< 27 June 29 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 keep. Based on upgrades (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alun Woodward[edit]

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

Article does not provide any evidence of the importance or notability of the person and no references are offered. magnius (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per above. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Moving to keep.[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Oakbrook Center. There is a very strong consensus, with no convincing evidence presented to the contrary, that this mall is a hoax and does not exist. Equally, it is clearly a plausible search term for the mall of a similar name that actually does exist. ~ mazca talk 20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oakbrook Mall[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any evidence that this particular mall exists. The article is unsourced and doesn't state a location aside from Oak County and Oakbrook Township, neither of which seem to be a county or a township anywhere, and a few ambiguous streets. A Google search for Oakbrook Mall Annlyn Properties turns up nothing (just searching Oakbrook Mall turns up too many results for Oakbrook Center); for that matter, the supposed owner of the mall, Annlyn Properties, doesn't seem to exist either, since Google again turns up nothing relevant. Even if this isn't a hoax, which it probably is, the utter lack of sources makes this non-notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which were created by the same person. And consider these edits. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this definitely appears to be a hoax; thanks for catching that, Blanchardb. Delete the other two as well. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oakbrook Mall Oakbroook Center
Opening date 1971 1962
Number of anchor tennants 5 6
Location Township of Oakbrook, Oak County, [state unknown] Oak Brook, Illinois
Restraunts 3 27
Management Annlyn properties General Growth Properties
Gross leasable area 1,500,000 ft² 2,018,000 ft²
Oh, and none of these facts about Oakbrook Mall are verifiable, but every single one about Oakbrook Center is. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 30 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. Keeper | 76 00:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Lambert (radio presenter)[edit]

Marcus Lambert (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Radio presenter with no assertion of notability. Turns out that the radio station on which his show airs, Blast 1386, is a student station with no claim of being available outside the Thames Valley University campus except via the Internet. In any case, this Google search returns nothing of substance. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:57, 28 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 United Kingdom heat wave[edit]

2009 United Kingdom heat wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable heat wave. Chidel (talk) 23:34, 28 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. While sourcing problems do persist, a clear consensus seems to hold that this person is sufficiently notable and sourceable. ~ mazca talk 16:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishida Shunei[edit]

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

I have reviewed the available sources via a Google search (97 in all) and conclude that Shunei does not currently fulfill Wikipedia's notability requirements (WP:BIO). The WP article figures prominently on the Web, as are its numerous backlinks. But in terms of independent sources I have found only [4] as a solitary mention of an award by a local art museum, no significant coverage in secondary sources, reviews etc. The artist's biography lists him as faculty at Hiroshima City University and a trustee of Japan Art Institute - he may be notable as an educator, rather than an artist, but I could not find sources that establish notability as a result of these roles either. Enki H. (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It'd be good if the link for that award the nominator found were added to the article -- none of the awards are sourced at the moment. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the book you have found is an exhibition catalogue for a retrospective at the Imai Museum in Yamagata. It is at least debatable whether exhibition catalogues are independent. IMO exhibitions and catalogues by themselves cannot establish notability: WP:N states "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources[...]" - i.e. reviews, material that is written at arm's length. I do not see that Shunei's work has been independently reviewed. I do not doubt that Shunei is active as an artist and has exhibited. I doubt that he has achieved notability by doing so and I see no evidence for it. WP policy requires verification. This article has been tagged since September 2008. If no one has come forward in the last nine moths to provide the required verification, then at some point we just have to pull the plug and delete. I suggest that time is now. With respect Enki H. (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The catalog clearly indicates the importance of the exhibition. The catalog is in the libraries of major museums. Fg2 (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 23:32, 28 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. Leans towards full keep, but with so little discussion, I'll keep it at no consensus (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch Beginnings[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for books; of 5 external references or links, one is the book's own webpage, one is some guy's blog, one is a page where people pay to have their products reviewed, and one is a clearinghouse for press releases. A single interview at the Christian Science Monitor is not "multiple, non-trivial public works". Zhou Xi (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 23:30, 28 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. Mere suggestions are valid, but even still there's no consensus to delete right now (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Coronation Street[edit]

List of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Coronation Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft. This is a long list of incidental events that should probably be on a fan site, not here. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:14, 28 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 Withdrawn by nom. Corpx (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graveyard (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Google search only turns up mostly MySpace type stuff. Fails WP:BAND. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing nom per further information provided by Hammer. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graveyard's album recieived 3.5 stars on allmusic. Played at SXSW. Signed to teepee records. Why does Witchcraft have a page.Hammer of the Gods27 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even holier than thou Rolling Stone had an article on here's the link http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/04/10/frickes-picks-graveyard/. Hammer of the Gods27 (talk) 23:23, 28 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 per G12 although it was also eligible under G4 and G11. I've also taken the liberty of WP:SALTing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Global[edit]

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcom[edit]

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

Non notable. Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:16, 28 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Niemi[edit]

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

An actress who seems to be notable only for being Patrick Swayze's wife. Searches for reliable-source mentions of her outside the context of her husband seem to turn up little or nothing; and notability is not inherited. There's no worthwhile, merge-worthy content in this article that isn't already mentioned in the "Personal life" section of Swayze's; though several efforts to simply redirect this article have been reverted. This seems a classic example of an unsourced WP:BLP of highly marginal notability that we shouldn't leave lying around. ~ mazca talk 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - since the article has been expanded substantially by Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) I have switched to keep, see below. ~ mazca talk 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she's notable, sources shouldn't be difficult to find. I think this is more about organizing content than determining notability. Please consider that the AfD was only started after attempts (including my own) to simply redirect. I for one would prefer a redirect for the time being because Lisa Niemi is currently not even a proper stub. In other words: There is nothing much to be kept or deleted in the first place. 84.44.253.167 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of your links are simple cast&crew listings. Not one sentence is actually written about her, and you could hardly use those to significantly expand the article with verifiable info. Even if the series is notable (no opinion on that as of right now), it does not mean that all starring cast members are automatically notable as well. Btw, I had googled her name, too, and didn't change my mind precisely because none of the links I found were of greater depth than yours. Sorry, I still believe that (a) she's not notable and (b) on the basis of the "sources" found so far, no stub can be written. This is not deletionism vs. inclusionism, it's about organizing content in a plausible and useful way. 78.34.202.69 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what the sources are. It might surprise you to know that I actually READ them before posting them. The criteria of WP:ENT are clear. She has had significant roles in multiple movies and TV shows. We can prove that with reliable sources. On that basis alone, she passes WP:ENT. Just because you don't find critiques of her performances or in-depth articles about her life doesn't negate the fact that she had multiple roles in notable movies and shows and that we can prove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not simply find no critiques or articles about her work or life, I found virtually nothing usable, despite consulting Google. Then again, I'm not the best RS sleuth. At any rate, don't let me hold you back. Just put a few sources into the stub, I'll even help scan them for material and help get a stub going. As of right however, this and IMDb are the only things in the page even resembling sources. 78.34.250.108 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, in the short moments I looked, there was plenty of information available from reliable sources. So were there reliable sources online, or did you quickly find some offline? At any rate, we need solid citations. 87.79.139.215 (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I provided online sources above........unless the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly aren't reliable enough for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that they are not reliable, of course. But none of the entries contain much prose, let alone anything mentioning Lisa Niemi so much as in passing. She's only listed as a cast member. 78.34.250.108 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:BIO#Basic criteria says: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The footnote attached to that explains: Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does she meet any of the notability prerequisites ENT sets out? Has she had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions, does she have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment? If she meets any of those, I honestly don't see it. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he adds a considerable portion to her notability, that is part of my point. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "diminishing her achievements" -- As you probably know, that is as irrelevant and also untrue as it would be to say that we "honor" anyone's "achievements" by having an article about them. That may be true for the individual editor who is committed to writing about a favourite actor or some such, but not for Wikipedia as a whole. I agree that outright deletion is not an option, it's really between merging into Patrick Swayze or keeping the material in its own page. ENT talks about significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. I don't agree that her participation in Super Force and the other work she has done establishes her notability, certainly not in a confident way. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel I focused on your wording, I was really aiming at responding to your point. I focused on the quoted portion because I felt you were (inadvertently) creating sort of a strawman with the other part: Although this is an AfD discussion, nobody save for the nom has pleaded for outright deletion rather than merging into Patrick Swayze, and even he did on the basis that there isn't anything of significance that isn't in the parent article already.
    At any rate, her body of work does not imho raise her above the notability threshold in a way that would make me say keep. Steel Dawn is little more than a stub itself, with little to no real sources. Same for Super Force and One Last Dance (2003 film). That she directed one episode of a cancelled series that never made it past season one isn't that impressive either. Just stating my perception, and most news outlets appear to agree with me in that they didn't report a lot about those. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of the ENT threshold. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed Mazca's change of mind. As I've laid out, I think that the material currently in her article could still easily be merged into Patrick Swayze. Since we're now essentially negotiating our respective interpretations of the inclusion guidelines set forth by ENT, I hope it's not a problem that I am not voting keep. For me, significant roles in multiple movies and TV shows simply refers to something different than her body of work. But FWIW your great improvements to the page have certainly "saved" the article from being submerged, and it really does look a lot better now than it did at the start of this AfD. [Hint: By bolding the word keep in the post above yours, I intended to depart from the discussion by hinting, in a subtly unsubtle way, at my "basic ok". In other words: I can live with that article and won't stubbornly insist on redirecting when I see that a majority of other people now deems the article appropriate.] 78.34.201.60 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Mazca, I appreciate that very much. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her details must be retained and expanded upon if possible. She is the last and closest confidante of Patrick Swayze, a man likely soon to depart this Earth. Her personality and appeal is exceptionally unique. You see her capturing Mr Swayze's heart in 1975 when they were both young and she has held his heart for 20+years. This is quite exceptional for a Hollywood megastar. What brought this about? Only by retaining her details and expanding it can we ever hope to remember the special quality that is Lisa Niemi and Patrick her husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blink. (band)[edit]

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

Band doesn't meet WP:N Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:12, 28 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. Keeper | 76 00:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basement tattoo[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. This doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:08, 28 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 Manning Bartlett. T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Virtue/Spider-Man/adversaries[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Captain Virtue/Spider-Man/adversaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not your personal web space. mhking (talk) 21:04, 28 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. Keeper | 76 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Madiera[edit]

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

Another gay porn star with no notability Corpx (talk) 20:41, 28 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. Keeper | 76 01:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Michael[edit]

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

He's married to a mildly notable actress and he was nominated for an AVN award, but lacking any other significant coverage, I find that this is insufficient to meet notability guidelines Corpx (talk) 21:02, 28 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 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dill[edit]

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

Gay pornstar with no notability established Corpx (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sun article is an obituary listing and two of the other refs are just copies of the wikipedia page and I'm not certain if the Bay Area Reporter is a reliable source or not Corpx (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wilcox[edit]

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

Gay pornstar with no notability established Corpx (talk) 20:36, 28 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 List of xxxHolic characters. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shizuka Dōmeki[edit]

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

I couldn't find any notability to this one. Article lacks references from any source, real world information and anything it would be a reason to keep. Last Afd edit with a keep because there were hopes that this article will be merged. I think that even if this is merged with other characters the result would be an unreferenced list with no meaning. I suggest that we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 20:36, 28 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 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleš Hanák[edit]

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

Gay pornstar with no notability establisehed Corpx (talk) 20:35, 28 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. While the contributor did contact OTRS (Ticket:2009062210006211), the release was insufficient and a request to clarify sent on June 25 went unanswered. The article was listed at the copyright problems board for more than seven days without usable verification of permission. In addition to copyright issues, developing consensus here indicates the article lacks reliable sources to verify notability and is promotional. There is no prejudice against creating an article in original language, but a new article must remedy these other concerns. Accordingly, even if the contributor does supply permission, the text is insufficient to meet inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kikaku America International[edit]

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

Multiple issues the Creator of the article is the is executive vice president of Kikaku America International as per his userpage.The article is copy from the company website a clear copyright violation and whether email has been received is not confirmed.There are no independent references and it is a clearly promotional advertisement for the company.It was earlier marked for speedy by a user and later removed Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:56, 28 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Danny McKay Project[edit]

The Danny McKay Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film project. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. No significant GNEWS or GHITS ttonyb1 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user's block-evading sock. Invalid !vote per WP:BAN. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 30 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. Keeper | 76 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Employee Ownership Act of 1999[edit]

The Employee Ownership Act of 1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. This piece of legislation was never likely to become law, and I feel that it was not notable, because what coverage it had would be inherited from Ron Paul or Political positions of Ron Paul (which is where any coverage of this proposed act belongs, probably in a small footnote.)

Further, this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia. We should have detailed and in-depth coverage of American politics insofar as it's notable, and indeed we do. But we do not need a separate article for a piece of legislation that has never been and will never be law, and allowing it to exist creates NPOV and coatrack problems in a controversial and problematic area that it will be difficult to police. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically, courtesy of your ancestors, my civics education was in Parliamentary democracy, so the Bill vs Act aspect is affected by that. However, if you see Act of Congress. You'll notice that it refers to an Act as something with the finality of the President's signature or inaction, while a Bill is what is discussed in Congress. I'm sure if you search up the US Congress databases, you'll find more technical analysis. That said, it's quite common to call something an Act before it passes, in the media or in conversation where instead of referring to it as HR Bill it is referred to by the proposed name, which includes "act" in it. But the way it would be referred to in the House or Senate records is by the Bill no, with the proposed name as a secondary identifier. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:15, 29 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. Keeper | 76 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Carr (Actor)[edit]

Gary Carr (Actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is questionable. IMDB does not list Paul Jennings as a character in Foyles War, and Gary Carr is credited with a single appearance in Holby City. Other TV appearance claims do not seem to be listed anywhere that I could find. Appears to be an autobiography as the article creator has the same name as the title of the article. Was PRODed, but removed, so it comes here. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 19:06, 28 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. Keeper | 76 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Carlos Clarke[edit]

Scarlett Carlos Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. JNW (talk) 18:54, 28 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 Sculpt 3D. Keeper | 76 01:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpt 4D[edit]

Sculpt 4D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. Google search for "Sculpt 4D" -wiki gives almost nothing. Articles has no references at all (tagged with citation request since Sptember 2007). I couldn't find any magazine or newspaper reviewing it. Tagged for notability for almost 2 years. In the "news" section of its site (http://sculpt4d.com/index.php) there are no news at all. Magioladitis (talk) 17:55, 28 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 speedily deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Grasso[edit]

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

Non notable, unpublished writer. I can find no WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I am this author. It looks as if the body of the article has just been taken directly from my myspace page, so the language will no doubt need to be edited for your purpose, but it is more or less factually accurate. FYI, I appear in the books listed below to date, with more in the works this year:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Generation-Hex-Louv/dp/1932857206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246286504&sr=8-1

http://www.scarletimprint.com/devoted.htm

http://dreamflesh.com/journal/one/

http://www.strangeattractor.co.uk/shoppe/equinox_sell.html

I don't know whether this makes me "notable" enough for this entry to remain on wikipedia, but if it helps, I am a published author, speak regularly at festivals and London occult events, and am reasonably well known in my field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsy Lantern (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is, indeed, a complete copyright violation of Stephen Grasso's myspace page. I have requested a speedy deletion (G12) to rectify the situation. Thank you Gypsy Lantern for bringing this to our attention. Editors are encouraged to draft articles in their userspace and bring them to a level where they are useful and do not violate policy before posting them on mainspace. Enki H. (talk) 00:48, 30 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. Keeper | 76 01:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia[edit]

Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All information in this article (what little there is) is already in the article about Ahmed Rashid. If any more information about the book is added, it can be in a subsection of the Ahmed Rashid article. An individual article is not warranted. Otebig (talk) 17:23, 28 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. Keeper | 76 01:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn and the End of Days[edit]

Saturn and the End of Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails guidelines for future films - "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." IMDb suggests a release date of 2011. Lugnuts (talk) 17:04, 28 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. Keeper | 76 01:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media literacy and remix culture[edit]

Media literacy and remix culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-sourced essay; original research; violates WP:NOR mhking (talk) 17:01, 28 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) 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilland Jones[edit]

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

Deleted PROD that stated "Minor actor, fails WP:ENT" NrDg 16:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good-faith claim, albeit weak, was there so I do not see it as being speedy eligible. --NrDg 17:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hence the 'nearly' ;)--Talain (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<Chuckle> - I saw that, just justifying my decline of the original speedy request. --NrDg 18:09, 28 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. New sources seem to demonstrate notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stedman[edit]

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

BLP article created by a COI account. Other articles the person created have no been deleted, but unfortunately the first time this was up for deletion a non-admin took it upon himself to close it as "keep" despite the lack of any real standards and poor arguments for inclusion (one of the keeps included the phrase "I see no information that makes him worty of a Wikipedia article" -- so how is that a keep?). Primary claims to fame are having created a nonnotable publication and website, and a short indie film. The only possible argument for notability is that this 6 minute art film was awarded one of a group of LGBT awards at a Berlin festival handed out by a jury separate from the Berlin festival, but as notability is not inherited it's at best an argument for an article on the short film and not this person -- but with the sheer number of such minor awards handed out at various film festivals every year, this just seems impractical an not truly notable anyway. It just seems odd that we have already decided that everything this person did isn't notable enough for mention here yet the article on the self-promoting individual is still around for no good reason. DreamGuy (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm on the fence. I've reviewed the clean-up, etc and think there are substantial sources; however, my only concern is that all the projects he has done are extremely minor and they have no notability. 50/50 Keep/Delete. BioDetective2508 (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 18:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross[edit]

List of guests on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

trivia, non-notable, listcruft, no reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 15:21, 28 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kaczurak[edit]

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

It has been deleted as A7 in the past and recreated with the same content. Only release a digital download via iTunes. Fails WP:MUSIC. Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 28 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASF Dancers[edit]

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

Non-notable dance troupe. They appear in a TV show, but no notability in their own right, particularly to the level of listing each member of the troupe. Previously listed via "prod", but tag removed without any comment/reasoning by User:Mizsventezinco. Oscarthecat (talk) 13:37, 28 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 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hettwer[edit]

Jeff Hettwer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
KARE 11 news, the NBC affiliate in Minneapolis has just conducted a day long interview with the artist’s wife in his studio and at their home which was entirely dedicated to the artists work. This segment is expected to air within the next two weeks.
Minneapolis/St Paul Magazine has also been in contact with the artist's widow to conduct an interview for an article that they are preparing on the artists impact on the art community.
The University of Minnesota is setting up a scholarship in the artists name for new students pursuing a career in the arts. The Jeff Hettwer Scholarship is expected to be live on the U of M website by the end of the coming week.
These items have not yet been added to the page as they have not yet been published.MNartist (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of MNartist; !=vote struck and both accounts blocked. Blueboy96 20:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with the terms of use do you feel that the inclusion of the articles mentioned and the Jeff Hettwer scholarship satisfy the standard of notabililty?MNartist (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest wp:snow closeHell in a Bucket (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind leaving it open for a few more days; maybe some art-savvy user will notice something we missed. I'm always glad to see an article saved from deletion... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG the world is going to end, you didn't do what I wanted. LOl Okie dokie by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs) 21:21, June 28, 2009
Did you consider that this appears not to have been curated by the Walker, but a private function on their premises? Or do you mean by "pending": let's see if the petition to get his work into the Walker is successful? Enki H. (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Given the memorial by local sponsors, and the grassroots support, lets see if the Walker collects and/or responds to the petition...Modernist (talk) 15:25, 29 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 withdrawn Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane Auch[edit]

Mary Jane Auch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article contains no information besides listing one seemingly unnotable book by this author. The only other thing is a link to the author's website, and the page has not been notably updated or edited since November. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing this nominaiton – author is indeed notable. I'll look into fixing this also. Thanks, DGG. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:04, 29 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WebHat CMS[edit]

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

contested prod. Not seeing how this product is notable, Article reads like an advert. RadioFan (talk) 13:08, 28 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. Given the contentious topic, is it unsurprising the amount of discussion that has been spent on this AfD. The delete votes were strong, numerous, and based the argument firmly on WP:NOTNEWS. Some keep votes claimed that due to the nature of this event, NOTNEWS is being misapplied, and that there were adequate source to consitute notability, but I don't believe the amount nor the quality of the keep arguments outweighed the deletes and hence did not change the result. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair[edit]

2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The conspicuously non-notable article is about an extremely minor and very brief media flurry about a group of young soldiers who printed up T-shirts that were in execrably bad taste and wore them while off-duty.Historicist (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh dear This is why I stay away from I/P articles usually. Though there are probably good arguments to delete, Jalap's saying things like "remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs" and "at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is" makes me just.. sigh. Oh dear.... Count this "Not really a vote" any way you want. Dendlai (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if people like me create a sense of despair in you, you may find that they are reasonable people and that dialogue with them is possible and even fruitful. My statement about where this issue does and does not remain is a verifiable fact. You can check for yourself. As for my opinion on the motivation to keep this article, perhaps my greater involvement in I/P articles (and in this particular article) has made me more cynical than you. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was, incidentally, a similar article in the Haaretz magazine section a couple of weeks ago, about instances of Israeli border guards humiliating Palestinians. And Gideon Levy publishes a weekly column there about really execrable incidents in the occupied territories. Are we going to write a Wikipedia article every time Haaretz publishes one of these miniscandals? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's merged (and I have no opinion about whether it should be) the article should be kept as a redirect as the easiest way to preserve editing history (see WP:MAD) and since the title would not be an unreasonable one for a redirect. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - It is not just a single newsitem by a single paper. The article has been related to war-conduct in general by multiple sources. Expanded into new section. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the new weasel-word studded section sourced almost entirely to blogs? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not here. Please go to the article's Talk page, not here. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First AFD irrelevant? How does someone know? Most arguments there still valid. Also: more argumentation there, not just counting votes. Interesting. And relevant. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True, arguments from prior AFDs can be relevant, but at the time it was implied the story would remain notable and not simply fall under the NOTNEWS policy. Plenty of articles have been deleted on the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th AFD. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: Thank you for changing (I suggest striking your bold "irrelevant"). Indeed the arguments there may be relevant. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet User:Halfacanyon has now been banned as a sockpuppet.Historicist (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: 'premature'? There are no comments on the first AFD-procedure. And since a bit of time has passed, new relavant facts have appeared: e.g. another reaction of the IDF command (March 31, Haaretz). btw: the habit was going on since 2007. And of course, the linking with IDF-morality, esp in the Israel-Gaza-war. So the newsflash has reverbed. afterwards and wider. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that this is " having longer term fall out"?Historicist (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re Historicist: Why not read the article as it is now. Multiple sources relate this 1:1 to the morality etc. of IDF. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "multiple sources" referred to by DePiep are radical blogs, some tinged with what can only be called hate-speech. DePiep, please try to understand the Wikipedia concepts of notability and reliable sourcing.Historicist (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which old version have you read (missing Haaretz twice, BBC, Jewish Chronicle for starters)? Anyway this should be on the Talk, not here. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth pointing out that DePiep believes there is a massive zionist conspiracy in action on wikipedia, according to his essay page. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not worth pointing out, and has no place in this discussion. If you wouldnt mind raising your concerns about a specific user at the appropriate place (the user's talk page, an/i, whatever) it would make these discussion less acrimonious. Nableezy (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#Wikipedia campaign Pro Israel lobbies tried some serious hidden lobby attempts on wikipedia, so try not to accuse other editors without knowing the cases fully. Kasaalan (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I can count numerous clearly Israeli sided editors in these vote, but why they may so easily offended by pre-stated opinions of other editors.
I can clearly state "an organised, agenda-driven pro-Israel lobbyism" do exist in wikipedia, too which I also find a clear danger to accuracy of articles, as a general guide of course "pro-Arab" editors and acts also exist in wikipedia, yet they are generally unorganised, so not agenda driven and not lobbyist and remain as personal attempts. Kasaalan (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Slimvirgin, as an experienced editor, would any material like this be allowed on the American and British Army pages? --Shuki (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never edited any of those pages, but I should imagine that if British soldiers had these T-shirts made up about pregnant women in Northern Ireland, say, there would be an unimaginable uproar, and almost certainly a Wikipedia article (not to mention senior resignations). Ditto if American soldiers did the same regarding Iraqi women, for example. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain doubtful that this event is really that significant. Soldiers from quite a few nations have been objectionable in the past. I mean, do we make reference to the anti-german and anti-hitler songs in the British army page? Some of thos were quite objectionable. Troops being dumb ass in their own time is not remarkable. At best this is 2 lines on the IDF or 2009 war page. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you show me anything comparable from the modern (or any) British army joking and rejoicing about shooting pregnant women? What is quite noticeable on this page is that those of you who seem to want to defend Israel are actually saying you expect no better of the IDF, which is something of a contradiction: you support them but you think less of them than their critics do. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only comparable case that comes to mind was the "joke" car built by paratroopers after they'd killed two teenage joyriders. This isn't mentioned in the British army article and not even in the Lee Clegg article. Not sure if that is much help as a comparison. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that User:SlimVirgin will put some of her boundless enthusiasm for recording the misbehavior of uniformed troops into creating an article about United Nations peacekeeping troops raping African children.Historicist (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please feel free to expand that article, but although I know the history quite well I don't tend to edit articles on the Northern Irish conflict, since it would be a struggle for me to maintain a NPOV. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curious. "Historicist the nom" wrote above it should not be on Wikipedia at all. -DePiep (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Historicist the nom, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So what? -DePiep (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to User:SlimVirgin's unsubstantiated assertion that if the soldiers f other nations printed up derogatory T-shirts there would be an uproar, buy pointing out that soldiers form other nations actually rape innocent young girls without arousing an uproar of inspiring User:SlimVirgin to write wikipedia pages about actual incidents of rape by uniformed soldiers.Historicist (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another sock puppet Reseaunaut is the second sock pupet who has voted keep and subsequently been blocked form Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"to not have been picked up as a more major event than what the initial reaction to it was" is sorta kinda the definition of non-notable. i.e., it was a news event. This is exactly the kind of one-story affair without legs that WP:NOTNEWS refers to.Historicist (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
did you notice the note was preceded by "delete" or is it just fun to argue with everybody? Nableezy (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again please note that the article is, since a few days, also describing a wider view, connecting T-shirts directly to IDF-behaviour (esp. in the Israel-Gaza-War). This might be new to readers who skipped some days. Users are invited to review their vote. -DePiep (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Delete This article is about a trivial incident. Expanding it to other topics is just that, adding information that could be (or already is) on other topics. Reading it again, it now reads like an article whose sole raison d'etre is IDF bashing, it has lost much of the more neutral tone it originally had and now forks off onto lots of tangents. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't disagree with your comments at all. I just thought "second delete" could be misunderstood as meaning that you're voting delete after having voted delete in the first AfD. Anyway, it was just a simple misunderstanding. Sorry. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, nothing you write here has to do with the AFD here. Same for your delete-motivation above. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jala, the new section adds nothing to the notability and simply proves editors are willing to do anything except recognize the truth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/03/20/idf-t-shirts-boast-of-killing-babies-pregnant-women-sodomizing-hamas-leaders/ Homosexual Rape T-Shirt worn by IDF soldiers. This shirt wearing in Israel army, is a serious human rights violation, wearing these t-shirts, letting lower rank soldiers wear these, and defending these as "humour" is also in the same league.
http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/54276.asp Original Hebrew version with more violant t-shirts.
http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/user/racist%20t-shirs%204.jpg A clear human rights violation that depicts Homosexual rape to "enemy soldiers", shooting of babies
No further comment needed. Kasaalan (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more rationale, and proof here in similar style. Kasaalan (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
The kid who wore "Bush is a terrorist" t-shirt was disbanded from his high school in America.
In the same manner that is why I readded [27] the removed "Cartoon describing attacking Anti-Defamation League" section. Any Cartoon does not make violance acts less important or more pretty.
COI does not limited to army personnel who currently wears such t-shirts (the number is not so low as you claim by the way). IDF calls for any Israeli citizen to the Israel army (which means millions of people), so the chances of previous or current members of IDF or their relatives who edits similar articles are actually pretty high. Don't try to make up statistics out of your mind.
The army scandal which you call as "minor incident" is your own claim, and does not reflect any universal standard.
I don't have to agree with any of you, since you make your point on your human right standards clearly when it comes to IDF.
Homosexual Army Rape or civilian, child or pregnant women slaughtering by soldiers are never funny. Neither t-shirts that depicts these acts, nor the army personnel with heavy arms who can easily commit these acts easily may never be successfully covered up so easily [they already accused by various reliable international and jewish third party human right organisations' numerous reports on committing such acts over the years]. I don't have to tell you anyone who wears, enjoys or consider these shirts as "humorous" should immediately get serious psychological help, and likewise should get disarmed from any army on the spot. If they are "teens" why are they under arms, if they are under arms, how they can wear such clear violent shirts while they are within the army training. Claiming any similar scandal would be covered up or ignored in Europe or even in America is what you should depict as "ludicrous" if you seek something funny. You cannot just tell this is "bad taste" and "unsurprisingly" normal among "young army men" and remove the scandal from wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/user/racist%20t-shirs%204.jpg A clear human rights violation by universal standards that depicts Homosexual rape to "enemy soldiers", shooting of babies
No further comment needed. Kasaalan (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak for other editors, I think people are arguing that the IDF should be held to the same standard as any other army, not a special standard set by their adversaries in a conflict. Its no surprise that this incident is not on the front page (or anywhere) here | Human Rights Watch or here | Amnesty International. No mention of freedom to not have ugly t-shirts made of you here | Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In looking at the history of the I/P conflict, human rights violations on both sides are easy to find without manufacturing scandals. Equally, I would argue against including distasteful, but non notable events that are portrayed in the media about Palestinian fighters. In regard to militaries, I wonder why wikipedia editors do not document the shocking human rights abuses of other militaries (for example Military of Pakistan or Military of Cambodia). Perhaps those countries and peoples aren't considered as important to some.Fuzbaby (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This event is WP:Notable for wikipedia by reliable third party independent sources with enough coverage The Observer, Haaretz, The Independent, Sky News, Jewish Chronicle, BBC News, CNN, Al Jazeera English, so you don't have to invent new personal standards for other editors in wikipedia to dictate deletion and cover up of notable army scandals.
I don't care what you wonder much, but personally I don't add "shocking military abuses" for Military of Pakistan or Military of Cambodia simply because I don't have any expertise or knowledge about those countries. However I do add for any human rights violation attempts by governments on armies I read by reliable sources recently or previously on any country yet mainly for Britain USA Israel Palestine which I have the most knowledge.
On the other hand when I add [28] Human Rights Watch report against Hamas noone objects
However when I add critical Human Rights Watch reports against IDF some POV parties try to remove reports by sugar coated and "policy based" systematical bias
Such attempts has gained some acceleration recently, by remove this remove that chanting, as my main area of expertise and interest of International Politics-conflict area articles are mainly israel-palestine ones, I can easily tell the Israeli sided editors has clear attempts on removal of reliable Israeli critical coverage from wikipedia, which I cannot tolerate by any means. Kasaalan (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being of Pakistani decent, I have some knowledge and expertise on the abuses committed by its army; however, I couldn't honestly write such a section in a neutral manner. Having read through only a few dozen articles on the I/P conflict, I can see no systemic bias, but I do see clear pov pushing by people on both sides, with no attempt to maintain neutrality but instead an attempt to "win" by getting in information in or posting personal attacks on each other (this article, and this AfD are just on example). Outside editors with knowledge to contribute avoid the articles because anything they add will immediately label them "Israeli sided" or "Palestinian sided" by editors whose personal motivations cloud their objectivity. The lack of decorum demonstrated by editors on these topics, imo, is more of a systemic problem on wikipedia than any "conspiracy" to cover anything up. Fuzbaby (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what neutrality is and what systematic bias is and I know what I am talking about.
Haaretz Publishes Border Police Abuse Israeli troops humiliate Palestinians - and put it on YouTube Dead Palestinian babies and bombed mosques - IDF fashion 2009 this is by Haaretz posted in Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization) [Israeli sources] Israeli Border Police#Palestinian abuse controvery IDF human rights abuses are vast, and IDF is one of the leading human right abuser armies in the world along with USA, Britain and others. And I cannot tolerate any human rights abuse in the same manner by any party. Hamas human right violations also vast, however as a state army IDF should be held accordingly stressed.
On the other hand the case is not trivial by any means, and anyone claims the case is trivial should go and look to the dictionary definition for the word again.

According to the Chronicle Herald, soldiers wore the shirts to celebrate finishing basic training. It’s an interesting/repulsive example of dehumanizing the group defined as the enemy (they aren’t people, they’re “kills”), as well as how women’s reproductive capacity is often seen as a threat or potential weapon–by reproducing, women create more enemy soldiers. [29]

Ex-soldier and campaigner with Breaking The Silence, Michael Maniken, told Sky News Online this week’s revelations suggest a pattern of immoral conduct in the army. “The army keeps on saying we’re talking about a few rotten apples but it seems the army doesn’t understand there’s a norm in this kind of action,” he explained. “We’re hearing about this time and time again and the army seems disconnected from reality.”[30]

You may read more on the case if you like. [31] [32] Yet try not to belittle the case. Kasaalan (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Another suggestion for strikeouts on your talkpage here. -DePiep (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The conspicuously non-notable article is about an extremely minor and very brief media flurry about a group of young soldiers who printed up T-shirts that were in execrably bad taste and wore them while off-duty"

"The conspicuously non-notable [ WP:notable by various international reliable 3rd party news sources] article is about an extremely minor [major international news sources Haaretz, The Independent, Sky News, CNN, Al Jazeera English were available at AFD nomination date [38], while The Observer, Jewish Chronicle, BBC News added during AFD] and very brief [not brief by any means] media flurry [respectable news and criticism for a serious human rights abuse which contains "dehumanisation"] about a group of young soldiers [who are heavily armed and trained to kill in war, including snipers and air bombardment personnel] who printed up T-shirts [pays for vulgar T-shirts that depicts illegal acts including murdering of civilians and rape of "enemy"] that were in execrably bad taste [depicting illegal acts cannot be tolerated just by bad taste] and wore them while off-duty [didn't they also wear as a graduation ceremony in military area]"

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartlight (song)[edit]

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

The article is 99% trivia, hardly any content at all, 1 reference, this article serves very small importance anyway, If someone believes this article is needed then they can recreate it with more referenced content ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did some improvements to it ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 15:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The improvements look fine to me. It's good to see an editor prepared to improve an article after nominating it for deletion.--Michig (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Special thanks to Scarce. Many articles aren't keep or delete, but "improve" which Scarce has done. It's a pity that I, or one of the others that said keep, didn't do it and back our words with actions. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Really? That's odd as I seem to remember hunting for and adding references to support the chart positions and ET inspiration [39]. Perhaps Scarce should have read WP:BEFORE and improved the article before the four keep votes above made it clear that the article was indeed notable. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:36, 29 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 Men in Black (film). Keeper | 76 01:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Men in Black III[edit]

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

Explicitly fails WP:NFF; no cast or crew have yet been announced, so principal photography is clearly some way off. An article at this point is premature. PC78 (talk) 12:44, 28 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Reformed Fellowship Australia[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG miserably, zero coverage in Google news search. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the criteria here is WP:ORG not size of organisation. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 29 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J.K. Choi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael J.K. Choi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It was deleted three times with A7. Fails WP:MUSIC. Check edit history to see that at least 2-3 more editors believe it has to be deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that it has been to AfD before and the result was no consensus. I still believe it has to be deleted. The main argue last time was that the article claims that this article has sold 130,000 CDs. First of all, this number is a sum of all 6 albums. This means at about 20,000 per album. Secondly, I can't find any source seconding this information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 28 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 as copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene therapy for bovine mastitis[edit]

Gene therapy for bovine mastitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be either a cut-and-paste copy from another source, or, more likely (given the grammatical errors), original research. It was introduced in one edit almost a week ago and, despite a note to the author requesting that he address the issues, has remain untouched (other than bot categorization) since. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:42, 28 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 Driver (series)#Future . The consensus is to merge the article, but as was mentioned, the entire content is all ready present at the target. All that's left is to point the redirect. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Driver: The Recruit[edit]

Driver: The Recruit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extremely little known about the game at present. Doesn't seem to warrant an article yet. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Third-party sources and, occasionally, other arguments for significance. The same way we know with everything else. Why? There's no rule that upcoming or cancelled games deserve special treatment one way or the other. Duke Nukem Forever is an extreme example. I'm 'neutral, by the way. The nominator's rationale is that the article doesn't do enough good, but that doesn't seem like something we can or should measure effectively. It's not affecting performance, it's not eroding our standards, it's not making more important things more difficult to find, and it could be of help to (say) people checking rumors. --Kizor 14:27, 28 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 Nom Withdrawn. Fingerz 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Order of Vikings[edit]

Independent Order of Vikings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is eligible under A7, but the reviewing admin was reluctant to delete, because this article has been around for many years. I've taken it here to generate more discussion. There's no claim of notability in the article, and nothing to suggest it passes WP:ORG. A google search came up with no sources. Fingerz 11:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's interesting, when I searched for it on google news I came up with nothing. Fingerz 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to use the archive search, otherwise it will only show results from the last month. :) TheLeftorium 09:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy. To think of all the other pages I've nommed/!voted for deletion because of empty google and google news searches...nom Withdrawn. Sorry for the inconvenience guys. 13:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ralf Dahrendorf. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christiane Dahrendorf[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, and this lady's only claim to fame seems to be that she was married to a notable person. Previous PROD (not by me) removed by page creator on the grounds that the subject "has received sufficient media coverage." I'll admit my German is crap, but all the google hits I'm seeing are either referring to her husband, or are directories of medical practitioners. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:00, 28 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. Keeper | 76 02:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knuts[edit]

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

Unreferenced, unencyclopedic. Not of any significance.  Cargoking  talk  10:51, 28 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. Despite a fairly comprehensive search for sources by several participants, it seems to have become apparent that this band is distinctly under-reported even beyond what would be expected for a moderately-obscure band of this age. Consensus seems to hold that the band is therefore insufficiently notable. ~ mazca talk 16:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Collegiates[edit]

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

This group seems to fail WP:MUSIC as no sources could be found besides trivial local ones. Last AFD closed as no consensus due to the fact that after a relist, the only !voters were the nominator and his socks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:21, 13 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 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 10:43, 28 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 Predator (franchise). –Juliancolton | Talk 02:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predators (film)[edit]

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

Release date aside this project has merely been announced and does not as of yet have a director. As principal photography has not yet commenced, the film does not meet WP:NFF and an article at this point is premature. PC78 (talk) 10:00, 28 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hugo Chávez[edit]

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

This was always basically a WP:FORK of Hugo Chávez. With useful content increasingly moved to the appropriate articles, what's left has no purpose beyond attracting WP:COATRACKery. It remains irredeemably a WP:FORK. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think you mean WP:POVFORK. The WP:FORK you link to is something different. --maclean 23:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course. Thanks. Disembrangler (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I was waffling on the redirect idea for that very reason, and do not hold that suggestion strongly. As long as any good info is pulled out and put where it should go, deletion is fine by me. Awickert (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004, Súmate and other political opponents made unproven allegations against Chavez of electoral fraud.

There is no attempt in the entire article to find positive comment to balance the negative, or to cite statements in his defense. I would usually say that an article of the sort can be improved by balancing, but the malice of this article is self-evident, and the group of main articles on the subject provide opportunity for a full statement of positive and negative comment. If there is difficulty inserting negative criticism, the proper course is to pursue Dispute Resolution DGG (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"At the same time, The Economist opines that the administration's unwillingness to use private sector resources has resulted in a crumbling public infrastructure and a deficit in housing.[51] Critics cite the many public hospitals that lack basic medicine and hygienic supplies."

may have a place in Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government, but in Criticism of Hugo Chávez it is just WP:COATRACKery. "Criticism of ..." articles concerning people (BLPs, like Bill O'Reilly or Noam Chomsky or Vladimir Putin) should be aggressively kept in check and deleted (or stubbed) if they cannot be. --maclean 23:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is also a good example of a point I made above: in the Criticism article, this is just WP:COATRACKery. In Health care in Venezuela, it would be a start for something that might end up useful (eg it might lead to more up-to-date statistics, etc). It's just better to have these things in topic articles than in Criticism. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question related to this: how much has already been forked out, and how much hasn't? If material hasn't been moved to appropriate pages, then I think that either the material should be sandboxed for post-deletion positioning or that the deletion should be postponed until the material is moved. That way, we won't lose useful nuggets (like that above) for other articles. Awickert (talk) 08:02, 29 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 Withdrawn by nom. Corpx (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Parker[edit]

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

Another gay pornstar with no notability established Corpx (talk) 09:17, 28 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. Keeper | 76 01:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hart[edit]

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

Gay pornstar with no notability established Corpx (talk) 09:15, 28 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. Keeper | 76 01:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Abbas[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, gnews and gscholar searches produce next to nothing. This was prodded, prod rejected because of claim that he was head of department -- but he is an assistant professor and was tapped to act as head while real head was on leave, see here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:51, 28 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. Keeper | 76 01:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Olson (MInnesota Political Figure)[edit]

Bob Olson (MInnesota Political Figure) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)–(View AfD)

Contested prod without improvement. Unsuccessful candidates for minor political office are not within notability guidelines unless they are notable for other reasons. This reads as promotional rather than third party and there are no reliable independent sources. It is like;y that the main author is closely related to the subjectPorturology (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to have this information accessible if he ever runs again. He has run 4 campaigns. Leave the page up. There is plenty of media coverage on him and those citations could be fixed up by someone googling around to find the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeOlson (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but we don't keep articles on that basis. All information that stays on Wikipedia is presumed to be accessible elsewhere. I'm assuming that Mr. Olson is your father. I consider my late father to have been one of many important persons in LBJ's War on Poverty, although I don't think that he would pass Wikipedia's notability standards. That notwithstanding, a Wikipedia article in "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is the least of honors that one can receive. Mandsford (talk) 20:06, 28 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. Arguments for and against with no consensus coming through Nja247 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New materials (painting)[edit]

New materials (painting) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This term does not appear to be commonly used, and there has not been significant coverage of its use. Despite the word painting in the article name, the article is just a general essay on materials used by painters in the 20th century, in sculpture as well. All of the information here is discussed in the individual artists' pages, as well as pages for 20th century art, and the pages linked in the article, body fluids in art and plastics in art. Conical Johnson (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact no requirement at all for the precise wording of a title to be a recognised phrase, and the widespread belief that there is acts as a drag on the encyclopedic coverage of WP. Should for example Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting, Cultural studies theory of composition, Historiography of the Poor Laws, Artillery of France in the Middle Ages and so on be deleted for this reason? We have a much greater number of articles on art than the Oxford Dictionary of Art, so it is not surprising if we cover subjects they don't. The article covers 1900 on, & it would be better if the title made this clear, although the first sentence does. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and these are all good examples, but is "New materials (painting)" separately notable in the specific sense that the article uses it? My abbreviated approach was to check whether the phrase is in use in the ODA, (not whether ODA has an article on it). Another approach would be if there were a book, or at least book chapter on that very topic. Looking through the first ten pages of a Google book search on "new materials" painting does not bring up anything of that sort either - just innovations in Renaissance painting, Acrylic vs. oil, and use in a general sense. Enki H. (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said above the title would probably be improved, but the more important question is "Is the subject seperately notable?", which I think it is. New materials in modern painting/art or something similar would be better. Alteratively an article taking the whole sweep of Western painting covering the takeover by canvas, new 19th century dye colours etc etc would be an equally valid approach, but not what we have here so far. Not all subjects have a distinct term attached to them. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 28 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cray Wanderers F.C. season 2009-10[edit]

Cray Wanderers F.C. season 2009-10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a semi-professional team playing in a regional league, past consensus at WP:FOOTY has been that such teams do not merit individual season articles ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 28 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 02:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Life[edit]

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

Contested prod. A book for which there exists no independent reliable sources available to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 07:18, 28 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 02:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consumarchy[edit]

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

The original AfD rationale said "Prodded as protologism, based on coinage of one a single researcher." It was deleted, but the article was recreated anyway. Nothing has changed, though; as best I can tell all the "references" except one really are just talking about the concept in general and never use the word consumarchy anyway. (See http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/against-all-odds for an example of a "reference" given in the article).

To be sure, the idea of ethical consumerism exists, it's just, uh, at ethical consumerism. If this neologism turns out to have merit after all, this article should be merged and redirected to ethical consumerism anyway, as they seem to be covering the same concept. However, a Google reveals that the only sites talking about this are User:Consumarchy's blog (prominently linked at the end of the article), Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, and other wikis. Yeah, this term doesn't actually exist, so just delete. Again. One paper does not a new term make. SnowFire (talk) 06:34, 28 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. Well, delete and add to User:Hersfold/Weird Stuff, anyway... Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed by mosquitoes[edit]

List of people killed by mosquitoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unlikely to ever be complete. Most people "killed by mosquitoes" actually die of something else. —G716 <T·C> 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After reading the sources, it's clear this isn't a hoax - bad call on my part. But even though many people may be killed by disease spread by mosquito, I'm not sure it would be right to say they're killed by mosquitoes, and perhaps more importantly, I don't think there will be many people who are notable who have been killed by malaria, etc. We'd have to have a list of billions of people. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then we should have List of people killed by malaria and separate articles for each disease, as this is easily verifiable by a death certificate. no doctor would write "killed by mosquitoes". LibStar (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I aggree with you--this should lead to such lists. Agreed, its not much of a start but I'm glad you agree with me on the principle of the sort of lists that is appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and don't forget this. --Folantin (talk) 15:58, 28 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 02:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Memorial Ride[edit]

National Memorial Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence this event is a notable event as described by the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Notability. I did a google search, and once one strips out other similarly titled but unrelated events, there is almost nothing out there in terms of reliable sources on this one. It appears to only be referencable to its own website, which seems to me to indicate that, while it is most likely a real event, that really happened, it is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia as an article as yet. There are also some redirects that would need to be deleted if this article is deleted as well. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, unfortunately, that already -has- been written in the article, and it -is- advertising. Anarchangel (talk) 21:33, 30 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 List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast characters. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tansuit[edit]

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

Minor fictional character doesn't meet WP:N. Prod declined. —  X  S  G  03:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After closer examination I see that the character is already covered there as its correct name appears to be either Tansit or Tansut. (I thought it wasn't b/c I simply searched for Tansuit.) Thus, a redirect is probably sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tansut and Tansit already exist as redirects to said article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maliyadeva Scout Group[edit]

Maliyadeva Scout Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks to be a college scout group with no notability and it looks like the wiki page is used as their web site Corpx (talk) 02:54, 28 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 Youn In-wan. Consensus seems to hold that this manga is insufficiently notable for an independent article. The author, as well as being more notable, also has a fairly short and stubby article at the moment, so the consensus to merge this article there seems clear and logical. ~ mazca talk 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akuma Bengoshi Kukabara[edit]

Akuma Bengoshi Kukabara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert notability and unsourced. Given that it is a one-shot manga, the likelihood of reliable third-party sources covering the work is piratically none. Disputed prod. Farix (Talk) 23:15, 21 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 01:12, 28 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. Nja247 08:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anabukinchan[edit]

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

Advertising character for a company that isn't even notable enough for an article. An old meme because of a sexual theme in the ad. There are no secondary sources given to prove notability. Reywas92Talk 01:11, 28 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 Make Me a Supermodel (season 2). Merging may be done as gathered consensus deems necessary. ÷seresin 00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhurst Tacama Miggins[edit]

Sandhurst Tacama Miggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person who didn't won Make Me a Supermodel. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 15:04, 21 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 01:07, 28 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 02:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Sport Combat Federation[edit]

International Sport Combat Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article claims notability, but doesn't provide independant sources. Gnews shows no hits. Ghits come back with mostly forums and sites associated with the org. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interestingly, the 2nd link has nothing more recent than 2007 and the first one shows 2008 as the last event. Truthfully, that makes me feel they are even less notable than before. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:59, 22 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 01:05, 28 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 move to Dave Sullivan (Illinois politician). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sullivan (Illinois politician)[edit]

Dan Sullivan (Illinois politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

person does not exist; the correct person is David Sullivan. Article was apparently created in err. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:27, 21 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 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most refs are behind pay walls, but here's one. He isn't a State Senator any more, but per the note Zagalejo references above, this was the intended article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:37, 28 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short and Sweet[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:N. Of the references provided 1. No longer works, 2-4. are self written and 5. is a blog and doesn't even mention them at all except in the reader comments. I can't find anything about it on Google that would confer notability. I apologise if I'm wrong. ɪntəsvɛnsk 16:21, 14 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) 00:00, 21 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 00:58, 28 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samurang[edit]

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

I am bringing this back up for AfD. It is essentially revisionist history and is frequently vandalized. If this topic deserves elaboration anywhere it should be a subsection of Haidong Gumdo. I have taken the liberty to re-add the controversies section and notices of controversy throughout the article simply because of the fact that there is not a single piece of evidence to these claims, and the controversy section seems to be repeatedly removed through vandalism. Scholars familiar with the subject matter consider it an attempt at revisionist history by Haidong Gumdo. Haidong Gumdo is essentially a Korean fencing art which uses Japanese swords and claims them as originally Korean as well as claiming the Samurai caste descended from so-called Korean "Samurang." It must be stressed that there is not one single verifiable piece of evidence to support these claims, and there is no record of the word Samurang even being used at all until the late 1980s when Haidong Gumdo was founded. Also it should be noted that Haidong Gumdo was started by a man who essentially claimed he learned the art from an old man in the mountains. I realize that people think maybe it should remain due to controversy being of interest, but the fact is it's constantly being edited to look as if its verified fact. If nothing else, this should be merged into Haidong Gumdo. If you want more information feel free to leave me a message. --Leonffs 07:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to point out that this has been deleted in the past. Leonffs (talk) 21:09, 20 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 00:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:Fringe: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. It is certainly not the case here. — Rankiri (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I consider most of Wiki's rules and regulations to be WP:Fringe, as they are created by a "consensus" of anonymous editors who come to the encyclopedia anyone can edit not to edit, but the build the bureaucracy anyone can play tinhorn dictator at... But anyway, I see two references to the theory-- "Although the Haidong samurang predates the Japanese samurai by about 400 years, ... " at the Arizona Daily Star, and "Haidong gumdo stems from the Samurang warriors of the Kokuryu dynasty in Korea." at 'The Charlotte Observer. And this is just through looking in English. My Korean isn't good enough, and my interest in this topic not strong enough for me to state conclusively that it appears in no major publication in that language. I wouldn't be surprised if it did though. So I'll ignore the Wiki-bureaucracy-- by which, this article has survived two previous AfDs-- and just state, I think it's hogwash, and should be deleted. Glancing through the history, I get the impression it was started as an attack-piece on Korean nationalism, "Look at the ridiculous claims they believe...", but now it looks like it's been hijacked by actual believers. But in any case, it's hogwash. We give credence to equally hogwash-ish ideas here all over the place. Comic books are not a Japanese invention. Within recent history we see what happened-- comics were introduced to Japan by another culture, the Japanese added traditional and historical elements, and now some are claiming it as an ancient, traditional Japanese art, and we give that theory equal weight with the historical facts. The same thing went on with Kumdo-- Kendo came during the occupation, during the post-occupation period it was nationalized by adding real traditional Korean elements with basis in real traditional Korean martial arts and history-- and now Kumdo is called an ancient tradition martial art. But it's not, exactly... Dekkappai (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if anyone wants to search it: Samurang in hangeul is "사무랑". A couple of quick pages: koreawatcher (Japanese site)-- "해동검도의 역사" (History of Haedong gumdo), and www.mookas.com. Neither look very "reliable". Google books pulls up a couple mentions too. But now, I think I've spent waaay more time on this than I'd ever intended on this particular topic, and will bow out. Good luck :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no relevant search results on Google Scholar or Google Books. Most returned results seem to refer to alternative spellings of Semarang. — Rankiri (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may have survived an AfD in the past but it has also failed one, but got remade. This brings further my point of this article being frequently vandalized. If it fails this AfD, which it clearly is so far, I will keep an eye and make sure it gets speedy delete if it comes up again. Leonffs (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the POV entries etc, would a semi-protected redirect be in order? --Nate1481 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to this edit it was ok as an explanation, but still of dubious notability. (some of the damage was later undone) --Nate1481 07:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Didn't realize that a previous AFD had just recently concluded. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Renee[edit]

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

Non-notable adult film star. While Renee certainly has a large body of work, her notability is not substantiated through third-party reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:42, 28 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination market[edit]

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

Contested prod (no reason given by de-prodder apart from the prod being "false" whatever that means). A weird mishmash of sci-fci and unsourced conspiracy theory-esque OR. I cannot see a way to make it encyclopedic but here we are Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment --- they can go if cites are provided. As it stands the article had/s many totally unsourced claims. As an aside, as to the 'sick' nature of the article --- that isn't my concern at all. It is merely the topics notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Hess' book is copied word-for-word from Thomas and Loader's. I've removed it. Clarke et al. only refer to it without discussing it.[48]. This is a good source:[49]. So we have one book chapter and one journal article. I can't find any more. If this is enough to keep the article, it needs to be retitled as Assassination politics. Fences&Windows 20:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fences, respectfully I re-introduce the ref. Wikipedia's notability guidelines concern multiple indenpendent mention in RS. Two book refs therefore confirm multiple independent mention - sure, one book copies the other, but their infringement on copyright is irrelevant in this WP:N context. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting two books in this way would be like saying you had multiple sources if an Associated Press wire story was used by several newspapers verbatim. Without acknowledging the duplication, it's not honest to the reader. Fences&Windows 00:41, 28 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 00:39, 28 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. Nja247 08:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butokukan karate[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:MANOTE. Only gnews hit was a one line mention in a long list of local sports related activites. Found one article in google that would qualify as a wp:rs [50], but not enough others sources to establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment those are indeed schools/branches. Usually -kai denotes an organization and -kan is often used to indicate a style or org. too (cf. Shotokan). JJL (talk) 16:53, 25 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 00:35, 28 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 Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering). Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychatog[edit]

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

This article was AfDed three months after it was created (see discussion here, and there was a clear consensus to delete/merge, but for whatever reason the deletion/merger never happened. Individual Magic cards are likely not notable at all, and if any individual cards are, the bar would need to be set much higher than this one. Some of the most notable cards, the Power Nine, do not have individual articles, but rather a collective one. Put another way, if this card is notable, it's likely that hundreds of other individual cards are likewise notable. This card will never have a major, full-length work such as a book written about it. All but two of the sources cited here are from magicthegathering.com and therefore not independent of the subject; of the other two, one is another wiki's glossary page, and the third discusses a deck that uses Psychatog, not the card itself. Croctotheface (talk) 18:41, 21 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) 00:21, 28 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 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EBS University Cooperations[edit]

EBS University Cooperations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of schools that may or may not have a relationship with the focal school (all relationship cells are "?"). Unreferenced, unclear, not really notable Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 21 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) 00:15, 28 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TakeOff Creative Services House[edit]

TakeOff Creative Services House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google and Google News searches turn up nothing to verify this company's notability, as per WP:CORP and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:13, 21 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) 00:15, 28 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. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio N[edit]

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

Delete another unref'd one-liner about a nn channel Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:06, 21 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) 00:14, 28 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. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha TV[edit]

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

Delete close to an advertisement - no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 21 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) 00:11, 28 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 02:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rope Chain (song)[edit]

Rope Chain (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Single from a debut album that does not have an article of its own. No indication it has charged or is otherwise notable as a single. Shadowjams (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The album seems to have an article now. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 23 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) 00:11, 28 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 National University of Singapore#Halls of residence. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward VII Hall[edit]

King Edward VII Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college dorm in Singapore. Although the article states that it was built in 1915, the article fails to explain that it was demolished without anybody much caring, and a replacement residence hall by the same name was built. The bottom two thirds of the article was copied from the dorm's website. Deprodded. There is a Facebook page and other in-house sources on this dorm, but they are not reliable sources. Abductive (talk) 10:24, 21 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, 28 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. The article has been fairly decisively improved and sourced over the course of the AfD; resolving to some extent the concerns of the delete proponents - though style and formatting problems do still remain. There does not appear to be a clear consensus to delete the article here, though there is equally no strong consensus to keep it - no prejudice against a renomination in the intermediate future if concerns remain. ~ mazca talk 00:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom Brothers Department Stores[edit]

Bloom Brothers Department Stores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible Vanispamcruftertisement. See also Special:Contributions/Rbbloom, admission of COI [51], and unanimous delete consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Dudley Bloom. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Agreed, was merely noting it here as it's likely a form of spam/advertising and not notable. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone advertise a department store that's been out of business for over 60 years? Instead of belittling people's motives I think we should just look at whether the sourcing shows this business was notable or not. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not written as advertising. No one from this family lives in the area any more. It was written for the local historians--the "old timers"--in the area, of whom there are many, who need to feel connected with the virtual world: there's not much else to do in Chambersburg. I'd been asked to talk about the first department stores in Franklin County, and this came out of it. And of course, many of the sources are ads, although several--that means 5-8 or so--are articles. ALL sources are checkable, but you'll have to go to Harrisburg, the state capital, or the local library and read microfiche, as I did over a period of nine years! Fat chance that'll happen. But just because you don't have a budget for it doesn't mean the articles aren't there. Is Wikipedia a democratic encyclopedia or not? If it's not, you've just lost your raison d'etre. Richard B. Bloom 12:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a fantastic topic for a historian of some sort. I'm not saying your sources are invalid - in fact they're exactly the sort of thing a good historian would seek out - many of them just are not valid for an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia is not really the place to put this kind of original, primary-source based history - writing entirely from primary sources is a difficult task both for you and people who need to verify your work, it's beyond the scope of what we do at Wikipedia. 10 years ago, if you were trying to get this material to see the light of day, you wouldn't have sent it off to Encyclopedia Britannica then been shocked when they didn't want it - you'd have found a nice local or state level historical publication, and that's still the kind of place to get this sort of work published for the first time. Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, documents stuff that's already been written about in secondary sources (and given the age of these newspaper articles and the fact that we don't even know if they're ads or not, I don't think there's a very strong case that they're secondary sources). --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer was quicker than I thought it would be. I OWN all the sources I used and can email them to you if you like. OF COURSE I wouldn't send this off to Britannica. Wikipedia is a different kind of encyclopedia, full of popular culture, which is what this is, too. Richard B. Bloom 13:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the international nature of this business is lost on the reader unless I make the connections I've noted above overt in the article, which would be difficult to prove unless I could interview the dead. I just had a different impression of Wikipedia. It's not meant to be Encarta--it's people-written. But if you want to limit it to secondary sources, well then "Bloom Brothers" has to go. I agree. Richard B. Bloom 13:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs)

You can see Wikipedia's policy here at Wikipedia:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. It's not that primary sources are absolutely off-limits, but unpublished ones are (even if you can e-mail them, unfortunately), and there are serious restrictions on what you can do with primary sources. The wording of that policy also reinforces the importance of at least some secondary sources in any encyclopedia article. While it's unfortunate that following policy sometimes means deleting articles people have put a lot of good faith effort into, as in this case, the only thing to do is live and learn. And of course this debate will be closed based on consensus, so my opinion is just one of many that can be offered. However, perhaps this article would be a good jumping off point for a submission to a publication that is looking for original works of history. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considerably improved--now that the author has seen the need to write an encyclopedia article, not family history. DGG (talk) 00:27, 29 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 00:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REX TV Pilot[edit]

REX TV Pilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable documentary. The only attempt at referencing has been reverted by XLinkBot (talk · contribs). Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:04, 21 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, 28 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzaga '68[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gonzaga '68 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 21 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, 28 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 deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Jobs (Led Zeppelin bootleg recording)[edit]

Snow Jobs (Led Zeppelin bootleg recording) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 21 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, 28 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Très bien![edit]

Très bien! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:MUSIC. google and google news search yield nothing. lead member gets very little coverage [52]. I note they're unsigned which probably explains the lack of coverage and hence notability.LibStar (talk) 13:09, 21 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) 00:00, 28 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thomas Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable film maker. His only credit on imdb is for "Disorder", a non-notable film. A Google search for "'Jack Thomas Smith' Disorder" comes up with only 119 hits, including such non-reliable sources as Myspace. There are two Google news hits for that search, but they're local newspapers discussing using local sites for his filming. The editor who is creating this page appears to be associated with Fox Trail Productions, Smith's production company, which has, according to imdb, only made this one film. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:32, 21 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) 00:00, 28 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 00:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bain[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO miserably. the article is bordering on spam and self promotion. Tony Bain's company gets close to no coverage [53] and [54]. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 21 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) 00:00, 28 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 02:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannes Smárason[edit]

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

Article sites only references in Icelandic which are unverifiable outside of native speakers, therefore the requirements of WP:BIO are not upheld. Gismoto28 (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, article contains a lot of original research or opinions of author which reflect in a negative way on the subject. Needless to say such material in a bio of a living person will have to be rigorously documented by reliable sources, which they are not. Gismoto28 (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the Icelandic sources to english sources, removed the unverifiable sources in english. --Patroiz (talk) 01:23, 22 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) 23:59, 27 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} 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HH Bhakti Svarupa Damodar Swami[edit]

HH Bhakti Svarupa Damodar Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability. Article is an unsourced and unencyclopedic promotion full of unsubstantiated assertions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC) I see the article has been redirected to Bhaktisvarupa Damodar Swami which is an exact duplicate creation of the same article. So that one should be consdered in this AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 22 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) 23:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vaishnava News is an outlet of the Hare Krishna movement, not reliable, and what's left is either other people with the same name or trivial mentions. Hekerui (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vaishnava News is not affiliated with Hare Krishna movement. It is an independent source.--Gaura79 (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There're enough independent sources cited in the article to establish notability. Plus for more than 30 years he was a director of Bhaktivedanta Institute, an organization that is certainly notable.--Gaura79 (talk) 09:46, 29 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. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redmond O'Neal[edit]

Redmond O'Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet the standard for notability. He gets a lot of commentary in relation to his famous parents, Ryan O'Neal, and particularly in light of her recent death, Farrah Fawcett, but he is not independently notable. He has done nothing that in itself merits an article. Aside from the fact that he is in jail, he is no more notable than any other non-notable offspring of a famous parent. I had placed a prod tag on this, but as it has been removed without comment, I am listing it here to hopefully gain a wider viewpoint for comment. Rossrs (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - He has no notability on his own merit and is mentioned in relative weight on parents' articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No independent notability established and its not inherited Corpx (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ryan_O'Neal#Personal_life where he is mentioned. No need for an AfD. JJL (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy with a redirect and I did consider it, but to which parent? Farrah is arguably the more famous of the two. Rossrs (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say his dad, because that article talks more about him (Redmond) Corpx (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it talks about Redmond and Ryan O'Neal being arrested together. Additionally, they share a surname. JJL (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: I feel sorry for the young man, but he is not notable. This article may be well-intentioned or exploitative, but he is not notable in either event. There is info on him at the Ryan O'Neal article and I added whatever salient info was missing (i.e. full name, derivation of first name, etc). It can/should be deleted speedily. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I added the tag as CSD A7. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and NO redirect Not only do I object to the redirect, but I object to the idea that what is neither notable nor appropriately weighted for his own article is nevertheless notable with no weight issue when inserted into his father's article. What one arrived at Ryan O'Neal to find was a passing account of a birth in 1985 and later a whole titled, two-paragraph section composed solely of two brushes with the law at 23 in 2008 and 2009. Those are bookends without the book. Regardless of the tabloidesque media, he should be free to start his next volume without a search at an encyclopedia leading to an elaboration on that low point at Ryan O'Neal's biography. I've edited it back down to the way it appeared prior to the creation of this article. We shouldn't be telling someone which article to read, we should let a search for his name arrive at the "No article title matches" page, where a searcher will find his name highlighted in brief mentions in both his mother's and his father's bios as are specifically relevant to their encyclopedic notability, and be allowed to make their own choice of which to read, if either. He had no interest in being in the public eye and/or his parents largely shielded him from it; in any event, there simply isn't any public information about his life that is notably relevant to an encyclopedia and it isn't our place to expect there to be. Abrazame (talk) 09:35, 29 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