< 10 June 12 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy close, article was deleted as a copyvio for the reason below just as it was being nominated for deletion. BencherliteTalk 13:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa munt[edit]

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

This article has been started about Tessa Munt (who is to be a candidate at the next general election for Wells (UK Parliament constituency) but the photo & all content relates to her opponent David Heathcoat-Amory.— Rod talk 12:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — Rod talk 12:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cheers, I'mperator 13:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven_A._Vasilev[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Steven_A._Vasilev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability of subject not established; reads like a vanty resume and not an encylopedic biography Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's sparse now becuase I trimmed down the "vanity" and non-notable portions. IMO notability is contingent on being discussed widely by secondary sources. I don't see any secondary sources that establish his notability. I don't believe that every department head at every university in the world is automatically considered notable. Vasilev is also categoried among US OB/GYNs, but if you inspect the people inlcuded in those lists, they have all made significant historical contributions to the field. The bar sems to have been lowered considerably by inluding Vasilev among these other far more notable physicians. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned that the subject himself, Vasilev, penned his own biography, whih runs counter to WP guidelines. The author essentially pasted a resume on WP, which is inappropriate and non-encycopedic, and then the WP entry was linked from various blog sites operated by the author, which are of very dubious quality and reliability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dat Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable publication. No GHits or GNews entries. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

um im the writer of that and i dont see why it is such a big problem.Why cant we just keep it? -Blaze1177

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1985–86 Washington Capitals season[edit]

1985–86 Washington Capitals season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is merely a sports fan spreadsheet from the eightie. It does not establish notability nor is it encyclopedic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with female protagonists[edit]

List of video games with female protagonists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails its own criteria as described in the lead of the article. Why is there an article about female protagonists and not about male protagonists, or, say, other races, or people with brown hair? Is it encyclopedic? This was attempted to be made into a category, but failed because it was too specific, so why is there an article like this? I don't think the game's notability matters here - the article doesn't make any effort to state WHY having a female protagonist is notable except for an unsourced statement about being "an exception to the norm". Moreover, differentiating between "lead" protagonists and selectable protagonists seems impossible when they are at times closely interwtined. For example, fighting games might have multiple female protagonists, each with their own story - is this more notable than having a single female protagonist (e.g. Samus Aran) or having a female protagonist with the same plotline but with multiple minor differences and a different voice actress (e.g. Mass Effect)?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was made into a category and deleted, so that would be impossible.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Student Association of UC Merced[edit]

Persian Student Association of UC Merced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Newly minted non-notable student club. Deprodded by a spa. Abductive (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Averns[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, with unclear notability and insufficient coverage in reliable sources. I had tagged the article for proposed deletion but it has been contested. snigbrook (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if some of this is added to the article; at the moment none of this is in. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can take care of that if we are developing a sense that the Averns won't fail notability anyway. Enki H. (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bones and Biscuits[edit]

Bones and Biscuits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a small pet-food company that wouldn't be notable except that it was started by an 11-year-old, and received a few press mentions as a result. Those sources are cited, and are all from about the same time in 2006 (except for one report on an awards dinner in 2007). I believe this is analogous to WP:BLP1E -- the single event of the company's being founded by a young person doesn't make it worthy of permanent note in a general reference encyclopedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm a keep voter too, thought I'd point out that it's not the Guardian newspaper, but a company called Guardian Life Insurance. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out :) SpitfireTally-ho! 08:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave London[edit]

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

I cannot find any indication that this artist satisfies WP:MUSIC. I can't find a single independent reliable source to justify any of the claims made in this article either. -- Atamachat 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article's creator left the follow on the article's talk page:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncanny Amazers[edit]

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

No sources, therefore fails WP:BK. No special reason to consider this encyclopedic. Fleetflame 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oology. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeooölogy[edit]

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

Term does not exist; all Google hits are related to the WP article. The references listed in the article do not use the term. The german article is also proposed for deletion. The German article is meanwhile deleted by speedy deletion. Leftfoot69 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of them do, given the Yahoo group I mentioned above. (This is not something anyone can join either; it specifies that it is for people working in the field.) Of course, it is paleontology - it is a subfield thereof. LadyofShalott 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTKNOWIT - That's a prime example of arguments to avoid. LadyofShalott 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has been amply demonstrated that this word is a protoneologism, any and all earlier instances are scanning errors, and in any case it is assignable to paleontology, not oology. It is not sufficient reason to save this word, nor should it be saved because it has three o's in a row. Abductive (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs to both paleontology and oology - it is the subfield at the intersection of the two disciplines. I never said anything about the three o's - so why are you acting a wiseass about that? (And I had changed my vote to merge and redirect days ago.) LadyofShalott 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oology is not an academic discipline; currently only the Smithsonian has a Dept of Oology. The study of eggs while they are alive (or recently dead) uses very different methods than the study of fossil eggs, which uses standard paleontological methods. Abductive (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could have disclosed that you are the sysop on de-wp that has executed the speedy deletion, against some of the CSD rules, and with pretty much the same argument. --Pgallert (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Cirt (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church Business Administrators Association[edit]

Presbyterian Church Business Administrators Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organisation. Low double digits in the unofficial (but in this case useful) Google test. Deprodded after 7.12 days. Abductive (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitimorphism[edit]

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

Apparently a neologism: discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics has revealed no evidence of the term at work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC) PS Contested Prod, see article history. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

In the mathematical field of analytic geometry, a mitimorphism is a morphism from the power set 
of a fibre bundle into another fibre bundle.  The name comes from the Greek mitos, "fibre," and morphe, "form".
— Charles Stewart (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, now I get it! Wow, I'm slow. Some math students must have been having a good laugh. decltype (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for future reference, this was the brilliant edit comment with which the article was deprodded: "seen it; not sure about the etymology part". --Hans Adler (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same editor today added : The image of a mitimorphism is known as the power range. Paul August ☎ 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonderful! Do we happen to know if the IP addresses have their home in Montreal[17], by any chance? — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In both cases it's the same IP address from University of Waterloo. But the article creator seems to be linked to Quebec: [18]. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Washington (American football)[edit]

Gerald Washington (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Went undrafted in this years draft, no substanial coverage and was recently released. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Yates[edit]

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

Non-notable; searches for references do not offer any help. The only reference in the article does not support its assertion (although it may be correct; no prejudice).  Frank  |  talk  19:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe I've read through the search results more than you...I have seen acknowledgement of substantial contributions, and in different articles. This article: [22] reads "...Martin Yates, whose premiere recording of Arnell's First and Sixth Symphonies were nominated by Gramophone magazine in March as an Editor's Choice". Also, amazon lists 46 items (maybe some dups?) on which he is the conductor: [23]. Even with dups, that's very substantial--compare to discographies of many solidly notable pop artists. WP:MUSICBIO reads "Has released two or more albums on a major label"; while I realize he's just the conductor, this is far above and beyond. This article: [24] and this book [25] both establish that he also has prepared an edition of a Gilbert & Sullivan score that has been noticed/cited. Some of the references in the news search also refer to him as a pianist and composer. This source: [26] discusses a string quartet of his, establishing that he is indeed a composer and that his music is performed. Here is a very detailed source that is NOT independent: [27] (run by his management company). Cazort (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I found the original article of the editor's pick in Grammophone: [28]. Cazort (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spam, the way it is written Tone 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WBlite[edit]

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

Believe that the lack of available resources and sources on software makes this nothing but spam and should be speedy deleted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: 2009 June 11 – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzy Bloody Ozzy[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg that fails with WP:NALBUMS. Cannibaloki 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The Other Side of Ozzy Osbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 39 Clues Cards[edit]

The 39 Clues Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Game guide. Far too detailed for an encyclopedia. Belongs in its own wiki. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's an argument to keep and copy edit the article(s) rather then to delete it/them, though. Ω (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of cards might need to go, I agree... Hobit (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arab–Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics[edit]

Arab–Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Why was it created? I only see one non-Middle Eastern Country and it's indicated that it's inclusion is to provide a kind of baseline for comparison (presumably by providing a European/ western country for comparison). I think it's a very useful and interesting table and it would be a pity to lose it. Perhaps it needs modification and some outside the box thinking on how to make it more encyclopedic and appropriate as far as article titling and content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Culver[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable self-published author. None of the Google News hits for Jonathan Culver appear to refer to this person, who doesn't appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Anthony Appleyard under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Morales[edit]

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

Can find no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Apparently a vanity page that has been recreated several times after being speedied or PRODed. L. Pistachio (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • See the logs for the page. It hasn't been AFD'd previously, but it has been deleted several times. --L. Pistachio (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not seeing anything in the revision history. Is there some other place I should be looking? Can you link to it here? Thanks, and sorry for being so dense. I am just not aware of any other place to look. Cazort (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the parentheses next to the article title, where there are a bunch of links. The one that says "logs" leads to the Logs page for the article. This is where you'll find a page's deletion history, if any; it won't be in the revision history. --L. Pistachio (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Jclemens under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Zantiago[edit]

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

Can find no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Apparently a vanity page. L. Pistachio (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I mistakenly included that part about deletion and re-creation. The other article, which I AFD'd at the same time, has a history of deletions. --L. Pistachio (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Stooges in popular culture[edit]

Three Stooges in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just trivial listcruft/clutter at best. If there is any important notes, they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wouldn't you say that a topic like "Three Stooges legacy" or any topic documenting their influence on popular culture, would be so important as to belong on the main page? If that page is too long, then a debate could be started there about spinning off a relevant sub-section into a sub-page. But this page doesn't even remotely resemble a sub-page...I think work is needed to turn it into prose and make it encyclopedic. Cazort (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
And the easiest way to work on something is to not delete it. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no meaningful difference in difficulty between in-place editing and a user-space move. That argument is spurious. Mintrick (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to support leaving bad material in the main namespace more often than not, because I think that's how wikipedia works best, but this case seems just too pronounced, because (1) the content is bad (2) the very name of the topic is problematic, and honestly (3) I don't think much would be lost if it were outright deleted: the only value I see to the material being kept is as a list of "things to potentially incorporate into an encyclopedic narrative"--and userspace is the appropriate place for such lists, not wikipedia itself. Cazort (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how a complete lack of substantial coverage in secondary sources constitutes obvious notability. Mintrick (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of Stoogeology by Peter Seely, Gail W. Pieper a 272 page book that "provides an in-depth look at their comedy and its impact on twentieth century art, culture and thought" seems to refute the idea that there is a lack of substantial coverage. Have you looked for sources? They exist in a multitude. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added note of a book covering this subject in particular above. There are also sources like this [31] and this one [32] related to the king of pop. So it's not hard to find very substantial coverage of this highly notable topic. Whether it should be a list article as it is now, or made into a standard coverage of the subject is an editing decision. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think AfD was the most constructive way to handle this issue, but now that the discussion is open I do think there are multiple issues with keeping this material/page as-is. As it's currently written, it's a list and unencyclopedic. The material would be better written as prose and incorporated into a narrative discussing underlying themes. Wikipedia is not a random repository of knowledge--it's a WEB of knowledge which means, rather than presenting random lists of facts, it should tell a story about each topic and describe how the topics relate to each other, and discuss unifying themes. I see little or no value to pages that are little more than collections of random facts. That's what's behind my "puzzling" vote. Cazort (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also suggested merging as an option, which isn't really a delete !vote. Deletion is only for when WP:ATD has failed, and many others made no attempt to suggest a good alternative as you did. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should clarify that I meant that a merge would be only appropriate in the case that someone had rewritten the material into encyclopedic prose. I think that is a necessary starting point if someone feels very strongly about keeping the material and does not want it deleted--because in its current form I don't think it belongs on wikipedia. I suspect this isn't going to happen overnight, so maybe a merge the way I envision it would be unrealistic, and a delete + userify would be better...then people can work on making it into prose and weaving it into the main article. Cazort (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geo Swan's search clearly demonstrates the notability of the three stooges. However, I am unconvinced that a page with the topic "Three Stooges in popular culture" needs to exist. ChildOfMidnight's recommendation to rename to "Three Stooges legacy" makes sense. But more importantly, the current form of the content of this page is unencyclopedic. Do you have a strong rationale for keeping the article in the current form? Or a strong objection to deleting and then userifying it, with the intention of weaving it into a narrative? Cazort (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Tyes[edit]

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

Not notable - no references verify notability. Subject was a hopeful in recent UK Elections for European parliament in which his party polled less than 7,000 votes and came plumb last.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Us2 Championship[edit]

Us2 Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no notability, no reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Meiji Seika. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meiji Almond[edit]

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

non-notable product. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 4 June 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 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Patriarchy. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universality of patriarchy[edit]

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

Orphan POV-fork created by an editor that has since been topic-banned from patriarchy-related articles. Contains lots of synthesis and POV-laden apologetics. Any legitimate information in this article can easily be merged into patriarchy, although I think that article already covers this particular topic adequately. Kaldari (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this topic should be mentioned and covered as appropriate in the main article, but I think a separate article on the idea of patriarchy's universality is be good to have and meets our notability standards as a stand alone. If there are arguments discrediting the idea that balance would certainly be good to include. Removing the OR is probably above my pay grade, but if someone wants me to take a whack at the article I'm willing to give it a try... And this is just my opinion on the matter so others may feel differently. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google scholar finds around 75 scholarly journals / publications with the phrase. See http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22universality%20of%20patriarchy%22&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ps .
It is a well used term in academic discussion.Lumos3 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS. There are 630 published works in Google Books with the exact phrase "Universality of love" and 103 with the exact phrase "taste of hate". It doesn't mean we need wikipedia articles for those phrases. Wikipedia articles are for distinct concepts, like love, hate, and patriarchy. Different aspects and ideas concerning patriarchy should be dealt with in the main patriarchy article until such time as they are substantial enough to spin off into sub-articles, per Wikipedia:Summary style. This article has not gone through that process. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"taste of hate" returns a fairly random set of novels , biographies and non fiction with no underlying theme discernible. Whereas "Universality of patriarchy" gives a set focused on gender issues, mostly academic . It is clear that it is a term with some currency in that field. A wiki develops wherever people are moved to put their energy. A developed article here will feed back into an improved patriarchy article. Lumos3 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article only has one author (who is topic-banned for a year), so I don't think it's very likely this article will be receive much energy. And if it does, it would be a waste, since it would be far more useful to have editors who are interested in the subject working on the main patriarchy article (which is in piss-poor condition). Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you address the numerous sources discussing this issue as noted above? Also, if its creator is topic banned, there should be no trouble removing any OR or altering it for accuracy. So I don't see what the problem is unless you can show that the numerous books and articles covering this subject don't establish its notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer a question with a question: can you first cite any of the "numerous sources discussing this issue as noted above" that contain "significant coverage" of the "universality of patriarchy", as opposed to mere mention in discussing the wider issue of Patriarchy? I would suggest that the WP:MERGE#Criteria of 'Overlap' & 'Context' would suggest that this topic is not separable from its parent topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer your question that answered my question with a question :) an example of the substantial coverage is the 256 page text titled The inevitability of patriarchy‎ by Steven Goldberg. I haven't read it, so I have no opinion on its merits, but the title indicates more than a mention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but we already have an article on The Inevitability of Patriarchy (until earlier today, we in fact had two articles on it -- one under the title of the revised edition of it, Why Men Rule), which can adequately address the views stated in that book. Between that article & Patriarchy, we would appear to have the field adequately covered. A third article would appear to be entirely superfluous. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue for notability is whether a subject has received substantial coverage. Clearly this one has. That we have an article on one of the books that covers it does not diminish the notability of the subject itself. There are many more sources dealing with this subject such as this one [35] and all of these [36]. This is a very notable subject that has been debated in various academic circles. I can't see why we wouldn't want to include it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do want to include it, within the patriarchy article. If we followed your and Lumos3's criteria, every subsection of every article on Wikipedia would be a separate article. We are simply trying to follow the summary style guideline, which states "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." Indeed, if you look at the patriarchy article, you'll see there is already a section at the bottom discussing the universality of patriarchy (in a way that is NPOV and free of original research. That section didn't meet the author of this article's liking, so he spun off his own POV-fork even though the section in the main article was still not even fully developed. Kaldari (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather see the article fixed and the POV removed. As the article's creator has been topic banned, I can't see that anyone will be there stop someone from merging it, but showing magnanimity and preserving the article in a form that doesn't contain POV, synth, or OR seems to me to be the best approach. My conclusion based on the information I've seen is that this is a legitimate topic in its own right that has been the focus of very substantial coverage including at least one book focused on this topic in particular as well as numerous sources discussing the ongoing debate. I can't see why we wouldn't want to cover it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Universality of patriarchy' is an unlikely search-term, so a redirect serves no real purpose. Anybody searching for information on the subject would surely try 'Patriarchy' first. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benjiboi. I understand what your saying - but that's precisely my !vote. Copy/paste the info that useful from this article back to Patriarchy and delete Universality of patriarchy. IMO neither a history nor a redirect at Universality of patriarchy would prove useful. (If I had considered them useful I would have !voted 'merge and redirect' rather than merge and delete)--Cailil talk 03:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, frankly this subject itself is plenty notable on it's own but given the parent article is so short is my main reason for supporting a merge. In my book if an article could exist but is being merged more for convenience that's a reason to leave the redirect and even the history. -- Banjeboi 03:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean - but I think that this concept is so intrinsic to the subject of Patriarchy that a separate article is unnecessary - nothing wrong with the notability of the anthropological studies, IMO it's just unintentional content forking really--Cailil talk 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Open for 24 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough keep !votes to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filmörnen[edit]

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

Also included in this nomination:

Non-notable local film festival. Google news search brings up zero hits. No evidence of notability outside the area it is held. No secondary sources to verify notability and tagged for lack of them in August of last year. This user created a series of articles on his non-notable film company that won this award but which were deleted last year. I left this article alone to give him chance to prove notability but he hasn't. Therefore, I say it's time to delete it. Redfarmer (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 16:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inchgarth Community Centre[edit]

Inchgarth Community Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced and orphaned article about a place of uncertain notability. No indication that it meets WP:N. Mosmof (talk) 08:43, 4 June 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 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My recommendation to merge was mainly based on the following claims:
  1. "Inchgarth Community Centre, on Aboyne Place, Garthdee, currently offers 157 classes to people of all ages and abilities."[37]
  2. "Mr O'Connor is preparing to launch a campaign to save the centre, which boasts a huge array of facilities and a combined annual attendance of around 70,000."[38]
  3. "BEST COMMUNITY CENTRE: INCHGARTH..."[39]
If that's not enough, delete would be my second choice. — Rankiri (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I point to WP:TOWN and WP:LOCAL to provide a reasonable background for my own view that, generally speaking, local interests with limited insular and no external coverage should not be seen as individually notable as they don't really satisfy the appropriate notability and verifiability requirements for standalone articles. I take your point about WP:TOWN not being a commonly accepted guideline—I should have remembered and mentioned that fact without simply referring you to the page—but as for "simply slapping acronyms", I believe I fully explained my reasoning in the subsequent sentence. The subject's coverage revolves around a couple of lease and renovation related incidents and other trivial announcements that all go back to 2002-2006. All that coverage essentially comes from a single local news source that may or may not be suitably impartial to pass WP:RS. If you cut down the unverified claims like "the centre was an old secondary school that was renovated in the 1980s.." and "...attracted attention of certain celebrities in the past that include: Annie Lennox, Andy Murray and Brian May"[40], the few basic facts offered by the local news coverage are way too limited to help move the page beyond its present two-sentence stub state. — Rankiri (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is no standard of inclusion on Wikipedia in which a totally non-notable subject for which no sources exist (such as a common person or small business) can be mentioned in the article on the location where it is found. Sebwite (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's no the issue here. There certainly are sources for this but nothing to suggest that this center is notable. That doesn't mean it isn't notable just that presently we don't readily see anything that shows it is. With a single source the issue could sway. Not seeing that happen I'm inclined to delete. -- Banjeboi 05:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

===Inchgarth Community Centre===


Inchgarth Community Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable center, highly promotional article. Onel5969 TT me 22:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Society for Court Studies[edit]

The Society for Court Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail the significant coverage requirement. A GNews search reveals only a dozen hits; more importantly, these divide between a North American version and a British version, making that coverage even less significant to the extent it exists. A search for "The Society for Court Studies" yielded less than 500 hits, again split between the two groups. Tyrenon (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that if this page is deleted, then the related magazine at The Court Historian should also be considered for deletion. Passportguy (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, but I would say that the magazine seems to be far more notable, and the publishing organization is the comparative footnote here. In some sense, if the Society here is notable, it is because of the magazine, and not the other way around.Tyrenon (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly disagree. The number of hits on Google is not a valid indication of relevance (and God forbid that it ever will be). In its field, The Society for Court Studies is a well-known and respected institution, established by such renowned scholars as David Starkey and Simon Thurley (try Googling them!). Its journal the Court Historian is a scientific and peer-reviewed journal and can be found in academic libraries around the world. Draeymae (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This process is actually very simple : Simply provide reliable references and I'm sure editors will reconsider their deletion request. Passportguy (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If I see a couple of good sources added (other than the organization and its journal), I'll pull the nom.Tyrenon (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have already added one reference and will look for more in weeks to come. Thank you for not deleting the article.Draeymae (talk) 12:58, 6 June 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 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sessions[edit]

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

I don't think journalists are inherently notable, nor founders of online magazines. I can't rule out third-party coverage but it's hard to search for because of his profession Citius Altius (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Valley Volunteer Fire Department[edit]

West Valley Volunteer Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nothing notable or encyclopeadic Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that those references make the Dept. notable enough to Merge into the El Paso page at the least. However if there is a fundemental rewrite or any further examples of notability can be found in addition to the above the Dept would definitly warrant having it's own page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity management pantheons[edit]

Diversity management pantheons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google searches [41], [42] do not find any use of this neologism except in connection with the newly-published book cited as the only reference. Fultus Corporation is a print-on-demand self-publisher. Delete as not notable for lack of independent reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 Tone 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Weise[edit]

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

Artist with no assertion of notability ("aspiring actress"), only references to WP:SPS Madcoverboy (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirect to Harley Davidson. Nominator agreed with this, doesn't need to be here 7 days for a re-direct. Content under the merge for whoever wants to perform it. StarM 00:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harley-Davidson FLHTCU[edit]

Harley-Davidson FLHTCU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been tagged as an orphan since September 2008 and as uncited since July 2007. It is a stub, of little use, and should be deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is a good solution. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addington Symonds[edit]

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

this surname does not exist. People listed have the have been given the surname 'Addington' as a middle name and have the surname 'Symonds' Mayumashu (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, having a page about uch an obscure name is a bit odd. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 / snow delete as a hoax. BencherliteTalk 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hill (soldier)[edit]

Michael Hill (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Highly implausible biography with no references. The subject gets no Google hits.

To be specific:

DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Tucker[edit]

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

Person seems to fail WP:BIO. Only stated achievement is the brief publication of a comic strip in a number of non-mainstream publications. Comic is now discontinued and has no article of its own; in light of the stated short run, I feel that the comic also likely lacks notability. Tyrenon (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astadia[edit]

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

Yet another case of not-quite-unambiguous adverspam. All references are internal to the company as far as I can tell, and the page is just a list of products. The article has been up for a month, and hasn't been touched in over three and a half weeks. Tyrenon (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Hilali[edit]

Abdullah Al Hilali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

while involved in a top level sporting league, I doubt this referee meets notability requirements. Lacks references RadioFan (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems to be missing from WP:Athlete I indeed suggest that one of the experts on here writes it into the guidelines of meets notability requirements for sporting officials. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry but you do seem to revealing a lack of knowledge of what generally meets notability requirements on here. Why for instance would this referee not be notable out of Category:Football (soccer) referees by nationality. What makes this any less notable than Masoud Moradi and the thousands of other articles? This nomination seems to have been spurred by a mistaken belief that football officials are not notable rather than the status of this individual as he is a top international referee and certainly not a criteria for deletion. If you;d waited two minutes for me to edit it time would have been saved. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on small national league referees. You;d think this would not even be questionable given that he has officiated for the world's biggest football competitions (and is a World Cup referee candidate). This is elite football we are talking about, this shouldn't have even been nominated. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PalaceChat (software)[edit]

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

Comparison for the sake of advertisement for program on sale. Adelare (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see anything notable about it... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Horváth (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league. No other claim to fame either. GiantSnowman 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Target Account Selling[edit]

Target Account Selling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sales process. No reliable sources detail this process in any reasonable detail. Unsourced since feb 2007. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has to be deleted to be rewritten, the current article has no connection to what could be the real article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm confused. "The article has to be deleted to be rewritten"? What kind of strange, circular reasoning is that? I know that sounds a bit like a borderline personal attack, but it's not really intended to be... OK, the current content totally sucks. I can accept that as a fact, but as a reason for deletion!? What about editing it to change it into a better article (even if that basically entails blanking the page, that would still be more productive then deleting then it). Ω (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain sceptical about whether this marketing method (or any other, really) is a proper subject for an encyclopedia article, I am open to being convinced. But this text seems to be spam, intended to farm links to a website. The current text probably ought to be wiped from the history because of that. So any deletion should be without prejudice to re-creaton, but this ought to go. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? When the current article and the possible have no connection, it has to be created anew, to just purge the history. This is one of the cases where WP:TNT is required. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The is an example of a reason not to delete and article, as specified in WP:ATD, which is part of the overal deletion policy. Ω (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Japanophile. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wapanese[edit]

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

The article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as it is merely a dictionary entry. The proposed deletion template was removed by an editor who at the time thought that the article held content that was better than that of the existing Wiktionary entry and therefore should be transwikied. Because after several weeks the article is still here and because I disagreed with the transwikification in the first place, I am now nominating it for deletion. Goodraise 20:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The terms may not be synonymous but Wapanese is a subset of Japanophile and can rightly be included in that article. Drawn Some (talk)
The terms wapanese and weeaboo aren't ethnic slurs, they refer only to non-Japanese people by definition. Plus disambiguation pages are for ambiguous article titles, that's not the case here. Drawn Some (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of spore games and expansions[edit]

List of spore games and expansions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The content included, to the extent it exists, is better served on the primary page of Spore. Even if a separate page is merited for the expansions, a page for a list of them is completely unnecessary. Tyrenon (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Joes[edit]

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

We lack sports criteria, and while I know that major-league and minor-league sports teams qualify for Wikipedia, I cannot find guidance on whether or not amateur teams make the cut. Ergo, this nomination, which I will gladly withdraw if it is found to be within guidelines. Tyrenon (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why the Hamilton Joes Wikipedia page being kept open is important

The Midwest U.S., especially the Ohio/Indiana/Kentucky area, is baseball minded. Baseball there is what Football is to the entire state of Texas. We love our professional teams, major and minor league, and we love our amateur teams. We also follow our high school standout athletes their entire careers. There is no greater example than the Cincinnati area. (Hamilton sits just outside of Cincinnati). To the people of the Cincinnati area, and people active in Major and Minor league baseball, know and respect who Joe Nuxhall was. He was from Hamilton. He is a legend throughout the entire southwest Ohio area, not to mention around many other circles throughout the world of baseball. The Joes are his namesake, and his family is very involved with the team. The Cincinnati Reds also share those ties with the Joes. Their Executive VP of the Reds Community Fund, Charley Frank, opened up the press conference introducing the team. Former Red, Major Leaguer and possible Hall of Famer Sean Casey, along with Joe Nuxhall's son, Kim, as well as former Cincinnati Bengals Hall of Famer and Cincinnati resident, Anthony Munoz, are all assisting in the Joes opening day, marketing, fundraising, etc. As a matter of fact, Major League partially funds the Great Lakes Summer Collegiate League, of which the Joes are in.

This is a really important tool, Wikipedia, and our fans need places to go to get their information. It is my intention to paste links to the Joes Wikipedia page whenever possible, as it provides a widely-used and trusted source among the population.

Please, instead of deleting the page, just let me know what needs to be fixed. I'm not the best at deciphering guideline jargon, so if you could use plain terms I would greatly appreciate it. --Joshuadmanley (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your fans need places to go to get their information, you need to place the information on your own website. Wikipedia is a place where verifiable information on notable topics is compiled. It's not your webhost. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Omega Chi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Phi Omega Chi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The external reference links provided are free web host servers, unless valid references are added. --TitanOne (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

André Schneider[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources to document either the article's claims or demonstrate the subject's notability. Disembrangler (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like this article is a fake. Maybe it was created for catching some attention. No evidence for movie appearance, comedy shows etc. can be found. German version was already deleted in 2006 for the same reasons. --Dikanda (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect WP:BLP policy even on these pages. That fact that evidence can't be found to support claims doesn't necessarily mean they're not true, or that they were made in bad faith, so please don't speculate. It doesn't actually matter for this AfD whether sources can be found to back up the claims, because the subject almost certainly fails notability, I think. Disembrangler (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the unsourced and potentially hoaxy parts of the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs) as G3: blatant hoax. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Chatzivasiliou[edit]

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

This is a FAKE article and should be deleted ASAP. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Schmitt[edit]

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

Unknown artist, no sources about its exhibitions and awards, poor google hits Nanax (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I'm familiar with (i.e. the one I know is notable) is transmediale, for which he came in second. I would say that's a bit on the trivial side. Problem is, there are so many art awards out there, esp. in new media, that having a list of awards is often meaningless. This is borderline. freshacconci talktalk 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) as G12 - blatant copyright violation. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cower[edit]

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

Non-notable game. No sources included in article, most likely because there aren't any to be found. Creating editor removed prod, so now it's at AFD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Smith[edit]

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

The article was created by a single purpose account as an apparent fluff piece. The article has been tagged as reading like a press release for over two years with no attempt at repairing the issue. Beyond that it is unreferenced and its most recent update made it even worse as it now reads like a bio written by her publicist. Jeremy (blah blah) 07:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryan Avery, as it had been since 2006. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night Wolf[edit]

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

Neither animal nor folklore, this page is either a joke or vandalism. gnomeselby (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashra Kwesi[edit]

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

Non-notable biography of professor. Sources don't establish any notability. Has been PRODed and de-PRODed already, so AfD raised. Oscarthecat (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. I don't see much for notability, but if a well respected editor thinks there's cause to keep it I'm inclind to give them the benefit of the doubt. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AV Multi[edit]

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

It was suggested at MultiAV's discussion that this article also be deleted. It only has two references, one of which comes from the same site as MultiAV's references. Brian Jason Drake 06:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rose MacDonnell of Antrim[edit]

Rose MacDonnell of Antrim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Notability is not inherited. The woman is a grandchild of someone, a wife of someone else, a sister-in-law to another, and a mother to two unnamed others. This person is unlikely to have received significant coverage anywhere. Celtus (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You want to keep a bio on a non-notable person because it seems like there are other people with the same name. Huh?--Celtus (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not have to delete an article completely in order to create a new version and, by keeping earlier versions, we retain an audit trail which respects our contributors in accordance with our licence and enables the easy correction of mistakes. Please see our deletion policy which states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Colonel Warden (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Power Glove. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powerglove[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Powerglove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Anonymous user removed redection, still fails WP:BAND Cazbahrocker (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Cazbahrocker (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'd agree, except at least twice it was redirecting to the article for old video game controller and the article for the non-notable band was restored. If not for the name of the article, it would be deleted for failing notability as per the previous AfD. A deleted article will refer someone to the AfD when they try to recreate the article. I'm not sure that can be done with a simple redirect. Cazbahrocker (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Lamorte[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography, unsourced, promotional, and lacking claim to notability. This was marked, appropriately, for speedy deletion. JNW (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found one ref referring to Lilith La Morte on Google News -- not enough to establish notability, but enough so I wanted to see if they could come up with any reliable sources in a week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find anything--maybe you can supply a link to the mention? It would have to be substantial, if it is the only source that can be found. The claims made in the article (Dani is known for his unique, creative, and sometimes shocking live performances; That evening, Dani Lamorte won the title of Miss Pittsburgh Trailer Park Trash 2008) and detailed descriptions of the act don't suffice. JNW (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.pittnews.com/2.2145/drag-show-challenges-gender-identities-dress-1.237294 -- very minor mention. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Notwithstanding the humor of the "Miss Pittsburgh Trailer Park Trash" designation, there's not much there... JNW (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Football in popular culture[edit]

Nuclear Football in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is trivial listcruft at best. Important notes (if there is any) should be in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Uncle G said above, the future implications are irrelevant, and this is not a good argument. Mintrick (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I merged any content I felt worthwhile into a small IPC section. Two short paragraphs, much better than the current state of this article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this particular case, I don't think this subject has recieved significant (or any) secondary recognition to indicate it is a notable theme. I agree that concensus has changed, and the long list of deleted IPC articles should be looked back at carefully. But this, this is a poor example of something with little to no cultural impact, and I don't feel bad about jumping the gun and boldly merging content before it gets deleted. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the central topic is not nuclear football, but nuclear football in popular culture. Important distinction. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synergology[edit]

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

Original research Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remedial action work plan[edit]

Remedial action work plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing but an uncited dictionary definition. This has been tagged for notability and verifiability issues since 2007 without any major change and nothing I can find shows that an encyclopedic article can be built out of the concept in general without the use of original research. Also note that the creator has been indef. blocked for vandalism. ThemFromSpace 04:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XboxNowOnline[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find any WP:RS references for this, listed on many gaming sites along with ads though. Nothing on Gnews either. The article is only self-referenced, so no pointers from there either. It reads like an ad, but that can be fixed by reducing to a stub. Alexa ranking is over 2 million. Also nominating a redirect page (the Founder's name). SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because although it currently is just a redirect, it started off as Bio for the Chief Editor/Founder:

Hamza Dar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment. Please be more attentive. On the Blogger's Choice awards, it was an anonymous nomination and the website only received a single vote in one of the two nominated categories[49][50]. The website also isn't even mentioned in DailyBits' "18 Undiscovered Websites Every Gamer Should Know" feature, unless you see the user response #63 by "mrcoolz" as feature appearance. — Rankiri (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errr, I seem to have been in too much of a hurry. SharkD (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A7 by User:Backslash_Forwardslash. Lenticel (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful Machine[edit]

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

Non-notable web portal. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arizona Diamondbacks people[edit]

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

I'm nominating several more "List of [MLB team] people" pages after they were brought to my attention in the AfD for List of Boston Red Sox people. Again, these pages are indiscriminate lists of people, radio stations and televisions stations that have been associated with their respective teams in some way at some point. They unhelpfully include groundskeepers, celebrities with no ties to the organization besides wearing their shirts, as well a "Other noteworthy individuals" subsections, which sometimes include no one.

Other pages being condensed in this AfD:

For relevant policies: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:STAND, WP:OR. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are those? These articles are completely overlapping with existing articles. Spanneraol (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overlaps for Diamondbacks: List of Arizona Diamondbacks broadcasters (which also includes radio and TV stations), List of Arizona Diamondbacks managers, and Arizona Diamondbacks all-time roster
For Braves: List of Atlanta Braves broadcasters (which also includes radio and TV stations), List of Arizona Diamondbacks managers and Atlanta Braves all-time roster
For White Sox: List of Chicago White Sox broadcasters (which also includes radio and TV stations), List of Chicago White Sox managers and ownership and Chicago White Sox all-time roster
for Dodgers: List of Los Angeles Dodgers broadcasters (which also includes radio and TV stations), Managers and ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers (redirect from List of Los Angeles Dodgers managers), Los Angeles Dodgers all-time roster and List of Los Angeles Dodgers in the Baseball Hall of Fame
for the Mets: List of New York Mets broadcasters (which also includes radio and TV stations), List of New York Mets managers, and New York Mets all-time roster
I've already listed the Yankees overlap above.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Toronto Transit Commission ridership per year[edit]

Annual Toronto Transit Commission ridership per year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an indiscriminate list of statistics. Radagast (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article about parent organization. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (redirect title) and remove ridership info per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT#STATS guidelines. If this amount of ridership info were to be provided at all, it would have to, at the very least, be cited from multiple sources. Besides a few lines and the sources, this page is mostly a list of statistics. Sebwite (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are too many dates there. It is simply too exhaustive. All data is official TTC data, from one source. Therefore it is not true that there are too few sources. A similar situation can be found here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_population_census_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina Many different data points, therefore it is not part of but has its separate page as it is in more detail. (LAz17 (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale, and there is no reason why every single year has to be included in the main article. You could do a sidebar table that lists the ridership today, in 2005, 2000, 1995, 1990, 1985, etc, and a link to the stats page that you got the information from if a reader wanted full year-by-year data. Resolute 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding many years is very detrimental, as this goes up and down depending on the year. We would be missing the big picture here, as ridership is not increasing nonstop as you would suggest, if one excluded all years. (LAz17 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
Lies. It will expand, every year. A graph or sidebar is useless if there are no numbers. (LAz17 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Comment: The redirect may be necessary because this page does have some links. Sebwite (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican football transfers summer 2009[edit]

List of Mexican football transfers summer 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has no references, besides the links at the bottom. A lot of it is written with slang words and there is a lot of gossip. Black'nRed 04:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete, suggest that the author goes to the Mexican version of football rumours Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:May I withdraw it, since its improved since the last time I nominated it. Black'nRed 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the article was improved and the original reasons for deletion does not apply anymore, you can withdraw the nomination. --Carioca (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, given that people have !voted to delete, the nom cannot be withdrawn but must run its course -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are correct. I overlooked the delete !votes. --Carioca (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dual sport motorcycle rides[edit]

Dual sport motorcycle rides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Dual-sport motorcycling is quite notable, but "Dual Sport Motorcycle Rides" is a particular company that offers dual-sport trips, which is not mentioned in any published sources other than the company's own web site. Dbratland (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarun Mata Temple[edit]

Sarun Mata Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While a Google search indicates that the temple does in fact exist (I was suspicious, but I'm convinced of its existence), I cannot find anything relevant on GNews, GBooks, or GScholar. One would expect a mention in at least one of these if the temple were notable, but every single mention was the result of odd word combination throughout the document. Google did return a number of hits, but only 8 came back if you put the temple's name in quotes (and four of these were either from Wikipedia or from other sites' member edit pages). Basically, this seems to be a non-notable local church/temple without even any major press mentions, and therefore seems to fail WP:N. Tyrenon (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The Lethbridge book would be a reliable source if it confirmed this, but it doesn't appear to contain the words "Sarun Mata", at least with that spelling.[51] Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I had the same problem, so I tried searching for the supposed founder, but no hits on that either. I'll wait to see if anyone can turn up any Hindi links, I don't have a Hindi keyboard, so I can't type, and Google doesn't let me translate "Sarun" to Hindi for me to search for the entire string in Hindi. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note I've placed a notice about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board and User talk:Shyam (Shyam is an active user who speaks Hindi). Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unsalvageable spam. The early versions that were not overloaded with spam were copied from the Ecotourism Australia website, so there was no usable version to roll back to. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotourism Australia[edit]

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

This is currently written as an advertisement in multiple colours and no regard for WP:MOS. Grahame (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7, presumably. Tone 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backdraft (superhero)[edit]

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

Article about an RPG character played by the author of the article. Its not even a published fictional character, its just some DND type charcter this guy created and plays in a role playing game. This may be the least notable article I have ever seen. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Sugars and ActionCOACH (see below)[edit]

Brad Sugars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
ActionCOACH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Sugars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Underwood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broncolor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement Bowman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Levine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors, and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dalberg Global Development Advisors/1

Was proposed for deletion yesterday, but the tag was removed and so it is coming to AfD. The reason listed was: "Written like an advert, no credible notability established, mainly relying on primary sources." Orderinchaos 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep. It's spammy, but not unrescuably so, and there are a smattering of indepedent sources availible. I would not miss this article terribly so, but it does seem to brush up against the WP:N baseline. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but it is an argument to avoid. For future reference, Aaron. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you know there are COI problems on other articles (I was not aware of these cases, and I don't know if what you said was based on evidence or your interpretation of a look through contribution histories), please add the COI template to them. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and conclusion - As a rule, I dislike paid articles like this; they tend to be spammy, "puff" and basically there for PR purposes; they often feel untrustworthy as contributions until carefully checked by neutral editors whether they are of any genuine value. That said we judge articles by their content not their motives, and having checked, the "Stevie" awards do seem genuine enough as serious recognized awards. If some of the other awards are legitimately valuable and not "some magazine's own award scheme that shows little more than that magazine's opinion", then I would say ActionCoach would probably be notable as a business. But the article should be stripped of any "puff". As for the CEO himself, is he notable outside the context of that business? Probably not. A successful businessman and author, ten a penny. Even if he won a single award, I'm not sure that makes him as a person notable - there are not so many awards in the world where winning them automatically makes a person of historical note. I'd want strong evidence and bona fide coverage (not just PR pieces) that indicate he is notable. Conclusion:

Although ActionCoach itself is not really notable. So if all the business related information were moved to that article it would also fail WP:N and end up being deleted as well. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zithan (talk · contribs), who created most of the article in its present form, has been desysopped and blocked by ArbCom for failure to reply to queries about his paid editing. See [53]. --John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ActionCOACH[edit]

Based on the original article and comments I made above, there is a chance that ActionCOACH might be notable. I have created an article based on the original at ActionCOACH and tagged it with ((refimprove)) and ((COI)) (due to its origins), and listed it here with Sugars' article, for communal review. I have no personal interest in either article; the sole question is whether if drafted, the company is considered notable. It may be - the Stevie awards appear to be non-trivial and legitimate and it has won other awards too. See my comment above. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Update: To my somewhat surprise, we appear to be discussing a $220m annual revenue business. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then delete Brad Sugars? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typically it would be redirected to ActionCOACH. Computerjoe's talk 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otter (Drinking Game)[edit]

Otter (Drinking Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, was prodded again, but since we aren't supposed to re-prod, I've brought it here. No evidence that this meets notability guidelines, seems to be something someone made up one day. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sing sing slammer[edit]

Sing sing slammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

wikipedia is NOT for something made up one day....or one night Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of winners of the Walt Whitman Award[edit]

List of winners of the Walt Whitman Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Winners of an unnotable award by the Academy of American Poets. Once again, creator has recreated a list that was already redirect to the main article once that was under the name Walt Whitman Award, and despite two other AfDs going on with two other lists of awards from the same organization that he remade, without discussion and against the current consensus. The lists are nothing but a repeat of the list of winners from the official website[54] and the main AAP article has a better description of the award. The two "sources" are a directory listing for the award and a personal website. No notability of the award beyond its tie to AAP and most of the poets who have won it are not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep, there is Significant Coverage in Reliable sources, Independent of the subject, it took me 1 minute to google therefore snowball. flag for notability and third party sources, don't delete. pohick - (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does that make it a snowball keep? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's personal website is not a reliable source, nor is an advertisement for the award significant and independent. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? How is it notable apart from the Academy? How is a list of its winners that just repeats the award's website notable? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Walt Whitman Award, established in 1975, comes with $5,000 and hardcover publication of a poet's first book by the Louisiana State University Press. But since the academy also buys 6,000 copies for its members, and the average print run for a poet's first book is 3,000 copies, a Whitman, or a James Laughlin Award ($5,000), and the sale of the 6,000 copies guarantee a best seller in the tiny poetry market."

Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Academy of American Poets. All of that is already there. And no, I'd rather see a single award page for the Academy, as was done during the merging of the individual awards page, than individual ones just repeating their website over again.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Google News:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ltAMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5681,3685106&dq=walt-whitman-award
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7_0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3576,6421758&dq=walt-whitman-award
http://likethedew.com/2009/05/06/walt-whitman-the-sublime-and-the-bibb-county-dump/
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E15FB3E5513728DDDAD0994DC405B888BF1D3
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/theater/as-arts-prizes-multiply-so-do-doubts-on-value.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GYAKAAAAIBAJ&pg=7119,6888054&dq=walt-whitman-award
Google News results for the first four recipients on the list:
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Michael%20Martinez%22%20%22Walt%20Whitman%20Award%22
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Jonathan+Thirkield%22+%22Walt+Whitman+Award%22&cf=all
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Sally+Van+Doren%22+%22Walt+Whitman+Award%22
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Anne+Pierson+Wiese%22+%22Walt+Whitman+Award%22 — Rankiri (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody's saying delete but the nominator but nobody's saying "keep" either. We have a suggestion to redirect to Character_(arts), a suggestion to merge to Story within a story and there's a "mergeto" tag on the article itself proposing a merge to Metafiction. Any of these can be done without AFD so I would suggest that the issue be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be WP:BOLD and do one of these things. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional fictional character[edit]

Fictional fictional character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research, would fail WP:SYNTH if it had any sources Citius Altius (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this thought occurred to me too, but I decided to fight one fight at a time. The rest is an editorial decision at Character (arts), I figure. JJL (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of winners of the Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize[edit]

List of winners of the Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Winners list from an unnotable poetry award. Fails WP:N. Same list already removed once when Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize was merged to Academy of American Poets for lacking notability. As with the first article, this list is just a repeat of the official list. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a mirror for the Academy of American Poets. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep flag for notability and third party sources, don't delete. pohick - (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason for a snowball keep. Article has already been merged once, after being flagged for notability, and you recreated under a new name. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is Significant Coverage in Reliable sources, Independent of the subject, it took me 1 minute to google therefore snowball. pohick - (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is not significant coverage. You shoving in a bunch of non-reliable links that simply mention that the award exists does not make its winners notable. The only sourced statement about the award is already in the main article, and none of the "sources" you tried to add note anything else about the award. And again, that does not make it WP:SNOWBALL. I'd suggest reviewing both WP:RS and WP:AFD.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
discussion of the deleted references on the talk page [59] - is Poets & Writers significant? pohick - (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ginny Dye[edit]

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

Plenty of google hits, but I couldn't find any independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO Citius Altius (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award[edit]

List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Winners list from an unnotable award that fails WP:N; list already removed once when Wallace Stevens Award was merged to Academy of American Poets. This list is also nothing but a repeat of the list on the official site[60] and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a mirror for the Academy of American Poets. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep flag for notability and third party sources, don't delete. pohick - (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason for a snowball keep. Article has already been merged once, after being flagged for notability, and you recreated under a new name. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is Significant Coverage in Reliable sources, Independent of the subject, it took me 1 minute to google therefore snowball. pohick - (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is not significant coverage. You shoving in a bunch of non-reliable links that simply mention that the award exists does not make its winners notable. The only sourced statement about the award is already in the main article, and none of the "sources" you tried to add note anything else about the award. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the reliable third party sources duplicate the information in the article, why are you deleting material that supports a keep? pohick - (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not reliable sources. You added Wikipedia mirrors, non-RS, and press releases. Nor do they support a keep. As you said, they do nothing but duplicate the award list (official site), and the lead (which you simply copy/pasted from the Academy of American Poets site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
discussion of deleted sources at Talk:List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award is Poets & Writers, or California College of the Arts reliable? pohick - (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Nom withdrawn, I disagree with "consensus" but it's clear where this is going. StarM 23:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blathur[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Blathur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I know there has been some discussion (although unresolved) about the possible changes in whether place=notable, so I wanted to bring this here again. Worse comes to worse, I withdraw. We have absolutely zero verifiable information about this place. Previous AfD said it's inhabited=it's notable but with no references and no content, what's notable. I'm aware of bias issues but I don't think this possible map-dot, no matter where in the world it is, is notable. Thoughts? StarM 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Us (Backstreet Boys album)[edit]

This Is Us (Backstreet Boys album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased future album. Purely unsourced but WP:CRYSTAL. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Seri Saujana[edit]

SMK Seri Saujana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In addition to apparently being foreign-language, I this appears to be an article on a local school. At the very least the article needs a massive translation/cleanup, and even then notability and whatnot are almost assuredly in dispute. I would cite WP:ORG for this. Tyrenon (talk) 06:10, 4 June 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 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 50 Cent. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddy[edit]

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

"Fiddy" is a dialect way of pronouncing "fifty" and appears in many contexts, such as B-fiddy-two (B-52 Stratofortress) or rapper Fiddy Cent (50 Cent). So it isn't even really a special motorcycling term for 50 cc bikes; some people just think it's cool to say fiddy instead of fifty. And anyhow, WP:NOTDICT--Dbratland (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's over 1M hits for "50cc racing" because there are many popular 50 cc classes, but none of them is actually named "Fiddy." It could be a good topic for an article, beyond the defunct 50 cc grand prix class, but it would include many regions beyond those where they sometimes say Fiddy racing.--Dbratland (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, simple:50 Cent mentions he is also called "fiddy cent" but the en version currently doesn't. It seems like a possible misspelling. tedder (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Python[edit]

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

Does not establish its notability. — FatalError 00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks to be a significant contribution to Python. should be linked, or merged.

Cfzeitler (talk) 07:36, 5 June 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, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Williams (musician)[edit]

Phil Williams (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography that hasn't established notability, after being tagged for a month. I'm not seeing anything in the searches I do, but his relatively common name is a hindrance. Gigs (talk) 01:01, 4 June 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) 00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currentland[edit]

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

This appears to be a cable access type show. I don't see any coverage at all. Gigs (talk) 01:40, 4 June 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) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Trueheart[edit]

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

Did some writing for Invader Zim and almost nothing else. Only two other credits on IMDb, no reliable third party sources found. Unsourced since 1/07. Doesn't seem to warrant a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:40, 4 June 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) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hummel[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Wrote about half of the Invader Zim episodes with Jhonen, wrote for one other show, fell off the map without a single non-trivial source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:42, 4 June 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) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Almos[edit]

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

A couple minor roles, but no coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:45, 4 June 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) 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fieldbrook Farms[edit]

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

Non-notable, no significant secondary source mentions. worthawholebean talkcontribs 22:07, 3 June 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, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media editor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Media editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

prod declined without comment. I'll repeat my prod comments here: Synthesis/collection of somewhat unrelated factoids about video editing, audio editing, graphic design and so on. I'm not sure what this article is about. Hairhorn (talk) 01:50, 4 June 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) 00:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight (video)[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED This video has about 600k hits on youtube, and the only reason it's here is because Cory Williams is notable. I don't see any independent notability for this video. Gigs (talk) 01:58, 4 June 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) 00:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right now, this redirects to the article on Midnight, as in the time of night. The author put a re-direct up just after the AfD nom. Might be something an admin needs to deal with. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would be willing to restore this as a redirect for the purpose of merging, if someone will volunteer to perform such a merge. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panther Dog[edit]

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

I have tried to verify the existence of the "panther dog," but it is nowhere to be found in the book cited as the article's only source, nor does a Google search linking "panther dog" with "Aaron Hall" (its alleged breeder) turn up any confirmation. At the very least, there are problems with WP:V; at worst, it is a hoax. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a relatively new user to Wikipedia, I may not have mastered the markup language you have used to challenge this article, but I am prepared to defend its authenticity and notability. My quote is from the work cited, and is found on page 51. Should you wish to download the book, you can find a link at www.archive.org/details/extinctpennsylva00shoe. If you make the effort to read significant portions of the book, you ought to be struck by it's clear authenticity as a contemporaneous or near contemporaneous account of the decline and disappearance of a number of species from Pennsylvania about 120 years ago and the men responsible (with a number of photographs of the protagonists). Seen in a modern context, a great many comparisons could be made with similar situations in today's third world. However, my article is not about the wider context of this book, but a specific reference to dogs known as "panther dogs" because they were used to hunt panthers, the colloquial name for cougars. If you had, as I have, spent much of your free time over the last 40 years studying the domestic dog, you would jump with delight at any account of the way that existing breeds had been combined to produce a crossbred dog for a specific purpose. Such accounts are remarkably rare, as dog breeds are frequently developed over a period of time by a number of men who in many case are not literate. An example being the Rhodesian Ridgeback, clearly developed from guarding and hunting breeds crossed with some indigenous breed that sports the eponymous ridge, known otherwise only in a few Asian breeds. Another example is the Bullmastiff, which though indisputably developed significantly from the Mastiff and The Bulldog, can be shown to have an admixture of Bloodhound. If you examine the quotation I provided, you will see that the panther dog had substantially the same elements, with the addition of the Newfoundland. Why the addition of the Newfoundland, a dog primarily associated with water rescue, is by no means clear, but it is of scholarly interest. I could go on a long, long time, with particular reference to the Australian "pig dogs", used for a similar purpose against the introduced wild boar of Australia, and composed of a similar mix of dog varieties, but I think I have made my point that the panther dogs are of historical and sociological interest, apart from their intrinsic zoological interest. I suggest that you check this source again with more care, and in future apply even more care before you bandy about such words as "hoax". Collieuk (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Collieuk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collieuk (talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "panther dog" can be found in a few books relating to American Indian culture. But those dogs were not a specific breed known as "panther dog," which is what this article alludes to. Outside of a fleeting reference in the 1907 book by Shoemaker, I have been unable to find independent confirmation that a man named Aaron Hall created this breed. And, quite frankly, part of the Shoemaker citation seems like an exaggeration (the notion of an adult human riding on a dog's back stretches credibility -- the canine anatomy is not designed to accommodate human passengers). References to hunting breeds in other parts of the world are irrelevant to the debate. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One at jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/86/1/9.pdf, a research paper “ENERGETIC COST OF GENERATING MUSCULAR FORCE DURING RUNNING A COMPARISON OF LARGE AND SMALL ANIMALS”, C. Richard Taylor, et al. J. exp. Biol. (1980), 86, 9-18 In this paper the energetic cost of carrying loads is studied in a number of animals, including dogs, which were trained to trot and to run on a treadmill carrying a load of up to 25.5 per cent of their body weight at three different speeds.

Another at www.americanjourneys.org/pdf/AJ-105.pdf is a document of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Digital Library and Archives entitled “Investigations of conditions in New Mexico, 1601”, in which a representative of the Viceroy of New Spain reports that a tribe of Native Americans hunt buffalo and, “they do not bear any burdens because they load their meat, fat, and tents on packs of dogs, each dog carrying a load of fifty pounds”. “The dogs are much smaller than mastiffs.”

These references are consistent with the credibility of a very large dog bearing a man on his back. Collieuk (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Collieuk[reply]

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

The result was delete. All. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Killed the Prom Queen / Parkway Drive[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I Killed the Prom Queen / Parkway Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Don't Close Your Eyes (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable EPs, no reliable sources. Titles seem unlikely redirects as one is a split EP between two artists and the other has a qualifier in the title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:22, 4 June 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) 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy redirect NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Begbrooke[edit]

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

There is already an article for Begbroke. "Begbrooke" is both mis-spelt and redundant. Motacilla (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpay ulku[edit]

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

I hesitated greatly on this one, but Mr. Ulku does not quite seem to meet WP:BLP. A GNews search turns up very little; what little comes up seems to relate to a lone book published a decade ago. I also can't find much to assert widespread notability, and most of the article's award claims are totally unsourced. At the least this needs far better sourcing to show notability, but the most I can find at the moment is a single publication and a lot of claims. Failing deletion, it definitely needs a major cleanup if notability can be shown, but as per WP:N on artists, I think he falls short. Tyrenon (talk) 04:53, 4 June 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) 00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppers' hotline[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shoppers' hotline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Though not entirely unambiguous, this article feels very much like adverspam. I'm probably too conservative with CSDs and this might be a speedy, but I'm going to (as usual) err on the side of caution and AfD it for failing WP:ORG and lacking verifiable, third-party sources. Tyrenon (talk) 05:59, 4 June 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) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Boys/Girls State. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mountaineer Boys State[edit]

Mountaineer Boys State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Boys' State as a program is notable, but I do not feel that the individual state programs are themselves notable. In essence they are child organizations involved in the same activity; in a similar vein, the American Legion is notable, but individual AL posts and state organizations are not. Tyrenon (talk) 06:07, 4 June 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) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That midght be appropriate if a number of state programs started to overwhelm the primary article. In this case it is just a few sentences. If there were five sentences on each of 50 states that would be about 250 lines but probably most of them have nothing to distinguish themselves from the other 49. Regardless it should be a natural process of spin-outs from the primary article as notability for a topic is established and the amount of information warrants a separate article. Drawn Some (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. The ones that bear mention in my mind are probably the first one or two of each, the last one or two of each (and why they were the last), and ones with big controversies. Most of the others are somewhat "garden variety".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mrmaggoo13 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)*Keep This article has been updated to include more information and it doesn't make sense to overload the page chosen to merge the information into.[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was blatant advertising and the AfD had already run its course with no one other than the original author contesting it: a commercial ad serving software developed by Orbitscripts company. Created as a back-end system it provides ad management features that help to convert websites traffic into profit. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SmartPPC EVO[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for some time as having both advertising and notability issues. These have not yet been addressed, and given that it's been nearly a month, deletion is likely in order. Tyrenon (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What can be done to keep the article alive? Search for 'ad serving software' in Google, and you'll see it on the 1st page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariakovalchuk (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 June 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, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Melody (Sharleen Spiteri album). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Keep Me Waiting[edit]

Don't Keep Me Waiting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song released only in Switzerland; peaked at 78. Non-notable. Article created by sock puppet of banned editor. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the song "charted at #78", and the nomination says that it "peaked at 78". I am not sure where it would have peaked at 78 other than on a chart. While it is true that "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album," I see no reason to presume that this 2 week old article is necessarily unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub. Rlendog (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a single could reach 78 in the UK, but still fail to be in the Top 40 Singles Chart ;-) Regarding stub-ery - perhaps, but this was released last year and no one's seen fit to create an article before now, and there simply doesn't seem much we could add to the article (with the possible exception of Citius Altius's comments re: Salon). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, you could also go through all the album reviews and extract what they said about this particular track, but the fact that they cover the song in the context of the album seems to suggest that Wikipedia should too. Citius Altius (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the UK, but the main US charts generally go to 100. I'm not sure that an artificial cutoff based on where UK charts may typically end make sense. Citius Altius' point makes sense, but it depends on how much coverage the reviews have for the song. If the album reviews just mention the song in passing, and there isn't enough cumulative information for a full article, then it may make sense to merge, but if reviews address this song in some detail, then the article should remain as is. But even there, most singles will be initially covered in within their album reviews, and only over time will we see whether more significant coverage of the song will emerge.Rlendog (talk) 13:33, 12 June 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 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Håvard Lothe[edit]

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

GNews turns up zilch in English. The cited MySpace account and official website are not enough to establish notability per WP:MUSIC, and his records are with a company which does not have an article on Wikipedia. Tyrenon (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could add those to the article as well as the AfD? — Bdb484 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already added the chart position which is sufficient to show notability per WP:MUSICBIO. That said, WP:BEFORE states: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." So even if I hadn't, I have shown that the article could be improved and so it shouldn't be deleted whether I've improved it or not. --JD554 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting that; it's just been my experience that when I can find sources, the nominating editor will usually withdraw the AfD if I add them and bring the article up to standards on my own. Your call. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said above, I already have. --JD554 (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one of them, but whatevs. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:50, 5 June 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) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nom withdrawn). (NAC). JJL (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compensated gross tonnage[edit]

Fails WP:DICDEF. Is a definitional article that has been unaltered for quite some time in spite of tagging shortly after posting. Withdrawn following noticable improvement to get it out of DICDEF territory. Tyrenon (talk) 07:57, 4 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TradeBeam[edit]

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

Though not unambiguous, this appears to be adverspam. The articles provided read like press releases that got incorporated into industry magazines, not actual coverage. Thus I feel that in spite of a few sources, it fails WP:CORP. Tyrenon (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've generally interpreted the notability requirements to exclude the reproduction of press releases. This is definitely the case with films, and I consider it to be the clear intention across the board that simply getting a few news releases picked up isn't quite sufficient.Tyrenon (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an interpretation, the guidelines specifically state that press releases aren't independent sources. Primary source can't be used to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I hadn't noticed it on the specific page, but I had noticed it elsewhere. Will keep in mind in the future.Tyrenon (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See "Primary criteria" at WP:CORP for the specific wording excluding press releases. Drawn Some (talk) 10:17, 4 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The 2 "delete" !votes challenge the notability of the country, not whether or not this article should exist. Otherwise there's no consensus to delete. Opinions on keeping and merging are both sound so I'm going to choose not to stick a big purple tag on the article. The merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions of South Ossetia[edit]

List of diplomatic missions of South Ossetia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of diplomatic missions for a widely unrecognized nation. Merge into the South Ossetia article at most, and delete. Tyrenon (talk) 08:09, 4 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(About the crossed out keep word) This is a misunderstanding. An AfD discussion is never a vote. Sometimes I and other editors have to put a template to remind people that the AfD discussion is to reach a consensus that are agreed by most or all of the people, not by a majority vote. Furthermore, my purpose of adding a "keep" in a parentheses is just a supplement to my comment. I know that I already expressed my support of keeping the article, but the remark can quickly express what my comment is about and what side am I supporting as I made my comment here. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
whilst it is not a vote, editors are not permitted to say keep or delete more than once. LibStar (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being absurd. Article Rescue Squadron is a group working to prevent worthwhile, yet sometimes badly written articles from being deleted. I didn't made up the name by myself. Also, see this category page for yourself. Almost every country in the world, despite of their recognition and the number of diplomatic missions, have a similar article there. Why shouldn't this country have the article in same format in order to maintain integrity of that category? --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yakshagana makeup[edit]

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

All of the information in here seems to be covered in the Yakshagana article. More to the point, the article doesn't even have a link from the main Yakshagana article, making its usefulness quite minimal. In all likelihood, it can be deleted with virtually no loss of content. Tyrenon (talk) 10:40, 4 June 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) 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Kranendonk[edit]

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

It may be that WECF is notable, but no significant third-party coverage of Marie Kranendonk (who has under 500 Google hits) is forthcoming. Also, unsurprisingly, this is the only contribution of its creator, called (of course) Wecf. - Biruitorul Talk 14:29, 4 June 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) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make It to the Sun[edit]

Make It to the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Notable. No coverage in secondary sources. A Google search for the title and the producer shows only blogs, MySpace, Wikisites, etc. A Google News search shows nothing. Borock (talk) 14:55, 4 June 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) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell D[edit]

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

Vaguely asserts notability as being one part of Pay as You Go Cartel which had a #13 hit that I can't verify, but no other sources seem to verify any of the material here, and at least one of the refs is a 404. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:00, 4 June 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) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Koplowitz Cultural Foundation[edit]

Ernest Koplowitz Cultural Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and apparently now defunct organization; it doesn't make a meaningful assertion of notability. It is a Spanish memorial fund that is not notable enough to have its own entry at Spanish Wikipedia. The fund's own website lists only two small newspaper mentions, google.es had only 4 hits for "Fundación cultural Ernesto Koplowitz", and Spanish language google news had nada. I can read some Spanish, and from what I can tell, this does not meet WP:NOTE, but I decided to list it here instead of "prod"ing because Wikipedians more fluent in Spanish probably have a better chance of seeing it here and letting us know if there is anything salvageable here. With the information I have now, though, my vote is to delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:40, 4 June 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) 00:03, 11 June 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 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress Grove (musician)[edit]

Cypress Grove (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More