< 6 March 8 March >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was No consensus to delete. While that means this defaults to keep, I'd point out that the general consensus within the debate below indicates that a merge would be suitable. The central argument that many agree with is that these articles are not encyclopedic, nor are they meeting our standards. The dispute is over how to fix that issue, and I think the consensus within this debate is that editorial clean-up is the preferred option. To turn a metaphor, people would rather prune the unwieldy tree than chop it down, since the tree itself seems to have value. I'd suggest good faith efforts are made to clean these articles up, work out which ones need merging, establish whatever redirects are needed, and then anything superfluous be brought back to the appropriate deletion venue. I think all parties should allow a reasonable period of time to get that work done, and I'd advise against a group listing of this set of articles in the future. So while this has defaulted to keep, no-one should walk away under the illusion that the status quo is acceptable; that would be a severe misreading of the consensus below. Hiding T 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDF-1 Macross[edit]

SDF-1 Macross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a fictional vehicle from a cartoon series and fails WP:NOT and WP:NOTE. Basically a plot summary with no indication of having received additional coverage through reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

SDF-2 Megaroad-01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SDF-3 Pioneer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SDF-4 Izumo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
VF-1 Valkyrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Optera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tirol (fictional planet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reflex Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flower of Life (fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Protoculture (Macross) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are all about fictional planets, locations and plants from the same series. Sloane (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fewer than half the articles nominated for discussion are about vehicles. DGG (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked to include "other elements" which I noted in my second sentence. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two actually. DGG is correct though, lumping them all together just because they are from the same franchise is rather questionable. If they were all character articles or all vehicle articles there would be less of a complaint Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never liked derailing a productive discussion on semantic grounds. It reeks too much of obstructionism. Reyk YO! 01:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked again and these are all from the Robotech cartoon series. And if it makes you happy, I'll be sure to not lump in any fictional plants with fictional vehicles next time.--Sloane (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SDF Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie are also Super Dimension Fortress Macross, which Robotech uses as source material for the first 1/3 of its content Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft is a cleanup issue not a deletion issue for an article of this type. Would you suggest delete as cruft if it was well sourced but needed trimming? Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft as I understand it includes a lot of flaws an article can have. Some can be fixed, like being badly written, written from an entirely in-universe perspective, full of conjecture, or written as effusive fannish praise. Although even then I might recommend deleting because sometimes it's just so awful it's better to tear it down and start over. Other faults cannot be fixed, such as the nonexistence of sources that establish notability or verifiability. When I use "cruft" as a deletion reason it's because I think the article has one or more of the unfixable faults, and I usually mention them explicitly as well. Reyk YO! 01:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've taken 10k of text off the article already and am currently adding some sources. Hopefully this will show that the article can be saved without having to delete it first. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the article for deletion tag for all of those things comes back here. Never saw that done before. I don't see as how all of those could be grouped together. I vote Keep all. If you want to nominate things separately, then they'll be seriously considered on their individual merit. Dream Focus 01:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia guidelines is a hardly an argument for keeping the articles. See WP:BUNDLE.--Sloane (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately after starting to add some of them, the webster quotation sources aren't any good. Ironically, despite being published works, their source is wikipedia according to their prefaces ....... Pretty sure we cant use them! Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and don't forget the computer organization Super Dimension Fortress! --Gwern (contribs) 16:59 8 March 2009 (GMT)
Yeah, you're probably right, it was a reactionary comment. I've decided to try to improve the article instead. Of all the Robotech articles needing removal or merging, SDF-1 is not the first one to tackle (and people are completely unaware that Robotech is only part of the dicussion with that article)Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems kind of unfair to those working on the article to hit them with an AfD without any prior discussion or tagging. It kind of imposes this unnecessary deadline that could actually hinder the creation of a good article by forcing a hurried search for references and hasty trimming. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The subject of Robotech needing merges and such was started and there was discussion, and a lot of content has since been dealt with. However, this was mostly character work, not the major plot device of an entire series. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced SDF-1 Macross by 16k, and VF-1 Valkyrie by 13k. That should help with cruft complaints (they need work, but they are now half the size they were). I've only added 1 reliable source for each though as im tired, and this debacle is the only reason I'm up. However 1 source is a published book, and the other source is from Anime News Network. I've no doubt that more sources exist, but it requires time to collect and add them. Countless books and magazines have discussed both of these in great detail, and I suspect that given time these articles can clearly demonstrate notability. I propose at least delaying a final decision on these two articles for at least one week. The remaining articles are unlikely to demonstrate notability, and should be either be split to a seperate discussion, or have SDF-1 and VF-1 removed from the current discussion Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the participants were. Anime related AFD's never attract this much attention by themselves. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandy Sephy Stay cool will you ? This whole Afd is already tainted be the canvassing regardless the result and i strongly suggest Sloane to refrain himself/herself next time. --KrebMarkt 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources I added to VF-1 concerning the toy ranges mentioned it, so I have added this fact and used a named reference Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked the reference and didn't see it mentioned. --Farix (Talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job you did check, I recalled the wrong reference... Fixed Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cough.. bringing that subject there. The Valkyrie was borrowed or so in early Battletech game design see BattleMech#Land-Air_.27Mech_.28LAM.29. I may have the incriminated Technical Readout: 3025. (Need to check my Battetech collection) --KrebMarkt 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This makes sense. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SDF-1 Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie are shared with Super Dimension Fortress Macross Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes iam aware of that. Macross will have to share the same fate has Robotech. The whole of character section needs to be merged and the whole bunch of vehicles need to be merged or be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus Robotech merges the completely unrelated The Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross and The Super Dimension Century Orguss. People should really learn about what merges they are proposing, before they propose them Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if i not made it clear. I was not talking about merging Macross and Robotech together.--SkyWalker (talk) 01:59, 11 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, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Babinsky[edit]

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

A school board trustee does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. There are no other assertions of notability, and no significant news coverage. Prod was removed without a reason, so I brought it here. FingersOnRoids 23:46, 7 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 and redirect to List of Ethnic Slurs#C. Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 02:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chonky[edit]

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

Neologism (only "source" seems be Urban Dictionary). Not enough coverage to warrant inclusion at List of ethnic slurs. Not speedy deletable. Cycle~ (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Propose re-write and redirect to List of ethnic slurs. Cycle~ (talk) 23:42, 7 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. §hawnpoo 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fucked For Life[edit]

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

Cant find any hits via googleCannot establish notability and all the sources are in swedish §hawnpoo 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried but they translate into things with no sentence structure and dont make sense §hawnpoo 23:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gangs get their notability from their actions rather than their size. Even a small amount of people, or even a single individual, can leave a notable mark on the world. - Mgm|(talk) 01:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea HexaChord, I didn't even think of that. I checked and found it at here. §hawnpoo 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant WikiProject Sweden, but the Swedish Wikipedia is of course another good look. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found refs to its existence here but you have to search the article for Fucked For Life. Still does not validate its notability though. §hawnpoo 02:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tomas e and Koyos for the clarification on this. §hawnpoo 16:34, 8 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 University of Minnesota#East Bank §hawnpoo 02:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable area of a university campus TM 22:36, 7 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. Speedily deleted (G4) and temporarily salted. Original discussion is here. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officially Aaliyah: Rare and Unreleased[edit]

Officially Aaliyah: Rare and Unreleased (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Quite a weekend for these things. Yet another WP:CRYSTAL violator. No sources, no confirmation that I can find. —Kww(talk) 22:34, 7 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Thingg. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Husni al Haj-Eid[edit]

Mostafa Husni al Haj-Eid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't know if this guy is notable or not, but the article as written is certainly propaganda in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It is conceivable he could be notable if all of the claims in the article are true (that he was a well-known Palestinian fighter and was targeted for assassination by the IDF), but pending sources and a re-write, it shouldn't be kept.--TM 22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI added the speedy delete tag ((db-a7)) to the page as it was a non notable person as stated above and confirmed by google searches §hawnpoo 01:33, 8 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 merged with List of Latin phrases (C-E). Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Experientia docet[edit]

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

Seems like it doesnt belong in an encyclopedia. I agree below with Mystache §hawnpoo 22:24, 7 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 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Research Practitioner[edit]

Manufacturing Research Practitioner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be original reasearch. I can find no evidence that such a concept as a manufacturing research practitioner exists. Comments by the author on the talk page (since deleted by the author) indicate that this is a doctoral study. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 7 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 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying Decline Rate Observed[edit]

Underlying Decline Rate Observed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism, recently coined, very few uses of this phrase. Google search for "Underlying Decline Rate Observed" only results in five links, two of them being Wikipedia. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course coinage is recent. OECD's IEA commenced discussion wrt decline and ramification issues in its Nov 2008 World Energy Outlook.--207.189.237.183 (talk) 23:08, 7 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 and create-protection Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemoon Games[edit]

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

Game developer with no real claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Article speedied twice today, created a third time by a different editor whose only edit was to create this page, then the speedy deletion tag on it was removed by the creator of the first two versions. 0 gnews hits and just 30 ghits for this organization, none of which show a whiff of notability. Skipping prod because I know the tag will be removed in minutes. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was misconsidered for deletion. The article is alright and should remain available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyro02 (talk • contribs) 22:20, March 7, 2009 (UTC) — Spyro02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: User:Spyro02 is repeatedly removing the AfD tag from the article. I've given him a final warning on this.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added the speedy delete tag and put it in RFPP lets see what happens §hawnpoo 00:30, 8 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 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden James[edit]

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

Unreferenced, seems to be living person, non-notable rugby league player, dosen't meet rugby league notability guidelines, only external link is a first party source, badly written article, stub, nothing too much from Google to indicate notability or sources which could help expand the article. Recently PROD, removed, I brought it here.  The Windler talk  21:37, 7 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 University of Minnesota. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate and Professional Student Assembly[edit]

Graduate and Professional Student Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable feature of graduate students. No outside sources demonstrating notability TM 21:16, 7 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 University_of_Minnesota. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wake Student Magazine[edit]

The Wake Student Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable campus publication TM 21:10, 7 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Adult Film and Television Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:
UK Adult Film and Television Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable award. Very limited press coverage. What exists goes mainly to show that it is not notable. For example, article about how the well-known mainstream people who were supposedly going to show up never came, and that most of the "guests" were porn fans who paid to meet their favorite performers. Only other significant coverage was "news of the weird" type about how the publicity-seeking award givers had nominated a popular TV show for a porn award. An award doesn't become notable just by having a famous person nominated for it -- otherwise there'd be an entry on Wikipedia for "Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's Favorite TV Performer Award" and such. This award is so insignificant that after only two years it's website has gone dead and there's a notice that the server bill hasn't been paid. Delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete, the BBC news article is about Billie Piper, and the Awards are not the focus of the article. There is the article from The Guardian, which may indicate that there may be something notable out there, but with no further sources fulfilling WP:GNG (and I couldn't find any myself), I agree with the nominator that the notability of these awards is very dubious at best. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 20:56, 7 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 redirected to the Alexander Douglas dab page. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Douglas[edit]

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

An empty page.

Thanks. Blaze42 (talk) 19:09, 7 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eulogies (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable recording, doesn't meet WP:NOTE or WP:MUSIC. Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm aware of that, that's why I said 'generally'. This article is sourced, so I see no reason why this wouldn't apply is all I meant. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 01:17, 8 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Ackwards and Belly Up[edit]

Bass Ackwards and Belly Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable book, lacks 3rd party coverage, fails WP:BK Rtphokie (talk) 18:06, 7 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 Thingg. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYG'z[edit]

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

This is still a NN band, have been refused speedy. Suggest salting after the inevitable deletion. roux   17:16, 7 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gloom (card game)[edit]

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

Very short article that gives no information about the card game in question. No references. Article was previously deleted after a discussion, but has been recreated. Unionsoap (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

  • Delete - If references are so easy to find, why haven't any been added. This is a one line article; unless someone is willing and able to give it some content it should be deleted. Unionsoap (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note you don't get to !vote in your own AfD—your position is understood by your nomination. – 74  01:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of interest, why didn't you do a quick search for them and add them? Sometimes even if you don't have the time to work on the article yourself, adding a few sources to a talk page will be much appreciated by whoever next comes across the article. Deletion is a last resort. Seraphim♥ 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article already had the required number of reliable sources at the time it was nominated, so Unionsoap/Wordsuch's claims are false to begin with. DreamGuy (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Part of the essence of Wikipedia is that it is a community effort. Many articles have started as 'one-liners', posted by someone who may not have the time or ability to go further, or who may have found something interesting to cast into the arena for others to take up. Someone else will usually carry on the work, and others join in too. Lack of information becomes ground for deletion when it fails to identify the subject properly. Otherwise, it is cause for making the article a stub, provided other criteria are met. This does identify the subject. It is labelled a stub. There are now some references. Peridon (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy - the admins blocked you all weekend for your unacceptable behavior, and now you are immediately back at it again. I nominated this two sentence article because it is has almost no content. Now I would like your apology for making false accusations against me and your uncivil behavior. Unionsoap (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think nominating articles I created for deletion without any sensible reason will somehow result in an apology for my having noted your suspicious behavior in other AFDs, well, you are sadly deluded. DreamGuy (talk) 21:09, 10 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 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Davis (Female Comedian)[edit]

Laura Davis (Female Comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The CSD tag was removed by someone or other with the summary "do not disrupt", and I can't face squabbling over it.

This mis-titled article is abou a non-notable comedian, it seems to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Adding ((db-nocontext)) to a disambiguation page, repeatedly adding ((db-person)) to an article that is being worked upon and adding that tag once it has been removed is disruption. That tag explicitly says it should not be put back once it has been removed. Good to hear you don't want to squabble over it, though. Laura Davis has won a notable competition—Raw Comedy so the article should not be deleted. —Konsole4.2 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's PROD tags that are not suppose to be re added when removed, not CSDs. However, an article's creator (that's you) is not suppose to remove a speedy tag. The proper course of action is to add the ((hangon)) tag and then explain why you believe the article should not be deleted on the talk page. However, in this case there is a weak assertion of importance or significance in the article so AFD is the proper venue for deciding if this article should stay or go. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, when I first looked at the history, the page must not have loaded completely. Yours was the last I saw. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, but please do assume good faith, and not immediately accuse other editors of being disruptive. Perhaps they (I) made a mistake, or there's just a misunderstanding. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will 'assume good faith' from now. By the way the other guy or myself ar e not here to destroy Wikipedia either, so there's no need to bombard articles with ((db-crap)) repeatedly thanks—Konsole4.2 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the whole point of Wikipedia then ;) --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by how few of the previous winners have gone on to independent notability, it's quite questionable whether winning Raw Comedy is a "notable award or honor," but even if it were, she didn't win: she got a consolation prize as the best first-time entrant that isn't even mentioned in the Raw Comedy article. That's twice-removed from notability. THF (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, and un-connected with the AfD, I'd suggest re-naming this article to Laura Davis (Comedian). We wouldn't call an article "John Smith (Male Comedian)", would we?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it should be Laura Davis (comedian) if anything. THF (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or that. :) But the main point I wanted to make is that I think the AfD is premature while the article's still being actively edited.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the article isn't being actively edited, and one cannot manufacture notability out of thin air, but someone contact me on my talk page if the article miraculously improves in the next five days. THF (talk) 01:49, 8 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 as copyvio. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lordco[edit]

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

A speedy tag and PROD tag were both removed without improvement. This article has no reliable sources and dubious notability, and strong overtones of advertising. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:14, 7 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 SOMEWHAT ROUGE DELETION OF COPYVIO. It's not really blatant copyvio, but chunks of copyvio wrapped up in ad copy and horseshit ("If you love Jennifer Lopez and heavenly-smelling scents, no doubt you’ve already amassed a collection of crystal bottles bearing J.Lo-endorsed fragrances," seriously?) don't make for much of an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album)[edit]

Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another crystal album, without title or release date. I try not to hold the fact that it is terribly written against it, but this is so bad, it's hard not to. —Kww(talk) 14:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you might have a look at WP:ATA, especially WP:JUSTA is most interesting. Don't you think so? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, a release date is stated and sourced in the article as April, 29. Additional sources can be found easily: [20] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced to IMDB, which is not a reliable source. AceShowbiz.com is a blacklisted site, so it cannot be used as a source for information, and the other sources use sentences like The song is speculated as one of the materials on her upcoming third compilation album Greatest Hits. Speculation is not usable as a source.—Kww(talk) 16:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wrong. See: Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album)#Release history. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't describe things as providing information that they do not as a defense for keeping articles. None of the sources used in this article are sufficient. They all use language that describe the information they are providing as unconfirmed or speculative, and don't provide key information necessary to building an article.—Kww(talk) 17:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
News about this album go back to November 2007 and a release date for between February and April 2009 was announced last November (see official website). I'm not a fan of her (quite the contrary), so you may delete it. I don't really care. But the article will come back very soon. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, of course: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still from the Block. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 19:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this looks to have been created independently, so I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion as a repost.—Kww(talk) 20:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could delete it for a third time. And a fourth and fifth time sure to follow. It would be somewhat more intelligent to a) just leave it be since the release is just delayed from Feb 9 to Apr 29 - Sony BMG had it already listed for the Feb date, that's where the Still from the Block title comes from, including a press release - or b) make a reasonable section in the Jennifer Lopez main article and redirect from both, Still from the Block and Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album) to that very section until the album has been released. I guess it's way easier to nominate and delete it again, than to put a bit of work into it, but laziness should not rule Wikipedia. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 20:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the effort into identifying articles that fail inclusion standards, nominating them for deletion, and taking the time to double-check and refute arguments for inclusion is not a sign of laziness. It isn't a matter of doing so rather than "put a bit of work into it": the information necessary to build an article about this album does not exist.—Kww(talk) 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think so, gor for b) - until Apr 29. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All properly sourced and verifiable information that is available is at Jennifer_Lopez#Compilations (2009-present).—Kww(talk) 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know that this is not true, and neither exist any redirects. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim the redirects exist. We know she is planning on releasing a greatest hits album. We don't know the tracks. We don't know the title. We don't know the release date. We don't know if the leaked tracks have anything at all to do with a greatest hits album (and, in fact, logic would suggest that a leaked track would not be on a greatest hits album). "Lopez will release a greatest hits album in April or May 2009" is the sole verifiable statement, and even it is a bit hard to support. Lopez has indicated that she plans to ... would be better than Lopez will ....—Kww(talk) 21:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A comprehensive look on all facts and rumours incl. lots of sources can be found here: [21] - that's where this recent article is copied from. I guess a nice paragraph could be built out of it, if not a whole article. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Another overview is the starting post here: [22] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you restricted your searches and investigation to reliable sources, you wouldn't exhibit such apparent confusion as to what material is suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The content of blogs and fansites is completely irrelevant to the discussion. When you find material based on reliable sources that can actually be included in the article, please come back to discuss it.—Kww(talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you would look at the two links above and at the cited sources there, you would understand what I'm talking about. Of course it's fansites, but they give you a sourced overview on the topic. Again, laziness is no excuse. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First: quit calling me lazy. It's offensive and uncalled for. Second, I looked at your sources. They are fansites and blogs. They do not provide links or references to reliable sources, they provide references to announcements, statements, and confirmations without providing links to reliable sources that substantiate those announcements, statements, and confirmations. If you think there is material in reliable sources that should be included, please provide a pointer to that reliable source. Until then, please stop offering unreliable material in support of your argument.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Record company, stating Apr 29: [23] Interview with producer: [24] Lopez herself: [25] not to talk about the press release from December, including a tracklist and announcing it for February - that's even in full in the nominated article (smell the copyvio?). That and some more bits make much more than that small sentence at Jennifer Lopez. Don't you think so? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • タイトル未定（ベスト盤）初回生産限定盤 means an untitled limited release: still no tracklist.
  • The interview you quote says C: The Greatest Hits album is going to have about 3 to 4 new tracks on it. ...[but]... To our knowledge, yeah. But you know, the label doesn’t really keep us posted indicating that the speaker is aware that he hasn't got reliable information.
  • If you consider Singersroom to be a source, it provides some vague information about possible new tracks, and the nugget I agree with:Jennifer Lopez’s “Greatest Hits” is slated to hit stores sometime this Spring.
  • The contents of http://www.sonymusic.co.jp/eng/ cannot be verified, as the page is dead.
  • The Latina article is about an album with an indeterminate number of new songs where she isn't even certain what year it will be released in.
As I said, please come back when you have some reliable sources for any information more detailed than "Lopez will release a greatest hits album in April or May 2009".—Kww(talk) 00:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to disagree.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it even gives its sources. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point you to an intersting read, WP:ATA, which inludes interesting topics such as WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTA. What do you think? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's only an essay (a good one btw.), otherwise I would've addressed this to other boards. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 00:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another two cases of WP:VAGUEWAVE... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 04:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of a lone editor badgering everyone who disagrees with him in AFD... Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's more than you wrote about the article - what a shame. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 05:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:54, 8 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 both speedy deleted at the request of the author (CSD G7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Eberwein[edit]

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

I don't think that these people are sufficiently notable to have their own articles. It's all unsourced, and isn't really that "important". Also some serious COI issues, as the author claims that the subjects are themselves and their wife (see comment below). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a COI issue when there is nothing being promoted Just delete the pages I'm fine with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepernutz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy for the pages to be deleted (and that would be very helpful!), please type ((db-g7)) at the top of both articles, this will let admins know that you'd like them to be gone. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:32, 7 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terang college[edit]

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

Very short, unreferenced article that that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Unionsoap (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where the Guidelines say that "all secondary schools are notable". I can't seem to find that one. Unionsoap (talk) 23:00, 7 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 major notability established. Minor roles generally do not assert notability, especially for two distant and minor spells. The reliable citations point to her biographical background, but of nothing else. P.S. Stating that you are keeping solely for inclusionist principles is a guarantee that the vote is discounted. Please use valid rationales when commenting. seicer | talk | contribs 04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Phoenix[edit]

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

The majority of the article is about her family (copied from the Joaquin Phoenix page) and not actually about Liberty herself. The remaining content does not establish any notability (two minor roles, one an unnamed role, in a single episode of a TV show. Delete

P.S. The version that was deleted back in 2005 when AFD was still VFD is nothing like this so G4 doesn't apply. Mgm|(talk) 13:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Well, River is dead, so the nutty one comes to mind. But if there isn't a strong urge to merge, delete... I don't feel strongly to keep it, her history such that it is seems to indecate she's not planning on spending too much time in the public eye. I probably shouldn't have piped up on this at all...Proxy User (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what you may believe, I actually am an inclusionist too and I am particularly focussed on filling up WP's coverage on young people and children which others often don't find significant enough to write about, which is what brought this article to my attention. If I believed it was in any way salvageable, I definitely wouldn't have nominated it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that someone or something is notable when one or more people create or look for the article is inherently flawed. There've been plenty of groups of people who've been trying to use Wikipedia to advertise their books, films and other creations. By that reasoning we should throw out the rules on spam too because a couple of people want the article to exist. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is not temporary" Esasus (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and if I thought those minor acting roles established notability, I would have !voted differently (they fail WP:ENTERTAINER). The subject of my second comment is not notability but the public/private status of the subject, and that does expire. Articles on non-public figures face higher standards than articles on public figures. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For "Notability is not temporary" to count, someone has to be notable to begin with. "1st brownie" is not a significant role and there is no evidence the other role is either. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, 8 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Corporations[edit]

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

I can't make head or tail of this article... I don't think it's encyclopedic, anyway. I'm also concerned that it may have been copied (either that, or it sounds essay-like). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sceptre, thanks pointing out the guidelines. After reading them, I think this article holds up to a neutral POV. It doesn't contain criticism in a purely negative sense. The points contained in the article are critical in that they examine the corporate form and make arguments both for and against. --Jonovision (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also point out that the criticism section of this article was not spun out because there was opposition for the content in the main Corporation article. This content has been through many revisions over the past couple of years, and has reached a point where it's stable (albeit terribly ugly). I believe that the motivation of the user who spun out the content was so that the content could be expanded and improved without causing the already lengthy main article to get even longer. --Jonovision (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Napzilla (talk) 03:16, 11 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 speedily deleted per authors request below. Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bagshot Bank Protest[edit]

Bagshot Bank Protest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a very minor news article, not an encyclopedia article. It presents a problem, as per WP:NOT#NEWS. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but equally events could continue, for example similar protests elsewhere, making it a bigger story. It should be given time. I notice that they story also exists as part of the Bagshot page, where it is clearly relevant as part of the history of the village. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.210.153 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the speedy delete tag per ((db-g7)) on the page as I confirmed that redlavalamp is the author.§hawnpoo 23:42, 7 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 speedily deleted. Seraphim♥ 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dashte Khawab[edit]

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

This appears to be a combination of a news story and a new book promotion. I don't see where it aligns with any Wikipedia editorial requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:44, 7 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 speedily delete per CSD G7. Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 06:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VUVR[edit]

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

I am the creator of this page. I was a newbie when I created that and I didn't understand wikipedia policies. The article does not contain a single reliable source. I is also not notable. I am also nominating Pilgrimage (VUVR album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the speedy delete tag CSD G7 to the page and linked to this article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Body Language (Kylie Minogue album). MBisanz talk 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret (Take You Home)[edit]

Secret (Take You Home) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Extremely limited promo release. Never an official single release Paul75 (talk) 11:43, 7 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 Fever (album). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fever (Kylie Minogue song)[edit]

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

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Limited promo release only, never an official single. Poor article largely of unreferenced OR Paul75 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esradekan, have you read the article?:):):) The song was covered by Leah Dizon (whoever that is.) I feel like it was also played on the radio in the UK, but can't find out what happened to it here. Sticky Parkin 12:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was released as a (whatever) single by two notable artists. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:51, 9 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 Impossible Princess. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Girl (Kylie Minogue song)[edit]

This Girl (Kylie Minogue song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Limited released demo only, never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 11:28, 7 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. I really urge the parties to discuss a merge at the talk page. MBisanz talk 08:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of virus[edit]

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

The entire content of this article is either trivia and speculation, or belongs on wiktionary. The non-trivial content is included in virus and wiktionary:virus entries already Wnjr (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have restored the Rescue template because one of the nomination reasons was The entire content of this article is either trivia and speculation...speculation or speculate is defined in Wikitonary as # (intransitive) to make an inference based on inconclusive evidence; to surmise or conjecture. Since the rescue template is meant to attract more references...it is for this reason that I put the resuce template on.--Smallman12q (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you find it interesting doesn't mean we should keep it. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:49, 10 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 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardem[edit]

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

Obviously a hoax, based on Camden, NJ, as the map shows. Unfortunately CSD doesn't apply to most hoaxes. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:30, 7 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 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Thomas Hill[edit]

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

There's no evidence that the subject of this article meets the notability criteria set out at WP:BIO - no sources are provided and the only claim of notability is a statement on the article's talk page claiming that Mr Hill was friends with General Patton. The article's creator has stated that Mr Hill was his grandfather ([30]) so WP:NOT#MEMORIAL may also apply. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 7 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 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Vacation (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased song that fails music notability guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 7 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, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Gamefarm[edit]

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

Contested prod. I reiterate my prod reason for this nom: None of the sources that I could find here or here establishes any notability for this show - only trivial and passing mentions. MuZemike 08:43, 7 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 08:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software Craftsmanship[edit]

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

"Notability is in question. There are no verifying sources or wiki pages linking to this one" Jadekorm (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes I did bother...but is there anything to suggest this is anything more than another term for Software Engineering? I looked at the conference and I see nothing in the presentations that distinguishes this as a distinct field. McBreen's book seems to have coined the term, but there's little evidence that I can see of widespread recognition. It's just as easy to find Google hits for "Software construction", but I doubt that we should have a distinct article for that.--Michig (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those sources are problematic. Except for McBreen, those authors themselves are signatories of the manifesto linked above. I think that prevents them from being adequate third party sources. And yes, I did research the subject before I submitted to AfD, so I apologize if there are glaring third party sources I missed. This article, however, has gone years without referencing them. - Jadekorm (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the authors may not be independent from the movement, the publishers are, and it is the fact that mainstream publishers have chosen to publish books on the principles of this movement that establishes its notability.
Also, this non-independence argument can be made about almost any specialist topic. I mean, who has written about LALR parsers other than people who are intimately involved in computation linguistics? Of course the sources about this movement come from people who are involved in it. That's always the case with specialist topics. JulesH (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarification of my reasoning. 134 Google Books hits and 51 Gnews hits and a majority of them are referring to one or more of the books with the title, rather than the concept, and I didn't see any uses that automatically assumed that the reader understood what the term was referring to. It's still not widely accepted. That doesn't mean it doesn't merit a subsection in the software engineering article. THF (talk) 21:20, 7 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Tsvangirai[edit]

Susan Tsvangirai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • I must say, I do think Cherie Blair and Sarah Brown are both notable on the basis of their own accomplishments, so I'm not convinced there's a parallel there.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just had a look at Mrs. Brown's article and I have to say there's very little notable about her if we removed a PM connection from the equation. There'd be just an early life, education and would she even have the label of "J. K. Rowling's friend" without Gordon? I'm just saying that there are millions of such women but we need some consistency – being the wife of a U.S. President or a UK Prime Minister cannot be more notable than the Zimbabwean equivalent or that of another country if there is information available on the subject. And in this case we have enough information and even enough for notability in her own right in my opinion. --Candlewicke ST # :) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no need to ignore any rules. According to the article she was a prominent member of a political party, so she's not just the PM's wife. Family of notable people can be covered in a separate article if they do something notable themselves. If not, they're a likely redirect target. - Mgm|(talk) 14:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Michelle Obama's notable for being the first African-American First Lady of the US, actually, but she's irrelevant to this AfD per WP:OTHERSTUFF.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And calls to include for parity with eg. Michelle Obama would logically lead to the automatic inclusion of the partner of any notable politician. Should we set up two pages every time a politician is added here? Some leaders' wives really are more notable than others. Earthlyreason (talk) 06:31, 10 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 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest common denominator (disambiguation)[edit]

Lowest common denominator (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have no idea why this prod was contested. Unneeded disamb page with 2 items. Replaced links to page with hatnotes on each page pointing to the other. Atmoz (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would just merge it all into one (at Lowest common denominator). It is kind of redundant to have parts of Lowest common denominator in separate articles. Versus22 talk 06:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then by tomorrow there will be over 6000 afd's §hawnpoo 06:10, 8 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 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Blonde (Paris Hilton album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Platinum Blonde (Paris Hilton album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can't find a reliable source for title, tracklist, or release date. Blogs and YouTubes by the score, but nothing reliable. —Kww(talk) 05:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong, the Kylie part is sourced and keepable. We may ask where the 2009 release date comes from.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I avoided using my dislike of Paris Hilton, and instead used WP:CRYSTAL instead. I couldn't think of anything else. Did you just want me to copy and paste verbatim from that page? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you throw around WP:ATA in a lot of discussions, Hexachord. It's not a policy, it's not a guideline, it's just an essay.--Sloane (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it makes a vote somewhat understandable if you not just point at WP:XY or say "per nom" or "per my close buddy". I've seen so many cases of people voting without looking at the article first, not to mention a brief look at the sources or doing a bit of own research. People even admit it! And since this is a discussion and not a simple vote, there must be something to discuss - beginning with the nomination, that should be more than one sentence. We might discuss this at a better place if you want. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 04:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point out where people have admited to not looking at an article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the coverage here really is about Paris's second album. Let's take a quick look:
So, in summary, what we have reliable sources for is "Paris Hilton is planning on releasing a second album which she says has written every song and already finished recording. No record label has been willing to release it. Her two existing singles, "My BFF" and "Paris for President" are reportedly included." That's not an article ... at best, that's two sentences in Paris Hilton. Those two sentences are pretty much already at Paris Hilton#Recording artist. The article as it stands now is exactly the kind of rumor and gossip collection that WP:CRYSTAL is so effective at preventing. I certainly don't think that it's at all inevitable that a second album will ever be released.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I didn't add all these sources but the ones I did add certainly do discuss the album with the few exceptions, like Billboard, that are there to provide information about her last album for context. Secondly, you may have missed a few things. [42] which you state doesn't mention the album, does in fact say Hilton released a CD in 2006 and is "basically finished" with her next album, which she hopes will be out by the summer. "I'm just doing a couple more songs and as soon as I have time I'm going to plan out a tour," she said. "It's just hard with my schedule." No matter how you slice it, Hilton is one of the most famous people in the world. [43] which you characterize as a gossip blog is editorial run by the San Francisco Chronicle so also shows she is written about, even if gossip-like, by newsmedia worldwide, about this album no less. [44] and [45] also talk about this album that she is working with Storch, on this album. Etc etc. these sources do in fact general talk about this album, a future project so really how much do you expect, or add context discussing her music and her last album for context. The point is that the Hilton is subject to immense media attention no matter what she does. Unless the entire project is canceled, which seems unlikely, it has already been the subject of numerous interviews many of which would also be fine sources here. We don't have to beat this in though, it's clear there is a second album and music has already been released. We're going to have an article and the current one is NPOV and fine. As better sourcing, and official information allows the article will improve. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 11 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 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Entwistle[edit]

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

Does not seem to be very notable. We should not have an article about every criminal. One short mention in a list of criminals is not enough. I could not find more good sources about him. Prod was endorsed by User:B.Wind "WP:BLP1E - nothing to separate him from any other convicted murderer." but then removed by User:Oo7565. Apoc2400 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I've proposed is obviously the best choice. Can anybody directly disagree with me? Belasted (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did you try to source it? it is exactly that material which might possibly make him notable. It would seem that sources would be available.DGG (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A UK Google search on '"Anthony Entwhistle" + rape' only brings up a single mention other than Wikipedia mirrors, and that's just a two-sentence mention in a list of prisoners serving whole-life sentences. I don't doubt the accuracy (by definition, he's done nothing notable since long before the start of the internet, so online sourcing is going to be a problem), but I don't see anything remarkable enough about him to separate him from any other murderer – he has neither the "popular culture" notoriety of Ian Brady or Jeffrey Dahmer, nor was his case particularly unusual as with our most clumsily-named article Robert Chambers (killer), for example. Unfortunately, in a population of 7 billion there are a lot of murderers and sex offenders, and I really don't think Wikipedia is the best place to serve as a directory of them. WP:Notability (criminal acts) is an unaccepted policy, but I do agree with its primary thrust; "Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question". – iridescent 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added back in that he is a rapist (backed with a verifiable source that I found, of course), but I cannot find anything that backs up the other phrase that I removed: within weeks of his release from a seven-year prison sentence imposed for sexually assaulting two women. Otherwise, I stand by my removal of that phrase as it can be potentially harmful information about a living person. If someone can find a source to back that above phrase, and add it back in and include the source. However, I could not find it amongst the sea of Wikipedia mirrors that Iridescent noted above when I did the same Google search. MuZemike 04:15, 3 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 05:16, 7 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 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake cloud[edit]

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

Lots of unsourced statements (possibly OR), all sourced statements are from one website and one New Scientist article. As far as I can tell, the author of the one website the article is based upon has no publications in any Peer-Reviewed journal, thus WP:Reliable sources is a factor. Having its own article gives undue weight to a fringe theory; it should at most be covered by a few sentences at earthquake weather. RunningOnBrains 20:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the references for the specified articles? Although they might not use the term "earthquake cloud", at least some appear reasonably likely to support the theoretical process (e.g. Saraf, A. K. and Choudhury, S. (2005) NOAA-AVHRR detects thermal anomaly associated with 26 January, 2001 Bhuj earthquake, Gujarat, India.. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 26, pp. 1065-1073.; Morozova, L. I. (1997) Dynamics of cloudy anomalies above fracture regions during natural and anthropogenically caused seismic activities.. Fizika Zemli, 9, pp. 94-96.; Tronin, A., Hayakawa, M. and Molchanov, O. A. (2002) Thermal IR satellite data application for earthquake research in Japan and China.. Journal of Geodynamics, 33, pp. 519-534.). Also, peer-reviewed journal articles are a de facto reliable source indicating at least some community support for the ideas presented. The ultimate question isn't whether the theory is correct, but whether the theory is verifiable and notable; I think both have been established at this point. – 74  04:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My entire issue with this article had been that it was written almost completely off the research of one independent scientist and one other paper by a duo, with no more reliable sources available. Google was unhelpful; I did not think to check the references in the the Guo and Wang paper. Assuming those papers actually say what their titles suggest (which I have no reason to doubt), it seems that serious research has indeed been done. I wish I could actually find those papers online so I could clean up the article; I'll see what I can do after my break. In short, Withdrawn. -RunningOnBrains 04:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, another brand new editor as of only a few days whose only edits have been to participate in deletion votes and who instantly create a user page so the red link on his name goes away. Same thing happened recently over on some other article being defended by the same guy. Curious. The messages on the user page seems to be a copy of that other user. That user was determined to be a sockpuppet and stricken, doing same here. It might be nice if we figure out who was controlling these socks and get them blocked.... DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DreamGuy, I find reason enough to unstrike this !vote (not that I find its rationale particularly compelling). The user participated in article space before starting in AfD, and has 100+ edits, several of which passed a cursory review. If you can substantiate your claim of sockpuppetry then you should do so in the appropriate forum. Otherwise, this !vote (and your comment) will be given the weight they deserve. – 74  01:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New accounts typically aren't allowed to vote to avoid fraud. The edit history of this individual at the time th vote was made was very short and superficial, and most of the edits have been votes. Whether this is a sockpuppet (funn how people always just want to throw up red tape to avoid clear problems) are just someone new off the street, his vote (and your cranky response above) hold no weight. DreamGuy (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I find his behavior here less problematic than your own. Let it be; the closing admin will be quite capable of sorting it out. – 74  15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DreamGuy has been blocked. Just because I am new doesn't mean that I can't take part in a discussion. It is up to the closing admin to assign weight to the comments, not DreamGuy. Unionsoap (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the discussion. I won't strike your comment, but I will point out that due to your account's track record and the lack of rationale presented, your !vote is unlikely to be given much weight. You might find WP:VAGUEWAVE informational. Please feel free to reformulate your statement if you would like. – 74  19:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty odd comment. If you agree that this person's track record means the vote should have little to no weight, considering that this person's edit history (weak that it is) is substantially longer than that of a brand new account you defended above. Self-contradictory much? DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the amount of warnings etc. associated with this account, not an edit count. I suspect that the closing admin will take this information into account; I do not presume that I am allowed to arbitrarily cancel other users' !votes because I don't like them. Does that clarify your confusion? – 74  15:48, 6 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 05:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR only applies to unpublished research; the research in this article has been published in a number of WP:RS, so OR does not apply. Also, see the discussion above regarding other research in the field. – 74  20:34, 11 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 by overwhelming consensus per policies and guidelines at WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March to Highfivetown[edit]

March to Highfivetown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly unremarkable game, article lacks assertion of notability.  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 04:40, 7 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 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Liga effect[edit]

La Liga effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article is a neologism, the definition of which is sourced from a blog site, and not even from a specific blog post. The article itself deals with subject matter that is entirely subjective and does not take in mitigating factors in the comparison of the Premier League and La Liga. – PeeJay 03:30, 7 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 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Happy Ever (Radio Show)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
After Happy Ever (Radio Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously in October 2008. No consensus to delete then and still no evidence of notability. Nothing that established notability and being broadcast on BBC Radio 4 does not provide inherent notability. StarM 03:24, 7 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 04:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan DelBene[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as general notability criteria. This is a candidate for congress, and has not received significant coverage yet. Firestorm Talk 03:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here is some coverage:

1. MSNBC: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/06/1823619.aspx
2. The Hill: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/dems-make-3rd-try-against-reichert-2009-03-05.html
3. The Olympian: http://www.theolympian.com/localnewsfeed/story/774313.html

4. Seattle PI: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/401152_reichert24.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.229.168 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) — 24.19.229.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep If the standard is to be the nominee, we'd never have pages on almost all candidates for office. That's just not right.— 24.19.229.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck through because this IP has already !voted above - Firestorm Talk 15:16, 9 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 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Carl[edit]

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

This seems like a non-notable Youtuber to me. He is #30 in subscriptions in one particular subcategory, something does not seem particularly notable to me. What do you guys think? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have (or used to have) an entire list of Youtubers filled with people with more than a million hits. If we're going to include people with 70,000 because you believe it's a lot, suddenly 80% of all youtubers would become notable. (WP:BIGNUMBER) - Mgm|(talk) 13:54, 7 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. Awkward, but there seems to be enough discussion following relisting Fritzpoll (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T. Love[edit]

The following remarks are struck out because they were made in bad faith by a now blocked sockpupeteer Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC) :T. Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) not notable; blatant advertisement/promotional Gmatsuda (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 03:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per above. (Damn though... I wish those IP votes counted. This is why they should create accounts). Versus22 talk 06:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Is it alright to close? Sorry, I wasn't aware about the sockpuppet situation. Versus22 talk 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that there was another article with a similar name. The Polish band seems to be notable enough and this would make a good redirect as it is a likely search term. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 00:37, 8 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 04:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitzi McGilvray[edit]

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

Not notable. Article asserts only a connection with a barely notable group, but this is not enough. Google hits seem to be largely to social networking sites. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:11, 7 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 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Feucht[edit]

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

There seems to be nothing notable about this gentleman's life or death. It was sad he died young, at war, and wonderul that his body was found 60+ years later, however there's no evidence that there was anything notable about the recovery of his body. It was briefly in the news when it happened, but there appears to be no long term notability. Fails NOTNEWS and essentially, althoug not technically ONEEVENT since he's passed. StarM 03:06, 7 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 Source engine mods. MBisanz talk 00:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy (video game)[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable secondary sources that can establish notability of this Source engine mod. I have tried searching the major game websites, including searches of "Synergy Source", "Synergy Steam", "Synergy Valve", and "Synergy game" and came up with nothing. MuZemike 02:15, 7 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 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mansions[edit]

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

violates WP:NOT (this is not a place for lists of indiscriminate stuff); also violates WP:OR (original research) Mhking (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still considering my own comment, but I have to comment on yours. (1) The people listed as the owners are only mentioned for already known residences with an article which are supposedly verifiable and non-private (2) Listing someone's address is not a privacy violation. In the Netherlands we used to have books with zipcodes which did it all the time. No one is going to sue anyone for listing their home address unless it reveals details that aren't public. - Mgm|(talk) 13:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference with List of tallest buildings in the world is that these are all buildings that have articles themselves. The majority of the ones on this list are not generally known. - Mgm|(talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could limit the list to residences that are notable enough to have their own articles, or have notable occupants, as one way of refining the inclusion criterion. I'm sure there are enough of these to justify keeping the article. Antony-22 (talk) 21:52, 7 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 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communitychannel[edit]

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

— 124.178.145.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the articles tend to focus on Natalie Tran--perhaps a merge/rd to that page (itself currently a rd) would be helpful? JJL (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, she's only really notable for this, but it does seem to be notable, and CommunityChannel is not a single event. Given that the Natalie Tran article doesn't exist, that would be an article move anyway, and we're discussing deletion right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you explain why she is not notable? According to WP:WEB, communitychannel meets the criteria for being notable. She has been the subject of multiple news articles in reputable publications and has been featured in the media. Just look up the references in her article if you don't believe me to see if this is true.-Schnurrbart (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good point, her vlog isn't notable, but she is. A couple of the articles about her would, I believe, pass WP:WEB, therefore I would vote Keep but only if the article is renamed Natalie Tran with a redirect from Communitychannel, which (as she's a single person YouTube channel) would then be consistent with other YouTubers on the List of YouTube celebrities. Hotcrocodile (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that is reasonable. Can an article nominated for deletion be renamed before the decision of whether it should be kept or not is made or would we have to wait until after that decision is made to decide whether it should be renamed?-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and move) I would actually argue that her vlog is what is notable, her fame isn't as natalie tyler tran but as communitychannel, but looking how other vloggers entries are done it's using their names and you're linked from their vlog names. Salle81 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and move) I concur with Salle81. Her Vlog is notable, but keep it consistent with previous Vlog pages.----aaftabj-- (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At least some of them voted for deletion when the article was in a very preliminary state but a lot of progress has been made on the article since then so I think they would vote otherwise at this point.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:36, 10 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, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GibLink[edit]

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

The only reliable source that isn't a press release/self published is in forbes, and the coverage is not significant. Doesn't meet notability or web guidelines Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:48, 7 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 Userfy. Moved to User:Lavendercrayons/Carolyn's Hesburgh Project (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn's Hesburgh Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Carolyn's Hesburgh Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodded as apparent schoolwork that creates an alternate version of an existing article, Theodore Hesburgh. Deprodded with the following explanation: In response to the deletion: Yes, this is schoolwork. However, I am comparing the first and second revisions of a report I wrote for school. I did not copy the article on Theodore Hesburgh; I wrote about him. Please wait until Monday before deleting it. I think the author misunderstood the nature and purpose of Wikipedia. Delete or userfy.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:43, 7 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 Your Choice Records. MBisanz talk 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Your Choice Records bands[edit]

List of Your Choice Records bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. List of bands that signed with Your Choice Records, a minor German label. Any relevant information should be merged to the main article. We do not need a separate article. Also, a ((COI)) tag was removed at the same time as the prod. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Choice Records is an independent record label that has managed to create a fairly astonishing catalog of live European and American punk bands in an important period of time. It is very notable as it has documented and released moments of musical history that, even if it happened all independent and without major promotion and big money involved, had a huge impact to the development on music itself. I don´t think we need to argue about "punk" and question it´s existence here. But the musicians mentioned on the "List of Your Choice Records bands" really had strong believe in what they did and they made great changes possible, made people think and react. I think all this is very notable and NOT MINOR.

This extra page seems reasonable to feature the artists by their names. It is relevant information and Wikipedia, it is a nice overview and it is the right place to provide this information, so please help out to SAVE the info, not to delete! Thank you!

Some more, regarding the list of bands: Germany already agreed with the German version of the extra site. See: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Choice_Records_-_Diskografie and I really don´t understand the consideration for deletion. It feels so degrading...

Internal links to the pages of the various bands should fix the problem with the MISSING SOURCES, besides, there is a possibility to check the official site of the label and various sites about releases of the Your Choice Label on Wikipedia, done by various people...

To MERGE all of this to the main article seems to be a bit to much for that main site. What´s the problem with leaving it like it is? Do we have a problem with adding an extra site to Wikipedia for some reason?

Anyways please do what you have to do. It was a lot of work to prepare the info and site. If you need to delete for reasons I can not understand, well then go for it and delete. Party diktator (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary question is whether to merge this content with the Your Choice Records article. However, merger is a subset of keep. I think the best thing to do at this time is to work on sourcing the list and refine the format of the list. Then we can decide whether it should stand alone or be placed into the main article, but in either case, it would be kept. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 10 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 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vodkapundit[edit]

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

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A7 ; no source for "Green’s blog is one of the more widely-read political journals on the Internet, receiving thousands of visits daily from readers around the world", and the page has not been updated in some time. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should circular references from Google vis a vis Digg and StumbledUpon really count for a keep, though? 71.63.26.57 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A one-line mention in a print-article is enough to meet the notability guidelines? I don't think so. Topics are usually considered appropriate for an article if they have been written about in a non-trivial manner by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. This article fails the notability guidelines because, while information can be found on the subject's existence in the aforementioned articles, the subject's notability hasn't been proven. Not every blog can be written about on Wikipedia. The sources have to be about the blog itself, they can't merely mention it or refer to it. There has to be in-depth discussion of the blog, which does not occur in any of the aforementioned articles. Hats off to Themfromspace (talk) for pointing this out to me. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources (again, found in a very quick Google News search) are major news organisations quoting the blog as a source. The quotes are not single-line and refer to the blog as a major opinion source itself, thus asserting its notability. Have you searched for similar sources, before nominating this for deletion? onebravemonkey 06:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I never got a response to my question above so I've JFDI and added a few sources and reworded things. I'm currently having difficulty accessing the site in question (which is limiting my efforts), but this article really only needs someone to spend some time cleaning it up, rather than deletion. onebravemonkey 14:44, 2 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 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vodkapundit and the Weblog of Tomorrow, is a weblog created by Stephen Green and written by Green and Will Collier. ... Vodkapundit has become one of the more widely-read political journals on the Internet
And the following is about Green himself:
Green, self described as a "gourmand, sybarite, and raconteur," operates a blog focuses on issues of politics, food, adult beverages, Green's own hobbies and personal pursuits, and general culture. Green, a libertarian, credits Ayn Rand as one of his inspirations. Green and Vodkapundit are part of Pajamas Media. Green lives in Colorado Springs with his wife, Melissa, and their son. On December 16, 2006 Mr. Green reported that he had been diagnosed with hyperthyroid condition that caused him to severely lose weight and to suspend the frequency of his blogging. That condition is being treated. One of Green's signature blogging styles is to live blog a political event while consuming a large number of vodka martinis. ...Green has been described by James Lileks as having "mordant wit and stylish cynicism."
There's simply not enough about the blog itself to meet WP:N, but I think there's a case to be made for WP:BIO if moved and reorganized. chuuumus (talk) 01:57, 7 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 Fluxx. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxx goals[edit]

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

Previously nominated for deletion, resulted in merge. That was over a month ago, no merge done, so renominating for deletion. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:06, 2 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 00:17, 7 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 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna biennale[edit]

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

Non-notable art exhibit, fails WP:V. References are either trivial mentions or not reliable sources. Ghits. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, you may have something there. Looks like we've got 5 more days now. If you come up with anything further I'd be willing to withdraw this nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:19, 7 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 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vienna Biennale" is often used by mistake when people mean Venice Biennale established in 1895. Ty 16:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that in references like this (scroll down to "1979") it seems highly unlikely that Wien is being confused with Venedig. Deor (talk) 17:04, 7 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 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Defense Review[edit]

World Defense Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to meet requirements of WP:WEB; specifically, I can't find any reliable, third party references about this site. It's contributors are notable, and WDR's articles get reprinted, but there is no independent coverage. Recommend Delete, though I will withdraw if someone else has better luck finding sources. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 15:22, 2 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 00:10, 7 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. Tone 12:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best Of UWF[edit]

Best Of UWF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no sources. If you look at the (freebie hosting) website listed on the article, it's just a bunch of kids playing at wrestling. They removed the speedy I placed, so I've put it at AFD. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 09:24, 2 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 00:08, 7 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 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred James[edit]

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

Delete. This is not a given name - Alfred is the given name, James is one of the middle names. On WP, we do not keep pages to list everyone with a certain combination of given name and middle name. Please see Frank William's AfD. Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Del. There are pairs of names like "John Mark" (the name of the reputed author of the Gospel of Mark), that seem to occur together far more than statstics of the individual names would predict. But apparently random pairs of just of the most popular American male names (which cover 90% of that population) would run over a million articles, and the corresponding ones for American females over 4 million. By the end of WP's 16th year, that may be no big deal, but for now it would be a major change in the nature of the 'pedia's infrastructure, to little effect.
--Jerzy•t 07:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 08:19, 2 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, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a given name page would be giving information about a given name and a list of some notables with this given name. 'Alfred James' is not a given name, whereas 'Sarah-Louise' is. It is irrelevant whether any of these were known as 'Alfred-James', and none of the articles indicate that they were anyway. Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 7 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 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital amnesia[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. Only possible notable claim reference is in Microsoft marketing materials. Not enough on its own for notability. Must have more references appear or else it's non-notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added to content and included several more references citing several additional, reputable sources. I'll continue to build references and clean the definition. Microsoft reference came as as surprise to me as I was researching the term. I felt it necessary to include it with the definition. --Peyronnin (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolescence has a very generic feel. Digital Amnesia seems to really capture the transient state of our digital knowledge and its dependency on systems that are updated without regard to what is being lost. Obsolescence pertains to the equipment, the software and the technicians who operate on both. Digital amnesia pertains to the knowledge that is lost due to the rapid pace of change. Additionally, digital covers all hardware/software, not exclusively computers, in this crazy converged digital world. --Peyronnin (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey I love vacuum tubes! I have them in my guitar amp - nice warm sound. Of course, I old enough to remember tube testers at the hardware store when I was young.

There is some history to the "digital amnesia" concept. I used it when I taught Freshman level technology courses at my college. Perhaps think of it as the catalyst that has created the problem as well as the victim. It seems that the further we progress in developing stores of knowledge to be accessible from anywhere by anyone, the more tranisient and vulnerable it becomes. This is only possible by turning them into bits, eight per byte (do you remember EBCDIC?) It seems there should be an industry based on converting data from one format to another. There might be a long tail to support a nice business model. --Peyronnin (talk) 21:16, 2 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 00:06, 7 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 Ashley (singer). Mgm|(talk) 13:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abrazame[edit]

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

Fails wp:music Oo7565 (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read on. "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article" from WP:NALBUMS --neon white talk 02:13, 7 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 00:06, 7 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 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concert Guy[edit]

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

Music promotion company with no evidence of notability as defined in WP criteria (WP:N]). Article cites no references. The only online information I can find about this organization is its own myspace webpage and related pages on similar websites. (Maybe this music promoter will be notable some day, but it's not there yet.) An earlier version of the article (different title) was speedied. This one was prodded; the creator removed the prod template but did not address the notability issue, so here we are at AfD. Orlady (talk) 04:59, 2 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 00:06, 7 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mortdale Southside Warriors[edit]

Mortdale Southside Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Could be a hoax, certainly unsourced and does not seem notable. Grahame (talk) 07:17, 2 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) 00:05, 7 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 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Realism[edit]

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

This has been tagged for a few days now, and it still has no sources, and no real apparent notability. Right now it looks like OR with red links on wikipedia. I may be wrong, and I welcome that if the sources exist, but this should be on AFD for that reason.

There may, in some book, be a real concept of "abstract realism." Whatever that concept is, it needs to have sources here. If there is an abstract realism but it's not the same as what's being referred to here, that is not a reason to keep this topic (unless someone does the work to reform it completely). Shadowjams (talk) 04:56, 2 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, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...many artist are now working in what is a mixture of the two, what I and others have come to call abstract realism. This abstract realism is a form of art that sits between realistic depiction of the world and a non representational abstraction. No longer are the two separate and opposed, but come together to strengthen each other and form an alloy. The artist who can make realistic images, but takes that skill and creates a more abstract painting that is greater than sum of them both."
See also this satirical definition:
"Abstract Realism is an Art Movement for the twenty-first century and it is nothing that has not been done in the twentieth. It's got balls and it's a load of bollocks. It says too much and says nothing at all. It is Post Post-Modern. Abstract Realism is a movement of multiple manifestos."
I saw this article come in as a new page: I didn't like the look of it because of all the red-links, which made me fear it might be the start of a promotional walled garden of perhaps non-notable artists. However it was clearly too soon to tag it, so I just gave the author a welcome paragraph with links to the requirements for notability and independent sources. I did not intend to frighten him off, but it seems to have had that effect; perhaps he knows that the independent references are not available. This gallery notice featuring some of the names from the article, suggests my fears may have been right.
Conclusion: the movement may develop into something worth an article, but not yet, and anyway this isn't it. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 8 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. Mgm|(talk) 13:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Beard[edit]

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

Was prodded as having no reliable sources, no notability asserted. Prod was endorsed. An editor with a long history of removing prods with no reason per Wikipedia standards removed the prod notices and the notability tags. His only source added to the article was an IMDB page making an unreliable claim about the person's age. Only has extreme bit parts, notability clearly failed. DreamGuy (talk) 14:16, 2 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) 00:04, 7 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 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uros Derota[edit]

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

non notable individual, not referenced, does not assert notability, no reliable sources, promotional Troyster87 (talk) 02:47, 2 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, 7 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 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson Lundquist[edit]

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

non notable unreferenced RS free promotional article for bit actor Troyster87 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TangibleDreams (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)*All details listed are verified through the Internet Movie Database. Also entertainer is included/referenced in another wiki-article/page for "The Search for the Next Elvira" as a key player/role. Would the page for Elvira/Cassandra Peterson, altered by her management and updated by her agent be considered 'conflict of interest' as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TangibleDreams (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TangibleDreams (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC) *Entertainer is also listed on wikiarticle for Elvira/Cassandra Peterson which makes two separate article refrences.[reply]

TangibleDreams (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Source coverage available at: Cassandra Peterson see 'impersonators' The Search for the Next Elvira appeared in every episode and served as make-up artist for the finalists. Far more than a bit part.[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, 7 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 Procedural keep - nominator is sockpuppet banned for bad faith AfD nominations

Dj Patrick[edit]

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

non notable musician, not referenced, no reliable sources Troyster87 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I did google news, google, and gogle scholar searches that only resulted in anecdotal unrealiable sources and myspace links.Troyster87 (talk) 23:55, 4 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, 7 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 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Council for Technology in Education[edit]

Alabama Council for Technology in Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability for this organization mentioned, just brief explanation of. Seeing limited references in Google generally, over 4 years of existence, little improvement. Lucas20 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use some work and sourcing, but a Google search does return a few sources. -download | sign! 19:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I see 5 hits (all time) from regional news sources, and a mere 417 from Google Search itself. Most with non-notable substance. Clarify 'some work' ? -- Lucas20 (talk) 19:54, 2 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) 00:02, 7 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 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AVADirect[edit]

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

Spammy article about non-notable custom computer system builders; long history of seeming COI edits Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very much a notable company. It's one of six existing small computer manufacturing companies in America, it's shown up in every major computer magazine...how is it not notable? And as for COI edits...I work for a competitor and I am actually trying to keep this article up because our industry is so niche and is an endangered species, so to speak. We all stick together. Just because you're not familiar with this industry doesn't mean it's "not notable". --HeatherMTaylor (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — HeatherMTaylor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Here is a complete list of all 3rd party reviews done on the company. It's sourced off of AVAdirect's website, but all the links are to independent reviewing sources. That should be proof of notability. http://www.avadirect.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=40 --HeatherMTaylor (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Those are links to reviews on some sort of bulletin board maintained by AVA; if these are legit reviews, we need solid links to the third-party sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having looked at some of them, they do link to sites such as CNET (check for a link to the original source within the forum postings). However some of them are not reviews, but rather product information pages maintained by a third party, which serve no purpose. Rilak (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


With OrangeMike's help, the listing should be more in line with Wiki standards. Here are some links to prove notability:
http://reviews.cnet.com/1770-5_7-0.html?query=avadirect&tag=srch
http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review/5568/ava-direct-gaming-pc-workstation-review
http://g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/gadgetpr0n/66120/AVADirect-Gaming-PC-Review.html
http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming-laptops/avadirect-inc/avadirect-inc-avadirect-d901c-reviews-24154.htm
http://overclockershq.com/hardware-reviews/ava-direct-custom-gaming-pc-video-review.html
http://www.crn.com/white-box/199904838


Let me know if you need more information...or different information.--HeatherMTaylor (talk) 10:57, 4 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, 7 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 that there is a clear consensus to delete because the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imbalzano[edit]

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

Author made a page about himself Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:43, 2 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, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article, and NOTABLE point are 1) the ANECDOTE 2) RICH productivity 3) remarkable COINCIDENCE of scientific discovery on FERMAT (Wiles/Imbalzano) 4) eccentricity..? Imbalzanog (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention, in the interest of all the users. 1) I stayed contacted from a certain < anime_addict_aa@yahoo.com>: he has recopied the page ""http:// en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Imbalzano" on "http]:// www.wikinfo.org/ index.php/ Imbalzano"; he believe to do me a favor, without any request from me. 2) Applications from isolated users exist for cancellation of the page on "wikipedia" in base to the conceitedness of a personal interest, to which I have already answered, without strong objections from administrative part. 3) I remember: other interventions (past and future) they have made said page of the all neutral! 4) Now, finished the 5 days of discussion, I would ask kindly, also in the interest of the democracy on Wikipedia, to conclude with the acceptance of the page "Imbalzano." 5) Certainly, the ownership of English language will be bettered. User and member: "imbalzanog" (= Imbalzano "Garant"), for don't confuse this with "Giovanni" Imbalzano. Imbalzanog (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC) For ROBsavoie. Please read, and with much attention: see you the ISSN and ISBN?! NOT DELETE Imbalzanog (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP? Article is not political and not is commercial! Ah, ChrisTheDude is a scientist..? Imbalzanog (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP stands for Wikipedia... Oli OR Pyfan! 00:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude was saying there is no article on this subject on the Italian language Wikipedia, and that this indicates non-notability as far as the Italian speaking Wikipedia community is concerned. It could be that one has not been posted yet - if so, why not? It could be that one has been deleted. A quick index check there indicates it hasn't been posted there. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 7 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 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geshe Jinpa Sonam[edit]

Geshe Jinpa Sonam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not feel the subject of this article passes WP:BIO; I've looked for references and have come up empty-handed for anything that passes WP:RS 132 21:19, 2 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) 00:01, 7 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lawrence[edit]

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

non notable COI unreferenced autobiography on an unaccomplished individual Troyster87 (talk) 00:11, 2 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, 7 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 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Central Villa District[edit]

Beijing Central Villa District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

promo, non notanle, unreferenced, doesn't even have the chinese name included Troyster87 (talk) 00:08, 2 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, 7 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. Mgm|(talk) 13:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mizu WebPhone[edit]

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

Blatant advertising. User is creating multiple pages for his organization with similar content (for promotional purpose) and little notability. Other similar pages are Mizuphone and Mizu Softswitch Calltech (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: Original Speedy Delete denied - admin thought it better to use Afd to allow others to view pages first. Comments located here on my Talk Page Calltech (talk) 23:36, 2 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) 00:00, 7 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.
More