's try and keep calm and civil. Giant Snowman 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, Vintagekits, we agree. ATHLETE just confers automatic notability. I say it doesn't apply here, you say it's an irrelevance, so let's focus on WP:N. We need multiple references in RS, which we have, but they're all trivial - hence not [yet?] notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided are far superior then 90% provided for other players in the English 3rd and 4th level. My opinion and your opinion of trivial is obviously different!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cmon VK, you've been around long enough not to argue WP:OTHERSTUFF at an AfD. Which of the RS references include non-trivial mentions of the subject? I'll play fair - for "multiple", I'd settle for 2. Happy to change to Keep - just demonstrate to me it passes WP:N. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel its a fair comparison when you you !vote automatically to "keep" someone who came on for five minutes in a game for Aldershot Town! I am happy with the validity of the multiple sources provided in the article.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's stay on topic, which is this article and not any other. In this article, I am not disputing the validity of the sources - they are valid. But which of them includes mention of Niall Walsh that is not trivial? It'd need 2 for my generous interpretation of WP:N. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am on topic. The topic is notability of footballers. I've already pointed out that I am happy with the sources provided and thankfully its not your "interpretation of WP:N" that counts - it would seem that the concensus would also agree.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Per current precident. Passes WP:BIO and WP:N which is superior to the deeply WP:ATHLETE. International footballer and playing in the Irish premier division which is notable.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is NOT an international player. He has youth caps for Ireland, that's different. And once again, just because the league is notable, it doesn't mean a player playing in it is! Giant Snowman 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - haven't found a non-trivial reliable source yet. Studerby (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails ATHLETE, so needs to pass WP:N, and, as Studerby says, all the presented references are trivial. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence provided that he has actually played for Galway United in a competitive match, which would make the League of Ireland status debate irrelevant. He isn't even listed on the Irish Times' squad list for that club. This strikes me as being similar to any player with a British club who hasn't yet made a senior appearance, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Galbraith (footballer). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, much more like David O'Connor or Seamie Coleman.

No he isn't, because they have both played multiple times in the LOI and consequently received significant coverage in the media. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources provided and WP:N trumps the flawed WP:ATHLETE everytime. BigDunc 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which show that he has made a senior professional appearance. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.galwayunitedfc.ie/menu-items/galway-united-player-statistics.html shows that's he's played in the League Cup this season. 8lgm (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, having not played to required level per ATHLETE or achieved anything special besides. I don't see anything enough to convince me of WP:GNG, it is all general clutter as any football player gets anywhere, no more than I got when I was a lad (less in fact - and there was no internet spewing machine then). Not a single article referenced is about Niall Walsh and I don't see anything with general searches. Irish League Cup doesn't do it for me I'm afraid, as it steps down too far, and this guy hasn't played anything other than that. I'm happy to be convinced that LoI may be as or more notable than England level 4 (against ATHLETE) but as he hasn't yet played, delete and recreate if and when.--ClubOranje^T 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N as the sources provided in the article only consist of a few squad lists and brief mentions in match reports (this guideline requires more than a trivial mention, even if the subject isn't the main topic of the source), fails WP:BIO as he has not acheived anything of note, and fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully professional level. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have been provided, he plays in a notable league for a notable team and I beleive that meets Wikipedia's criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80SRFC80 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I have struck this comment out as this editor has already voted in this discussion. Giant Snowman 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the sources provided "address the subject directly in detail" as required by the general notability guideline and the coverage is far, far from substiantial, the vast majority of the impressive-looking sources provide mere trivial mentions of the subject once you look beneath the veneer of shiny inline citations. Subject also fails WP:ATHLETE as the LOI is not fully pro - but even if it was, he hasn't even played in it! I am concerned at the flurry of seeming SPAs, and hope that the closing admin looks thoroughly at the facts, the arguments raised and the contributors who argued them. – Toon 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone who plays in the top division in their country should be notable and there seems to be a number of non-trivial sources. ATHLETE is a ridiculous policy. BigDom (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except he doesn't seem to have played in the top division in his country, and ridiculous or not, ATHLETE is current policy, and while the top division theory might be fine for some countries, would you really apply it for American Samoa Tonga and Cook Islands--ClubOranje^T 01:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, actually it not a policy its a guideline - and one that is superceeded by WP:N and WP:BIO.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete: After reading the sources thoroughly, he has not played in the league so have changed my Keep to Delete. Point about ATHLETE being ridiculous still stands though. Big Dom 10:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has played in the League Cup and on numberous occasions for Ireland youth team which passes WP:N.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, a player playing will affect WP:ATHLETE, not WP:N. WP:N deals with media coverage. As someone who has argued that this player meets WP:N, I'd have thought you would have known the difference between the two...Giant Snowman 11:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the majority of posters here whor are off the opinion that Niall Walsh (and any of his contempories) pass all the required guidlines Centre mid (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passing what required guidelines? Even the people saying 'keep' are admitting he fails WP:ATHLETE...he also fails WP:N diue to lack of direct & reliable sources about him. Giant Snowman 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just making stuff up! The stench of desperation in here is palpable!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What have I made up exactly? Giant Snowman 17:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about ever word in your second sentance!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable player in a notable top-level league Eldumpo (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is he notable? - you can't just say "notable player" willy-nilly, thinking that's enough. Giant Snowman 14:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that users such as yourself simply say 'delete per nom, non-notable? :) 8lgm (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good - although I only say that when the nominator has specified in their nomination exactly why an article isn't notable...Giant Snowman 21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATA#Arguments without arguments suggests that you should not just state 'per nom' in the reason, but of course it's not policy! Eldumpo (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always say "per nom; fails [insert link to WP:ATHLETE or WP:N]", but that's besides the point - you still haven't explained why you think he is notable...Giant Snowman 21:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have lost the ability to read or decipher then its clear what his reason is. He considers him notable for playing in a top level national league!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits, pack it in. You're doing the man's page no favours by gobshiteing all over the shop. Starting like you do stops reasoned discussion. Please let people say their piece in peace. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering someone notable for playing in a top level national league is only valid if that someone has _actually played_ in said top level national league.--ClubOranje^T 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through the news and statistics sections of Galway United's site it becomes clear that Walsh is currently only on the fringes of the first team, and mentions of him tend to the trivial. At this point in time third party coverage is not significant. Youth internationals rarely result in significant coverage for an individual. In my searches I found nothing to suggest that this player is an exception in that regard; he did not play in the recent under-19 European championships. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To say there's no newS about him on the website doesn't mean he's not notable. Corry Evans is yet to make any appearance for Manchester United and has only appeared in youth tournaments and in the reserve team for United and his page was never deleted. The chances are that Corry will breakthrough and so it makes sense to keep his page doesn't it? So it must be the same for Niall Walsh. You cannot delete a page and keep another page that have the exact same written in the pages. If Niall was to make an appearance next week would the page be then kept? I would think so. It doesn't make sense to delete a page for someone who is on the fringes, if he is on a professional contract and is in the first team then he does make it under WP:N, which is enough to keep a page.--Leagueofireland (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Corry Evans is an international player; Niall Walsh certainly isn't. Giant Snowman 16:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being so aggressive towards posters. Isnt it enough that you canvassed !votes for this AfD without badgering those you didnt canvas. Actually Walsh is an Irish international - he has played at under 15, 18 and 19's level for his country.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was that aggressive? - all I did was state the facts! And Walsh isn't a full international player - Evans is - and youth caps do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 16:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Numberous under age cap and playing for a top division team passes WP:N in my book - and thankfully in the majority of others also!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again - WP:ATHLETE and WP:N are different guidelines; the former deals with playing (youth caps) and the latter deals with media coverage! Oh, and as for my claim that youth caps do not confer notability - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew De Cae. Cheers, Giant Snowman 19:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue doesnt look like its discussed at all there. However, here is something more recent.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional footballer playing in the premier division of the League of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belacqua Shuah (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be pointed out that Galway United are not a professional team as all of their players are currently part time. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 19:00, 28 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) 03:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Commonwealth Games Association[edit]

This "pressure group" does not appear to have an active website and little evidence that it is still an active group and there has been very few edits to the page. It has very few sources and is not notable enough for an entire article. There is a mention on Culture of Cornwall about this organisations aims, but it does not justify an entire article about itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two of the references provided are to the same BBC article. None of the other links carry any mention of the Cornwall Commonwealth Games Association. Google results are either sites that re use Wikipedia pages, directories, or forums. Prince Charles' comment does not imply his support for the organisation. Cornwall does not appear to have any international political recognition as a nation. The article appears to read as if it may be promoting a cause.--Kudpung (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Further research appears to provide no sources that can justify sufficient notability for this article.--Kudpung (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, non notable organisation, looks like a three men and a pub table "group". - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:33, 25 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) 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitive Counselling[edit]

The subject of the article is a form of counselling practiced by one specific counsellor. The counsellor does not appear to be notable herself, judging by the lack of Ghits, and the concept of "intuitive counselling" is apparently used by a lot of different therapists to mean different things. This specific person's specific usage of the word is not notable as far as I can judge. bonadea contributions talk 12:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article for deletion; again, it is a concept used by this person, and there are no claim to notability, nor am I able to find any sources.

--bonadea contributions talk 12:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Would possibly be a merge candidate if there was an entry for the therapist. Hairhorn (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', spam and pure original research about one therapist's practice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, appears to be OR. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flyer/newsagent's board card, absolutely sans WP:RS. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:48, 27 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 23:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Year One (joke)[edit]

Probably a joke, it consider a hoax. Speedy declined. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. either waay wikipedia is not a joke site nor a slang site.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a joke book, and this set of witticisms from a series of YouTube videos has not caught on. I doubt that it ever will. Mandsford (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.— Dspradau → talk 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNon-notable subject. It was only used in a Fred video. (which fails at any form of humor anyway) KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not being funny. And notability, unreferences, all that stuff. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Plastikspork (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest closing as wp:snow. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would, but I voted. I will let someone else do it. Plastikspork (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFT. Triplestop x3 20:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. for being boring, not funny and......oh yeah, WP:NFT. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:46, 22 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) 03:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy CD-DA Extractor[edit]

Non-notable software, fails WP:N and borderline advertising. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how this is notable as there is virtually no coverage in third party sources. Wikipedia does not need to have a listing of every trivial software utility.Rcurtis5 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 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 merge to List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. Even most creative interpretation of policy does not allow relisting where consensus exists already, so I have ignored the non-admin relisting. Consensus for the current article is as follows: a.) The tornado is not notable on its own based on available sources and references but b.) warrants its own article if more details, sources and references can be found. As such, the consensus is to merge but is explicitly not against significantly expanding it instead. Regards So Why 11:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowknife tornado[edit]

Either a hoax or completely non-notable. No references available, and while if the text of the article were true it would be notable, I can find no evidence that it is the case. No permutation of "Yellowknife" or "Northwest Territories" and "tornado" yields any relevant google hits aside from Wikipedia and mirrors. Would love to find sources if they exist, but I don't think they do. RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 06:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment several hits come up at Google Books [15] ; as with anything that predates the widespread use of the web, these things don't usually show up on a standard Google Search ; however, when I did a standard google search, I found many things about a Yellowknife tornado that had absolutely nothing to do with the Wikipedia entry... [16] [17] [18] /// etc. 76.66.194.17 (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless references of this "event" or another notable Yellowknife tornado are found. --Ks0stm ^(T•C) 13:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. It seems that this is an actual event, that at the least a few references can be found for, based on the reference on the page. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. I've done some research on the tornado and found that other than the unusually northern latitude of it, it wasn't that notable. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My only concern is with the unusual lack of any sources. If it was well-sourced, than an article could easily exist on the northernmost known tornado. However, as it stands, most of the article is false (F4 damage? I don't buy it). -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which tornado is this? The one in 1962 or 1978? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now that you bring it up, I have no idea. There was more than one? -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The source I put in was for the 1978 one, the one for the sources above are for the 1962 one. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah. I removed one of your sources, because it is copied from answers.com, which is a Wikipedia mirror site. I really wish these sources were out there, because we need more non-US tornado articles.-RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the event itself is not very notable, nor the sources pass WP:RS. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with cyclonebiskit. Fairly notable, with the northely latitude and some damage recorded but very sketchy details on it. Regarding the number of times, I've the found one from 78, not much on the 62. Athe Weatherman 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere - Definitely notable, but we don't know much about it, aside from the fact that it existed. Should be mentioned somewhere nonetheless. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm currently looking for off-line sources, so could the closing admin please relist this? Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 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. (X! · talk) · @178 · 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IndieShows[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB based on the citations provided. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It was created by a WP:SPA. It absolutely lacks how it contributes to mainstream popular culture. No one is talking about it, so it fails notability standards. And, I wouldn't be surprised if the content is just a copy of the web site itself. Groink (talk) 03:33, 26 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 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2014 FIFA World Cup (video game)[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N –Nickin/ShifterBr (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ballery with no reliable sources or verifiability. --Jimbo^[online] 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is the presence of an AfD template here negate the prod template already there? If so, Wp:CRYSTAL and Wp:NODEADLINE both apply here (and besides, we don't have a huge article for the South Africa edition, so why one for the Brazil edition? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure but I would sugegst letting the AFD carry on since a prod deletion can be restroed on request unlike an artilce deleted due to an AFD consensus. Also if an article is deleted via an AFD consensus any subsatantially similar recreations can be speedy deleted.--76.66.190.43 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unverified speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No official announcement. --SkyWalker (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No announcement, nor we need a article!--BeaverOtter28 (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – 2014? The 2010 World Cup hasn't even started yet! MuZemike 01:46, 24 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. (X! · talk) · @178 · 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-action in a system of elementary particles[edit]

This article is based on a single (unpublished) arxiv article. Is written by that aritcle's author. Besides being a topic unsuitable for its own article, it is not notable, in anyway. Since it is not based on a WP:RS, I see no possibility of merging this content to an other article. TimothyRias (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is pure OR, arxiv is not a valid source. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arxiv can be a perfectly fine source, depending on the author (for example, if you want to quote the latest fermilab results, the arxiv is fine), as long as it is not the only source and the author has some respectability. Thing get more worrisome, if it is the only source, the author is a noname, and the article is from the 'physics' subarchive (aka the loony bin) as is the case here. (TimothyRias (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Djr32 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even beyond WP:RS, this isn't suitable for a dedicated article. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:32, 27 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, upon further investigation. Kubigula (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Patrick (footballer born 1991)[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranje^T 11:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:ATHLETE, not played in a fully professional league. Conference National is below the level that confers notability according to consensus. ClubOranje^T 07:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully-professional league/competition. Also fails general notability at WP:N due to no in depth secondary sources beyond the odd trivial name-check. --Jimbo^[online] 08:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTYN as he has played for a professional club at a national level. BigDom (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When, where and who for?--ClubOranje^T 12:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, thought he had played two games for Cambridge, who are a professional team at a national level, but as GiantSnowman says this is a different Jordan Patrick. BigDom (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Cambridge United website confirms he made two appearances for Luton Town in the 2008-09 season; as they were then in League Two (a fully pro league), he passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - somehow, Cambridge United have managed to confuse their own youth player with another player by the same name - Jordan Patrick - who is still at Luton Town. The player this AfD is talking about has not played in a fully-pro league, as confirmed by Soccerbase, and so this player fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the parent company of premiumtv, which is the Press Association & Perform Group/FL Interactive update the player profiles on those sites and so often have errors. See the very bottom note of this article on Rushden's official site. --Jimbo^[online] 13:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per GiantSnowman's research, which is also confirmed by Soccerbase -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GiantSnowman Spiderone (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete is what I mean Spiderone (talk) 12:39, 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 Speedy delete for SPAM 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 10:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TADesigns[edit]

Unremarkable, non-notable company / website, that feels like advertising. Had CSD'd but an newly created account with a clear COI (has been reported to UAA) removed the CSD so per policy I can't re-CSD. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 07:37, 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 redirect to Son of the Pink Panther. Normally I woudln't close an AfD based on one comment, but this seems like an uncontroversial action. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Gambrelli[edit]

I found this article under the "Articles to be merged" list, But all of the info in this article is pretty much covered in the one it was going to be merged into. There is nothing to merge, therefore I dont see a point of it. Harlem675 06:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redir to Son of the Pink Panther. Nom is correct; there is far more information at that article. I42 (talk) 07:23, 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browser Backgrounds[edit]

Contested PROD. Firefox extension that I can't see any evidence of notability for. The creator has spelled out on Talk:Browser Backgrounds why he feels it is notable, but as far as I can see it is merely one item amongst thousands on a few listings pages; and a couple of one-paragraph reviews on Italian blogs. Additionally this appears to be self-promotion (article created by User:Baris Derin, the same name as the author of the software. Stormie (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are taking this discussion a bit personally Stormie. Why not Leet Key,Rikaichan or NewsFox but Browser Backgrounds.

No one can't prove a software is notable or not notable. It is a completely subjective matter. Is there any objective criteria that you can rely on? Does a software have to be used by you or your close friends, or be announced on a blog that you frequently read to be regarded as notable? Any Italian blog is not enough to take a software's notability level above threshold, is it? Italians are so Italians, right?

When a new software is sent to Mozilla it is pushed to Sandbox (ei.g [19]. Just advanced users can install the software and send reviews about it. If the software gets enough good reviews and after it is tested thoroughly by Mozilla Editors it is ported to public domain (e.g. [20]. Any software served on public domain of Mozilla has the notability from Mozilla, a company that is leading Web Technologies. If you do regard the Mozilla as so unimportant as the grocery at the corner of your street, Mozilla Foundation article may be a good start for you.

Thanks. Baris Derin (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, have a read of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - the question is whether your product meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Not whether the rest of Wikipedia is perfect (of course, it isn't). Why Browser Backgrounds? Simply because I was looking at the 100 Newest Pages list and saw it. I have no personal interest in the matter, even if you do.

No, whether software is notable enough for Wikipedia or not is not a completely subjective matter. The objective criteria which we try to rely on is spelled out in Wikipedia:Notability:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

Blogs, for instance (whether in Italian or any other language!), are generally not considered Reliable Sources by Wikipedia. Nor would a single paragraph review generally be regarded as "significant coverage".

The Mozilla Foundation is of course important. But looking at the addon listing page, it seems that Browser Backgrounds is one of roughly 9,000 addons listed there. Being one of 9,000 items listed on a listing page is not "significant coverage" either. --Stormie (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google, Talk:Browser Backgrounds and Browser_Backgrounds#References show no signs of nontrivial coverage. — Rankiri (talk) 13:48, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. software article with no reliable 3rd party sources establishing notability. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Dialectric (talk) 12:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Seo Hahm[edit]

Prod removed, taking to AFD. No reliable sources given to establish notability of an individual. Google News shows one interesting result, hardly enough to meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searching in Korean (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) is not particularly more helpful, just 80 hits, of which the only one from a reliable source rather than a bulletin-board or other similar internet-cruft is this brief overview of an exhibition of his. cab (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can say the subject in question has zero notability in South Korea since I can no way to find any reliable third party sources. The given name Jun-seo was getting some popularity after the name of a main character in a famous TV drama, Endless Love I: Autumn in My Heart is Jun-seo. In the google result that CaliforniaAliBaba has brought in shows that most of subjects are "infants" or toddlers, so why do we have to have the article that fails notability criteria?--Caspian blue 16:56, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was not able to find any sources for this either. Triplestop x3 20:14, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GOSH! Magazine[edit]

free arts magazine published for less than a year and with a limited distribution. I'm not finding significant 3rd party references to this publication nor anything that would help it pass WP:NB. A soon to be published German magazine with a similar title is making finding references a bit more difficult. RadioFan (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:48, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment what is going on with those references? Do any of them actually mention the magazibe? Artw (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ref 1 - listing of subscription by Smithsonian

ref2 - what appears to be a collection of his stuff that Dennis Cooper left to his local museum

ref 3 - tells you who Sara Arledge is

ref 4 - tells you who Rodney whassisface is

ref 5 and 6 - are about the flip book art installation

refs 7 & 8 - tell you about Harry the jazz musician

ref 9 is guzmano cezaretti's website, in which he notably does not mention Gosh magazine

ref 10 - is Terry Cannon talking about baseball (without mentioning Gosh mag)

my security protocol won't let me near ref 11

ref 12 - is Terry Cannon talking about his film collection (without mentioning GM)

ref 13 is a baseball site (no GM)

ref 14 is a blog about a baseball exhibition (no GM)

ref 15 cites Terry Cannon as the editor of a magazine....on car restoration

ref 16 is about some baseball event at the Pasadena public library (no GM

ref 17 is a very arty website about a coffee shop in Pasadena, that (you guessed it) doesn't mention GOSH magazine.

So, other than source 1, which shows that the Smithsonian once had a subscription, no, none of the sources mention the magazine.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources in the article make me highly doubt that the magazine is notable. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

————————————

Comment on:

"There are a lot of references but they I'm not finding mention of the magazine in these references. These references demonstrate the notability of the people mentioned in the article but not this magazine.--RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)"

Response: One of the references indicates that GOSH! has been archived by the Smithsonian Institution, which is not trivial. The Smithsonian is THE major repository of American culture. The Smithsonian has strict policies and criteria about what it takes the responsibility for archiving.

Another reference has been added about the GOSH! articles written by Dennis Cooper being archived at the Fales Library and Special Collections of New York University.

The people described in this Wikipedia article were not just reported about in GOSH! In many cases, these people contributed original photographs, articles, and artwork. One of the notable things about GOSH! is that it is an early storehouse of works by people who have gain prominence in their fields (as indicated by the blue internal links for so many of these people). It is for this reason that I think GOSH! should not be deleted. It was and continues to be influential, not only for being one of the few printed documents to report on an important period in contemporary art, but also because many of the original articles, photos, and artworks are, in themselves, also noteworthy and notable. Time River (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

——————————————

Comment on:

"what is going on with those references? Do any of them actually mention the magazibe? Artw (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)"

Response: As for the above reviewer's "analyses" of the references, several are incorrect. Ref 1 mentions GOSH! Ref 2 mentions GOSH!. Ref 17 mentions GOSH! and Terry Cannon as its editor. ("ref 17 is a very arty website about a coffee shop in Pasadena, that (you guessed it) doesn't mention GOSH magazine."). Incorect. Both GOSH! Magazine and Terry Cannon are mentioned in the reference to the Espresso Bar, which incidentally was about as far away from being a "coffee shop" as Julia Child was to being a "short order cook."

Another reason why GOSH! should remain in Wikipedia is it might help that reviewer learn that who he or she called "Rodney whassisface" ("ref 4 - tells you who Rodney whassisface is") is the person who was pretty much single-handledly responsible for introducing the world to musical groups The Bangles, Iggy Pop and The Stooges, and this list from his Wikipedia page: The Runaways, Blondie, The Ramones, Social Distortion, Van Halen, Duran Duran, Oasis, The Donnas, No Doubt, Dramarama, The Offspring, The Go-Gos, The Germs, The B-52s, X, The Vandals. Bingenheimer is whasshisname's name, and GOSH! Magazine was one of the first on the scene to do a piece on him, almost 40 years before Wikipedia got to it.

The reviewer's comment about Reference number two as "ref2 - what appears to be a collection of his stuff that Dennis Cooper left to his local museum," shows a lack of knowledge about how museums operate. The reviewer leaves the false impression that people can just dump off anything they want at a museum. Because of the high costs of archival storage, registration, and conservation, museums do not just take "stuff." For that very reason, one major museum in Los Angeles, The Japanese American National Museum, currently has a total moratorium on collecting anything. The fact that these articles from GOSH! magazine are now sitting in the Special Collections of New York University, is not a trivial reference, and the Special Collections at NYU is not what can be typified as "stuff" at " his local museum."

It will not be especially helpful to this discussion to go through and critique each of the above references one by one, but I hope whoever decides the fate of this article will not give too much credence to that supposed "analysis" of the references. GOSH! was and is notable enough to be archived by two major institutiions in the United States, The Smithsonian Institution and New York University. And if notability is solely determined by other people writing praises, then you must remember that no one wrote anything about the Bible until hundreds of years after it was written. Does that mean the Bible was not notable for hundreds of years? Time River (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the contrary, I think it would be extremely helpful to critique each reference, as I stand by my interpretation of them.

Ref 1: I'm a Brit. In Britain, the British Library maintains subscriptions to a lot of journals. This is not of itself indicative of their notability in Wikipedia terms. If I need to know the policy of the Smithsonian on journal subscriptions to appreciate its significance, then there should be a reference to that as well in the article.
Ref 2: The bio of Dennis Cooper that introduces the list makes no mention of GOSH, - I had to click thru the links to the actual item by item listing of the archived material. For GOSH, this consists of the drafts and published texts of three articles that I presume he wrote for the mag, in a box full of press clippings. This is not evidence of notability of the mag. Ref 17 - OK, I missed the throwaway reference, which does not contain any kind of implication of notability..
if notability is solely determined by other people writing praises, then you must remember that no one wrote anything about the Bible until hundreds of years after it'was written. Does that mean the Bible was not notable for hundreds of years? In Wikipedia terms, if that statement were true, then yes it probably would.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the ref by ref commentary. It provides well rounded analysis of the article as a whole and shows that this editor really put time into their consideration of this article. Far better than "its notable", "not notable" or "per above" !votes so often seen in AFDs. As for the journal being in the Smithsoneon's collection, simply being a part of a Smithsonian collection doesn't guarantee notability here. Had this publication been part of a Smithsoneon exhibit on local arts magazines, then we'd have a strong case for notability but all we have is a URL to a library catalog system. The Smithsonian calls itself the "Nations Attic" as it collects a little bit of everything. Presence in the collection doesn't tells us much. --RadioFan (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am working on the assumption that the Smithsonian takes out subscriptions to quite a lot of stuff, in the way that the British Library does; and that if you leave your papers to a museum (as Tolkien did with Marquette) they will archive everything in the box. What I would have expected to see, if this journal is as notable and influential as the article creator claims, is reference to it in more recent works. There are plenty of 'scene' books/journal articles out there - I'd expect them to reference it in the way that books on the English punk scene reference Sniffin' Glue.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have no more time to devote to this. I am doing this in my spare time, of which I have very little right now. It took hours to research and write the article and now it has taken almost as many hours trying defend it. I just don't have any more time to work on this before the 7 day deadline. It's too bad, too, because GOSH! was a great magazine. If you editors decide you don't see the value in this article than I may try to merge it into an article about Terry Cannon. I don't think anyone can dispute his notability. There are hundreds of references to him on the internet for the work he has done in promoting, preserving, and presenting experimental film and with the Baseball Reliquary. In fact, he was just mentioned in two separate articles this last Sunday in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times (with his picture). Thank you all for your efforts reviewing this. It probably is in your spare time too, but I am going to have to rest my case with my previous arguments listed above, hope you will consider them, and leave this to your wisdom. Time River (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by magazine's contents. It's hard to find coverage of one periodical in others (for obvious reasons) but losing record of this magazine and the stories and people it covered would make the encyclopedia worse. I'd be okay with merging it somewhere if a stand-alone article isn't appropriate, but it shouldn't be lost all together as an resource and historical documentation of the culture and people of its time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:33, 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 redirect to Frederick Scott Archer. — Aitias // discussion 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Archer (photographer)[edit]

Most of the article deals with the "zone system" which already has a substantial article of it's own. Subject seems to have no notability beyond that system. CarbonX (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Frederick Scott Archer. This article isn't about the person, and the hatnote at the destination points to the Fred Arthur dab page, where the sentence that is about the 20th century person can be merged with a link to the zone system. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Archer (this one) was a notable Hollywood portrait photographer, and was instrumental in the development and use of still photopgraphy in Hollywood, and in it's use in advancing the film careers of various actors. The zone theory was not his most important contribution. His photos are now very rare, and very expensive. Michael Dawson covers him in LA's Early Moderns, and there is a small collection of his photos at the Goldwyn Hollywood Public Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstrehl (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per suggestion above and nom. Notable adpects of subject already covered in another article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:18, 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 deleted (CSD G11) by KillerChihuahua. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 16:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John de Nugent[edit]

Non-notable white supremacist mostly sourced via blog posts and off the wall white power web sites. Also see here where the article subject and the article creator seem to be in collusion with each other. Article creator has uploaded many files, found in the article, as well without permission of the source being provided, or no source provided at all. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable racist hate monger. The article is a rather fascinating read on a white supremacist's alternate universe. It certainly needs work, and I understand if there is a concern about promoting this guy. But I think including a biography on this fellow's fringe views might actually be beneficial in holding him and them up to the light. If the cites are legitimate like an NPR interveiew with Liane Hansen I don't see how he doesn't meet notability criteria. If there's soemthing I'm missing let me know and I'm willing to reconsider. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article is a fascinating hagiography of a very strange man but I cannot see how he is notable either as a politician or as a writer or a racist or anything else. Seems to have some limited coverage per his "friendship" with a murderer but that seems insufficient to me. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link ASE posted above sheds some light on the sources for this tome: "I thank Bob Kostro for this article on me on Wikipedia, which is designed to provide factual and credible information to those possessing any good will or fairness toward me and our Solutrean struggle. Bob has been mining my already published bio and many of my many hundreds of discussion forum posts and blog entries" Mostly extremist blogs and the subject's own writings. Moreover - the article also uses Wikipedia itself as a source -- which is unusual for an encyclopedia.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:08, 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 keep. As noted, discussion regarding editorial decisions should continue at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Ties (Diagnosis: Murder episode)[edit]

Only episode of series to have article. Sources are thin, notability is nonexistant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Diagnosis: Murder episodes. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the Executive Producers official website, and the series official website are good sources for whats being referenced, and so what if it's the only episode article for this series, that alone does not mean "Not notable, delete it". Almost every episode of Family Guy has an episode page and the only reference given for most is "Family Guy: The Official Episode Guide". Same with hundreds of other episode pages. This one also talks about the fact it was the last (and like the rest unsuccessful) spin off pilot for an extremely popular show. Also several other failed pilots (that will likely never be available for purchase, were never broadcast, or cancelled before filming even began) have articles, whereas this was aired and will be available as part of the Diagnosis: Murder season 6 DVD set. This article also has information on the other failed pilots. Dr. Stantz (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing important there that can't be included in the series article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and decide whether to merge / redirect on article talk page. Show is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Show is notable doesn't imply that 'every episode is notable. The Bold and the Beautiful is notable but not every episode of it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the only episode page for the show, and the fact it was the final pilot for a spin off of said show is notable. Dr. Stantz (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then do what ChildofMidnight says. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 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. Keep votes are admittedly "weak", and several editors agree that the sources listed are not sufficiently independent or detailed to confirm notability. Taking this into consideration, I see consensus as leaning towards delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pathway Family Center[edit]

Behavioral-health-care facility lacking third-party published coverage as evidence for notability (has been tagged for notability since May 2009). Additionally, page is the continuing focus of "editing attention" from users committed to either (1) disparaging the organization or (2) promoting it. I suggest deletion as a non-notable topic, and further point out that Wikipedia does not provide a platform for carrying on battles about non-notable topics. Orlady (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Increase the Straight,_Incorporated page instead. Pathway Family Center, Kids helping Kids, AARC, Kids of North Jersey, Kids of El Paso and others are all off-springs of Straight. They used the same level system but have altered a few things about the punishments. Covergaard (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has some third party coverage [21]. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting list. I haven't registered or paid to read all of those ghits, but most of the ones I looked at are press releases, particularly announcements of fund drives by Pathway. This is the closest thing I saw to genuine 3rd-party coverage, and it also looks like an article written on the basis of Pathway's own marketing materials. --Orlady (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per LibStar. I looked atthe news articles, which could be added, but is not my thing. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references are truly independent or substantial.DGG (talk) 03:14, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to broader topic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which topic did you have in mind? --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Straight, Incorporated, but I see that is now a defunct organization. Is there an article on drug treatment facilities? It seems to be controversial and interesting, so there's a fair indication of notability. I was thinking that dealing with it in a broader way might be appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need independenent coverage with enough detail for at least some sort of article. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at WP:DEL#REASON, I think this article "...fail[s] to meet the relevant notability guideline," in that there is not "significant coverage" of Pathway Family Center for it to be considered notable. ---kilbad (talk) 21:31, 25 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. (X! · talk) · @178 · 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rainford[edit]

Contested PROD with no reason given and no improvement. Take your pick of reasons for deletion. If I could decipher this into English, it may or may not assert notability. It appears to be copied and pasted from somewhere. Ghits are almost non-existent. Could be a hoax. Doesn't pass WP:BAND. Unsourced. Unverifiable. Wperdue (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like a speedy candidate (A7) to me. I42 (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 12:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that WP:MUSIC is met. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:03, 22 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) 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The legend of Barry Booshman[edit]

Almost certainly a soccer player created in a computer game and not a real player. The only "reference" is a page on a free hosting site that appears to be made up just for this (definitely not a reliable source). Google returns no results for "Barry Booshman". Author removed PROD template. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G3). This page appears to be a poor attempt at comedy. I42 (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At present I am in the midst of registering a genuine charity, with a view to allowing children to have more play opportunities in Djibuoti. As a form of comical enticement I will be partaking in meetings with Djiboutan notables under the guise of Barry Booshman, in an effort to secure support & generate interest. Obviously deleting this page will not help this cause. Okay so it is not hilarious, but I am an ICT teacher, not a comedian. Bobberto (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article creator comment above, wrong reasons for having an article. Not a real person and no notability.--ClubOranje^T 08:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Up may I draw your attention to the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus. 3 people can verify on-screen sightings of Barry Booshman, whereas there are no reliable sightings of the forementioned character, on or off-screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobberto (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 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 to delete, am redirecting articles to respective teams. lifebaka++ 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisburg Lunatics notable players and award winners, et al[edit]

Harrisburg Lunatics notable players and award winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Philadelphia Growl notable players and award winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
York Typhoon notable players and award winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:OR, most categories are blank, etc. Also combining with a few others. Bdb484 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:58, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the appropriate team articles; it's not as if mostly empty articles - and one on an outright defunct team - on a desperately obscure roller skating league that's only a few years old are likely to become so full of verifiable information we need to hive some of it off. RGTraynor 13:11, 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, (X! · talk) · @187 · 03:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect seems reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pathetic sports bias at its worst. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 28 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 Ego Trippin'. The nominator originally attempted to redirect, and this was explicitly suggested by another editor. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Medicine[edit]

non-notable song, didn't chart and fails WP:MUSIC, tried to redirect but was reverted Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article to display Snoop doggs single My medinice. It should be still added its a part of his Discography of singles. He made it after all so it should be added. I was going to add "those girlz" but I could'nt find any sources for it. So I decided to add just this. Silvermen (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just because something exists doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. There are only three sources and only one of which looks to be reliable per guidelines. It is not formatted properly and isn't really needed overall. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 03:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres plenty of articles that are no different then this one and are not needed overall why is this one that different. Slivermennn (talk) 20:13, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 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, (X! · talk) · @186 · 03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other stuff exists; not a valid argument for keeping this argument, state a reason this falls within WP:Music and I'll vote to keep.Fuzbaby (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 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. (X! · talk) · @178 · 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint George International[edit]

Unsourced, not notable school or campus, fails WP:ORG. Over 62 million Ghits [22]. It doesn't meet the notability requirements for school not like some other international schools. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --HighKing (talk) 10:52, 22 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 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masis Voskanian[edit]

Article about athlete who has not played in a fully-pro league. Prod was removed based on article about his plans to join the first team. All google news hits relate to his plans to join the first team at Brugge or the extension of his contract, but no mention of him playing a pro match or anything of note. Fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @165 · 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal add page of a non notable athlete.Fuzbaby (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable athlete. Recreate only if he plays for Club Brugge. Spiderone (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Voetbal International confirms he hasn't played for Brugge, so he therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if/when he become notable. Giant Snowman 08:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE— Dspradau → talk 15:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATH and WP:N. Recreate if and when he ever plays for Club Brugge. --Jimbo^[online] 20:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having not played. Belgian League appearance would free him for re-creation, if and when.--ClubOranje^T 11:26, 24 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. An initial head-count of 7 deletes/4 keeps suggests that no solid consensus has formed; an evaluation of the arguments raised confirms this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon re-evaluation, it seems my initial closure was incorrect. Arguments for deletion are solidly backed up by policy, while most counter-arguments simply assert that sources exist. Thus I am re-closing this as delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of anthems of micronations[edit]

These anthems have no notability. No reliable sources are cited, and I doubt any exist. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. J Milburn (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Micro notability for macro trivia. Also delete Flags of micronations and List of micronation currencies. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @165 · 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the Marvin Gaye song is notable (but hardly for qualifying for this list). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ These fascinating details to a collective article/ fact sheet about micronations. This is worthwhile content and reliable source exist on micronations to verify it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing prevents each article on a micronation from containing the information. This list already has an external link for one "nation", suggesting it is an attempted end run around notability requirements. Abductive (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable vanity/hobby/nonsense material. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Edison (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several independent sources have been added, some of which mention the anthems. John Lennon wrote the Nutopia one. "Nonsense" is not a valid argument. Avoid judgement. The topic is not at all serious, but it is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some of which"? You mean this is partially backed up by sources that don't even talk about it? J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revising my vote to keep per the establishment of notability. That micronations are a quirky topic is irrelevant. Notability is established by substantial coverage in reliable sources, and these anthems have been covered as the sources added demonstrate. A merge would be okay with me to if the verifiable content isn't lost. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of trivia linking some real places that claim to be states (Sealand) with fantasy creations and online clubs that are barely notable, if at all. The info is in the articles themselves, so no real content is lost by getting rid of this hopeless listcruft. Jonathunder (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of independent sources.--Yopie (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked through those sources? Most are primary, some don't even mention micronation anthems. Could someone please show me some decent sources discussing this? J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People constantly assume that micronations are non-notable hoaxes. This list is useful to people interested in micronations. Those who think it should be deleted might want to read the article on micronations and this FAQ to gain a better understanding of what micronations are, and then reconsider their opinion. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few of them are well known and notable; most are not. Many are online clubs or things thought up in school one day. This list combines both, giving undue weight and undue attention to the silly and barely notable. What purpose is servced by a list that groups something like Sealand with some Internet group? The sources do not, despite what is claimed, establish notability for this odd collection. They are at best tangental to the topic. Jonathunder (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless listcr*ftalia. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, while there certainly is sourcing, the sources, with the exception of Nutopia, address the countries, not the anthems. Even the Nutopia references only mention the connection to John Lennon, and that it is a momment of silence (which we seem to get wrong on the list, I'll change the length to six seconds to match the source). I would be ammenable to a merge, but it looks like the sourced information is all ready in the respective articles. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:40, 28 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. (X! · talk) · @178 · 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wafflemat[edit]

Has been speedied before (at least once). Besides the nonreason of needing cleanup, it lacks reliable sources to establish notability of a corporation or product.

Google Books has a few brief mentions indicating it is probably patented, Google News had zero results.

This is likely simple spam, but using the AfD process since it has been deleted previously. tedder (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly formatted spam. Unsalvageable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Poorly formatted - agree. I thought it was SPAM too - found it while on my weekly stint at NPP - went to research it on Google - and by the time I got back it was already consigned to the dust heap. Wafflemat is now a generic term (although I have no doubt it was originally someones product). This article is clearly salvageable. Easy on the trigger folks; our job is not simply to dispatch, but also to save when they warrant salvage. Williamborg (Bill) 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Revised below Tadder's comment.[reply]

- Comment: keeping isn't a problem, but can you furnish some reliable sources that have coverage of it? I agree about "easy on the trigger"- that's why I brought it here, actually. However, my quick search didn't find anything of merit. tedder (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just spent a bit of time trying to rewrite it and the foundation style (post-tensioned tenons in concrete beams with a slab poured on top) is legitimate - the approach existed 30 years ago. However the term Wafflemat System^TM is a registered trademark. You are right; this is indeed SPAM. Delete it - Williamborg (Bill) 03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuitable content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, maybe speedy as spam (again). It appears that they copied the source from another page that mirrored us at one time, and that article was deleted as spam previously (see the log) - thus the poor formatting. I'm inclined, despite my desire to speedy it, to let it sit here in AFD so we can G4 in the future if necessary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 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. A confluence of several factors led me to this result: First, the policy argument for deletion seems to be a clear application of NOTNEWS. Those seeking to rebut this argument repeatedly pointed to the likelihood that sources confirming historical notability would accumulate as the investigation continued. While probably true, it is an implicit acknowledgment that proof of historical notability may be lacking now. Furthermore, the canvassing of keep votes was troubling. I am willing to userify this article on request, and I wouldn't be surprised, as multiple editors mentioned below, if this event ultimately has an article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Epping murders[edit]

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

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

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

While it's sad to see a family murdered but Wikipedia is not news, at this stage the murder is not notable (The New South Wales Police has released very little due to the on going investigations) even though there is a lot of media reports which most are just speculation not yet supported by the police. If something happens to make this notable the article can be undeleted. Bidgee (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage in reliable sources is enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In what way is it notable? Murders happen all over the world everyday and only a very small percentage are notable. Bidgee (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I came here there was a practical rule that a single homicide was not notable but a multiple homicide was. It seems to have shifted upwards. It seems obvious that this will get enough continuing coverage to be notable. DGG (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where do you draw the line for a multiple homicide? Having 5 people deceased only makes it minimally notable. If it was what the media have been speculating then it could be notable but at the moment there are no suspects, no motive. and the autopsy results haven't been given to the police (expected on Friday). Bidgee (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unfortunately, five murders in a single event is no longer particularly notable. See, for example, [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. WWGB (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they are rare, and I have a research article to prove it: According to The British Journal of Criminology, fewer than 3 percent of homicide victims die in multiple homicides. Adjusting for numbers, that seems to be about 1% of the total crimes. Proof by anecdote is a fallacy, but actual investigation is not a fallacy. DGG (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS Arbitrary rules about the number of people dead are quite frankly useless in assessing the encyclopedic worth of an article. As it stands this article is a news article, not an encyclopedia article and at the moment there is little encyclopedic to write about the subject. Perhaps when more information is available and the crime is placed in some context by third parties an encyclopedic article can be written. Until then this does not belong here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, covered by WP:NOTNEWS. Likewise, any claims about possible future developments is WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any "crystal" content should be removed, not used as a stick in AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment. Shall we also remove the comments of any editor brought here by WP:Votestacking activity? WWGB (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with previous two points. LloydGraham (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article relates to a very notable and unprecedented situation in the jurisdiction which has attracted widespread public attention and desire for information. There is significant information available for referencing, which does need improving, and the availability of relevant information can only increase over time. To say that five murders in a single event in suburban Sydney is not particularly notable and then make comparisons to incidents that occurred in the United States, with one of the highest homicide rates in the world, is not a realistic comparison. There are other comparable articles such as Crawford family murder, Easey Street murders, Wanda Beach Murders, Central Coast Massacre and Murder of Caroline Byrne in existence. Almost seems to be an argument for the sake of having an argument because the continued existence of the article will ultimately be justified. Ajayvius (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment It's understandable that you want to want the article kept since you're the creator but just because other articles may exist doesn't mean or makes this article notable. Some of the articles you have listed are notable but some others are debatable (One of them seems to fail) but we are talking about a different murder (This isn't about Crawford family murder, Easey Street murders, Wanda Beach Murders, Central Coast Massacre and Murder of Caroline Byrne as those investigations have been completed and justice has been served with the murders where the suspects have had there day in court) and country (US has a different population to Australia so of course the US will have a higher rate). Main thing is that it will be sometime before we know most or all of what happened and at the moment this belongs on Wikinews rather then Wikipedia as it's not yet encyclopaedic. Bidgee (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not correct to say that the other murder investigations referred to have been completed and justice has been served with the murders where the suspects have had there day in court. Several of those murders remain unsolved, i.e. no arrests or trials. The murder RATE in Australia is most definitely lower than the United States. Whilst Australia's recorded population in 2007 was 21 million ^[1] and the United States population in 2008 was 304 million, ^[2] the homicide rate for Australia in 2008 was 1.2 victims per 100,000 persons ^[3] in comparison to the United States at 6.2 victims per 100,000 persons ^[4], a rate some five times higher. Ajayvius (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment With all due respect, it appears to me that you are WP:Canvassing for keep votes on users talk pages. Martin451 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I've noticed that Ajayvius was canvassing [28], [29], [30] along with 24 other user talk pages! Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Let's not mince words, it's attempted WP:Votestacking and it's really poor form. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Unfortunately, a family gets killed somewhere in the world every day, and it's pure speculation that this would become historically or internationally notable. If a paperback about this appears in the "true crime" section of a bookstore, bring it back. Mandsford (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Otumba (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tragic, but WP:NOTNEWS applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait six months It is much too early to say if this proves to be a notable event or a 'nine-day wonder'. We should wait for arrests/trials and see if these contain sufficient content that would justify a full article. Saga City (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand. The event is cearly notable, meeting both WP:NN and WP:N/CA. If a notable event (i.e. one which receives significant coverage) happens every day, then Wikipedia should have a new article about an event every day. I don't think we should delete pages just because there are lots of them. And this event has received "significant coverage in sources with national or global scope", see ABC News, news.com.au, The Age. This isn't "routine news coverage", so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. The fact that it currently contains very little information is something which should be improved, and can be thanks to the significant coverage, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOT#NEWS. This is a single event, and the murder of a family is a far too common event. Martin451 (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A local murder, not notable on a world scale. The only justification on it being kept is per Kingpin and national coverage. Personally I think the event itself is not that notable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extensive coverage, there may not be as much information as we would like but there is certainly enough notability. Have no doubt this will be written about and analysed extensively, similar articles on older murders have been deemed notable. It seems foolish to delete this and re-create it again in a few days - even we had to wait until something happens to make this notable , which we don't. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment It will be sometime (months maybe a year [depends on how strong the evidence/information that the police have]) but it will be more then a few days. Unlike articles on past murders this article will not have to information needed to make it notable, also most media outlets are/have been reporting the same information on top of adding there own speculation without any police backing (IE: Media releases). Bidgee (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reason as everyone else says, NOTNEWS. The article itself only has one source, and a google news search turns up more but I don't see how any of them are significant; it's all just typical media excitement. Unless someone can cite a real source talking not just about this event but about the 'media buzz' it has generated, there is nothing to see here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as mentioned previously, not the news. Possibly worth a mention, if properly sourced, in the Crime in Sydney article. florrie 14:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a story that can grow with time, and it is sourced well. So i say Keep because i dont see any reason for a deletion of the article at this time.--Judo112 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is notable, and sourced, has potential to expand above what it is today.--Judo112 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "sourced well"? The article names the victims but the source does not. With respect, the article isn't sourced well although it probably has the potential to be well sourced if the article is kept. florrie 23:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable historic event. The article has the potential to grow and it shouldn't be to hard to find references for this kind of article. As more news comes to light regarding the investigation and apprehension of the culprits as well as their motives more reliable references should be made available. We have similar crime articles, see Wanda Beach murders and William MacDonald not Ronald (serial killer) . Adam (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment The name of the article should be changed. The name Epping Murders could refer to any murder that has happened in Epping.. Adam (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The article was initially titled North Epping massacre which would overcome that issue. Ajayvius (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment If the article is kept, the title should be disambiguated to either Sydney, NSW, or Australia, as Epping Forest in England is well know as a dumping ground for murder victims, and the odd massacre e.g. [31] Martin451 (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Notable historic event."? In what way is this historic when this has very little police information has been released? As I've said you can't compare other crimes to this one. Bidgee (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentWe should also give the article some time to improve and to grow . Adam (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let it be noted that, to date, 5 Keep votes [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] have been recorded by editors specifically canvassed by User:Ajayvius, the author of the article. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the author has done anything wrong apart from bringing this to my attention . Adam (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The message read "Hi, seeking support to keep regarding North Epping murders". Guideline states "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors" WWGB (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that a) it is not a straight vote, it is consensus, and those five could have valid points. b) we don't know if any of those people would have come here anyway. c) I came here because I saw this added to a talk page that I watch, and it aroused my interest. Martin451 (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we will never know that. What is known is that they were invited to come here and vote to keep, and that is exactly what happened. WWGB (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notable event in area. sourcing. overall notability.--77.105.211.130 (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:77.105.211.130 is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Judo112. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont accuse me just because you have another standpoint in a certain deletion discussion. Thanks.--Judo112 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "standpoint" is irrelevant. My argument is evidence-based, as demonstrated here. WWGB (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Judo112 on this one. It's my understanding that a !vote or argument from an unregistered IP address is given little or no weight by a closing administrator in any event. It is my opinion that describing an IP address as a "suspected sockpuppet" of a registered user (suggesting that the registered user is "suspect") is inappropriate in a deletion discussion. From what I can tell from the sidebar, the word "suspected" is inappropriate unless there is someone who agrees with the allegation. I do not agree with Judo112's opinion on whether this is notable, but I agree that he has the same rights as any other registered user on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the rights of Judo112, I am disputing the rights of 77.105.211.130. WWGB (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont we just invalid that IP-adresses "vote" on this issue and also get an end to all of this allegations about sockpuppetry etc etc.. Because overall the editor hasnt edit in a bad faith manour as i can see. And isnt it also a rule that a non-user account cant vote in this Afd debates anyway, or that that persons vote and says are less taken into account.?.. Im just very tired of this sockpuppetry circus when i dont see any true reason for it neither me or that IP-adress have done edits that isnt in wikipedias interest. With the invadility of this vote there is not an issue. Cheers. I still think it is an keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So just done it myself. If someone still think that the vote should counted and that im not guilty of the accusations please feel free to make the vote eligible for counting again. I just wanted to make my standpoint clear.--Judo112 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, despite your claim that 77.105.211.130 is not your sockpuppet, you take it upon yourself to remove the comments of that "other" editor? Very strange ..... WWGB (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. It is a formal expression of opinion and thought.- sinneed (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that already, thats what i ment with "vote".--Judo112 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - While it is very sad that murders in and of themselves are not notable other than as news, and wp:NOT a news source seems clearly to apply, they aren't. Yes, it is covered in reliable news services, but so is a great deal of other news, too.- sinneed (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would also wait six months. If notability appears, then we can always add this article back. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. agree with above, the real test is if it is still covered in the media well after the event. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the 'notnews' argument and that we should wait. I have some privacy concerns as well, in that the article may simply add to the problems that the daughter and other family members must be having now. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Further to Dougweller, I am concerned that an exact street address has been disclosed in the co-ordinates. I have actually not seen this info in media reports and - correct or not - have misgivings about it being published in WP. LloydGraham (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have removed them once again (actually this time there were 3 sets). If they are added again I will probably remove and protect the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of whether it's protected against being added in again, that information can be retrieved from the article history, can't it? If the outcome is "keep", then the article would need to be recreated with its current form being first on the history. In any event, the person(s) who have been inserting this information should probably be advised about the type of problem that it creates. Mandsford (talk) 18:23, 25 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 as CSD G7 as per author's comment below. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer knowledge[edit]

WP:OR essay which appears to be nothing more than a vehicle for an external "see also" link which has been removed. Unreferenced. De-prod by original author. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 01:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (comment by original author) - The link has been removed,the author is satisfied with the link removal. The author of this article was placing a source link for this articles with the external link. The page *computer knowledgeis identical as it also has a external source link. The author of this article presumed it was "ok" to place a external source link like the page computer hardware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anth.elias (talk • contribs) 01:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note by AFD nominator - understood, but the link was not the issue, the original research is. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 01:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be just an observational essay about people and computer knowledge. It appears, in short, to be an editorial piece. WP isn't the place for this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Understood please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anth.elias (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've put up a ((db-g7)) tag on the page. Thanks for understanding. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:59, 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 keep. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 23:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian–Turkish relations[edit]

whilst both countries have embassies, distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral or sport or even the bird Turkey. Looking at the first 60 results of this shows very little. but those who like to barrel scrape trivia to advance notability will find an article which says Turkey Is 24 Times the Size of Belgium and Has but Twice as Many Inhabitants and the two countries played a football match in Euro 2000. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article page doesn't meet the notability requirements. Keep meets notability requirements. Two countries are both historical relations in over 80 years since Turkey declared republic after Ottoman Empire ended. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Belgium and Turkey have a long diplomatic history. Belgium also has a large and growing Turkish population which binds, and in some cases stresses, relations between the two nations. Good candidate for future expansion. Keep. Scanlan (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are significant national relations between the two countries and enough reliable sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources for notability--as might be expected. I am a little puzzled at the nom, unless its under the assumption that the foreign relations of small countries are not notable. DGG (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's not small nations, it's close to no coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sigh sigh.. Keep, per Scanlan and DGG Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:21, 27 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. (X! · talk) · @178 · 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Goldstein (author)[edit]

Appears to be a biographical page for an unimportant person. Gary (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possible Speedy Delete as attack page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- ~~Change !vote to delete, pending outcome of my question below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Change !vote to Keep per discussion below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed the attacks (or at least the most blatant of them) so that the article can be discussed on its actual merits. If this is kept it would seem that it needs more watchlisting to prevent similar attacks from lasting as long in future. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Lots of coverage in reliable source [37]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a lot of book reviews and miniblurbs about the author, but more content on his work. Would this follow WP:N in general? If so, I'll change my !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's an author. So it's appropriate that he's discussed in relation to his work. His work being reported on is what establishes his notability which is normal as far as I can tell. I've seen it argued that an author should sometimes be covered in their work if it is more notable. But in a case like this where there are numerous works it seems to me to make much more sense to cover the works in the author's article and split them off down the road if they become unwieldy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He looks much more notable with the vandalism removed from his page. However, I looked up his books on Amazon and he wasn't the primary author of most of them. His name does not even appear on the front cover of Google: The Missing Manual, Mac OS X Tiger: Missing Manual, Mac OS X Power Hound, or The Internet: The Missing Manual. We should probably at least remove these books from his bibliography.

I also looked up the last five presidents of the APDA, and Adam Goldstein is the only one with a Wikipedia article. Gary (talk) 02:18, 22 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 --JForget 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon Poo (video game)[edit]

The article fails to meet the general notability guideline and all attempts to find reliable sources have failed. Just as a bit of background, this article has been proposed for deletion by a different editor before, but it was removed by the author, and no explanation (nor any other changes to the article) were given. Brian Reading (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Brian Reading (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Brian Reading (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party coverage whatsoever and "non-usefulness" means it will have to go... SF007 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:17, 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) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like simply a run-of-the-mill iPhone game. Nothing notable.Tim Song (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Doesn't seem to quite pass WP:N, not to mention that the "story" section is lifted directly from the official website. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good catch on the possible copyvio. Appears to be another game and that's it. No notability found. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software article created by single-issue user. Dialectric (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N due to the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources, none coming from a search. It's great that bedroom programming has returned along with the small development team, but with thousands of iPhone/flash/browser games spilling onto the market only a handful will ever get enough coverage for an article on WP. Someone another 21:26, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Burke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails all recent versions of WP:PORNBIO, no other significant basis for notability, but unverifiable claim to have hooked up with Hefner. 2005 VfD debate talked mostly about Google hits, no longer considered appropriate basis for establishing notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's simple. She fails WP:PORNBIO, regardless of how many ghits she gets. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She satisfies the third criteria of PORNBIO in that she's appeared numerous times on The Girls Next Door, and one episode was entirely about her wedding. That show verifies that she was one of Hef's many girlfriends and a book by Izabella St. James describes what happened to the relationship. From memory also, she's made appearances on several different other shows. She may be considered a bondage icon and was one of the first bondage queens to have a website with her fetish a go go site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Making an appearence and being a regular cast member are different. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 18 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) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced NFL Stats[edit]

Non-Notable Website. The article's sources are blog entries from respected News Papers, but do not talk about the website itself in great detail. Most of the sources only reference the website in the midst of a discussion. StarScream1007 ►Talk 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changed to Keep While I might use it as a supplemental reference, or at least for research, I don't see the need for an article about it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if Strikehold says it's referenced lots of places, I will not oppose.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This site is a useful and legitimate reference for academic style-sports research. Similar but less significant sites have full articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.171 (talk) 04:04, 19 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) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cited as a source in the research of several reliable sources as noted by the nominator, including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Houston Chronicle. I'd say delete if it were just cited once or twice in a small paper or even in any one of those aforementioned, but it appears to be viewed as a trusted source of information by several highly respected news orgs. Many other databases have articles, and many have survived deletion (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) which shows precedent. Also, the fact that the WSJ or NYT sources are "blogs" is not relevent; WP:Reliable sources says "otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story." Strikehold (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trusted, active, and growing source of serious analysis of the most popular sport in the US. Current Alexa ranking reflects off-season interest. During the active NFL season, traffic rank is far higher.

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalian Hansen[edit]

Article about a Second Life character. Hard to see how it is notable. References are a blog post and a bunch of Second Life–related websites. —Chowbok ☠ 15:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are blogs, not reliable; many links are dead; a few constitute trivial mentions in any case. Savidan 17:56, 20 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) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: This has to be some joke. An article about a Second Life character?? This is one of the very rare articles so egregious as to provoke me to go through the creator's contribution list to see what other similar aberrations he's gifted Wikipedia. Certainly fails WP:V, and I can't imagine what criteria of notability would apply. Ravenswing 01:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 14:47, 22 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 Net Yaroze. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Dog Tale[edit]

I appreciate that it was featured in an official magazine, but that fails the required standard of multiple reliable sources. I note from the article that it was only ever found in that magazine and never actually released, which leads me to question notability even without the sourcing problem. To summarise: never released game, lack of available souring fails WP:GNG Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:19, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, but perhaps verifiable, so redirect to Net Yaroze. Marasmusine (talk) 15:36, 27 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project placebo[edit]

Local cable TV show. Fails WP:NOTE. No GNEWS hits. Does not appear to have been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there some list of cable access shows we can list it on? Or the channel it airs on? Or shows on punk music, or music in general? It seems like it would be good to include, but I agree that it doesn't meet notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local program. Sarilox (talk) 16:19, 26 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Khalaf[edit]

Not notable until he makes an appearance for Al-Ahly Spiderone (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability - playing in a fully-pro league. Giant Snowman 09:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for Al-Ahly in the Egyptian Premier League which represents the top flight of Egyptian football. --Ilion2 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone find evidence he's played. I can only find evidence of him being signed. [38] Spiderone (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that I can see that Khalaf has played in a fully professional league per WP:Athlete nor that he meets WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:20, 25 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 merge to List of characters from Sons of Anarchy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Delaney[edit]

Articles lacks third party references and real world information. Date of births etc. may be Original Research. A google search for "Otto Delaney" gives nothing important. It seems an editor kept creating articles for every single fictional character of the TV series Sons of Anarchy without any prior discussion in the TV serie's talk page or List of characters. List of characters from Sons of Anarchy already exists and has short descriptions of every character, it's better organised but still needs a lot of work (for example it separates characters to "Active" and "former" and has a "Deceased characters" section). No need to use information of this article (i.e. no need to "merge"). The character appears in only 5 episodes! Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters from Sons of Anarchy. Seems the best option in this circumstance, due to lack of real world info, and lack of references to possibly add real-world info. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has references and sources to support it, and it is reasonably well written. It should be merged at very least. WölffReik (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only - summary in list is already sufficient. Savidan 17:58, 20 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) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kurt Sutter. APpropriate to cover this character there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge I'm not impressed by these sort of references, which are insufficiently independent or substantial to make an exception to the developing consensus that such characters should be generally merged.
Keep There have only been 13 episodes total thus far of the show. So appearing in 5 of those, is notable enough. He appears to be a significant character in that ongoing series. Dream Focus 23:04, 27 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Sapienza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Jeremy Sapienza is a blogger. He started Anti-state.com and BushwickBK.com, is Senior Editor of Antiwar.com, and also writes for some other blogs. The New York Times devoted a paragraph to one of his blogs in a roundup of local interest websites, but it wasn't really a profile of him.[39] Anyway, an IP claiming to be the subject has posted to the talk page that he'd like the article to be deleted, so this is a courtesy nomination. Will Beback talk 06:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Jeremy, and thank you for nominating this for deletion. I neither wrote nor commissioned this wiki article about myself, and it really has caused me problems over the years for various reasons. I know this doesn't matter to Wikipedia, but I thought I'd add it to the fact that I am very obviously not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. Thank you. Not sure how to prove that i am me -- I guess you can see my IP is from Brooklyn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.185.41 (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mention in a paper, even the NYT, is still trivial. A blogger being cited on other blogs? Nont notable. "Contributing" to the intoduction of a book? Um, still not notable. 0+0+0=0. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The entry simply needs some--(ok, a lot)--of help. I suspect that further research will establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wiki entry. Estéban (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Niteshift. No substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 21 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) 00:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment I relisted this before julian's delete !vote was added. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The guy is notable. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to work with him on fixing the article? I guess we can delete it and I'm all for being courteous, but I don't think doing so improve the encyclopedia. I know we did it for another semi-notable insider recently *cough* *cough*, but I don't see why deleting is better than fixing in a case where notability is not huge, but fairly well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm fine with that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not want any blogger mentioned by a newspaper to get an entry. This guy does not merit an article, the fact that this page inconveniences him only makes this easy decision even easier.

--Johnwgoes (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons that Johnwgoes mentions. This is the second time Sapienza has requested deletion. Please honor that. User:Newsgods

Delete All of the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juices Main Man (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Keep proponents suggest that the subject is notable or that they "suspect" he might be. The previous AfD is even worse, where the first Keep proponent says outright that despite a lack of evidence proving so, he thinks Sapienza is notable anyway ... and several others proffered as their reasoning to "Keep per the first guy!" It is the responsibility of Keep proponents not to say "Well, uhhh, I guess he's notable, because, well, he just is." It is their responsibility to proffer genuine evidence that a subject meets the criteria of WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This evidence does not seem to exist in this case; fundamentally, where are the independent, published, reliable sources about this subject? I could find none. RGTraynor 22:06, 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything (search engine)[edit]

contested prod. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Promotional tone. RadioFan (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:26, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a catalog of shareware/freeware. This product also does not demonstrate its notability, more specifically how widely the utility is used, or any other distribution information. And, the article was created by a WP:SPA. Groink (talk) 03:15, 26 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, article and afd both started by same banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End of the Night[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable individual song outside album context. Deitrohuat (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - previous AfD should be discounted - it was for a song of the same name by a different artist. Black Kite 17:52, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Children's Choir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No evidence it's notable per WP:ORG or any other relevant guidelines. Coverage is limited to their performances and no coverage or indication why this is different to any other children's choir. StarM 00:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local coverage only, specifically denigrated by WP:ORG. Should be by WP:MUSIC as well.—Kww(talk) 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I dont read WP:MUSIC that way: Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city Sparafucil (talk) 21:31, 22 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) 00:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand this obsession with deletion. The Choir is an acclaimed social and cultural institution in a major US city. [40] Opbeith (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Established project, regular performances, notable accompanists and venues. Needs a good wash and brush-up to get rid of the weasels and promo tone, though. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:35, 28 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't No Party: The Ultimate Collection of S Club 7[edit]

This article is completely false. Although O'Meara, McIntosh and Cattermole are indeed touring, this is covered in the main S Club article. There has been no such album released, and is completely false. »—Mikay—talk—contribs→ 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:46, 15 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) 00:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rd to S Club or an appropriate subpage; lots of fansites cite this name but no WP:RS found for this future album. JJL (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I don't believe this is a hoax (as I can find several Google hits), the fact that the album wasn't released as promised and no track listing can be found results in a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Nothing to merge since there are no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 12:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It most likely doesn't exist. –Merqurial (talk) 21:12, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Whitrick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Minor news event from 2007 with no evidence of long-term impact. Violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. *** Crotalus *** 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should probably follow the same fate as Brandon Vedas, also currently up for deletion. Either keep it or merge it to Internet suicide, which is currently only about online suicide pacts. Hairhorn (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage in third party sources to be worth a brief standalone article. See also Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy is all that similar to the page up for deletion; that's also about a court case covering issues of privacy. At any rate there are lots of wiki pages for people notable only for their deaths, despite guidelines like WP:ONEEVENT. It all hinges on the significance of the event itself. Hairhorn (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly WP:ONEVENT. A non-notable person commits suicide (which isn't that uncommon) in front of a bunch of losers who actually sit and watch it. Where is the notability? Then the ratings hungry media decides to cover it long enough to give the guy the 15 minutes he never had in life. Then they move on to something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason given above misses the point. I live in the UK and can remember the huge controversy and media coverage that this event caused at the time. The article meets WP:GNG, although it does deal primarily with the controversy surrounding his death, which has become part of Internet folklore.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't miss your point at all. I just hold a different view. It doesn't matter to me how many words newspapers decided to waste on this one event, it is still one event. It isn't a historic event, like a presidential assassination etc, it is an oddity that made people curious and gave them something to chatter about. It was WP:RECENTISM when the papers filled space with it, now it is a non-notable event that should be sliding into the obscurity it deserves except that some want it to be memorialized in Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reliable coverage. Alefbe (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, this was a minor news event about a sad incident. General announcement (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle and maybe merge to an article on this sort of thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle/Merge Rather than argue over a full delete, it should be possible to merge the information here with another article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very notable event with many Google hits and news references. Note that this has survived past AfDs and Brandon Vedas, the article listed at the top of this nomination, has survived 3 AfDs. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the Darwin Award candidate Brandon Vedas survived AfD with a no consensus, but couldn't survive his own stupidity. Why we feel the need to memorialize these people boggles me. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The existence of a Wikipedia page is no more a "memorial" than the page for Pol Pot is a memorial for him. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't even make sense? Pol Pot was notable. He was notable as a head of a nation. This guy wasn't notable before he killed himself and I don't find his suicide to be that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fine, then use Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as the example instead of Pol Pot. That page is certainly not a "memorial" to them. Perhaps you don't find the suicide notable, but the coverage the event has received in the media proves otherwise. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Internet suicide is a phenomenon that passes WP:GNG. It might be better to deal with all of the notable cases in one article, rather than spreading them out and having WP:ONEEVENT criticisms.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:25, 22 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. Only arguments contesting deletion do not address the article itself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graziano Stefanelli[edit]

Non-notable author of one novel. No significant writeup in reliable sources - a Google search only gets 46 hits (mostly blogs, forums, MySpace, and his own websites). Fails WP:AUTHOR. Astronaut (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Speedy delete was declined, even though the same article has been speedily deleted no less than nine times from the Italian Wikipedia and seems to have been finally blocked from recreation (or at least there's no "modifica" (edit this page) or "crea" (create) tab). Astronaut (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom; forums and blogs aren't enough to make notable, and this looks like self promotion. Fuzbaby (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Graziano Stefanelli on Italian Wikipedia was deleted cause who wrote the article was stupid. I read the italian article and those were not for an enciclopedy. I don't want to tell that eveyone knows Graziano Stefanelli, but he's famous in many regions of Italy. So I think it's not just to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.255.97 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nine speedy deletions were all carried out under the Italian Wikipedia's speed deletion policy speed deletion policy criteria C4 which says:

"...contenuto palesemente non enciclopedico; pagine o immagini promozionali, per es. costituite unicamente da collegamenti esterni e/o spam che reclamizzino prodotti, servizi o persone; curricula vitæ personali, specie se scritti in prima persona;"

Trans: "...obviously unencyclopedic content, promotional images or pages, eg. consist only of external links and/or spam which advertises(?) products, services or persons; personal curriculum vitae, especially if written in first person). Astronaut (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Removing this article is not just. What you said is not real! Please, don't delete this article!! You're just like the bad people on Wikipedia. You look like happy to delete articles everyday!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyeends (talk • contribs) 12:54, 22 July 2009

This is not some conspiracy of "bad people" to delete stuff off Wikipedia. Read Wikipedia's policies on the notability of authors and notability in general, take a look at the Graziano Stefanelli article and ask yourself whether he meets the requirements of the policies. Astronaut (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked myself and I don't think that I'm not right. The article is just... and on wikipedia there are more articles written not well but you don't delete it because they are of "Vip and famous people". I can understand all, I'm not a Wikipedia addict but I can understand because I'm on wikipedia from many years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.255.97 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles about VIPs and famous people exist because they are notable as defined by Wikipedia's policies. If some of those articles are not written well, then that can be fixed by editing. I did not nominate the Graziano Stefanelli article for deletion because it is poorly written (in fact it is better than some other articles I have seen); I nominated it because in my opinion he is simply not notable as defined by Wikipedia's policies, and the lack of significant write up in independent reliable sources did not change my opinion.

However, I am happy to be proven wrong. If he really is "famous in many regions of Italy", then that needs to be shown - perhaps Il ragazzo dalla mente acuta has been reviewed by several major newspapers such as Corriere della Sera or La Stampa, or perhaps Graziano Stefanelli has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Astronaut (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I keep on hoping... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.252.238 (talk) 12:55, 27 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mallett Antiques[edit]

I tagged this article as a speedy deletion because it was originally a copyright infringement. After the copyrighted material was removed, well, although I realize the article is under construction, the mere fact that the article creator tried to justify it by saying this suggests it is nothing more than a soapbox for the company. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are some mentions for the company in Google News, but they don't add up to significant coverage, or, really, to any kind of coverage. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mallett has been in operation since 1865, for the antiques trade, museums, connoisseurs and collectors of fine furniture, this is a useful and interesting document covering the long and extensive history of this notable company. It has also highlighted several areas of Wikipedia that fall short for the decorative arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngw2009 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) — Ngw2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to read WP:COI. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the oldest establish antique dealer in england is notability. The references given are sufficient to show that. COI or no COI, the subject is notable. The article needs some further work. e.g. "... Mallett and Son, 40 New Bond Street, W., are definitely establishing themselves for connoisseurs of antique furniture and old silver as a feature of the London ..." from Burlington Magazine for 1934 [41], and multiple other articles from the same source--the standard antique specialist's magazine. GBooks [42] & WorldCat [43] shows the large number of important exhibitions shown there. DGG (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if the article is kept, I'll have to take it to WP:COIN because it was created by employees of the company. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed lots of the peacock phrases & blatant advertising. There are still claims which need citations but I think it is better than before.— Rod ^talk 12:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They meet the notability guidelines. General announcement (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure why this was relisted but I think there are enough refs from reliable sources to show notability.— Rod ^talk 07:14, 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 keep and move to Channel drift. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Network decay[edit]

Made up term from TV Tropes. Not a legitimate phrase for the "phenomenon" and only source is TV Tropes (obviously non-RS) and some guy's personal blog ranting about it (and apparently coining the term). Not quite a hoax, but certainly neither legit nor notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've heard this term a lot recently, what with the SyFy thing and all, so it probably deserves it's own article. Meeting WP:N requires sources, of course, so I'll look into digging some up (adding Resuce tag for the same purpose). Artw (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notable concept, possible new phrase. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but... I think the term more commonly used with this phenomenon is Channel drift and the article should be relocated there if this is successful. There are definitely industry sources for the "channel drift" term, and this should run the full seven days in the hope that this article can be highly improved. Nate • (chatter) 05:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been a big hullabaloo lately with the Syfy thing, as noted above, which has defiantly garnered attention. I would be okay moving the concept to "Channel Drift", and posting a redirect, if people prefer that term, but the concept itself is certainly notable. Sim (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its only real use has been in connection with the whole Sci Fi to SyFy, I really don't see how its actually a notable concept, more of a one-time term being coined purely for that event and, at best, a line or two mentioned in SyFy (which I believe is already there). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just SciFi! Cartoon Network, The History Channel, and Court TV are all mentioned as good (or bad) examples of this effect in action, as written in several sources currently presented. In fact, several of the current "Theme channels" on cable are being drastically recalibrated in this way (sometimes with ... interesting results). With Hulu, etc. demonstrating what the markets are actually watching on a case-by-case basis, media overall is being rethought, and this is being attested to by several reputable sources, (LA times, etc.) which gives it notability. Sim (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not find anything that makes this notable. MS (Talk|Contributions) 21:25, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to channel drift. Per notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Channel drift per the above comments; I think the TV 101 source is enough to establish notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:05, 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.