< 17 March	19 March >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ustream.tv. MBisanz ^talk 07:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Ham[edit]

No notability. The only claim of notability is in founding Ustream.tv, and the information about their founding of the website can easily be merged with Ustream.tv. Outside of that website, there's nothing here which requires separate articles for the cofounders. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 23:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages (Co-founder with John Ham, same reasoning as above):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 March 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, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. DougsTech (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--Moloch09 (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was withdrawn by nominator, nobody !voted to delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Karelis[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs a lot of work, but passes WP:ATHLETE. I've added Stats Centre reference which shows he has played in the Greek Super League. Jogurney (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has made an appearance in a fully-pro league - passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE as he has played, albeit briefly. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh man, I feel stupid now, how could I miss that. Next time I will open my eyes before I AfD an ariticle. Is there anyway to cancel this afd, as now I do see he has made an app? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 STS-119. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space bat[edit]

neologism DougsTech (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:NEO DougsTech (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. No evidence of usage even in the linked articles. Radiant chains (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a neologism, and the information is already covered in the STS-119 article. Matt (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Mikaey 45ODY(Blether, Behavior) 08:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We might as well write an article about those poor Canadian geese who got mutilated by by Sully's airplane in January. Mandsford (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to STS-119, and add a hatnote with a reference to Alien space bats. JulesH (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave This particular space bat has quite a following. It is no different that any other meme, it's only more recent and the page went up in less time than for other memes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.37.107 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave It's a viable entry about something that happened. What's the problem?

You didn't sign your name, that's one problem. But I'll take your advice-- I'm leaving. Mandsford (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate section of STS-119 if the article doesn't develop by the end of this AfD, although I think there will be a good chance it could have significant coverage as an internet meme by then.--ragesoss (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in the South West of England#Primary Schools. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stourfield junior school[edit]

Lacks notability and doesn't appear notable enough to merge into another article. BarretBonden (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of schools in the South West of England, would be most appropriate in my opinion. Usually non notable schools are redirected to their school district articles, but I can't find a district for this one. FingersOnRoids♫ 01:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For info, there is no such concept as a "school district" in the UK. I realise that some UK schools do have the "school district" field filled in in their infoboxes, but all that has been entered appears to simply be the geographical district within which the school lies, not a unit of school governance (or whatever the appropriate term is) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of schools in the South West of England per normal practice. I note that the nominator undid a redirect in order to bring it here instead of simply fixing the redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I undid a redirect to Dorset and the insertion of a sub section in that article. I wasn't familiar with the 'normal practice' for non-notable schools but I agree that a redirect to List of schools in the South West of England is the most appropraite solution. BarretBonden (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This school is already listed at List_of_schools_in_the_South_West_of_England#Bournemouth. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in the South West of England#Primary Schools, which is the most direct target. Cunard (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony of Decay[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Unreleased albums (this is actually an unreleased EP) are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 14:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to band article.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 14:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. None of the information is sourced reliably or otherwise, so it also fails WP:V. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tween (generation)[edit]

Seems to be lagely original research. The only source in the article refers to Preadolescence not a generation. neon white talk 21:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I've heard tween used to refer to people around 10-13, but I don't see anywhere where it is used as a generation. Delete as original research. Tavix (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace, deleting from article space without prejudice. The article is not simply or intrinsically “original research” — see “So cool! Tweens are emerging generation”] by Sharon Jayson of USA Today, 4 February 2009 — nor does the term or concept appear to be the invention of just ms Jayson. But there isn't presently sufficient evidence of “notability”. The principal author(s) of this article should be encouraged to work on the article in userspace. —SlamDiego_←T 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the observations below by Mandsford, I amend my position to Delete. —SlamDiego_←T 07:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A misunderstanding from the msnbc.com article cited as a source, isn't surprising, since the author of the USA Today article "So cool! Tweens are emerging generation" apparently doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. One misuse of the word "generation" in McPaper is not the basis for an article. While those children born post-Internet might be classified as a generation by sociologists, they certainly won't be called "tweens". I note that Tween leads to a dab page that includes a redirect to preadolescence, and it wouldn't hurt to make something that shows up like "Tween (stage)" or the like. However, todays tweens, including Malia and Sasha, will, soon enough, become teens, then adults; and today's "preschoolers" will become the next "tweens". Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with that. I think it was a misunderstanding of what the article is saying. Largely due to the title. The article body actually simply explains about Preadolescence. A 'generation of tweens' is just using it as a word to refer to modern tweens as a group. It's not exactly a misuse it's just not intending define a new sociological generation. You could just as easily refer to a 'generation of 11 year olds' a 'generation of twenty-somethings'. I think such a subject would require acedemic sources. --neon white talk 23:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Generation Y. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why, this subject has no relevence to that subject. --neon white talk 04:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Byrn Tritt[edit]

Promotional article for non notable author. I checked the ISBNs of the two books listed under the books section with WorldCat, and the first brings up no results for all of the US and the second shows only two libraries. The sptimes.com ref only establishes that he and some friends bought some paint once for $11 and put it on a wall. Other refs are not independent nontrivial etc. as required. DreamGuy (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Books shows four results with him as the author, and one of his books is available through Amazon.com. (Another book is listed on Amazon but not in stock.) Whether that justifies keeping this article is another issue, but it's something to consider. Recognizance (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Online_bookstores for info on why a listing at Amazon in and of itself doesn't matter. DreamGuy (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Delete then. Recognizance (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR in every respect. Dlabtot (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick look at his website [1] reveals something interesting: "The "Get Adamus into Wikipedia" Contest", complete with prizes (down at the bottom of the page). Recognizance pointed out the Google books result, but there are only two books, not four; both books are listed twice. His first book is not carried by any libraries in the Worldcat listing; it was published by a very small press, is out of print, and the book's link on the publisher's site is a 404. His second one (the one available at Amazon) is carried by two, but it's self-published; "Smithcraft Press" specializes in self-published books. [2] Many of his other "published" works come from Oestara Publishing, which is a writer's cooperative which distributes e-books. [3] The 2006 Eppie prize listed is for an anthology in which he contributed several poems; it is not an individual award. Those poems are all listed separately as well; there is a lot of duplication, which inflates his actual output. Both of his books are listed under both books and published literary work, and the last three sections are fairly trivial: a locally produced play, a role in a 13-minute short film on MySpace, and a single instance of civic activism (which at least has independent sourcing). There is nothing here which indicates notability. Horologium (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 07:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutapa weZimba reMabwe[edit]

Delete incoherent, unreferenced, borderline nonsense, attributed to "Dr. Robert Mugabe: Chancellor of The University Of The Republic Of Zimbabwe" among others. R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Robert Mugabe might only be included for being the head of state of Zimbabwe. Any relevant info (not quite sure what to make of it) belongs somewhere in the history of Zimbabwe though. Recognizance (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, I would be surprised if he had not appointed himself to any such posts available. DGG (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreadable gibberish and unreferenced. If there's anything sourced on this topic, it should be in the Zimbabwe article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as total, unsalvageable nonsense. DarkAudit (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Now tagged as a G1 speedy. It's gibberish, and does not warrant our wasting time with any further. DarkAudit (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to understand what the article is about. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense. WillOakland (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G1) as patent nonsense. I think I got a headache from reading that... MuZemike 03:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't make any sense out of this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitman weapons[edit]

Material is game guide, and is not notable through present sources; if there is content to be merged (likely a mention of his "trademark" Silverballers which can be stated from a first-pass check of google hits) this can put pushed to the Hitman (series) article. The article itself here is an unlikely search term so I don't believe there's a need to retain a redirect. MASEM (t) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination rationale. Recognizance (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The majority of this is trivial game guide content and could be significantly reduced into a small mention in the series article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom and above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough to warrant its own article. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 00:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & Delete, not opposed to Merging relevant content into Hitman (series). Not a single secondary WP:RS makes this 100% original research (and trivial one, at that). MLauba (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Weapons in [game]" articles have a very steep hill to climb to justify their existence outside of the [game] article; this doesn't even come close. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there really a necessary page for the weapons in a game? Not a necessary page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinwarrior (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete an unverifiable and probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make The Shot[edit]

Unremarkable film made by an unremarkable company (whose article was recently speedy deleted). Prod removed. Cycle~ (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nominator. Recognizance (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be either a hoax or a really well kept secret; even the company doesn't come up anywhere. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the company making this film is non-notable, then surely their films are also non-notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Production company unsourcable/unverifiable. Film unsourcable/unverfiable. Hoax all but assured. Production company article has already been speedied diff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Shaabie[edit]

Non-notable musician: could not find any references to "Charlie Shaabi" or "Charlie Hanna Shaabi" or "Charlie Shaabie" in reliable sources. tedder (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no luck in finding any references to any of the claims made in the article; the "hit song" referred to doesn't seem to have been much of a hit, as I couldn't find anything on it, and the subject himself doesn't seem to exist anywhere I looked. Fails WP:MUSIC unless someone's search-fu is better than mine. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to me like the sole purpose of this article is promotional - simply to drive traffic to their myspace music page. BrightSpringMorning (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Charlie Shaabi into this nomination, as it's the same article under a different name. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and speedied the duplicate page. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy, I found this one after the AFD on that one, didn't know if they should be merged or what. I was about to create an AFD on ElectrowaveZ (Band) since my prod tag was removed; can these be easily linked somehow? tedder (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the duplicate (Charlie shaabi) was recreated, with the speedy removed. Speedy and salt, perhaps? I'm not going to put in an AFD for it. tedder (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 / userfied to User:Jarry1250/World Multiple Sclerosis Day, good chances it will be WP worthy in the near future, so why not having someone looking forward for it? - Nabla (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Multiple Sclerosis Day[edit]

Non-notable "day". Four Google hits outside of Wikipedia, no Google news hits. Speedy deletion tag removed by a "new" user whose entire edit history is to edit war to remove speedy deletion tags. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want to google "World MS day" instead, which brings it up to 390 raw Ghits / ~40 good, unique, relevant GHits / 1Gnews (german). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one Gnews hit is to Deutsche Multiple Sklerose News, not sure that's a reliable source. And of all of the links that I checked, all of them were to different MS societies and such, no outside sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Unfortunately there are no specific notability guidelines to try and follow, but my reasoning is that although there are no independent reliable sources (all are, as far as I can tell, in some way connected to the event), we are talking about what boils down to a future event, and hence the weight of international coverage may eventually tell. However, Wikipedia is not a news source, so I can't help feeling that it may be best to resurrect the article once the day has received the coverage it expects to receive. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I'm happy to have it userfied to my space. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball, nor an event planner. This is an article about a future event. Since it has not yet occurred, it is not yet notable. Untick (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're not advocating speedy deletion? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, page originally created by User:MSIF - MSIF is the acronym for Multiple Sclerosis International Federation. Page can be created after the event, if it proves notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the latter, but that it represent a COI is a bit of a non-argument here, surely? User:MSIF didn't create much of the content of the article, and it's now suitably NPOV etc. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindi Family[edit]

I think this is a hoax. I cannot find any sources relating to the family. Even if it is true this is original resarch. It may even be that the list of notable people aren't related. DFS454 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No references, google search reveals no infomation what so ever, made up article. Bacchus87 (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a made up article about non-related people. Salih (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, most of the alleged family members are redlinks, and there's no evidence the other two are related. Edward321 (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Osipov (chess)[edit]

A chess programmer of dubious and possibly false notability, according to some google search results. - 7-bubёn >t 17:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only sources I could find were forum postings, not exactly reliable. Keep in mind I just deleted the "Strelka controversy" section from the Rybka article for this very reason. tedder (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I fail to see notability in this guy. He shouldn't be notable for (possibly) programming a minor chess program. Tavix (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Skeletal (one-sentence) article fails to show notability. Krakatoa (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the others above. Bubba73 (talk), 14:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Author only 'known' as being associated with an unnotable chess program. Voorlandt (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krakatoa. SyG (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Presidents of the United States of America (band). MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck California[edit]

Non-notable early song by a notable group. Fails WP:NSONGS. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a single by a notable band. It doesn't matter how early it is, it is still notable by Wikipedia's standards. Tavix (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify what part of WP:NSONGS this meets. Notability is not inherited. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-charting non-notable release. JamesBurns (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no reliable source.--Caspian blue 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to either band or (later) album. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 21:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand the sing is a single by a notable band. It is a very early single, but doesn't matter, it is still notable by Wikipedia's standards. If this gets deleted, then so should ever other debut single by famous musicians too. It can't be redirected, because it wasn't released on an album.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, please explain how it's notable. Just because it's a single by a notable band does not make the song notable, whether it's an early single or their most recent. This song didn't chart, and I could find no significant media coverage from reliable third-party sources. Any song with its own article has to meet the criteria at WP:NSONGS, and as far as I could ascertain, this one does not. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let it grow. People will expand on it. It may not have charted, but neither did many other debut singles. The fact remains that it was released by a notable band and re-released on a platinum album.--99.179.75.218 (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closing - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Shaabie Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie shaabi[edit]

Non-notable musician: could not find any references to "Charlie Shaabi" or "Charlie Hanna Shaabi" in reliable sources.

Not eligible for Speedy, user deleted prod. tedder (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 18:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 del CSD:G5 - article by banned user. - 7-bubёn >t 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the Court Administrator v. Floro, Jr.[edit]

This article was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user User:Florentino_floro, and the article is about the blocked user himself. It seems his recent indefinite block on Wikinews has driven him to back here.

There is no notable information in this article that is not already covered in the Florentino Floro article. Further argument by User:Maxschmelling: "Per discussion at the Law WikiProject, individual cases are not notable just by virtue of being mentioned in the press. Notability in terms of individual cases is determined by the significance of the issue or the decision. Generally, it seems, cases need to be mentioned in casebooks or to be foundational in some way to be considered notable as cases. This one doesn't stand up. The defendent is barely notable himself and there is no significant issue of law at stake."

Also, I must pre-emptively warn that the blocked user is very likely to participate in this discussion with extremely long and rambling diatribes (such as this), under the guise of various sockpuppets or IP addresses. TheCoffee (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Maxschmelling. Is there a firm statement of case notability at the Law Wikiproject? No one brought it up at the Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. AFD, where it would have been dispositive. THF (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just another vanity article in a series of manifestations of Floro's unending desire to establish a "Wikipedia legacy", as he has several times put it. --Migs (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott Hilk[edit]

This is a hoax article. Google comes up with no hits, the London Gazette has no mention of him in any possible search configuration I could see. As a General and an MP he would be listed numerous times if this was indeed a real person. The only 5th division of the British Army was the 5th Infantry Division (United Kingdom), there was no Welsh one as far as I am aware. This combined with the article creator's name being Jimhilk (talk · contribs), this is an obvious hoax. Woody (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax 4/10 for effort Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've checked the London Gazette myself, even searching just on Hilk brings up just 21 hits, all of which are obvious OCR errors for other words. David Underdown (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. The article Welsh nationalism#Nineteenth century describes only working-class Chartist movements at this time - an eminent landowner who "fought vigorously for Welsh self-rule" would probably have made some impact. However, the detailed refutations above of the other claims are conclusive. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely hoax, though not blatant enough for a G3. My google searches didn't turn up anything either.--Terrillja _talk 18:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V as I could not find any references on Google News, Google Scholar, or Google Books, let alone a regular Google Search. Suspected WP:HOAX as well given the difficulty in finding any sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:SNOW now I think.Nrswanson (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Kare!![edit]

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Plot section (now removed) was WP:COPYVIO from Anime News Network, and character section just translated from JA wiki.[4] Licensed in Chinese and that's it. No significant coverage in that language either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is just a suggested guideline, not a policy. This manga has been published for quite some time in a major magazine, and has been published on its own in 7 volumes. For that reason, I believe the article should be kept. Dream Focus 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an article that doesn't meet the notability guidelines is indeed part of the deletion policy. Them From Space 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the tag at the top of that page. "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to it should reflect consensus." Normally, but not always. Use common sense and ignore all rules if necessary. Dream Focus 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is policy, contrary to what you said. And you better have a reason to invoke IAR, as it just isn't used for everyday articles that fail the notability guidelines. That is the accepted consensus. Them From Space 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus, plus, per Collectonian, series has been licensed and translated into Chinese. I can't read Chinese, so I can't look for any sort of Chinese review, but seeing as how its the most-spoken language on the planet, I'm willing to bet there's something out there that would satisfy the (ridiculous) notability guidelines. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Thus far, few series we've seen licensed in Chinese have had any Chinese reviews. No idea if they just don't do them or just not done in reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be a lot of Japanese Ghits for the series [5] and the Japanese Wiki's version of the article mentions a drama CD as well. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't meet WP:BK as GHits are irrelevant (quick scanning, most of those links are either "buy me" links or personal sites) and a drama CD is not a major adaptation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it is definitely a long running and apparently popular series, there is a lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. However, I have no prejudice against recreation when such sources are found. --Farix (Talk) 03:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would Yahoo! Japan covering the series here count: http://comics.yahoo.co.jp/shogakukan/ikeyamad01/moekare01/shoshi/shoshi_0002.html ? Also, why not request assistance from native Japanese speakers? Surely they can easily find sources for this series. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, its basically a "directory" type thing, like any bookseller/listing service. It doesn't cover anything just notes it was released. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have requested assistance from the WikiProject Japan to ensure presence or lack of a presence of reliable sources written in Japanese. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Asking_for_assistance_to_find_reliable_sources_for_Moe_Kare.21.21 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has even proven it was popular. That's a guess based on how long it ran. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:BK. This hasn't even recieved a trivial mention in the news and it's only mentioned once on the Japanese google news. The Japanese Wikipedia article is uncited. Them From Space 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ~~Themfromspace, have you tried searching Japanese sources? The above query will not produce Japanese sources.~~ I'm aware the Japanese article is uncited, but I'm not sure if the Japanese news search works the same way as the English does. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of any third-party references demonstrating notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There appears to be a lot of "fan" and "slash" fiction available about this Manga series, but no news articles. Is that enough to keep? Can anyone find panels about this series at SF/Manga cons, perhaps? Bearian (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC) There is some evidence here, for example, at Comic Con, here. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, none of those support any possibility it was mentioned at a con. Those are all just personal sites/forums where the words appear on the same page. And the amount of copyright violating "fanfic" and scanslation has no bearing on any series notability unless its so great it actually gets mentioned in reliable, third-party sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., delete then. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hajizadeh Elshan Mahmud[edit]

Contested PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the prod: This is someone posting a resume on Wikipedia, clearly against what Wikipedia is not. I will also add that I cannot find any reliable sources [6] that can establish any notabililty of this person; nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. MuZemike 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously non-notable young PhD that does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. I'll be curious to see the motivation of the deprodder... --Crusio (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article may require cleanup to be considered to KEEP

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete a CV of a NN academic, fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep with some cutting down as an important educator,based on his educational publications. Not as a research scholar, probably. DGG (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Pete above: fails WP:PROF. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pete and nom.Nrswanson (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This late in the AfD, there is still no evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Designate[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Kirk (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aas far as I can tell, there is no actual documentation that this category exists in NATO terminology. Therefore, this article needs to be deleted, or updated with the actual source. Note: I checked the STANAG 2116 online, and I find no reference to the ranks listed in this article, with the exception of Midshipman in the UK, which is considered OF-1. Kirk (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, all the NATO rank articles have tables with OF(D), and many have ranks listed which need to be changed. Kirk (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the British MOD website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is contradicted by this table - http://www.babelport.com/articles/stanag2116.htm. Maybe someone can find the actual NATO document which defines 'Officer Designate' and the abbreviation OF(D)? Kirk (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So let me get this straight. You're taking Babelport, an "online community" probably less reliable than Wikipedia, as a source equivalent in reliability to the official website of the British Government ministry which actually runs the armed forces? I don't think so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point, but it matches what's in the actual NATO documentation STANAG 2116. If its a NATO term it should have a reference to NATO documentation somewhere. I also checked the NATO abbreviations document AAP-15 and the glossary AAP-42 which are available from the NATO website, and neither have OF(D) as a valid abbreviation, nor Officer Designate. Kirk (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep official government site is a valid reference. RP459 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:V is met for the UK rank at least, and for topics like this it should also mean that there are sufficient sources to satisfy WP:N. The article does need a bit of work though to source everything. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andy Dill. MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dill Media[edit]

Article doesn't establish that the subject is notable Willy turner (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. RP459 (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Andy Dill or delete without prejudice. This is a publisher of gay pornography, apparently featuring red-headed musclemen. Its consumer products may well be reviewed in reliable third party sources, but there is no evidece of such in the article, and looking for them is a job for somebody familiar with the genre - i.e. somebody other than me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Willy turner (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Andy Dill. While this obviously isn't necessarily true of all porn companies, this particular one was intimately tied to the identity and image of a founder who was himself a notable porn actor, so we don't really need two separate articles. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Fisher's, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mrs. Fisher's, Inc.

Only non-trivial reference found after good faith news archive search is feature on company in local ("metropolitan area" population < 300,000) paper. Bongo matic 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now (I'm willing to have my mind changed, though)—it seems to sell a lot of chips, and while I can't find much news coverage either I do at least see lots of those boring "business profile" websites or whatever. I know that kind of stuff isn't mentioned in WP:CORP, but I dunno, I just find that article not that terrible. And it's not vanispamcruftisement, which a lot of these articles often are. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – two RS, fairly large company, not written as an advertisement (after working on it). TheAE talk/sign 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please note that Rockford's metropolitan area is over 350,000, in case that is important to judge the merit of an article about Mrs. Fishers appearing in that city's main newspaper. The company has been around since the 1930's - this is not a start up venture. Also, if an image can be used, the logo for the chips manufacturer would be of interest also. The logo is still very 1930's looking and iconoclastic, at least for people in the upper midwest where the chips are sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockford1963 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 March 2009

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zico Chain[edit]

No indication that the band meets the notability criteria. No mention of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources Papa November (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 14:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: missing sources are no reason for deletion. A quick look at Google confirms the article's main statements for notability. They played big festivals, were on a big tour and released several albums. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 14:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I didn't say anything about missing sources. The point is that the article doesn't say why the band is notable. Which (if any) of the notability criteria do they satisfy? Playing big tours/festivals and releasing albums isn't good enough. Did the albums enter the charts? Did they receive significant coverage (i.e. a feature, not just a review) in a major music magazine? Have they been nominated for any major music awards? Papa November (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notability criteria #4 #5? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 21:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination: Well done guys, you've added some good information to the article. I'm happy that it now explains the band's notability, based on

Number 1 video on MTV2
Significant coverage in notable independent sources.
Collaboration with and recognition by notable musical artists.

I'm now happy for the article to stay. Papa November (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help out. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can close this? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G10. wodup 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Charnley[edit]

The article seems to be about a real enough person, but the only real content is about him failing at a reality show. He doesn't seem notable or important enough to be included. —LedgendGamer 09:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U P Joseph[edit]

Non-notable political candidate fails WP:BIO. The article isn't sourced but you can read about him here. I also found this which mentions him injuring his arm as a youth leader, but this and other mentions are in passing. This is what the article's creator said at Talk:U P Joseph:

Agreed that a person doesn't qualify for the notability criteria just because of his candidature for a political election; but a person who is representing a powerful political combine, and has a chance of winning the election does deserve to be considered notable. This article is more of a work-in-progress article and you will find references and citations, and yeah enough reasons to justify notability in a couple of days. please hold on. thank you! - User:Leftnwrite 06:28, 18 March 2009

While U P Joseph has held various appointments, I don't think he is notable enough for Wikipedia. I don't want to discourage this new user, but Wikipedia is not a place to advertise goods, services, or political candidates. - Boston (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete was declined by admin. --Boston (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current position itself is not notable for encyclopaedia, no need to look at past records.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion, but strongly disagree that there is no need to look at his past. The problem is looking doesn't reveal much. --Boston (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non notable. RP459 (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy, b/c notability is asserted. i do hope his arm is feeling better. 7triton7 (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harlýemý Yonkçiker[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, Wycombe Wanderers' current number 9 is Matt Harrold, and there is no record of this player being on the club's books. Might be notable if he had played for the other clubs listed, which include some of the very top clubs in Italy, Portugal and elsewhere, but Google returns precisely zero hits on his name, so that seems untrue as well. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Giant Snowman 11:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides the zero hits on Google, how likely is it that a player will be transferred from an Israeli (Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C.) to an Iranian (F.C. Aboomoslem) club? Textbook hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer-holic (talk • contribs)
Delete as probable hoax which fails WP:V. Jogurney (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. RP459 (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost certain hoax. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. WP:SNOW now I think.Nrswanson (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Silvio Lino Gouveia[edit]

Footballer who has never played professionally, article freely admits that he is only a part-timer and that his main job is working in his father's gardening business. Probable WP:COI based on suspiciously high level of knowledge of the player's personal life. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a person of this name who played for Halesowen, but according to Halesowen's website, he had previously played for minor Portuguese clubs, had a different date of birth, and scored three goals in 15 games before leaving the club. It's a hoax: the only truth in the article is that a player of that name has played for Halesowen, the rest is total bollocks. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What Struway calls bollocks, we call it BS in the USA. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uksam88 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irap RMS Suite[edit]

Delete non notable software Mayalld (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The field of oilfield development may seem obscure to the layman and the number of participating companies may be small but all activities and the tools involved are important and notable as long as they involve current use on today's oil leases. The article does look like a stub and is apparently cut and paste, but that's not enough reason to delete it.Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Looks like this article is less than a day old. Would it be appropriate to delete an article about software that has been around for a few years just because the article is just being started? Why not wait and see if the article shapes up first? Otherwise it would just look like somebody is just trying to suppress oilfield industry articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Walkhouse (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement Sceptre ^(talk) 22:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I don't know whether or not this one fails the notability test, it still reads like an advertisement. Matt (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:N and WP:Advertisements 45ODY(Blether, Behavior) 08:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Once again, I'll point out that this article has only been here for a single day, and according to the guidelines:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

That alone closes this AfD. A cleanup template has already been added by "Who then was a gentleman?" And I have started working on it. If you don't like the way it looks, join in and edit it. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note In reading the article and with a search on the web, It is clear to me that this software suite has been in active development for over twenty years and is being used in the field. I also see that mastery of this beast is worthy of mention in the resumes of professionals like this guy: C.D. (SAM) JOHNSTON, Seismic Interpreter So, it appears notability is not a problem and all this new article needs is a cleanup to justify removing the Advert tag. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend userfication into the author's userspace. Then, even if consensus results in deletion, the author can remain working on the article until it is good enough to warrant inclusion. MuZemike 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered that too but he may have left, disappointed by the quick deletion of another brand new article and the AfD on this new article before he had a chance to do any significant work. If Mafb09 never comes back, can I volunteer to adopt the thing? If so, can I also take that other one (RMS (reservoir software)) which was speedily deleted? Environmental concerns around the oilpatch are rapidly becoming a hot topic and this info could be needed soon by all sides. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article and removed the Advert tag. Gathering of more data and external references will come next. Do any of you folks consider this one rescued yet? ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The software package is notable for a wikipedia entry, but article needs rewrite. --Berland (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently working on demonstrating notability, there are a good few sources to be found. I am working on rewriting too. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many references are not suitable for actual inclusion in the article, but the sheer amount of coverage in third party publications indicates to me that this is a notable product. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly notable, sloppy nomination. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren Ober (formerly Savalan)[edit]

Declined Speedy. Autobiograhy. There are very few GHits for Aren Ober and none at all for Aren Savalan. The publisher Cotter Books has no other authors and has no significant GHits other than its web page - it certainly looks like a vanity publisher. The external link is a mirror of the publisher's web page Porturology (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity Publishing --Moloch09 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conflict of interest on top of difficult-to-source subject matter. HeureusementIci (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O'Neills of Puerto Rico[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/O'Neills of Puerto Rico

Interesting family history, but hardly valid for an encyclopedia article. None of these O'Neills have been notable in their own right, and the sources are either blogs or genealogy sites, both of which fail WP:RS. We have Irish immigration to Puerto Rico; that should suffice. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note-- Article first nomination for deletion can be found here. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A large number of sources which are neither blogs nor geneology sites are listed. Edward321 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're referring to the "sources" list, six of those are archival sources and this violate WP:NOR if they were used. As for the others: well, they aren't cited, so we can't tell what was used where, but my hunch is that the user who put in that list (209.158.179.194) simply ripped it off somewhere - it's rather doubtful he actually went to Spain and Puerto Rico to do this research. And even if they do receive passing mention in certain works (like The Wild Geese, which I checked), there's no evidence the O'Neills of Puerto Rico as such have received scholarly attention - this is far more likely to be simply a genealogical project. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:COATRACK. Dahn (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Damn it is a nice article, too nice. It is a case of plagiarism. This article was pasted from here: Clan Abba Forums which has the following copyright: Copyright ©2000 - 2009. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I am reading that page correctly, the WP article came first - 3/14/08, whereas the forum posting appears to be dated 5/24/08. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, You are right, plus the author's name in the "Clan Abba Forum" is the same as the one of the User who created the Wiki article. Even so, the article does not provide inline citations as required by policy, which make it seem as if it is "original reseach". If not then the author should have no problem providing the citations. I mean the big question is where did he/she get all of this information? Tony the Marine (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that it needs work, but that's not a reason to delete. I'll e-mail the creator if they have it enabled, and do some digging. – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I left the creator a message over at those forums. He seems more active there than here. – ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe in the good-faithed intentions of User:Ukexpat and that he together with the author will solve the inline citation problem. Tell the author to provide that inline citations even if he must cite his work from "Clan Abba Forums", because it would be a pity to delete such an interesting article. I have retracted my "delete" with the hope that he will fix matters. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article may be interesting, but citing a forum would of course be violating WP:SPS (an official policy), so let's hope that's avoided. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The merge "votes" do not address the fact that the material itself is spammy in nature. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zimlets[edit]

Page seems to be little more than a hybrid of an advertisement and a list of instructions. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Notability is not at all indicated. --Boston (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge - To Zimbra. 16x9 (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zimbra The term has no notability outside of that program. Eauhomme (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant advertising for a commercial product. 216.48.112.230 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zimbra --Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement. Art Cancro (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ADVERT. -- samj _in^out 16:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No grounds for deleting this article stated in nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citibank Philippines[edit]

Hi, I do not know if this is the right forum for this discussion. But we have been asked by our client Citibank Philippines to remove their current page on wikipedia. Can you get the needful done? Is there anything more formalties that need to be completed for the same. Thomas db (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Thomas_Db[reply]

Speedy keep If Citibank's Filipino division wants their page taken off, they can go through the usual Wikimedia Foundation channels, but I doubt they'll remove it. The article is cited and is neutrally stated, and there is no cause for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 05:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - no legitimate reason given for deletion. CopaceticThought (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont see why they object, though it isnt a particularly exciting or spammy article. I did some cleanup. If they'll communicate their concerns , we could consider them, but they'll need to be less cryptic. .DGG (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just not the way encyclopaedias work, inclusion of notable entities isn't voluntary to that entity. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Wrong venue for such a request. Even in the correct venue, such a request will probably be declined. DarkAudit (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natyamanch[edit]

Non-notable student organization. No references showing notability. Mikeblas (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Entirely unsourced and no established notablity. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Notability is certainly not indicated. --Boston (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable student organization.--GDibyendu (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable student organization. Salih (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will take you guys' word on it about notability, but I do hope to see some context added to the article so that is actually meaningful to people. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lau[edit]

I don't believe this subject meets our notability requirements. There are very few reliable sources in the article to establish Lau's notability; the few references that are actually about Lau are from the website of his own "clan" or training center (for example, this), and most of the rest seem to be about things other than Lau (for example, current refs 6–10 are about the accomplishments of a couple of his students). As far as I can tell, he doesn't fit into any of the inclusion criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: please note that a previous version of this article was speedily deleted in 2007 (log) for failing to assert notability. I'm not an admin and can't see the old version, so I don't know how much it has changed since then. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Just saw this listed in DYK ... he is listed in independent publications as the teacher of some notable subjects, but take that as you will. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would that make him subject to WP:PROF instead of the notability guideline I cited above? I'm not sure. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I wrote the article, so I'm biased, but it seems Lau would at least meet this criteria: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" under any biography. Also, WP:PROF might unfairly exclude, as the infobox template is for a martial artist. -Pecoc (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - borderline notability, but the article would be mightily improved with some more context about martial arts and different schools. At the moment there's too much incestuous 'so and so said' and a slight air of CV. Flagged for rescue--Moloch09 (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 11:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing is present and shows him as the head of a notable sub-style. Merging/renaming to the style might be an option it needs clean up. --Nate 14 81 11:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Martial Arts Project Notability Guide may be of interest.--Nate 14 81 11:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - modest level of notability, as sources in the article confirm. JJL (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Kirby characters . MBisanz ^talk 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halberd Airship[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through multiple reliable sources. In-universe details that are important to a plot in any of the Kirby media, Smash Bros series, etc belongs to that respective article. « ₣M₣ » 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. « ₣M₣ » 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect to referenced video game series. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kirby (series)--haha169 (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There are no references and the article is just in-universe detail with no indication of any real-world importance. Reyk _YO! 11:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it appears highly unlikely if this somehow survives the title should be moved. It should be at Halberd (airship) since it is an airship named Halberd and not Halbered Airship as a full name. --70.24.176.215 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Redirect to List of Kirby characters - The article focuses on the ship's use in SSB:B, but the it is a recurring element in the Kirby series. It is associated with Meta Knight and could probably be worked into his section. It already has casual mentions in the Dyna Blade and Meta-Knights sections of the page. —Ost (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Redirect to List of Kirby Characters I agree, just casting my vote. The page was poorly written and doesn't include much detail. Add it to the refrenced game after rewriting it. Twinwarrior (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King's Kids Johannesburg[edit]

A non-notable organization that gets very few ghits and no gnews hits. All sources are primary no sign of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Forward planning failure (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I was thinking maybe this should just have been merged, but I see no valuable information in that article that needs merging, or the value of a redirect. The information in the article is all anecdotal and of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The entire article reads like a religious advertisement with no establishment of notability. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per request of article's creator. --Boston (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. speedy/snow/borderlineG-11/spamvertisement StarM 00:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buyacar.co.uk[edit]

Declining speedy db-spam deletion because I can't rule out the possibility with a Google search that they have the notability they claim (but I couldn't establish it either, from Google or from any of the main menu links on their site); paring the promotionalism; taking to AfD; notifying WP:CAR. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Guardian and Mirror articles mention subject only in passing. --Leivick (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure advert, with notability only suggested but not proven. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not proven. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no showing of notability in the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have a look at http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090223072026AApGx2i which rather amused me. (A question from a 'single-use account'.) I'll also put this one on the table http://ww.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=28964&m=301020&v=e (ww not www). An unlikely name for what I've found to be a reputable site, not that I've bought from/through them. (I had some problem with either email or advertising to do with them and they were straight about it.) I quote: "Okay, now we have cleared up a misunderstanding about this I'll let this thread continue. If anyone has bought a car from www.buyacar.co.uk, please state when, the exact model and what it cost you. Then other Backroomers can make a fair judgement." No-one has replied (posted Feb 2005). Personally, I live in the UK and have never heard of this outfit - but I don't buy new cars. To me, even with Dank55's pruning, it looks promotional. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, snowy delete as spam per WP:CSD#11. --DeLarge (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Advertisement. The user account which created the page has no other article-space edits. swa q 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Clearly promotional. Nevard (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no objections to speedy and/or snowy deletions, that's up to you guys. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Putnam[edit]

Non-notable minor league baseball player that has no claim of notability. Google news search returns just 8 hits, most of which are published by Univ of Michigan. Can be recreated when he plays at a level that previous consensus has accepted as substantial for notability or he otherwise gains notability. Grsz¹¹ 03:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Although not very notable, a standard Google search provides 665,000 results, a good deal of which are about this baseball player. It looks like a person spent a great deal of time on this article, so I see no harm in keeping it. It's not like it's fancruft or anything like that. -Axmann8 (Talk) 05:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as you can see, I've voted to delete an article about a "drag king". If such an article should exist, then this article should as well.-Axmann8 (Talk) 07:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also wish to see WP:POINT. :-) Outsider80 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument invalid, it's contradictory...you voted delete on the other article. Grsz¹¹ 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the caveat, outlined by nominator, of possible recreation in the near future. And maybe it isn't fancruft--but one has to admit that it does not have the plethora of published sources that, say, Murray Hill (performer) has. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (without redirect) to Cleveland Indians minor league players. The content should be shortened to one or two paragraphs (consistent with the other short biographies on the page) by dropping the material on high school, personal life, etc. A redirect is not appropriate because his name will presumably be dropped from the article when he leave the Indians minor league system. BRMo (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per BRMo, the person in question is not notable enough for his own article,per WP:ATHLETE but there's enough for inclusion in the list. FingersOnRoids♫ 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reasons the nominator stated. I actually don't see speedy recreation as an issue, the quickest would be a September call-up, which isn't that near. Wizardman 22:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the comment that the part of WP:NFF that says ...should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." refers only to films that have begun production. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casanovva[edit]

Delete was tagged speedy for no context, but there is sufficient context to figure out what this article claims it's about. It's still WP:CRYSTAL and not WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —94.196.67.124 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have done a bit of research, and found that with the "other" spelling of "Casanova" (one "v"), and including the star Mohanlal, there is enough per WP:GNG to meet the requirements of WP:NFF through a Google search. I have sourced the article to show a bit of this coverage. It will benefit from further expansion and sourcing, certainly. I suggest that the name be changed after this AfD to bettr reflect the one most often used by English sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Per Google news search: Principal filming to begin in 3 weeks per Galatta, March 6 2009, "Arya's Casanova begins" (...has been scheduled to start rolling by the first week of April) and Screen, March 13 2009, "Tamil star Arya makes Malayalam debut" (..shoot will commence on April 5 in Vienna). With respects to the nom, with a diligent search under its alternate spelling, coverage meets and exceeds requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Filming is now imminent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going to stick with WP:NFF here. Principal photography has not yet begun, therefore this film should not have its own article. I wouldn't be opposed to recreating the article after sources have confirmed that principal photography has begun, however. Matt (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR and the guideline instruction "best used with common sense and the occasional exception" seem quite cogently to apply here. We're talking about filming beginning in a matter of days, for goodness sake... not some date next year. HOWEVER, and that aside, the artilce indeed passes WP:NFF because of A) its exceptional coverage in RS that surpass the GNG, and B) the fact that it is sourced as being the costliest Malayalam film ever made to date. Even with filming not beginning for a few nore days, its already a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense that a film that hasn't even been made cannot have any kind of assertion of notability, nor can the fact that one can, by drawing boundaries narrowly enough, come up with meaningless superlatives imparts any real notability. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Film has not yet started principal photography and fails WP:NFF.--Sloane (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It must be noted in quoting WP:NFF that it also specifically states "...should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." It is notable per guideline. And even ignoring WP:N and WP:GNG, will Wiki self-destruct if we use "common sense" (as all guidelines instruct) and wait the three weeks for filming to begin? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8Delete per nom and others: WP:NFF & [WP:N]]. Eusebeus (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mr. Schmidt's input and observations. The article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is sourced with reliable sources, and the subject is notable. It’s not all that complicated, really. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pre-production publicity says nothing about post-production impact, or, indeed, whether the film will even be made. Notable, despite much hand-waving, has not been established, even if the other hurdles are cleared. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per latest reports, the film has been dropped. Refer Sify news. This article should be removed. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Strong consensus to delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Objects for C++[edit]

Contested prod. Software programming package, no assertion of notability. The use of the term "yet another" in the lead section is a sign that there is no notability to be found for this anywhere. Additionally, the package creator's name (Alexey Morozov) matches that of the article creator, and his e-mail address is included. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, don't. Typical Objects for C++ is the one and only one realization of pure C++ introspection. Check demo application please. It's 100% notability. The C++ world should know about it. User:Alexey_Morozov - timed 17:53, 13 March 2009(Moscow)
- Notability is not defined as "the world should know". It is defined as "the world already does know"". -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Now the world knows Typical Objects for C++. But after deletion it forgets about that. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
    - Exactly. The world does know because of a Wikipedia article. That's a misuse of Wikipedia. The right way to use Wikipedia is, make your product known to the whole world, and then start the Wikipedia article. Do you really think Microsoft Windows became a world leader because it was first mentioned in Wikipedia?
      I have a feeling you don't have a clue what we mean by notability. Start the article once the product becomes well-known, not so that it becomes well-known. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure. The product is well-known already. I know it well for example.Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:31, 14 March 2009 (Moscow)

*Speedy delete (G12) as a copy-vio of. http://tocxx.110mb.com/. Tagged as such. Themfromspace (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I don't think a speedy is appropriate here; the site you reference appears to have been created since the article in question. JulesH (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. I as the author created the page for demo application of Typical Objects for C++. Sources are not yet published but will be I hope. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
    - In that case, regular delete for failing the notability guidelines for websites and the GNG. Themfromspace (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no any failing at all. Simple mention just cannot fail and don't harm to anything. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:37, 14 March 2009 (Moscow)

Delete. No evidence of reliable sources discussing this framework. Appears to be original research. JulesH (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's no comment, BTW, on the quality of the research in question. I for one am intrigued by this, having used similar packages in languages like Java and C#, but having believed it impossible to produce one in C++ due to lack of language support for reflection. But until there are reliable source commentaries on it, and I have little doubt there will be some at some point, it isn't appropriate for wikipedia. JulesH (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's wrong. Demo application at http://tocxx.110mb.com/demo.zip is enough reliable as source for discussing this framework. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
M. Morozov, you're the author both of this article and of the subject, so please first read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You're also asserting that no sources have been published, so also read Wikipedia:Verifiability. You're mis-using Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance for documenting the undocumented, so read Wikipedia:No original research. You're asserting that without Wikipedia advertising your creation the world would have zero knowledge of it, so read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. And you're asserting that sources that you created yourself, documenting your own work, are reliable and evidence of notability, so read Wikipedia:Independent sources, Wikipedia:Autobiography#The problem with autobiographies, and Wikipedia:Notability.
You've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. This is not the place for what you are doing. Your own web site is the place for this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, whose content must be verifiable, neutral, freely copyright licenced, and free from original research. Wikipedia:Alternative outlets exist for publishing creator-written documentation of the heretofore undocumented and the heretofore unknown. One of those outlets is your own WWW site, that you pay for. Wikipedia's remit covers existing human knowledge, not attempts by people to add to it by writing directly in the encyclopaedia. Such shortcuts around the proper process of publication, fact checking, peer review, acknowledgement, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge are not allowed. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's too edificatory. The page "Typical Objects for C++" is just a mention of a product. There is no conflict of interest at all. Has page something incorrect elements? If has - just change it. But do not delete - it'll be realization of conflict of interest. It's just a link. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
Delete Topic fails WP:N; has no coverage in independent reliable sources like computing magazines, academic journals of computer science, books from reputable publishers, etc. cab (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no coverage for it in Bible too. Who needs all this coverage? The TOC++ works well without any paper blague. It deserves the notability. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:22, 14 March 2009 (Moscow)
  - Who needs all this coverage? You, if you want to demonstrate that this topic meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. It deserves the notability --- you appear to be the only one with this opinion. If others felt it were notable, they would have actually gone to the trouble of noting it by giving it coverage in reliable sources. cab (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A Demo Application (http://tocxx.110mb.com/demo.zip) Costs More Than A Thousand blah-blah Words in any reliable sources. Demo is reliable as is. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 9:11, 14 March 2009 (Moscow)

Mr. Morozov's latest reply to me has just convinced me that WP:DENY applies here. This editor is wikilawyering, and not being very good at it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - What are you talking about? I'm not wiki editor spec and don't know it at all. Wiki editor is Hebrew to me. If there are some errors in wiki code - just fix it. Don't make insinuations please. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:59, 15 March 2009 (Moscow)

Speedy delete (G11) – User is clearly trying to promote his product here, which is what we call here spamming. MuZemike 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the user's interventions here, not the article itself, that made it clear that this article was written for promotional purposes. That's why I feel speedy may not be appropriate. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Promotion of what? Typical Objects for C++ is not a commercial product and never will be such. It's just a mention of possibility to implement some programming pattern. I'm not promouter but just software developer. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 9:10, 15 March 2009 (Moscow)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted? You gotta be joking, right? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above, pretty much. In short: not notable, original research. I took the liberty, in the meantime, of removing the author's email address from the article--that's all too spammy, and it doesn't seem right to have that in a Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no coverage for this, Wikipedia is not the place to establish notability, but the place to mention something which has already achieved it. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Digance Indulgence[edit]

Previously in October 2008. Eight half-hour episodes in 1987. ~~Starred red-linked actor.~~ Being broadcast on the BBC Radio 2 is not sufficient for notability. StarM 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actor was redlinked because his surname was misspelled -- it has been corrected and he is notable. Being broadcast on a national radio network is notable. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being broadcast on a national radio network is notable. recent AfDs have said otherwise, especially this most recent one. Simply being broadcast on the BBC does not provide sufficient notability StarM 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the other AfD's result is irrelevant to this discussion, as per WP:ALLORNOTHING. And for the sake of debate, why would a program broadcast on a national network with a notable entertainer as its star not be considered notable? Pastor Theo (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not binding but it's not irrelevant because it's relate don the same subject with the same arguments. It shows a pattern of recent AfDs and redlinks here and in the above-linked previous AfD]], which were subsequently re-nominated and deleted. All of which have closed as delete because there has been no evivdence of notability. Please also see WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability guidelines do not include being broadcast on the BBC because it's not sufficient when there are no sources. However we're now about to get hit with a flood of omg! I've heard of it. Notable notable notable despite there being no evidence of notability. So this one will close as no consensus. Sigh. So not productive. StarM 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - programme receives sufficient mention under Richard Digance. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The topic has too little information to support a separate article, but that doesn't warrant outright deletion. It is better to point readers to the mention in the Digance article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - duplicate of info at Richard Digance pablo_hablo. 14:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article duplication/fork of Richard Digance. JamesBurns (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sears Holdings Corporation. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceLive[edit]

Does not appear to have any independent notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Sears Holdings Corporation Ray^Talk 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not being independently notable means it shouldn't be covered independently (in a separate article). It doesn't give any good reason why it shouldn't be covered at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the message on my talk page - ok? There is no content to merge. It is barely 4 lines of text, none of which are really all that informative. If anyone wants to "merge" this content to something, go ahead, as long as it works there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per general notability guideline. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. -- samj _in^out 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan valles[edit]

WP:NN Unable to find independent verifiable info. Self-promotion more than anything. Taroaldo (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, self-promotion. JamesBurns (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would be happy to provide you with all supporting documentation, please let me know to what email address.

Please refer to WP:BIO and WP:V for some info. If there are verifiable sources, they can be entered directly into the article. Sources need to be accessible and visible to all users of Wikipedia. Taroaldo (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded some supported information and checked these guidelines. I'll be uploading the discography soon. Please review the article and let me know if it is according to your guidelines. Thanks.

Delete. Two single-sentence mentions in the "what are our graduates doing now?" section of a music schools' magazine don't add up to notability. We need significant coverage that's completely independent of the subject. JulesH (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm uploading evidences from newspapers and magazines. These are obviously verifiable sources which you can check by requesting the original to the country of origin. The problem is I obviously don't control the copyrights to these so I would like you to review a few that i've uploaded, and the rest I would like to simply send them to you via email, so that you can review the info and verify that they are notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivancillo (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Plenty good enough consensus below and Emperor covers everything we need to look at policy and guidance wise. This is not a speedy candidate though, the article subject matter does not meet the crieria enshrined in ((db-inc)). I don't see the value in keeping this open any longer, and I'd point out that proposed deletion might be a better venue for similar articles in the future. Hiding T 11:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Comix[edit]

No assertion of notability, and no evident sources to establish it. Very few Google Web hits relevant to the topic, none of which seem to be independent and/or reliable; zero hits on Google News or Google Books. Fails WP:N. Deor (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and also WP:V. I had a look round and could find very little on this (not even on the Bugpowder blog which covers British small press comics) so I'm reluctantly going to have to suggest it is deleted, pending someone coming up with good sources. It may just be new and looks interesting so there is no problem with recreating when the sources can be found - the creator of the article might want to work on this in their sandbox and I'll add anything I stumble across (as I keep my eye out for such sources). (Emperor (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under ((db-inc)). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WereSpielChequers (CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom bingo[edit]

Delete something made up in school one day apparently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we all played some form of bingo in grade school to help with various subjects. The problem is sourcing this. I think it would belong better in an article about teaching methods. Beach drifter (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic has received coverage in secondary, reliable sources e.g. [7] [8]. -Atmoz (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Lugnuts (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A student's thesis is not a reliable secondary source. Wperdue (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

That depends. The 2 sources above are graduate level thesis about using classroom bingo as a pedagogical tool, and as such, I consider them to be much more reliable than 2 equivalent sources that are reported, for instance, in the mainstream media. -Atmoz (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If notability here depends on two theses (there's one other mention in Google Scholar, and trivial, passing mentions here in Google News), well, that's not good. Then it's either cutting-edge research being done at Rowan, or it's really not significant enough to have been written about in the usual kinds of sources. It's not notable. The author could have done us all a favor by doing their homework first and by organizing that dense prose in proper paragraphs. Less classroom bingo (and fewer cliches--"ever popular," "fastest growing trend," "taken to different levels"), more grammar and style. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MADEUP. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I will have to see if there are any sources - Bingo is as a classroom aid in a children's TEFL environment -both in language schools and in JHS. I do agree, at the moment it is a crappy article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No independent RS document the assertions herein, despite the time and fervency of those arguing that it should be kept. I will provide a copy for userification and help coach someone who wants to make this meet Wikipedia standards, assuming that it's possible to do so. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Johannite Church[edit]

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

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

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

After some research, I have been able to find no indication that this church is notable. This includes an inability to find sources in specialist religious periodicals, including those that tend to cover NRMs and fringe religious groups. As the article asserts notability, CSD is not an option and thus I am raising it for discussion. Vassyana (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The church appears to be extremely under the radar, to the point that it is out of the range of WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete because it is one of the few gnostic churches around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.9.79 (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC) — 24.176.9.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete The Apostolic Johannite Church appears to be the largest, most active international Gnostic Church, and one of the most prominent, authentic, public voices on modern gnosticism today. How is that not notable? Jikaku (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ecclesia Gnostica and L'Eglise Gnostique are the largest Gnostic churches. Taken in combination with those particular churches in communion with them and the Thelemic churches, all others comprise only a very modest minority of Gnostic membership. Essentially, Wikipedia finds something notable when outside reputable sources have taken substantive note of the topic. Without substantial coverage in good references, we cannot fulfill out basic content policies. For the Apostolic Johannite Church, even venues that give a lot of attention to new religious movements, Gnosticism and other minority religious topics do not show any coverage of the church. Vassyana (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources to back that up? I could buy the Ecclesia Gnostica, since it's tied in with the OTO, but "L'Eglise Gnostique"? Which of the many tiny churches using that name are you referring to? And even if you counted all of them together, I still think you fall short of the international membership of the AJC. Exactly how many books need to mention the AJC, or be written by its members, for notability?Jikaku (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my bluntness, but it is obvious that you are not familiar with modern Gnosticism as a broader topic. The Ecclesia Gnostica is a prominent "English Gnostic" church, best known for Bishop Hoeller's work and gnosis.org. L'Eglise Gnostique (de France), or the Eglise Gnostique Catholique Apostolique, is the most prominent and oldest "French Gnostic" church. Both are in full communion with each other. Both are quite distinct from the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, which is the church arm of the OTO. Regarding reliable sources, there is no set number, but member written books would not fulfill the requirement for independent sources. As a general rule, a few independent reputable sources will usually suffice for the purposes of deletion discussions. Vassyana (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the Ecclesia Gnostica and L'Eglise Gnostique are the largest Gnostic churches is factually untrue. The EG *may* have more active members (uncertain) but it has fewer active parishes. L'Eglise Gnostique has only a very limited existence, and is considerably smaller than the AJC by any measure: active parishes, active clergy, active members, budget, etc. Wbehun (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)— Wbehun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete The Apostolic Johannite Church is notable indeed as are the published books and liturgical works of several of its leaders. Our Interfaith churches in Florida and Texas and elsewhere are not associated with AJC in any way, nor are we Gnostic, but we do indeed draw upon the scholarship, works and considerable liturgical activity of AJC. This church is a notable force in modern gnosticism, both in N. America and internationally. Seems odd to want to want to ignore or minimize its existence. Perhaps a bit of anti-church bias is at work? KatiaRoma (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Despite a seeming lack of sources (I know they're out there, I've seen several instance of coverage in the past), this is one of a very small number of Neo-gnostic churches in a movement that has gotten increasing attention in recent years. I'm also confused as to why Hoeller's work is 'notable,' but the work of AJC members is not? Infinitysnake (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar enough with the modern Gnostic movement to know that the "L'Eglise Gnostique" is a handfull of people of questionable status with absolutley nothing notable about them - ecclesiastically or otherwise, whereas the AJC appears to be active throughout north america, parts of europe, is mentioned in several books, whose priests have authored numerous books on modern gnosticism, is a founding member of the North American College of Gnostic Bishops, whose annual conclaves draw speakers and participants from both the gnostic field as well as academia... what more do you want? It seems as though you have some sort of sectarian bias against them - I'd be much more comfortable moving forward with broader editorial participation in this discussion. Jikaku (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than dispute which church is prominent or so forth, let's focus on the crux of the matter. I have not been able to find substantive coverage of the AJC in reliable sources. If you are aware of reputable references that discuss the church, please share them. --Vassyana (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the discussion page on the article in question, the church is relatively new and as such has not been the subject of any extended scholarly discussion yet, nor has it been involved in scandals that would bring it to the notice of mainstream media. However, given its widespread and growing presence, certainly significantly greater than that of L'Eglise Gnostique in the USA (which at this point has, to my knowledge, two operating parishes at most,) the AJC clearly merits inclusion in Wikipedia. The claims by Vassyana indicate nothing more than a bias toward other churches and a desire to tear down others in order to build up those churches to which s/he is predisposed. At the end of the day, this has already been hashed out on the discussion page some time ago.Wbehun (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to locate any independent or reliable sources. Nothing reliable and independent in Google Web, nothing at all in Google News, nothing at all in Google Scholar, and only junk in Google Books - specifically two self-published Lulu.com books with no substantive content on the church (though if one was reliable it would be strong evidence that the church is not Christian), one computer generated Icon Group International "book" that can't evidence notability, and one Adventures Unlimited Press book (that may also be self-published) with no meaningful content on the church. In the absence of independent and reliable sources, we can't sustain an article on the church that adheres to the article content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V). Therefore, delete. In addition, I used to live in the specific town where one of these group's meets - due to my interests I'd have noticed it if it was at all visible in the physical world - but it wasn't visible. GRBerry 14:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Guardians of the Holy Grail" by Mark Pinkham (the "Adventures Unlimited Press book" GRBerry mentions) has an interview with the AJC's founder James Foster that goes for five pages or so starting at page 303 specifically about the church. The beginning of the interview is not visible in the Google Books preview I can see, but Foster is referred to as "Primate" in the visible bits of the interview. I don't think many current members of the church would agree with every detail of the interview, but the fact that there's an interview about the church and its history speaks pretty firmly to Notability in the WP:ORG sense. This premise of this proposal to delete is Notability, not WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:V. The question is whether this organisation should be represented by a distinct page in Wikipedia, not what the exact content of the page should be. There are measures other than deletion to handle content issues. -- Timbomb (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One individual's inability to locate what s/he considers independent and reliable sources should not be construed as consensus-making. I vote a strong Do Not Delete. KatiaRoma (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a not a vote. If you are aware of indepedent reliable sources that provide substantive coverage of the AJC, please share them. --Vassyana (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: The AJC maintains 9 parishes around the world, providing outreach, pastoral care, palliative counselling, interfaith dialogue, advocacy for the homeless and mentally ill, and religious education. By running a seminary it assists in the formation of the next generation of Gn clergy. By having strong relations with other long-standing and significant Gn churches such as the Ecclesia Gnostica Mysteriorum (30+ years), the Gnostic Church of Mary Magdalene, and the Alexandrian Gnostic Church, it contributes to collaborative projects such as the Order of Saint Esclarmonde (an AJC/GCMM sponsored lay order).

Speaking in my capacity as AJC clergy, I was cited in US News & World Report, and my book (published by Apocryphile in Berkeley and hardly a vanity press) discusses the mission of Apostolic Johannite Church and has been reviewed in PanGaia magazine and The Pomegranate (a journal of Pagan Studies). This is merely an example of how the AJC is making a noteworthy contribution to the Independent Sacramental Movement as a whole and contemporary Gnosticism in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanstratford (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC) — Jordanstratford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you are aware of substantive coverage of the AJC in independent reliable sources, please share those references. The sources you refer to do not seem to do so. (For example, The US News and World Report makes absolutely no mention of the AJC, in addition to describing you simply as "a Gnostic priest who heads a small congregation in Victoria, British Columbia".) --Vassyana (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: I support the Wikipedia principle of Notability and I think it's important to police it. The problem in this particular case is of a church which seems fairly active, but does not seem to have generated media or scholarly interest in proportion to its activity. I've edited the AJC page to include explicit references to the parishes. Consulting those parish sites makes it obvious that most of them clearly hold regular public services and talks, so I think it's fair to say that in their local communities they are not "Under the radar". I've also included all the books I could find (including those GRBerry thinks are not reputable) that make reference to the church and some material on Father Stratford, his book and a few mentions in the media. I've also tried to add some of the inter-church links where relevant to the text of the article.

On the basis that the church is young, but growing fairly rapidly, that it seems to have visible evidence of the viable, active local communities (so it's not yet another internet church) and that it has generated some (though admittedly limited) secondary interest in both media and books, I think it should not be deleted. Over the next couple of years the secondary sources will either multiply or not depending on the actual notability of the organisation - the evidence can easily be investigated again.

Full disclosure: I am a priest in the AJC and an occasional Wikipedian. Timbomb (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not act on whether or not sources will become available, but whether they are available. Additionaly, none of the sources added are independent reliable references that provide substantive coverage of the AJC. --Vassyana (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gibbs and Pinkham books are independent. You could argue about reliability. I realize that no-one has yet produced an ideal gold-standard secondary source about the AJC. I'm leaning on the criteria that multiple less reliable sources can also indicate notability. Timbomb (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is written by Hexalpa:Hexalpa (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC) ***Do Not Delete***' The AJC, while small in comparison with Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic branches of Christian tradition, is one of only a handful of Gnostic Churches sharing in the "catholic" sacramental tradition, and posessed of a lineage of apostolic succession tracing back to the time of Christ. It a well-known denomination within the modern sacramental Gnostic movement, and certainly one of the fastest growing.[reply]

Do Not Delete 21 March 2009 - Kenosis_AO - One of the few independent Sacramental Churches that has a standardized distance seminarian training program, holds regular services and attends the poor. The Clergy all hold regular jobs - many have post-Secondary degrees from accredited sources - but do not have time on top of their reg jobs, Church work, and social work to write academic articles. The standard that you are holding this church to is that established by the mainstream churches for their own aggrandizement. Of course, the early Christian Church didn't have a lot of published articles in accredited Jewish journals of the 1st & 2nd centuries either... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.50.86 (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC) — 70.73.50.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Jordan Stratford calls shenanigans. Pete here obviously has a bias ("L'Eglise Gnostique are the largest Gnostic churches" - a completely and demonstrably false assertion) and therefore we need an impartial editor to assist in this discussion – someone without an axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.155.157 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:ORG. Them From Space 21:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
care to share your reasoning, themfromspace?Wbehun (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Johannite Church which seems to be the parent of this church and whose article could use an infusion of material. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a good suggestion, but would be somewhat misleading, because while the AJC does continue the work of Fabre-Palaprat's church, it is not the sole inheritor of that tradition, and operates in a very different manner. Wbehun (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Fabre-Palaprat's church had been non-existant, as such, for over a century. Since then, it has merged with various Gnostic churches (most notably Doinel's Eglise Gnostique de France) and experienced schisms. Its successor churches have also experienced numerous merges and schisms. The AJC is no more Fabre-Palaprat's church than the Lutheran church is a Roman Catholic church. --Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the mere addition of the heading "Successor Churches" seems like it would overcome that objection. Timbomb (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the claim that Fabre-Palaprat's church was merged into the Eglise Gnostique de France was merely a claim made by that church, and is far from an undebatable fact. No representative of the Fabre-Palaprat church accepted the claim that they had been "merged." If the Roman Catholic Church now claims that the Church of England has been "merged" into it, does that make it so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.55.238 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of whether the article fulfils the criteria for notability, if it were in its current form after the edits of the last two days, I doubt it would have attracted any attention as a candidate for deletion. Why not take a simpler route and simply tag it for { { importance } } or { { notability } }. In it's original state, this seems to me to have been a logical first response rather than hurrying to deletion. Timbomb (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Stratford seems to fulfil notability criteria as a person (written a book via a reputable publisher, interviewed as an expert in his field several times, quoted in a college religion course). A portion of Father Stratford's reputation derives from being a priest in the AJC. To stick to the letter of the rules, the solution seems to be to make a page for Jordan Stratford and then put the existing AJC material on that... but that seems kind of silly, since a lot of other people are involved in the church. Timbomb (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I would argue relativism: "...Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia...." I think you've lost the forrest through the trees Vassyana. This church is notable not only because of its relative size, but because of the uniqueness of its practices. Wikipedia users should be able to find information they require now, not three hundred years from now, when there are enough scholarly articles written about a topic. Of course there aren't enough scholarly articles written about this church at this time, you can't expect to find as many when compared to other mainstream religions given the individualistic nature of gnosticism. It's true that gnostic churches tend to fly under the radar and avoid media attention; the fact that you can find ANYTHING written at all about the AJC makes this church a notable one amongst the gnostic churches. Try finding anything published about contemporary catharism and you'll get my point (as they are also a large group currently flying under the radar of both media and scholars), plenty of scholarly documents about the cathars of 700 years ago though, but that's not the information that I would be looking for. Cristina ma (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
definiteley delete Not a single reliable source, and no verifiability? Ergo, no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the number of reliable sources that have been cited (e.g. US News and World Report, PanGaia, The Pomegranate, and books by non-affiliated authors.) Wbehun (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that's a false claim. The US news articles do not contain the words "Apostolic Johannite Church." All of the rest of the sources are blogs or selfpublished or don't mention the "Apostolic johannite church" beyond in passing (for instance the haverford course syllabus for religion 222a mentions that an expert on gnosticism runs this church, but has no content about it (and in fact, is quoting the expert on gnosticism from his own self-published source).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a false claim. The claim that the rest of the sources are self-published is patently false, however. The reason Father Stratford is considered an authority is not merely on the basis of his excellent work (not self-published) but also on his position within the Church. It's a bit like saying that a reference to a prominent Catholic theologian doesn't constitute notoriety for the Catholic Church. Wbehun (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, WP:RS. The "do not delete" sockpuppets should be aware that such a strategy never works and indeed tends to backfire, causing previously sympathetic or neutral voters to be disinclined to save an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any sockpuppeting here: please check the IPs before making unfounded accusations Wbehun (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, busted! (note: please imagine the "game lost" sound from The Price is Right accompanying this comment. Thank you.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, inviting people to join a conversation isn't sockpuppeting, Andrew. Sockpuppeting is when a single person uses several accounts to give the appearance of multiple voices. In fact, this suggests that the many voices in support of the article are in fact different people who have joined the conversation as a result of that invitation. Guess you're the one who's busted. Wbehun (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TEAMWORK is part of the sockpuppetry policy. --Vassyana (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana, the very policy you mention starts with this: "A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." This clearly has not happened. If you have evidence that any of the voices in this discussion are fraudulent or deceptive, please present it. Wbehun (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, that said, Vassayana, I see that the policy does cover the blog exhortation to participate. slap on Jordan's wrist for that one. Wbehun (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With so many people arguing "do not delete" I would have thought that at least one of them would have come up with an independent reliable source, but that hasn't happened, whether to support this as an article or as a redirect to any other article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems specious, Phil, since a number of independent reliable sources (books, interviews, national news periodicals) have been cited. Wbehun (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry's analysis above demonstrates that none of those claimed sources is independent and reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, GRBerry's analysis specifically does not include those sources that I have mentioned above as independent and reliable. If you do a quick comparison, you'll see that GRBerry's analysis does not include the following: a) The US News & World report mention b) the texts published by independent presses (e.g. Apocryphile) or c) the independent magazine mentions (e.g. PanGaia.) Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away I'm afraid. Wbehun (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that evidence would be: a) The US News & World report that doesn't even mention this church [9], b) texts from a publisher that specialises in "apocryphilia" and publishes about four print-on-demand books a year [10], and c) A supposed mention in a web magazine from this outfit. Some reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So according to some, USN&WR is not independent and reliable. An established and respected theological press (Apocryphile) is not independent and reliable. PanGaia magazine is not independent and reliable. This sets an impossibly high bar for *any* NRM to be noteworthy if the work done by individuals in the name of the organization is to be consistently excluded. The question is, how useful does Wikipedia want to be in researching contemporary Gnosticism or New Religious Movements altogether? Seeing as every available survey of contemporary Gn includes reference to the AJC, who is served by its omission here? There's an active dialogue going on in the 9 official bodies of the AJC, in many more informal groups discussing AJC materials and theology and praxis. Gnosticism in general is generating a lot of published work and scholarly debate. Does Wikipedia wish to be a relevant resource in this legitimate arena of research? In which case, the article should stand and be expanded. If not, it needs to begin deleting a host of less active, less populated and less vocal organizations within modern Gnosticism and the Independent Sacramental Movement. What's it going to be? - Jordan Stratford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.155.157 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that Jordan's summation above cuts to the heart of the matter. The spirit of the notoriety policy which we all as wikipedians endorse is ensure that wikipedia is a useful and reliable resource for those seeking information. What qualifies as notoriety within the small sphere of modern Gnosticism and the Independent Sacramental Movement is different from what would qualify as notoriety for, say, a scientific breakthrough, an historical event, or the entertainment world. I think it behooves us as a community therefore to retain the article and continue to expand it. I would also mention that the controversy and strong feelings that this discussion has engendered is in itself a statement of the importance of this article. I think I've said all I need to say, so in leaving this to the editorial staff I say thank you especially to Vassayana and to Juliancolton for their input. Wbehun (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetful Jones (band)[edit]

notability of this band is not established in the article. Rtphokie (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. No notable releases, no allmusic entry WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this band. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeYoung Family Zoo[edit]

Nothing to suggest that this zoo is notable either in wiki terms or in zoo terms. The article contains no refs and although not much more than a basic stub what is there is written along the lines of an advert. WebHamster 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a notable medium-sized zoo, big enough to have lions, tigers, and a total of 125 species according to the article. I also found this story about their aquiring Siberian tiger cubs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of yet, undecided. Reliable sourcing is thin, with the link Starblind found standing alone amidst tourist guides. The fact that their website demands that I have a user-id and password preestablished (how would I do that?) makes me even more dubious. Are others able to visit the site?—Kww(talk) 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link appears to have been wrong, which I've corrected. Their site is here. I also found another article from last summer detailing their recent expansions and additions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--weak because I'm hardly blown away by the references; keep because there are some references. I don't know if zoos are inherently notable if they have more than a certain number of animals of a certain size (or a combined number of big predatory claws?), but this passes WP:N for me, even if barely. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The zoo is a member of Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Not all zoos are admitted. They must undergo accredition or certification to obtain membership, so there has been an independent organization that deemed them noteworthy and reliable enough to make them a member of a professional organization. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Bhargava[edit]

Notability not established --Docku: What's up? 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs significant coverage, need sources to show she "has worked to “make a difference” on many fronts" in some kind of notable position. Beach drifter (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Docku: What's up? 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. I am not even sure what the exact claim to notability: most of the article claims ("senior level positions in banks,[1] financial institutions, public multinational corporations[2] and the U.S. government"; what bank ? what MNC ? what positions ?) are vague and, despite appearances, currently unsupported by reference. The claim of her being "first woman Hindu Pujari" is also unsupported by linked article and highly dubious. The only secondary source seems to be this soft-news bio in "Little India", a publication of unknown reliability (their About Us page is blank), which is insufficient to establish notability. Abecedare (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Abecedare. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abecedare Salih (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single publications of a good quality. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Fighter 5 Finale[edit]

Page should be merged into The Ultimate Fighter 5. We don't need a separate article covering just the finale. Anti venin 17:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Definitely no point in another article. Beach drifter (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —94.196.67.124 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article creation was discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#The Ultimate Fighter Finales. The finales are first and foremost their own MMA event, and are worthy of their own articles outside of the articles describing the rest of the series. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're going to merge/delete this article, you may as well do the same with The Ultimate Fighter 1 Finale, The Ultimate Fighter 2 Finale, The Ultimate Fighter 3 Finale, The Ultimate Fighter 4 Finale, and The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs Team Serra Finale. Matt (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I created all of these articles as a result of the discussion I noted above. I will hold off on the remaining three until a decision is made, however I still would like to stress that the articles should be kept for a couple reasons. The UFC website categorizes the finales as a mma event: http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=news.eventResults, not just part of the series. Also, many television series on Wikipedia have a separate article for each episode. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The TUF finales are as deserving of their own articles as any other UFC event. A few weeks ago, I was wondering myself why they didn't have their own articles, as the links on the MMA record boxes of the fighters who fought in the finale would lead to an article about an entire season of a show that they had nothing to do with. I was glad and supportive when Drr-darkomen took the initiative to make the articles. Rather than just being a finale for a show, these events were fully sanctioned MMA events that happened to feature the finalists, among other fights. --jhanCRUSH 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the proposal was first made on the MMA Project discussion page I wasn't convinced it was worth separating them. However, a comment made above convinced me. There are participants in the Finale that are not part of the regular season. Linking these participants on their page (and their record boxes) to the TV series' season page may be confusing, even if linked to the bottom of the season's page to just the finale. Having a separate article for the finale can also be potentially beneficial to discuss issues with the finale card itself that does not include the season's participants (as is happening with the season 9 finale and a match that on-and-off). --TreyGeek (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they are events that happens to be related to the series. If it was only fighters from the series it woudl make sence but their are fight that have no link to the rest.--Nate 14 81 21:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ceraulo[edit]

lacks significant 3rd party coverage (article lacks any references at all), is co-script coordinator credits on a TV show enough for noability? Rtphokie (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- ^[User]Jamie JCA_[Talk] 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you expand a bit on your Oppose comment? As the page creator you may have some more insight on why this person is notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable person per WP:BIO, and no evidence of notability given through sources. Jd027^talk 00:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just been through this with another TV writer. For WP:CREATIVE must show multiple credits and some creative impact on a series such as 30 Rock.--Moloch09 (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Iconz[edit]

Contested PROD. This article was also tagged for ((notability)), ((advert)) and ((unreferenced)) as it seemed to be promotional in tone. There's nothing to indicate notability here. Rodhull andemu 13:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:BAND. Themfromspace (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination was withdrawn. Subject has now played professionally. StarM 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Germanier[edit]

Delete A non-notable youth player. He played in 1.Liga but not in the scope of fully-professional league. Secondly, there is no prove he played for Swiss U21 as no name in official stats. in the 2008 matches. Matthew_hk t c 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew due to Germanier made his professional debut after the afd process. Matthew_hk t c 11:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE. Even if he had have played for the Under-21 national side, consenus is that youth caps do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 09:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so national games suddenly become non-notable when the players are below a certain age. (<-- sarcasm) That's not consensus, that's age discrimination. National games and players who meet WP:GNG should be included as WP:ATHLETE isn't the only inclusion guideline. You should look for reliable sources before branding something non-notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Matthew_hk t c 09:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. DeMoN2009 13:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to have made his debut for Sion in the Swiss Super League (listed as fully professional here) as of yesterday according to the following translated article [11] Camw (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found it on www.football.ch. Matthew_hk t c 11:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now appears to meet WP:ATHLETE.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin DeJesus[edit]

There are a few reasons why I feel this page should be deleted, but I'm not certain that this is the case. The page seems to be advertising for this person's company, Diamante Pictures, especially in the last few sentences of the biography section. I suppose this can be rewritten, but the person may not be notable enough to qualify for WP:NOTE. The article makes no reference to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," that the notablility guideline states, and I also fear that such coverage does not exist. It has no references that illustrate this point; the only working external link is a link to the company's website, and the IMDB link does not work. Moreover, it was created by User:CreativeCross, and when the userpage's edit history is examined, it is clear that this user is Benjamin DeJesus or is affiliated with Benjamin DeJesus. This could be a conflict of interest, as someone may have just created the page to make them appear notable when they aren't, possibly even to use as a way, when communicating with clients, to make themselves seem more well-known. Maybe this is not enough to make the article qualify for deletion, but I still think that it deserves to be listed and discussed. Codename Colorado (My User Page) (My Talk Page) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Can't find third party sources of value. WP:COI is a secondary concern, but not the reason for deletion Vartanza (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't done the research needed to give an opinion about the disposition of this article, but I feel I must commend the nominator on the way the nomination is written. AfD usually seems to be a place where civility policy is completely ignored, with accusations of "vanity" or worse being made on the slightest of evidence, so I hope the wording of this nomination will act as an example to other nominators. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rubi. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubi (Philippine TV series)[edit]

Crystalball article. ABS-CBN had not yet confirmed if this show will eventually air or had begun production. -danngarcia (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rubí.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect The target article isn't as well-sourced as I hoped for, but at least the WP:CRYSTAL issues can be proven false. (See Rubí) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recharge newspaper[edit]

article about a new newspaper, lacks circulation numbers or other assertion of notability (author removed prod) -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 08:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot find a single source about this newspaper that isn't a press release or job advertisement. I thought that could be because all its sources are in Norwegian, but the newspaper is written in English, so I'd assume at least one independent English source would mention the newspaper if it were notable? Somno (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a similar search myself and failed to come up with anything. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 13:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. No sources appear to exist. Possible future notability, but not yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have just contacted our editor-in-cheif Chris Hopson and he will find English or international sources confirming the launch of Recharge. Meanwhile, I would ask you to consider the fact that NHST Media Group have other global pulications such as Upstream and Tradewinds in our portfolio - both of which are world leaders in editorial coverage in their respective fields (oil/gas and shipping). Please advise me in what to do in this matter. Would you like me to post some online metrics? User:nicholaytehrani March 16, Oslo | Norway
- You might want to try reading WP:SPAM and WP:COI for a start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I have read the WP Spam and COI articles. As far as I can see there are no elements of spam in the article, the same goes for conflict of interest. We have tried to compare the article to "benchmark" newspapers such as The Guardian, where the language used is more or less the same. I am more than happy to edit the article or add/remove content, but I would truly appreciate if you could point out exactly what makes the article not valid. Thank you for your kind help. User:nicholaytehrani March 18, Oslo | Norway
The correct procedure is to delete for now, as there are no reliable sources available to verify claims to notability. This very well might change (even within a few months), in which time the article can be re-created with sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. The launch of a new journalistic product by a media group that is losing money might seem to meet some of Wikipedia's notability criteria in a time when closings are the rule. Recharge's notability, or that of its parent, might be more evident if Wikipedia contributors would take the trouble to read the languages relevant to the articles they propose to delete. There are plenty of mentions of Recharge -- not all sympathetic -- by non-conflicted sources in Norway, including the keenest Norwegian competitor of the parent company. -- That being said, the contributor who appeared above lobbying to keep the article might want to include reference to the controversy over whether starting new media products in the current climate was a smart move. --Mstarli (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fast food. MBisanz ^talk 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar Barber[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - any claim of notability is tied to the lawsuit. Subject is not notable beyond a single event and there is no justification for a separate biographical article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I agree that Barber is significant only because of his lawsuit, but it seems clear that the lawsuit is significant. It got massive press coverage in 2002, and Nexis shows continuing discussion of the case in the global media in 2007 (article in Business Day of South Africa) and 2008 (Nation's Restaurant News). I find references to something also called the "Stella Awards," which are some kind of award given to an outrageous or ridiculous lawsuit filing, and Barber's suit seems to have won one. Uucp (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fast Food, merging any salvageable content. We shouldn't delete this outright because it's a plausible search term, and plausible search terms should not be redlinks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as plausible search term, with a suggestion to merge or redirect the content per WP:BLP1E. -Atmoz (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere (probably Fast food) per WP:BLP1E. The event might be notable, but the person isn't. Robofish (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge any relevant content into fast food - at this point in time, I do not see a point in redirecting because the fast food article does not currently mention Barber. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion on renaming can take place on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penny football[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notability not established, no references, uncited, very vague - could refer to various games made up in school which are not called Penny football GTD 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is now referenced and cleaned up, and the subject's notability verified with reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has references and is cleaned up, and someone may expand this to make it a better article. DeMoN2009 17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now it is cited, how about a rename? The name "penny football" does not appear to be the most common GTD 17:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, go ahead and rename it if you want, or discuss it on the talk page for the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is sourced with reliable sources, and the subject is notable.--J.Mundo (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article that provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to support notability. Further expansion would only be a plus. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per addition of verifiable sources. FingersOnRoids♫ 01:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production Products Company (PPC)[edit]

No verifiable sources found for an encyclopedia article. A Google and Google News search turned up only a few sealed sites referring to random court cases and a notice that the daughter of an owner of PPC had married someone from NBC News in New York. Fails WP:V and WP:NOTE. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I searched a bit deeper, and there is more out there. First, they've sued a lot of people. :-)
- "Telecom manufacturer files suit to protect patent", CNY Business Journal, Jun 01, 2001
- "Cable-connector firms in patent fight", CNY Business Journal, Jun 17, 2005, by Dickinson, Casey J
- "Arris vows appeal on patent verdict", CED, March 1, 2002.
- 87 other articles on Highbeam, lawsuits and patents - mostly thin stuff, but quite a lot of it. It adds up.
- "Interview with Dan Mezzalingua", Cable Center Oral History Collection, May 1998, by Archer Taylor.
- "Tribute to John Mezzalingua and Central New York Based PPC on Achieving Significant Milestones", James T. Walsh of New York in the House of Representatives, The Congressional Record, Wednesday, August 1, 2001. (Not everyone can get a congressman to read a tribute into the Congressional Record.)
- MEZZALINGUA.(Obit), The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY), February 15, 2003 - not a notability claim in itself, but a source for more information.
- Mezzalingua: memoirs of an Italian-American family, by R. Harrison Huston, seems to be a vanity press, so not a proof of notability, but again, could be useful for more information.

Also, if they are the originators of the Magnavox line, as their web site claims, that's also fairly notable. --GRuban (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Sources are available to establish notability, subject meets WP:ORG. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —94.196.217.102 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article as it currently stands are adequate, if a bit light, but the additional material identified by User:GRuban substantially supports the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galleria Center[edit]

Strip mall with only a couple stores. Sources comprise dead links, a primary source, and a store locator. Seems to entirely lack coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn and incomplete mall; if it ever become a million sq. ft. facility it can be recreated. Several links in the refs. are broken. JJL (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mall, combined with a similar mall across the street is notable for being the largest lifestyle center complex in the state of Illinois. Sources will be updated. The mall is not a "strip mall" by any means. The mall is still under construction and will eclipse the Algonquin Commons (currently the largest lifestyle center in IL) in size once completed. It's already average size for a lifestyle center, and is only 1/3 of the way done. No need to delete and then bring back when people are seeking information during its ongoing construction and when stores are already operational. Abog (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's not even built, it's hard to imagine what can be written about it, nor am I seeing enough--nor can I imagine there being--independent sources that discuss it in enough depth to provide more than a listing of stores. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you're wrong. It is built. It's not finished yet, but many of the buildings are constructed and all the stores currently listed are open for business now...some have been open since as long ago as 2006. And there's plenty to be written about...its planning and construction, the delays, the opening of businesses, the size of the project, etc. I will try to find more sources or fix the current ones from the local papers and business news websites. Abog (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added several more sources, so just about everything in the article is referenced now. The local newspaper has written dozens of news articles about the center. Additional papers in the area have written about the center too, but their archives don't go back as far. Abog (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —94.196.217.102 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —94.196.217.102 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The size and scope of this nascent super-regional mall, combined with the sources added establish notability. The article would benefit from the addition of the sourced material to the article. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the sources seem to reflect trivial local coverage of things like zoning board decisions regarding this project, all from one local paper. JJL (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - So what your implying is that newspapers are not RS's? Because we know there is no Local Clause in WP:N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a RS says "1 million square feet of retail space"[12] ... that makes it a Super-regional and we usually keep thoes. It may have a small amout of WP:Crystal in it, but we have Template:Future for this situation. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

almost three years after the fact the only impact this dinner has had has been in afd's. it's made them worse. people wantonly violate WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and cite this article. for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, etc (do a search for colbert on those pages to see the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS violations). per WP:POKEMON, the solution seems obvious - remove this article per WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS. the citations are all for naught, as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run had lots of citations and it got deleted. rightfully so, too - citations alone are not enough. if this article was deleted no one would care enough to recreate it in this depth because the recentism appeal wouldn't be there.

that this was a former front page featured article is of little consequence - Talk:Torchic was a former front page featured article and look at its fate. Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cited policies do not seem to apply; the speech in question seems to have risen above a temporary news item to the point where it was still receiving comment in major media sources six months later, so I don't see how WP:NOT#NEWS is relevant. WP:RECENTISM is only an essay, and cannot therefore be used by itself as grounds to delete an article (as it quite correctly notes itself). I fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE is relevant in the slightest; this article clearly describes an event that was quite important, a comedy performance that has achieved critical acclaim. In this regard it is no less discriminate than any other article on entertainment events. This particular event has quite clearly received much discussion in the press, which is one of the measures we use to determine whether the inclusion of something is indiscriminate or not: describing something that is notable is not considered indiscriminate; by the rules described at WP:N there's a clear presumption of notability for this event. Unless there's a good reason to consider those rules wrong in this case (and I don't see one in your deletion argument), I see no reason to delete the article. Very few after-dinner speeches are notable, but this one seems to make the mark. JulesH (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Barry Bonds 714th home run was a 2-sentence article with 2 references, which was merged to a 52k article (i.e., when combined, about the right length for an article). This article is a 5,000 word/47k article with 76 references and the logical merge target being a 68k article (i.e., when combined, well and truly in the "almost certainly should be divided" category according to WP:Article length; in fact, even before merging this article in, Stephen Colbert is in the "probably should be divided" range, so we should be looking at moving content out of that article, not into it). Merging is not an option here, because the parent article is already too long. JulesH (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - that Barry Bonds 714th home run only had 2 references is immaterial - there are over 7,000 references available [13]. and whether or not Stephen Colbert's article is too long is also immaterial - the fact remains that this article should, at worst, be a footnote, and at best, be deleted. your assertion that the event "was quite important" is a WP:NOR violation. It did not create profound change in American politics nor was it something that changed the outcome of an election. this dinner is no more notable than the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell feud and look at the article on that. oh wait - it doesn't exist, even though it, too, is still discussed in the media. see [14] for instance (do a search for "o'donnell"). Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point about the home run article is that it was short, and there was no reason not to merge it into the medium-length parent article, which is what was done. This is a long article, its parent article is already longer than the style guidelines suggest for most articles, therefore merging is not an appropriate action at this point. The assertion that the event was important is not original research; it is merely a paraphrase of some of the content that is quoted in the article from reliable sources. Besides, I'm not aware of any policy that prevents us from using original research to decide whether or not a topic is notable, WP:NOR only applies to claims we make about a subject in an article on it. JulesH (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —94.196.217.102 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Per JulesH's logic (very well put). DP76764 (Talk) 18:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- see WP:JUSTAVOTE. if you cannot contribute to the discussion other than to endorse another persons opinion, you should not be contributing at all Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Woah, seems like an unbiased admin or editor should make that call, not the nominator. I think it's perfectly fine in a deletion discussion to have the same opinion as someone else. Did you want him to just copy and paste the same argument, or say "I agree with Julesh"? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Note- I am unstriking DP76764's !vote that I think was stricken [15] unfairly. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
      - I didn't stricken DP76764's vote - he did, per your link. Although that said, I still believe it needs to be stricken all the same. The point of an AfD is to build consensus towards inclusion or deletion. ie. the best argument is what decides the outcome - not the number of people who voted to keep or to delete. DP76764 did not make an argument and so his edits should be removed. personally i believe that redundant arguments ought to be removed as well (a good argument only need be made once - to make it multiple times serves no point other than to overload the closing admin), but i am willing to concede that is logistically more challenging (unless someone does a direct copy / paste, it can be difficult to say whether or not an argument phrased one way would achieve a different effect than the same argument phrased another way) Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I struck myself (and am re-striking) after reading the 'justavote' piece (though I think WP:PERNOM would have been a more appropriate label to have used). AfDs will be very short, if the only posts allowed are unique items from each person. But that might be a good thing. DP76764 (Talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misterdiscreet, I apologize for my error. I thought you had stricken DP76764's !vote. I don't know how that happened. Please do accept my apologies. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my previous two erroneous comments — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarian delete under WP:NOTNEWS as the sources are from the weeks following the event and therefore establish no lasting significance. WillOakland (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Two of the sources are from 6 months after the event, one is from 7 months after the event, and one is from 13 months after the event. This is a lot longer than one would expect from something that is simply a news story of no lasting significance. JulesH (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A well-written, thoroughly-sourced article that establishes notability using over 70 separate reliable and verifiable sources. I am very disturbed by the collective misinterpretation of WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS as rationalizations for deletion, and only further disturbed by the nominator's removal of contrary opinions. Alansohn (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run has over 7,000 possible citations [16] and the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell feud has a lot of citations, as well. Heck - Barry Bonds' knee has lots of citations - we don't need a wikipedia article on everything for which a plethora of citations exist. As for your alleged misinterpretations... see WP:VAGUEWAVE. either explain why you believe i'm misinterpreting stuff or hold your tongue. oh wait - does that "hold your tongue" comment now qualify as me removing contrary opinions? because that's pretty much all I said to User:Dp76764. I didn't add the strikethrough - he did. Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run was not deleted. It was merged to its parent article, which due to the violation style guidelines that would occur if we were to do it here is not an option in this case. Stop using it as a comparable case; it clearly isn't. An isolated event which takes no more than a handful of sentences to cover in depth is not comparable to an article with nearly 5,000 words. JulesH (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Deleting a featured article is absurd. It's well-written and researched, comprehensive and factual, neutral and unbiased. Perhaps most troubling, the nominator's rationale sounds less like "this isn't an article we should have on Wikipedia" and more like "I'm tired of losing AfD debates because of this thing". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD's are not a contest, however, that does not change the fact that this article is oft cited in violation of WP:POKEMON and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. further, being well-written, well-researched, comprehensive, factual, neutral, and unbiased has nothing to do with its notability. i'm not proposing this article lose its featured article status - i'm proposing it be deleted. besides, how can anyone honestly say "we can revisit this again in a few years" if, a few years from that comment, people will say "it was notable now because it was deemed notable then"? maybe there should be an entry addressing this in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. besides, consensus can change.Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, WP:POKEMON and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are essays not guidelines, so articles can't be in violation of them. Second, I have concerns that you've nominated this article for deletion for the wrong reasons. Much of your rationale for deletion in the nomination focuses on this article's role in other AfD nominations. That's a bad reason to propose deleting any article, and a horrible reason to propose deleting a featured article. If you think there are fundamental reasons why an article shouldn't exist - whether they be moral ones like BLP, legal ones like copyright, or policy ones like NPOV - then by all means nominate that article for deletion. But in this case, you did not justify this article's deletion on those grounds. Your nomination more or less says this article should be deleted because it's preventing other articles from being deleted. For that, I cannot oppose this nomination enough. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - i did start the afd off with the only impact this dinner has had has been in afd's. it ceased to have an impact on what the media was covering 2-3 months after the fact and now it's just a footnote in the annals of irrelevant history - a bit of trivia, if you will. that said, i will concede the point that i may have harped on this articles impact on other afd's too much. although it has had an impact that is not relevant to the discussion at hand (rather what it's relevant to are my motivations for targeting this aticle amidst all the other articles on wikipedia; not that that's relevant to the afd process) Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, first of all it's hardly a forgotten event. The dinner took place in April 2006. The magazine New York clearly remembered it at the end of the year eight months later, since according to our article they called it one of the most "brilliant" moments of 2006. The press corps and media clearly didn't forget about it since, according to our section on the 2007 dinner here, the WHCA's choice of Rich Little was interpreted by many as a direct response to Colbert's performance. And finally, when Craig Ferguson was announced as the headliner for the 2008 dinner, one of Britain's biggest newspapers described Colbert's speech in an article about Ferguson as having "achieved instant classic status" and Colbert as having "demonstrated perhaps the greatest courage of any White House dinner speaker, subtly and hilariously ripping the heart out of the Bush administration, and the US press corps which has failed so dramatically to hold him to account." If a British newspaper still remembers a speech by an American comedian at an American political dinner two years afterwards and speak of the event as a "classic", that might be a signal that the article's about a valid topic. The article itself could perhaps use some updating and revision, but deleting it is completely uncalled for. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'm not going to bother citing a bunch of policies. I'll just say (a) it meets content guidelines; (b) WP:NOTPAPER; and (c) I'll leave it at that. Taroaldo (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A vote to keep that doesn't cite guidelines carries about as much weight as a vote to delete that doesn't cite guidelines. If we ignore guidelines, anyone can make up whatever guidelines they see fit. also, WP:NOTPAPER does not excuse articles from abiding by predefined notability standards. Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I respect your opinion, but I don't believe that the deletion arguments hold any water in this case. I stated that in my opinion the article meets the content guidelines. I could've cited a bunch of [[WP:___]]'s, but I really don't see the point in this case. My !vote is pretty clear as is. But if it is to be disgarded that will be up to the deciding admin, not you. Taroaldo (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if this article were deleted, I would care enough to recreate it at its current depth :P rst20xx (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge with Criticism of George W. Bush - Here's my analysis of this in no particular order. (1) The fact that this is a featured article is irrelevant to a deletion discussion. If we made a mistake in the past, and that mistake makes it to FA status, does that mean the mistake shouldn't be corrected? So this is a FA, but that is irrelevant. (2) The nominator asserts that this article is used in WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments elsewhere. This is also irrelevant to this deletion discussion. If editors cite this article whilst making an erroneous OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument somewhere else, then they should be educated; it is not grounds for deleting this article. (3) Essentially, the nominator's argument for deletion boils down to WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS. In other words, the question is: is this an historically significant event deserving of an encyclopedia article?. Remember, this question is independent of the number of sources in the article. We already know this uses reliable sources and is verifiable. So the question stands, is this an historically significant event deserving of an encyclopedia article? I could go either way on this one. For example, a Gnews search shows that as of today, March, 2009, people are still discussing and referring to the event. This would indicate some degree of historical significance. On the other hand, I think having a full-blown encyclopedia article on it might be blowing it out of perspective and giving it undue weight in the encyclopedia. For example, which event is historically more significant: Bush's inauguration or Colbert's 16 minute speech? I would say the inauguration is a more historically significant event, yet look at the disparity in the length and depth of the articles. In conclusion, this article is sourced, verified, and the subject to some degree notable. But to satisfy the neutral point of view policy that we have, we should not give this undue weight. I recommend we trim this down to a couple of paragraphs and give it a section in Criticism of George W. Bush. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, your comparison to Bush's inauguration is a false one. This article's viability shouldn't be judged based on the relative quality of another article. That's just silly. Second, there is no NPOV issue here. The article's not some big tirade against the Bush administration, but rather a factual and blow-by-blow look of the event. I won't deny it couldn't use a little work, especially in terms of updating it now that we've had two more WHCDs, but saying there are NPOV issues is unrealistic. Should we merge Court-packing plan into a "Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt" article? Should we merge "Lewinsky scandal" into "Criticism of Bill Clinton"? Third, your merge idea fails to take into account that he also criticized the media. Moving it wholly into Criticism of George W. Bush is ignorant of the event itself. Fourth, it appears that the Criticism of George W. Bush article will soon be merged into Public image of George W. Bush, where this article barely fits in at all. Fifth and finally, undue weight applies to parts of articles, not articles themselves. It's not like this has four or five subpages dealing with Bush's reaction and the media's reaction and Jon Stewart's reaction. It's just one article. It's not unduly weighing the encyclopedia down. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, passed AfD at the time and has maintained notability since. It was arguably a career defining moment for Colbert, and there's enough content to warrant its own article, not just a section elsewhere. The logic of the nominator is also faulty, in that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways - if "X should be kept because Y passed AfD" is invalid, then "X should be deleted because Y failed AfD" is equally invalid. Orpheus (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a feature article and is well sourced. "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic", WP:NTEMP. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —94.196.124.103 (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as pointy nomination. Nominating a featured article? Outright abuse of the deletion process. AfD does not exist for you to take random swings at things you don't like. It's all the more inappropriate to try to delete one of our best articles because you perceive it as standing in the way of deleting other content you dislike.--Father Goose (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Also, I call snowball. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:POKEMON is just a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it's a variation on WP:WAX, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's the most infamous example of "Well, what about [X]?" It just happens to be obsolete, now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nom has a point. I don't think the nom has done a very good job of making it, and I don't think this AFD is a good place to explore it, since it's a general issue and not one specific to this article. (WP:N currently places undue weight on one-time events that make the news.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will speedy close this tomorrow barring any very convincing point for why an article with over 70 references might fail WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the nom mentioned WP:N at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The depth and diversity of the coverage seems sufficient to meet WP:N and move beyond the article being a news report. It wouldn't have reached FA status if sourcing had been inadequate. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just "an event", but an event which received lasting coverage and commentary from several political commentators over an extended period of time. Almost inclined to call this a speedy keep. If an article has successfully gone through a featured article process, it seems rather improbable that any major concerns over the topic being unencyclopedic wouldn't be catched. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has happened. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The differences between that article and this one are vast. First, Torchic's sources ranged from such esteemed sources as "pokedream.com" and "pokemonelite2000.com", whereas this article only cites such obscure sources as CNN, Reuters, the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times. Second, Torchic is about a fictional anime fire bird thing, and this article is about a notable event in which a well-known comedian and satirist criticized both the President of the United States and the American media to their faces. A comparison between this article and Torchic is completely unfair and unreasonable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, possibly Snowball. Even after reading his arguments, I'm not entirely sure what the nominator's point is. On one hand he claims that arguments that it is important is original research, even there are over 70 sources that prove it received substantial, non-trivial coverage from mainstream reliable sources. As one user pointed out, it was even named one of New York Magazine's most important events of the year. Apparently it had some lasting effect, then. He also cites WP:Pokemon as a counter-argument to the fact that this article was a front-page candidate, neglecting the fact that the deletion of other front-page pokemon candidates were part of a sweeping policy change for Wikipedia. it also seems clear that the nominator didn't even READ WP:Pokemon, as even the header of the page (which is an essay BTW, not an actual policy) says "This page in a nutshell: The Pokémon test is moot, now that almost all the individual characters have been merged into a list of Pokémon. This essay describes the historical context of this test.". Besides, the speech itself was released as an audiobook on iTunes and was the best-seller for months, if not years after release. Surely THAT would suggest it is notable, no? The nominator's arguments for deletion are asinine and completely missing the point. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Dubose[edit]

No assertion of notability. Being featured in an article on maxim.com is not enough nor is being a reporter for a TV show that's not notable enough to have its own wikipedia article (XLTV). The (non existent?) Wall Street Journal article does nothing to establish notability either per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NPF, etc. Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I've seen her in not only Maxim but also Guess Jeans ads. Upon further googling, she's been in quite a few other major ad campaigns as well and therefore should at least have an article here, I'll see if I can't add some more sources/online ads to the page later. Another-anomaly (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i cannot comment on sources that have yet to be added, however, appearing in a Guess Jeans ad does not make one notable anymore than it makes the table that appeared in the ad notable or the cloud that appeared in the ad Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based just on the references and external links she meets the General notability guideline criteria. Untick (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- which ones in particular? her myspace.com page, perhaps? after all, everyone with myspace account should have a wikipedia page, shouldn't they? maybe her website is what makes her notable, WP:SPS be damned! i've already addressed the (non existent) Wall Street Journal article Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Wall Street Journal article the page links to is missing due to a major site change since the article was published - just google/wayback the link and look at the cached text, and apparently the updated article has not yet been found. Also, your comments borderline on breaking WP:CIVIL, so please watch your tone when discussing this. Another-anomaly (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - as i said i already addressed the Wall Street Journal article. see WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NPF, etc. and while you're at it, reread my initial nomination so that i don't have to repeat myself in the future Misterdiscreet (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've replaced the broken link with the findarticles archive. It's a MarketWatch story actually, which is a sister publication of the WSJ. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply here by the way - we're not claiming notability because of a single event. If the article said she was famous because of the mentioned event, that would be different. Orpheus (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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