< 12 May	14 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Torture and the United States. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torture (US law definition)[edit]

An essay about the US definition of torture. Contravenes WP:SOAP. Effectively a fork of other articles and does not treat the subject in an encyclopedic manner. Don't let the footnotes fool you, most of them are not references. Gigs (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a suspected neologism. The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Torture", perhaps have a "US torture" section there or something. --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally redundant to Torture and the United States. Fences and windows (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Torture and the United States 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to create an account, please? The Junk Police (reports|works) 06:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There is some useful information buried in there, underneath the waterboard. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Torture and the United States as per anon. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per anon if there's any useful non-redundant information. Delete otherwise. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Wardhan[edit]

I can't find independent reliable third-party sources that suggest the subject fulfils criteria of either WP:MUSICBIO and Wikipedia:Notability (people) - there is only an album from an obscure Swiss label, which failed to chart. Btw the discography used by billboard is a mirror of the allmusic discography (allmusic uses Billboard charts). Hekerui (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 No notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is assertion of notability [performance in several countries, national radio and television (see official website)], but little or no reliable sources for verification. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sorry to say at this time. I was only able to find one independent reference, as shown here [1]. Good luck to him. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the claims of notability can be verified. I tried but found only the source User:Shoessss listed above and that is insufficient per WP:MUSICBIO/WP:GNG. Abecedare (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under G3 - Hoax (NAC)--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pierre IV[edit]

Hoax Passportguy (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which means it's going away right now. Ditto the user. There is no worse vandalism than a plausible-sounding hoax. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linglewood Lodge[edit]

Having previously copy edited this article, I contacted the authour and expressed concern over the notability of the establishment. Three weeks later, nobody has edited the articles besides myself and the notability concerns remain. A google search throws up nothing (except a B&B Cumbria) of any use. As such, despite being a major contributor to the article, I don't feel it meets the WP:GNG. HJMitchell You rang? 23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are only incidental mentions and don't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. References don't establish WP:N.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Phillips (actor)[edit]

PROD was contested, but still fails WP:BIO due to insufficient secondary sources, and only one notable role is not enough to meet the criteria per WP:ENT. —Snigbrook 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does he not meet WP:ENT with the one role, he doesn't meet the more general terms of WP:NOTE unless someone can find significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which I just don't see. Drawn Some (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single role is not sufficient for ntoability in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Appearing in 1 episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures and one episode of Belonging is not enough. Perhaps his theater work received some decent reviews? I was able to verify the existance of Jaws 1916 [2][3] as a documentary which will air later in 2009 about the historical 1916 New Jersey shark attacks that inspired the Jaws (film series). Perhaps when it airs this kid will get more coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A long and varied career makes one successful. A long and varied career captured by reliable sources makes one notable. She appears to fall more in the former category. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Bennett (actor)[edit]

Actor who appears to have only had small parts in several TV shows and short films. I could find no significant coverage whatsoever in either Google, Google News, or Google Books searches. The IMDB entry (the article's only source) does not suggest that she has reached an adequate level of notability as an actor. Michig (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is this item which is very brief about a play she wrote. That's it for sources about her. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To get a good idea of her notability as an actor, see the IMDB entry - most parts are one-off small roles. In the two productions that on the face of it look most impresive, Torchwood and Stuart: A Life Backwards, she played "Female Teacher" and "Anne Campbell's PA" respectively - I think that says it all.--Michig (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thought the same thing myself before I started digging. She has an interesting career as a playwright (at least 3 plays), a theatrical producer, a stage director, and a thespian before and during her work in film and television. The soucring is difficult because of her common name and because I am not relying on IMDB for anything. Got into it to see if there was the slightest chance... and am still working on it. Whew. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's had various theatre jobs and small acting roles, and one of her plays was nearly included in a festival, but I don't see any notability there. The tone of the article is misleading - most of the TV shows she appeared in are not award-winning, let along multi-award winning, and she only had minor roles, and the one award that is mentioned (the Golden Reel) was for sound editing, so nothing to do with her. Many of the "other projects" are just bit parts. Her website seems rather desperate, reprinting the cast list from the one episode of the execrable daytime soap Doctors that she appeared in. While I wish her luck in her career, she has nowhere near the notability required for an article here at present. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be frank, a claim that the shows were award winning seemed to require verification, and I thought it would be a bit tedious to have to dig through and source the various shows' awards and nominations that were indicated at [4], [5], [6], and [7]. I do understand your reasoning though. With more digging, she might edge over the bar set by the WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a user-editable site, IMDB is not a reliable source.

No, sorry... its Wikipedia that is a user-edited site. IMDB does accept "submissions" from readers as well as from industry experts, as well as the facts their own staff has researcged... and all such are vetted for accuracy before IMDB publishes. HOWEVER, the links above were only offered per "IMDB is acceptable as a starting point for further research" in order to show that the various shows seemed to have won awards... without my having spent the time to dig through dozens of differrnt databases to confirm what IMDB purports. No more. No less. I feel reasonably confident that each and every purported award can be verified multiple times in multiple reliable source outside of IMDB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the awards for the programmes are genuine, but they're irrelevant as none of them are awards for Lorna Bennett or awards for things that she has made a major contribution towards. Some IMDB content is wholly written by the subjects themselves by the way. An article deleted last year pointed to a bio on IMDB as evidence of coverage, but the bio had been written entirely by its subject. I doubt that the IMDB staff go to the effort of verifying facts in those cases. I don't believe IMDB has ever been accepted as a reliable source here, but that's moot as far as this discussion is concerned as there's nothing there that indicates the notability of the subject of this article anyway.--Michig (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the list of appearances may seem impressive, there doesn't appear to be much more than bit parts. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Not quite at the level of WP:ENT--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been in enough notable films and whatnot to be considered notable. Dream Focus 20:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't see how a small number of small parts such as "Female Teacher" represents the significant roles as outlined in WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has an extensive CV, not only with the acting, but her playwrighting, directing and producing credits are significant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.236.158 (talk)
Delete Utterly fails WP:ENTERTAINER's rules on notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient independent recognition to be N. – Zedla (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catriona Renton[edit]

PROD was removed as IMDB.com reference was added, but there is still no evidence of sufficient coverage per WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 22:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance even in relation to others in the same line of work. Drawn Some (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:BLP as an unsourced BLP that doesn't appear to have the significant coverage needed for an article of her own. My google news search shows that she hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in the media. There's quite a few hits for her on a regular google search but most are trivial mentions (many where she was reporting the news) and none where she is the actual subject of the story. Them From Space 06:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Author blanked J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolic logic (books)[edit]

Firstly, this article is not what it claims to be: an article about Symbolic Logic books. Secondly, it an unneeded grab-bag of logic factoids, all found elsewhere. Probably a school essay.Reason Hairhorn (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This close applies to this article only, the others, lacking the notification template, will need a separate AfD. I will userfy the content if someone thinks that it will help make a proper article, but I think you've got your work cut out for you. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Days Gone Bye[edit]

Whole article is nothing more than plot summary with no sources, no attempt to explain why anyone should care, etc.. This AFD should also be considered to contain sister articles Miles Behind Us, Safety Behind Bars, The Heart's Desire, The Best Defense (comics), This Sorrowful Life, The Calm Before, Made to Suffer, Here We Remain and Those Left Behind, which have all the same problems and were created at the same time. DreamGuy (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the creator of the articles in question and because of that conflict of interest I'll abstain from the vote, but I would like to explain my actions. I'm not exactly a fan of the series, but I noticed the edit wars over the plot summary length, which was incredibly long. and full of OR. I made a good faith attempt at a compromise by condensing the summary as much as I thought possible it but that did not stop the problems with the article. Thinking that separate articles for the collections might be a solution I created the new articles you see now. Usually when I create a new article I spend time finding sufficient sources to avoid this problem, however I was rushed for time and hoped that others could step up. I'm not looking for a argument or a fight and I am willing to accept any decision made by the community. I did make an attempt to track down some sources, however they are few making me wonder if I was too hasty in my decision to create the articles. If the articles are deleted, which is probably the best solution, I suggest that an experienced editor with knowledge of the serious fashion a new plot summary for The Walking Dead, hopefully under 700 words so it can address other editors problems with the plot synopsis of The Walking Dead. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article, but trim The plot is too valuable to delete, but at the same time some references need to be added in. Please do not message me asking to find these, I am busy and barely had time to help with this. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AfD templates haven't been put in the additional articles in the nomination, so this discussion can't be considered to contain them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. They're not notable enough and lack sufficient sources. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. All ridiculously long plot and nothing else. Prefer to see these deleted, but could be merged back in to the main The Walking Dead article. Will try to raise an AfD on all and point back to this AfD discussion to satisfy Phil. Astronaut (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the advice in Wikipedia:BUNDLE, I'll wait to see how it is going for a bit longer before adding the remaining articles. Astronaut (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gordon (entrepreneur)[edit]

This teenager's autobiography has no sources, and I can't find any to add. He may be notable someday, but that day hasn't yet arrived. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable self-promotional autobiography. No references cited. Drawn Some (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As shown here [8] not a single reference was found for this Jack Gordon. Even looked under John Gordon, as shown here [9] with the same results. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used this search, but I got the same result: nothing. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship launches in 1870[edit]

Completely unnecessary, random list of a few (8) ships launched in 1870. Why 1870?? Surely more than 8 ships were launched in 1870 and I'm quite positive not every ship launched in 1870 was from the UK. Perhaps it would be better as a category to classify NOTABLE ships launched in that year. Article has not changed since November 2008. HJMitchell You rang? 21:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's part of the 1870 in transportation category and part of a series of lists of ship launchings for each year, there's a template at the bottom of the page. Wouldn't it be easier just to list all of them for the AfD instead of doing it piecemeal? Drawn Some (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commissioned naval vessels, like these early battleships, ironclads and rams, have been judged notable and kept in previous AFDs. The major ships of one of the world's major naval powers is hardly "random." I cannot think of any exceptions. The references are in the individual articles. A "List of" is presumed to include only notable things. Lists in this series are consistent with the guideline WP:LIST. If you can find more naval vessels launched in 1870, add them. The references in which to look are at the bottom of the pages about the individual ships. Edison (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of a wider scheme of other similar articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. Iowateen (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hopefully merge into a list of ship launches in the 1870s. That would solve the question of "why 1870" since decades are an acceptable method of categorization. Them From Space 06:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list of notable ships as should be obvious from the brief notes in the article itself, plus the fact there are articles for every ship listed. It is in no way random and organizes the information in a way a category could not. Edward321 (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the originator of this list and many, many others in the ship launches/commissionings/decommissionings/shipwreck series. I also no longer edit Wikipedia, and found this AfD on a rare visit. I myself find lists quite useful, as others obviously do not. (I found categories useless, but wouldn't contemplate asking for them to be deleted). Each of the lists I began took a great deal of time to compile. If you disagree, delete this small list and try to start it again from scratch, and then try a larger one. And if you believe it lacks content, don't complain, add to it - it's not a difficult concept. I fully intended to continue adding to these lists, however debates exactly like this one indicated it was a total waste of my time to continue, and this precipitated my exit as an editor. Also, the lists were rapidly tagged, sometimes within minutes, for lack of references. Why reference when each launch is linked to the full article which is referenced? So ends my comment, and further will not be forthcoming. This is my opinion only, and everyone is entitled to theirs. Now, back to obscurity Camerong (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for a ridiculous nomination. Nominator needs to read WP:CLN to familiarize him/herself with the synergistic nature of categories and lists. Also, AFD is not the place for articles that merely need improvement. Using Category:1870 ships (already linked at the bottom of the article page) I expanded the list by almost 50% in about 20 minutes time. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Bellhalla (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tatarstan football team[edit]

Like Bashkortostan, this team is not notable. It only competed in a domestic Russian competition open to all competitors. Stu.W UK (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable. Giant Snowman 22:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. John Sloan @ 18:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algebra of systems[edit]

It seems that the article shows a new research idea (2007) and has been created by the authors of this idea, Benkoo and Willardsimmons, and there has been no discussion Jgc2003 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever else it is, this text is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever: Algebra of systems (AoS) is an executable systems modeling framework for system synthesis and evaluation. It can be used to automate complex model reasoning tasks for system design projects. AoS provides a formal structure for reasoning about elements and interactions of systems using an algebraic structure containing a set of operands and operators. The knowledge about the possibilities of system configurations is encoded in a recursive data structure called the AoS operand domain. The transformation tasks required to manipulate the operands is generalized as three meta-operators, encode, enumerate, and evaluate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cann't seem to find any third party sources commenting on this subject, so I guess this article classiffies as original research. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And while we're about it, let's delete the sister article Object Process Network as well. --RichardVeryard (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Australian Jockey Club. Sources appeared later in the discussion that favored merging over the delete !vote. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AJC Easter Carnival[edit]

Appears to be completely non-notable part of a redlinked festival, poorly sourced, not likely to be improved. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Non-notable organization, don't try to tell me it's not speediable. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Festivals ≠ A7. :) Cunard (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Very poor article, terribly sourced, and non-notable organization. Unrelated with anything that would be considered encyclopedic. Diana LeCrois : 22:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed the speedy deletion tag because the festival appears to pass WP:N per this Google News Archive search. Cunard (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the Google News Archive search are all passing mentions. This festival fails WP:N. Cunard (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to keep per 66.57.4.17 (talk · contribs). The sources provided prove that this carnival passes WP:N. A merge to Australian Jockey Club would also be a viable option. Cunard (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a carnival with 100+ years of tradition, that is covered on all major television channels in Australia, and with several millions dollars in prize money. [10], [11], [12] etc. Note that "AJC Easter Carnival" yeilds less ghits than, say, 'Sydney "Easter Carnival"' or 'Randwick "Easter Carnival."' I'm not sure what the above comments about non-notable organizations are referring to, but the Australian Jockey Club is for sure a "notable" organization. 66.57.4.17 (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian Jockey Club, which is notable. If article grows to a length that's unsustainable, then a spin off may be in order StarM 01:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a newly created Sydney Autumn Racing Carnival article, along the same lines as Melbourne Spring Racing Carnival. The AJC Easter Carnival bears the same relationship to the Sydney Autumn carnival as the Caulfield Carnival bears to the Melbourne Spring carnival. Either way, the AJC carnival is part of one of Australia's largest sporting carnivals, attracting huge crowds and suggestions for speedy deletion are absurd. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Australian Jockey Club, doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable as a stand-alone article. – Zedla (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#G7 as a blatant hoax, as confirmed by comments below. --Angelo (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Cervantes[edit]

Very likely hoax. Name was also newly added to F.C. Barcelona page squad page. Google turns up no relavant hits for "Edgar Cervantes Barcelona" Passportguy (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable, probably hoax. —Snigbrook 22:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable hoax. Fences and windows (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax: the FC Barcelona squad is listed here and he isn't in it. JohnCD (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. John Sloan @ 23:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 00:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Margaret Boat Club[edit]

Delete

It is almost completely unsourced
It is filled with obscure and unexplained rowing jargon
It sounds more like a piece of propaganda than a merited article
There is no indication that it is notable to a wide audience
If it is to be kept it requires some verifiable sourcing

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs)

Keep Plenty of references to establish notability and for verifiability. Check Google Books alone, this club goes back to 1825. If you think the article is substandard get in there and clean it up, don't waste time trying to get it deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you to the nominator for inadvertently supporting my talk-page point about WP:BEFORE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough notability. Needs to be further improved, though, with the aid of reliable sources that can establish some more easier verifiability. But I don't see a reason for delete instead of improve. Diana LeCrois : 22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the fame of Oxford and Cambridge rowing, deletion of any of the college rowing teams would seem odd, but particularly this one. Fences and windows (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of the reasons given for deletion are valid reasons. They are all reasons for fixing up the article. LMBC is clearly notable, not least for representing Cambridge in 1837 against The Queen's College, representing Oxford, a race that is said to have influenced the starting of the Henley Regatta. There should be a source for that somewhere. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The reasoning and logic of the delete !votes are enough not to call this a keep, but there are sources that probably meet our low thresholds for inclusion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Quintana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brian quintana

Non-notable figure. The original article read like a piece of promotional fluff for Mr. Quintana. While I have attempted to improve the article by providing sources, I now feel this person is at best of marginal notability. The results of a search on Google News has the most probable piece of news about Mr. Quintana being his getting a restraining order against Paris Hilton forbidding her from coming close to him - see here for a MTV News article about that. That's not in the article as it's of marginal value. Beyond that, the most substantial news article about Brian is a story which ran in the Los Angeles Times in March of this year (found here) which paints Mr. Quitana in a most unflattering light by pointing out his litiguousness and his habit of name-dropping others. He has twice stood for political office (specifically ), he lost one time and withdrew the second, so he doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:BIO regarding political figures is of no assistance there. He has mentioned as a producer of a movie ("Superman: The Man of Steel" - see here for one example), but the film in question is nowhere near production stage according to IMDB (see here for the IMDB entry).

In short, nothing which renders him notable. Tabercil (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"best known for his celebrity contacts"? Ouch. Claims to notabilty seem to be: he worked for famous people, and he lost an election. Seems like a good ~~delete~~ [see below] candidate. His IMDB page shows only a thank you in one film, no actual films produced. If he is noteworthy, the article needs to have all the exaggeration and POV cut out of it. Hairhorn (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I read an early version of the article and I'm (happily) not up to date on celebrity lawsuits. He does seem to be notable, but only as a litigant. So weak keep. But the article as written is still nonesense. I don't see any evidence he's even a "Hollywood film producer": working for another producer doesn't make you a producer, and the press coverage I've since seen refers to him as an "event planner". Hairhorn (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is still promotional fluff. He's not notable, he's notorious, and the two are not the same. If it is kept, the article won't be flattering, as half of the new sources about him are about the Paris Hilton thing, and the most indepth is quite a hatchet job:[13]. He's a non-notable name-dropper and serial litigator. Fences and windows (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as promotional BLP. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wish to point out that the creator of the article has placed comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana arguing why he feels the article should not be deleted. I also want to point out that said editor is an SPA who has taken ownership of the article, reverts all edits calling them vandalism, and has not assumed good faith. Tabercil (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement/non-vote by article creator copied from talk page: --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Non-notable people don't make the cover of the LA Times or have 1 million plus Google hits. Prior to their recent hit piece on Quintana (by a former Court TV columnist), The LA Times identified him as a producer with ties to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons on three separate occasions:

The day ends with a 3,000-seat black-tie dinner and concert, with scheduled performances by Carole King and Jimmy Buffet, among other. Invited glitterati include Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, said Brian Quintana, a Malibu producer involved in the planning. “Nancy Pelosi wanted a humble swearing-in and to go about the people's business,” Quintana said. “Then calls started coming in from all over the country. She decided we needed to thank the people who helped her get here.” Faye Fiore 12/11/06 http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/11/nation/na-pelosi11?page_type=article&exci=2006%7C12%7C11%7Cnation%7Cna-pelosi11&pg=1

"and former Pelosi staffer-turned-Hollywood producer Brian Quintana also attended the morning festivities." Tina Daunt, January 5, 2007 http://webapp1.latimes.com/yourtimes/media_personalities/poli_td_story.html

"If Clinton loses in New Hampshire tonight, predicted longtime political operative turned Hollywood producer Brian Quintana, Hollywood "will defect to Barack in droves. It is not a question of loyalty; Barack is simply too close to making history for Hollywood not to be part of it," Quintana said. "For most of us, Hillary was our first choice, but she has come up short. Barack has become a movement." http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-cause8jan08,0,4545063.story Four Presidents, Speaker Pelosi, and countless national figures appear cozy in photographs with Quintana on his website and other published sites. No one has questioned the authenticity of those photos. The LA Times has since retracted their story and as I noted in an LA Times blog:

Shame on the LAT for the hatchet job you did on producer Brian Quintana last Sunday (3/22/09). As a native of East LA who has emerged as one of the ranking Latinos in Hollywood, Brian serves as a role model to countless Latinos and young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds like me. Prior to his current lawsuit against Jon Peters, Brian has sued exactly one person, and that was in small claims Court in 1995. (He prevailed in the civil matter.) You failed to mention that he has never been sued until the current counter claim by Peters. That's not bad in the entertainment industry. http://www.edpadgett.com/blog/2009/03/response-to-brian-quintana-article.html The fact that two separate Courts granted him protective orders ten years apart and lifted one of the two is not unusual. As for his pending suit against his producing partner, The Hollywood Reporter which is an industry standard is by far the least tabloid write up. http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/12/superman-produc.html

It appears Quintana's foe Jon Peters planted the hit piece and removed his screen credit on their $175M Superman sequel, but other industry sites continue to list Quintana as co-producer: http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Brian_Quintana/5351986 http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-0C9K/superman-man-of-steel/ USA Today and other national outlets tout him as a prospective candidate for Congress which clearly qualifies him as a public figure. At best Quintana is a self made role model to the Latino community. At worst the verdict is still out. Let's not write his obit yet. www.brianquintana.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeledean (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [14], [15], [16], [17] would indicate there is more than a minimum of coverage to establish notability. Issues of article ownership, conflict of interest, tone, and verifiability can be dealth with through editting. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no notability by association. --Bejnar (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you review the sources I put forth? The first one is about him -- as in primary subject. The third and fourth are also about him. As per WP:NOTE, this is signifcant coverage address the subject directly in detail. I fail to see how it is notability by association. -- Whpq (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response It is not the sources, it is the lack of any personal notability. He didn't do anything notable. --Bejnar (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Four and Five are from the celebrity gossip sections of notable newspapers. I'm not sure how we are to account for this in determining whether they are from reliable sources which WP:NOTE requires. After all, wikipedia is not supposed to be a tabloid per WP:BLP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per passing in spades the inclusion requirements of WP:N and WP:GNG by the very few examples shared by User:Whpq and the inumerable examples found through even the laziest of cursory searches. This guy is all over the news... and last time I checked guideline, that makes him notable. Any concerns with the article's style or its improperly made assertions is to be addressed though copyedit and WP:CLEANUP. AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes notability test easily, but the article is in danger of becoming a WP:COATRACK for BLP violations; I am not certain that the cited material in the article (all about harrassment suits and the like) doesn't violate WP:UNDUE in some real way; however this is a cleanup issue, and the subject seems notable so the article should be kept. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I would love for the article to be fair & balanced, but there's not a whole lot of material out there at reliable sources about Brian. Additionally, I don't see how we can even use material on Brian's own website given that the most substantial article about him at a reliable source is this one which clearly raises questions about the subject's own veracity. I do believe Fences & Windows put it best earlier: "He's not notable, he's notorious" Tabercil (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michaeldean above dug up a bunch of less critical references. There's tons of stuff out there, it will just take someone dedicated enough to use it to build a good article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Michaeledean did. As I pointed out below, one of the source he used is Brian Quintana's own website. Another source he used got tagged by Fences & Windows as "not in citation given". Tabercil (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes notability test easily. I added cited positive material to balance those regarding harassment. Tabercil's claims that not many positive articles exist are unfounded. One need only go to links on his website and Fame Game that take you to reliable source material. --michaeldean.talk.contribs 23:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeledean (talk • contribs) [reply]

Uh-huh. Right. You added material sourced from Brian's own website as the balancing "positive" when we already know from the LA Times article that he's a exaggerator. Not a good idea... Tabercil (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added The Hollywood Reporter, The Los Angeles Independent, and South Coast Magazine. The fact that Quintana's website links to them does not make them any less credible. Why would he link to negative stories about himself. Further, the LA Times was clearly a hit piece and should be taken for what it was. The fact that a Hollywood producer is a bit full of himself does not make them any less notable. If you have personal issue with this Quintana then perhaps you should not edit his Wiki. michaeldean (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeledean (talk • contribs) [reply]

I don't have anything against Mr. Quintana either way. All I want from this article is the same thing regarding every article on Wikipedia: one that is well-written, neutral in viewpoint and backed by references to reliable sources. As the article stands right now, the first point is debatable, the second is non-existant and the last point (reliable sources) is what largely prompted me to issue the AfD. Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty surprised that "Michaeledean" is still allowed to edit this article, or that he's even on wiki anymore after getting a final warning. I'm also surprised no one has taken the term "Hollywood film producer" out of the article, or at least added "citation needed", in light of Brian Quintana's imdb page: [18]. Hairhorn (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Michaeledean" stopped unilaterally reverting the article back to his original version and started participating in the give and take of Wikipedia, that's why. Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is he noteworthy for? Nightscream (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly! He didn't do anything notable. --Bejnar (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He hasn't done anything notable. Dismas|^(talk) 04:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability doesn't require that he be famous or popular, some people seem confused on that fact. Brian Quintana is a notable person in Hollywood and Washington DC as the many sources indicate. Dogtownclown (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert (Bob) Kennedy[edit]

autobiography; subject not notably referenced in outside reliable sources. I first PRODded but a new account removed the prod. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - needs much better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem like he's covered in reliable sources. Notability is not established. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced / self-sourced bio of a living person. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Theisen
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Alan Theisen[edit] Alan Theisen (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Article appears to be entirely self-promotional and regarding an unremarkable subject which is not in the public interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triterubbish (talk • contribs) 19:51, May 13, 2009 (UTC) Weak delete, subject fails notability test at WP:COMPOSER, but looks promising to pass in the future. He did start a new-music festival, but it's not yet notable either. No significant 3rd party coverage found in Google. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, tedder (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm going on a limb and say weak keep due to his contributions as a composer as well as an academic in his field (has a Ph.D). While I could not find anything in a Google search, for stuff like this, one may have to look past Google to find something. MuZemike 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 18:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breakaway Ministries[edit]

I do not believe this article meets WP:N. The article is about a university organization which has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It has been mentioned in several newspaper articles, and its founder has received more coverage, but the organization itself has not. Of the sources listed in the article are the following:

an opinion piece, written by a student, in the school newspaper (The Battalion) which is used to source the sole claim of notability ("largest college Bible study in the nation")
The organization website (4 references)
biographies of artists who have performed at or led individual gatherings (2)
a review of cds
2 articles (one in the local paper The Eagle and one for an e-zine) that mention that the organization held services after the collapse of Aggie Bonfire. Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google News search is not bringing up much of anything non-trivial in reliable sources. There is a Christian Post article about the pastor leaving to go to a Houston church and there are mentions of attendance of 4,000 and 5,000 though sometimes that is qualified. Basically I see it as a church on a college campus and it doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Drawn Some (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Iowateen (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graysian theory[edit]

Non-notable and possibly non-existent. This purports to be an economics theory devised by a high school economics teacher and onetime political candidate. The book mentioned, Studies in Economics and Business, appears to be a series of study guides. Koppas (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. No independent source cited, nothing in Google Scholar, only WP mirrors in Google. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of any reliable sources, which can be further demonstrated using Google Books, which only returns an issue of Penthouse Magazine that does not appear to have anything to do with the article's subject. (I would also like to note that the article appears to be mostly a Coatrack for a biography of the economist who created the theory, who may be notable due to his political career.--Unscented (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of research by Unscented and JohnCD and the nominator Koppas. Non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Clearly non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadminton[edit]

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

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

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

Badminton variant said to be a "world renowned sport". PROD removed with the comment: "This game is rather famous in England - certainly in Surrey. While this was created by Caterham School students, it has been known to have been played for years in other schools or colleges...", but no sources are cited, and I can find nothing, e.g. Google, Google News, News Archives to suggest that it is in any way notable. There is a reference on this forum, but it's to a different game which sounds like Tetris. Delete as not notable. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like fun and I hope it catches on. WP:MADEUP. Drawn Some (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First time I've seen something that really was made up in school one day in some time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge Add it to the article Badminton under a category called "Variants".--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)::But it's NOT a variant, it's just something some kids made up one day. There are no sources for verifiability. It is essentially a hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:HOAX, and WP:NEO. Also Checkuser article creator, User:Willatkinslegend. The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why checkuser him? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is clearly an interesting sport, I think we should keep it - Clarky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.220.140 (talk) — 86.172.220.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - <<- and the reason there are few other topics is because I have a dynamic IP.
Keep - I think that it should be kept - or at least - merged into badminton. It is definately a popular sport - just look at the Facebook page! - WARA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.24.21 (talk) — 80.42.24.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete and oppose merge. It's completely unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we should definitely keep Quadminton. Sounds like a really fun game, so where's the harm in allowing people to learn about it. (On behalf of IP 93.186.20.162)— 93.186.20.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - (just keeping all of the comments made up here :) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.24.21 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel that Quadminton is a sport which warrants a Wiki article. It clearly appeals to a large number of people - and just by reading the article it has made me want to play it! What's wrong with an article giving information / promoting an obscure sport? One person's 'irrelevent' sport is someone else's hobby, and Quadminton should be treated with the respect it deserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumbo mumbo (talk • contribs) 17:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and WP:NOHARM. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unverifiable. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – lack of verifiability as noted above. Likely madeup. MuZemike 20:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable, not notable, and smells very WP:MADEUPy. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Sport was discovered by the captain of Diversity which i believe to be an old old wooden ship from the falklands war. This Glorious sport was the salvaged amidst the battle and brought back to Caterham School in Surrey where it was adapted into Quadminton! This Sport then spread between surrounding schools creating the sport we know and love today. This piece of history deserves a space on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.1.161 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Bollocks! -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. See, especially, in that essay the sentence: "Probably the most prolific source of complete bollocks is the bored student fraternity." How true. JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, so now the game was not created at the school, but was found somewhere? OK, that's great. Can you prove it with something reliable other than arguments that the game is really cool or interesting? Sauce, please! Is this fusion of badminton and four-square really all that notable? I mean, I'm sure it's cool, but this is not for Wikipedia if it can't meet those basic requirements. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can you prove anything? If they came back with a book or website, how could you say for certain that that is not false? Yes, quadminton was a sport which was made up, but surely all sports were made up? How can you classify something like rugby as a sport when it was a variation on another sport (football) created by a bored student during a games lesson (William Webb Ellis at Rugby school), but quadminton notas one? All sports start somewhere, and quadminton is in danger of being ignored over some rules and technicalities! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.25.20 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a notice-board or a newspaper. If William Webb Ellis had just invented Rugby, it would not get a Wikipedia article until it had become notable, i.e. had taken off and been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Before you complain any more, please read Wikipedia is not for things made up one day - it's all explained there, I'm not going to write it all out again. JohnCD (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Because people are unwilling to even merge, I am now in support of keeping this article.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Forget it! I am no longer part of this discussion.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is a sport which warrants a page. It has been mentioned in some books (including the e-novel 'Love in Zero-G' by Hathno Paige (quote: "The rest of the room looked fine too, with the exception of some quadminton rackets spilled from a storage locker" http://darkplanet.basespace.net/fiction/loveg.html ) - a story written and published in 2001.) It clearly appeals to a large number of people, and has been documented in various other areas. It would be worth keeping the article, almost certainly. Will Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willatkinslegend (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has quadminton been mentioned in any other sources at all? A google search for quadminton -wikipedia turns up only two references: this "e-novel" and one post to a forum about video games. Both of them appear to me to be independent references and neither appears to be a reference to this game. Can you tell us some of the other books or articles that have mentioned this game so that we can verify them? Tim Pierce (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well researched, Willatkinslegend, but the not-so-soft-porn "e-novel" is (a) from 2001, well before you invented your version, (b) about quite a different sort of game, with only a glancing reference to "Quadminton rackets". The forum one sounds like a sort of sideways Tetris. Neither is "significant coverage in a reliable source" of your version. Sorry, boys, but you really are wasting your time and ours; please read WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE QUADMINTON SAVE THE WORLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.193.255 (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...so you like it? That's it? We don't keep something only because you like it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you delete something only because you don't like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.92.22 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, I'm sure it's a nice sport and would like to see it played someday, but it's still not suitable for inclusion unless someone here can show through reliable secondary sources. Please assume good faith. MuZemike 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then if we delete stuff for disliking this, why are we told to avoid this as an argument? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - another SPA IP has changed "world-renowned" to "up-and-coming" - but see WP:UPANDCOMING - and added a link to bbc.co.uk/sport which, needless to say, says nothing about Quadminton. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question does it matter if Will Carling supported the 'Keep Quadminton on Wikipedia' movement via my Twitter page? I have had quite a few messages of support, through the Channel Bee 'banterpit', and the BBC 606 message boards - as well of course as the many hundreds who have now joined the Facebook page. This clear level of support must count for something - surely proving the 'relevance' of Quadminton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.92.22 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - I'd think so. Surely if so many people think the sport is worthwhile, and worthy of a page, it must surely be relevent. But who am I, I am only a humble Wiki user and not a high-and-mighty admin, who ultimately gets to shout everyone else down... :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumbo mumbo (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not an admin. I maintain my delete !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does indeed count for something: it means that with that much enthusiasm, some day soon quadminton may in fact be sufficiently notable and verifiable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. But I don't think that it is ready for that yet. I look forward -- quite seriously! -- to the day when you can come back and cite enough independent reliable sources to create a quality article about the game. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- not-so-diplomatic response - No. See that link. If you're responding like this, you did not read that link the first time it was posted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Twitter page concerned is here and shows Will Atkins spamming ~~all the celebs he can think of~~ various celebs that "The wiki nerds want to shut our sport down". Nonsense, Will, nobody wants to shut your sport down, you are welcome to go and play it as much as you like, that would be a much better use of your time than trying to get it a Wikipedia article without taking the trouble to read Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, or understanding that Wikipedia only remains useful because of its policies of Verifiability and No Original Research. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JohnCD - I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks - Keep it civil chaps.
  - Posting my Twitter page and then abusing me? I didn't think someone would stoop that low, to prevent something which will have no impact on their lives. To be honest, I'm regretting ever writing the article. It has been nothing more than a massive waste of my time, which would have been better spent living my life. My only advice to the 24 hour Wiki police is to see the light and step away from the computer. I am. If the article is deleted, it will be a shame. If it is kept, does it really matter? No. Oh well. JohnCD - congratulations. You have won. Regards, Will A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.86.47 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but if your Twitter page was meant to be private, you shouldn't have brought it into the argument - it took exactly three clicks to find it via Google, and as you quoted it in support, it's reasonable to let people see what's going on there. And I'm sorry if you feel abused, but I think many of us are getting tired of explaining Wikipedia basics over and over and over again to people who clearly aren't listening. Best of luck with your new game, put as much energy into developing it and recruiting players and organising tournaments as you have into pushing this article, and presently you'll get people writing about it independently and columns in the sports pages and eventually someone will write a Wikipedia article about it. But that comes well down the track, not at the beginning. Regards, and thanks for the message on the Twitter page. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You always have to have the last word don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.219.69 (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about having the last word -- it's about hoping that you understand what happened here. Honestly, it is not fun trying to delete material off Wikipedia. This is not something that we do to get our jollies. But one of the reasons that Wikipedia is useful enough for Jeremy to use for history is that it is relatively free of fluff and nonsense, and one of the ways we keep it free of fluff is by deleting material that isn't verifiable and doesn't appear to be notable.

I am absolutely serious when I say that I look forward to seeing a "quadminton" article that can cite reliable sources to document that it's more than just something you and your mates made up a few days ago. I love seeing new knowledge come into the encyclopedia. But we need to maintain consistent standards of reliability and verifiability in order to keep it from becoming a joke. I hope very much that you understand what's going on here and that you will come back one day with enough material on quadminton to make a decent article. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The spamfest being orchestrated by the authour is not remotely helpful here. Google throws up 54 sources, but ommits all but 9 because they're so similar. Indeed, almost every single site it throws up is part of the aforementioned spamfest. It appears the same message has been posted to every forum and twitter page to be found. If it was the subject of a single WP:RS.... but it's not. HJMitchell You rang? 18:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made up, with no sources. For what it's worth, I only came over here because of this great page - Alex Muller 19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For being total bollocks --WebHamster 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:HOAX BigDunc^Talk 13:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources. Camw (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources seem to exist, so completely unverifiable. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News of this new sport reached me at Birmingham university, without any of its inventors contacting me to alert me of it. The fact that this sport has spread not only a large distance but also across the boundaries of the education levels clearly shows the effect it is having on the population. 81.136.165.31 (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — 81.136.165.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If news reached you by means of a reliable and verifiable news source, I would be very grateful to see a citation (and I imagine the other editors here would agree). Tim Pierce (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. it is not a popular sport, if only 5 people have heard of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.54.165 (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole article is totally fictitious and unverifiable - not to mention poorly-formatted. (And also I'm a student in Surrey and I have never heard of it!)Tom (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is either completely made up or not notable at all. Additionally, I don't think 'Facebook groups' should be taken as verifying sources. There is also a whole load of meatpuppetry going on here... It's very funny. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Close - Completely made up. And, this is not a ballot, this is consensus. Requesting closure of discussion, as all keep !votes are made by SPAs or IPs.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the name Helaman in Book of Mormon[edit]

This page was formerly at Helaman (disambiguation); it was moved in February and a more proper disambig page was created at the former title. The nominated page contains almost exactly the same information as the current Helaman (disambiguation) page. A redirect seems pointless as nobody would ever enter this title as a search term, and there are no incoming links. The editor who moved it has expressed his opinion at Talk:Use of the name Helaman in Book of Mormon about why he feels the page history, if not the page itself, should be preserved, but I disagree. Propaniac (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is already Helaman (disambiguation) and Helaman, this page is pretty much the same as the disambiguation page. This is circular and confusing. Drawn Some (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content is basically redundant to the extant Helaman (disambiguation). John Carter (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with helaman strange subject. Ikip (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, the only thing to "merge" to Helaman is that besides Helaman's son Helaman, there was another very insignificant guy named Helaman who had nothing to do with the other two. Propaniac (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ - Is Use of the name Isaah in the Bible going to pop up as its own article now?--Unionhawk ^Talk 15:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where and what are you suggesting to merge? Propaniac (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete struck above !vote to delete. Nothing to merge...--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, there is nothing to merge. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to Helaman (disambiguation). Robofish (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mas que alcanzar una estrella (album)[edit]

Soundtrack to red link film. Only a couple artists, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Delete Essentially an orphaned article referenced no where; the only pages listed in the "What Links Here" page for the article are two very similar articles and pages associated with deletion. Also, the article is unreferenced. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing the following for the same reason (lack of notability, orphaned, not referenced anywhere):

…And why the heck do so many editors think that every album article needs (album) in the title?! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot, no notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 09:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think you need to list these separately. Mas que alcanzar una estrella achieves notability through Ricky Martin, one of the artists. Very clearly a keep. Yes, Ricky Martin was in a sequel to a Mexican telenovela and is on the soundtrack even if he would like the world to forget. Drawn Some (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A notable act on a compo album doesn't make the whole compo notable. And if the telenovela is notable, why doesn't it have an article? Let's not put the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the rule that "a notable act on a compo album doesn't make the whole compo notable", although it would make sense. On the other hand, if we are concerned about putting carts before horses, since when is notability determined by whether there is a Wikipedia article yet or not? Especially on non-English topics. Rlendog (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too versed in the music stuff, that's why I don't usually comment. The way the Spanish Wikipedia handled these is the soundtracks are part of the articles on the telenovelas. They are notable. If you're not familiar with telenovelas, they are more like a one-season soap opera in the evening and everyone watches them, more like a mini-series than a soap opera. "Ugly Betty" was a telenovela remade for English-speaking US audiences. The reason they all say "album" is because they are soundtracks. Drawn Some (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also some of these DO have articles here. Drawn Some (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reason given for the nomination is that these are soundtracks to redlinked films. The fact that the telenovelas are redlinked does not mean that they are not notable. In fact, several of them do have articles on the Spanish Wikipedia, and their editors are generally in a better position to assess the notability of these subjects than the average English Wikipedia editor. In addition, there are several notable artists included on these albums, which while not a reason to keep in itself, adds some additional weight to their notability. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cubis[edit]

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

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

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

per WP:NFT Koppas (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with haste per WP:WHYCANTMADEUPCRAPLIKETHISBESPEEDIED. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it could even be speedied as a hoax. WP:MADEUP. Drawn Some (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cubis is not a hoax. http://games.yahoo.com/console/cubis2 But I admit the online shockwave version sucks, the downloadable executive was far better. NVO (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a 404 page is sufficient evidence, changing my opinion to Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link worked when I clicked on it. "Cubis" is a real online game. There is no reason to delete this - you're wasting your precious time worrying about an amusing and harmless page. BenE 11:25, 15 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.156.131.8 (talk) — 217.156.131.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, there is an on-line game, but this article is not about that, it's about something quite different made up one day by Messrs Murtagh and Harris. Also, see WP:NOHARM. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:NFT. Agree with TPH. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable game. I would say it's borderline speedyable as no context, as the only thing the article actually states about the subject is that it's an office game, but it's probably too long for that, so I'll stick with delete. Rnb (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I'm not sure where Rnb has been but Cubis is actually pretty well known and rather notable - the page is of course still in its infancy so I think it should be given time to expand and educate others on its viability le_derriere 11:45, 15 May 2009— le_derreire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If it is notable that needs to be verifiable by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Other supporters: before you comment, please read the content guideline you will find by clicking on Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for bored office workers to make stuff up. Fences and windows (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, this game is present in my office in Horsham, West Sussex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.70.122 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Element Tower Defense[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the prod:

I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can establish any notability of this game. The one review source from JayIsGames is unreliable because it is user-generated content. The blog given is likewise unreliable as it does not seem to be a professional blog or anything similar. The other source indicates a big number and, similar to the search engine test, does not solely determine notability.

Note that I deprodded this myself per the comment made at Talk:Flash Element Tower Defense, which is basically an opposition to the prod - in order to facilitate bringing to AFD. MuZemike 17:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I hadn't heard of this one either, but someone pointed out to me that it is arguably the first Tower Defense game ever. So I did a little digging and found a few references. I think it's enough to barely assert notability. Randomran (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was searching under "Flash Element Tower Defense" as opposed to "Flash Element TD", in which I was unaware that the latter is the actual name of the game. Make sure the article gets moved to the correct title. I withdraw the AFD with apologies. MuZemike 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Innocent mistake, I've had a few. For some unknown reason, I did the search as "Flash Element" "Tower Defense". My searches for third-party sources have kind of become an instinct. Randomran (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Dos[edit]

DELETE. Fails WP:MUSIC and BLP policy as well, sources requested since 2007 and they're apparently not coming any time soon if ever. JBsupreme (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The current version is a copyvio from Allmusic, but they did have a charting album on Top Heatseekers, so they may meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig, sources do exist to meet C1 of WP:MUSIC. I demolished the article as the previous version was a copyvio from Allmusic that somehow never got caught. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid argument given for deletion and no evidence of WP:BEFORE being followed. Article needs work, but this is a group that has released five albums and there is this allmusic bio, as well as (Pay-per-view) coverage from the LA Times ([19]), Dallas Morning News ([20]), Book sources: Encyclopedia of Latino Popular Culture ([21]), and That's the Joint! ([22]).--Michig (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right Now UK Tour[edit]

The article is solely a list of tour dates for a short (May to June) tour by an artist recently dropped by his label. I don't consider, nor expect, the tour to be notable and believe that the article is unlikely to ever escape the clutches of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. Also of note is that the article was created by a sock puppet, apparently solely to justify fiddling with a template. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. kollision (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomm, no sources for the tour. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not anywhere near notable. The nominator gets it right. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP more information is better than less. Being dropped is notable in these times.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- note: DunkinDonutBoy has been blocked for sock puppetry Spitfire^Tally-ho!
Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --78.150.254.47 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly this one. You need to provide a reason for your opinion. Other editors should note that this IP is likely a sock of the articles (blocked) creator. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some Information is better than none --Cityonce334 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Account blocked as a sockpuppet account. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any likelihood that "some information" will transcend the mere list it is now? I'm addressing this to you, since I believe that you're the article creator. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oguzhan Özyakup[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate when he plays at a professional level. John Sloan @ 18:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to Delete enough notable, see references.Rirunmot (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of eight references, four come from personal blogs hosted at blogspot.com, so they fail WP:RS; same applies for dirken.org, which does not really look as an independent third-party reliable source website. UEFA.com article is part of their coverage for a Under-17 European Championship tournament, so it's not an independent source, actually. The remaining two sources only mention of his move to England, so they don't cover the subject in enough detail. Hence, provided references don't establish any notability and, since the subject easily fails WP:ATHLETE, I say no. --Angelo (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question He claimsto ha ve made one appearance for his national team and a international event. does he mean the youth team or the regular team? DGG (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under-17 youth level. Quite not enough. --Angelo (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~~Ciara~~. (It was already redirected to Fantasy Ride.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Surgeon (Ciara song)[edit]

no evidence or references to support the single's release. it also contains an image which breaches wikipedia's rules as it is not tagged or copyrighted properly. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non charting single, will likely be undone if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, on account of WP:MUSIC. Not even released, so it can't yet chart, right? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Redirect to Ciara. Keeps the history, so if it charts, it's easy enough to recover. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now It actually looks like she will release this song. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 18:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? Why keep it if all we can do is look into a crystal ball and say "it actually looks like it'll be a single"? Why not wait until it actually, you know, is one? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could say the same about A Dustland Fairytale by The Killers, but that still has a page. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 06:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know everything is agaisnt it right now, but it is being released in a few weeks and sooner digitally along with 'Work'. Sort of like the two songs at a time approach that Beyonce has taken. It will just be recreated in two weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintheone (talk • contribs)
- That's fantastic and all, but remember, we can recreate a deleted item if necessary. Note, too, that if it's recreated in two weeks and not notable, it will probably be speedy deleted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC for now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per TrEeMaNsHoE below. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreleased, nothing to suggest why we should ignore WP:MUSIC. Seriously, how hard is it to wait until a single is released before creating its article? There's no deadline. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ciara "herself" posted on her twitter that she would be simultaneously releasing two singles. One being "Work", and the other being "Like a Surgeon". I feel that even though there is no physical evidence "on paper" yet, there isn't a much better source than it coming from the actual artist's mouth in the meantime. Why not leave the page up and just wait it out?? She made a statement also about seeing the director for this video recently, so this has to mean that a next single decision has to be SOMEWHERE in the near future. (User:Ldt88 07)

Delete, WP states that personal websites such as Twitter, Facebook and Myspace are not suitable sources. This article fails to cite any references and is terribly laid out. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Do you have other releases as to this? If so, I can change my mind. What Lil-unique said about the sources. If not, it's like I said, we can recreate the article later if it warrants it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is going to be released. Pages aren't started after a single charts. They are started earlier to give an overview. Her other single Love Sex Magic started out the same At least if you don't keep it, redirect it, so when it becomes a single, we wont have to start a whole nother page.

(TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

- You know, I like your idea. Good compromise, makes it easier. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to European Commission. (The "delete" is due to copyright issues.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly of Initiative[edit]

original research Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as stands is not great, but a cursory look through Google, Google Books and Google Scholar show the term is widely used, at least in reference to the EU. Needs to be improved more than it needs to be deleted. Hairhorn (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per above. Needs a clean up but has potential. Delete In light of the copyright issue-Binary TSO ^???
Redirect to European Commission, and fast. Article has multiple issues as follows:

1) Copyright violation

The article is a cut-and-paste from a specific copyrighted page: the page is here and the copyright assertion is here.

The text on that page reads as follows:

In the EU, the EU Commission has the sole and exclusive right to bring forward proposals for EU laws. This makes the EU Commission a legislative machine for the continual production of EU laws. Except for these non-elected commissioners, no person on earth has the exclusive right to propose European laws.

The Council and the EU Parliament can encourage the EU Commission to propose introducing a new law, but the EU Commission decides on its own whether to follow the advice.

The EU Commission also decides the legal basis for its proposal and thus decides whether an area is to be regulated by binding laws or voluntary coordination.

The EU Commission's choice concerning a law’s legal basis and its legislative proposals can only be changed by a unanimous decision of the Council.

The text on the Wikipage reads as follows:

In the European Union, the EU Commission has the sole and exclusive right to bring forward proposals for EU laws. This makes the EU Commission a legislative machine for the continual production of EU laws. Except for these non-elected commissioners, no person on earth has the exclusive right to propose European laws.

The Council and the EU Parliament can encourage the EU Commission to propose introducing a new law, but the EU Commission decides on its own whether to follow the advice.

The EU Commission also decides the legal basis for its proposal and thus decides whether an area is to be regulated by binding laws or voluntary coordination.

The EU Commission's choice concerning a law’s legal basis and its legislative proposals can only be changed by a unanimous decision of the Council.

2) WP:COATRACK violation.
3) WP:POVFORK violation.

"Monopoly of Initiative" is a piece of Eurojargon that occurs when only the European Commission can initiate Eurolegislation (if you really want more details, please ask, but then I'll have to use words like "pillar" and "competence" and life's too short). This subject is already dealt with in the European Commission article under the "legislative initiative" section.

4) Unarticleable. The article is only ever going to be "The European Commission is the only entity capable of initiating European legislation in certain circumstances (insert ref) and these people say that that's really bad (insert more refs)".

So the article is a copyright violation, a WP:COATRACK violation, a WP:POVFORK violation, and belongs in the European Commission article anyway. Redirect to European Commission ASAP. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Kupke[edit]

Questionable notability. All of the subject's publications are items he edited, not items he wrote. Looks more like a resume than an encyclopedia entry. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm swinging towards delete. "Senior lecturer at several educational institutions" sounds incredibly like a euphemism for "not actually a university professor", which right away produces severe notability problems for someone claiming to be a professional philosopher. But as a caveat, I have to say that I have little patience for "Continental" Philosophy. Hairhorn (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Hairhorn. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be low. Most widely held book in libraries currently in less than 40 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The homepage listed in the article links to an obscure site, with access to a folder directory of the subject’s writings.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Apparently he has written some stuff, but I don't see any clear evidence of academic impact that would let him pass WP:PROF #1, nor any of the other criteria. The lack of a real academic position is not a good sign. And the list of works linked above does not distinguish them by type or length, so it is difficult to tell how seriously to take them — I didn't take the time to explore them in-depth but of the two I clicked on, one appeared to be the transcript of a talk and the other was something to do with a festival fanzine. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete like Eric Yurken & David Eppstein I don't see in his citation record the evidence of notable impact of his ideas on the scholarship of his peers required to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transsexualism. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Benjamin Syndrome[edit]

Harry Benjamin Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) The subject of this article fails the notability criterion. The sources cited within do not mention "Harry Benjamin syndrome". The pages given as external links with official sounding names like HBS international...are demonstrably the personal webpages of advocates for the HBS idea. The subject of the article has no currency as of yet in any medical or scientific circles, as demonstrated by the total lack of sources that comply with WP:RS,WP:MEDRS. It may in the future, but it does not now,wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For all of these reasons I think this article should be deleted. Hfarmer (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There's already adequate coverage at Transsexualism, including the proposal to name it Harry Benjamin (or Benjamin's) Syndrome. Hairhorn (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with delete, on account that there appears to be no evidence that Dr. Benjamin is the one who named this after himself. Granted that sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but maybe I'm missing evidence to the contrary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am hesitant to say that a term that is so widely used is a neologism or non-notable. The article seems more like a personal essay. Whether it has currency in medical or scientific circles or not does not prevent it from being notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A redirect may be the answer. Drawn Some (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment I agree that scientific circles are not the end all and be all of notability. However a term can't just be widely used to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. According to WP:Notability"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." A Google searchgoogle:"Harry Benjamin Syndrome turns up a number of personal webpages, and blogs, containing opinion pieces by transsexuals themselves which are not peer reviewed at all and are self published sources. Such sources are generally not acceptable in Wikipedia. Searching google scholar [23] turns up only one scholarly reference which uses it at all and says "TEAM was originally called the ‘Harry Benjamin Syndrome Support Group’ by its founder,Jessica Park, but this name was not really taken up by the membership..."(see the google scholar results). Searching google news [24] turns up absolutely no uses of this in any of the numerous sources that google news follows. This all suggest to me that this subject is not yet notable enough to merit it's own article. It is use by reliable sources not just any ol website that makes something notable enough for wikipedia.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, scholarly research and scientific acceptance are not necessary for this to be notable. It could be something absurd like phrenology or shark cartilage and still be notable and verifiable. I'm not arguing for inclusion or exclusion until I see what more people have to say. Drawn Some (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be even more clear and for the record I never said that scientific or scholarly journals are all that matters to notability. I have said that personal webpages or blogs, even if accessed by way of a domain name like somethingofficialsounding.org are still personal webpages or blogs. That is what all of the websites that purvey HBS are.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transsexualism as a plausible search term.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Do you have a reason for it to be redirected? I'm trying to form my own opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect to Transsexualism. This article is an advertisement and essentially duplicates Transsexualism. It is a popular term and deserves a redirect, but it has little currency in journalism or books. Note that Benjamin Syndrome is an entirely different disorder. Drawn Some (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe subject in its entirety is not about a medical syndrome per se, it is a patient advocacy movement. And as an aside, "syndromes" are not named by the people themselves, it is an honorary process. I'll be adding articles about the activism undertaken when I gather them. Notability extends outside of US borders. Describing this subject as another term for transsexualism is misleading. As far as "scientific" peer review, where is that in things like "transwoman", etc.? Agree that notability comes from outside medical circles at this point, though there are some doctors and governments that are using the term. Article needs a rewrite. Here's one mention on BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7013579.stm Ariablue (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWP:Notability specifies significant coverage in reliable sources. That says..."The decision ends a long-running legal process for Nati, who suffers from the transsexual disorder known as Harry Benjamin Syndrome." What does that sources say about HBS? It basically equates it with transsexualism and tells us nothing more than a name. IMO that is hardly significant coverage. The link you have provided argues for a redirect to transsexualism. Can you find a source which conforms to WP:MEDRS which can back up the medical claim that transsexualism is different from HBS?--Hfarmer (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It tells us there are at least two views of the topic, one of which is being suppressed by actions like yours. Argentina has adopted the HBS term, and the differences between this birth condition and what is currently known as "transsexualism" will become more clear. There is medical evidence for the position this is an intersex condition, and there is a grass roots patient advocacy campaign to see that this problem is addressed. You have been working with/for people who have a campaign against the intersex, and your agenda should be known to other editors on Wikipedia. I'm hoping that anyone here who happens to care about the reputation of wikipedia understands the situation, if nothing else. Ariablue (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you refuse to present the reliable sources to back up all of your rhetoric. Every fact, evry point in an article needs a source. Every article needs enough sources to make it notable. It needs to have had "significant coverage"...The burden isnt on me to prove it's not notable. If you want the article kept find the kind and number of sources I describe. Wikipedia policies demand it.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like so many other generic terms from the past that modern thought and research has now retermed more precisely HARRY BENJAMIN SYNDROME is the correct and only term suitable for the concerned group. HBS sufferers are the only people who have felt to be trapped in the wrong body consistently as far back as they can remember which is consistent with Harry Benjamin's research and practice with many genuine sufferers of what must be named Harry Benjamin Syndrome to distinguish them from all the other 'transgendered' who only came to desire to wear female clothing as puberty made them susceptible to arousal from the phemerones from their mothers and sisters unwashed lingerie in exactly the same way dogs will sniff at the crotches of both boys and girls. Phemerone science was not available to Harry benjamin or he would have spotted its link to most crossdressers, transvesties and transgendered's love and masturbatory arousal to lingerie. It is shame at having to admit this thast is the cause of the hostility shown by transgendereds to the much smaller group of genuine HBS. Fleur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurblack (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I have moved this comment from the top into the body of the discussion where it is supposed to be (don't belive me look at all the other discussions and how they are formatted). The diff for the original comment is here--Hfarmer (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Benjamin Syndrome is not the same as transsexualism or transsexuality but is the correct title for the very small group of people who genuineley feel to be trapped in bodies that do not match their brain . All other transgenders are just sex driven or autocunniphilic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurblack (talk • contribs) 10:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are to be added at the bottom of pages. This way we have nome idea of who said what and when.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania–Luxembourg relations[edit]

another completely random combination. non resident embassies. only coverage of relations is in a multilateral context, only thing I could find is 1 minor usual double taxation agreement. [25]. French search yields nothing too [26] LibStar (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Plumoyr has a history of creating such articles with no real substance or point. a little insignificant 14:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obsessive-compulsive article creation coupled with no attempt at establishing non-existent notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much here-- there was an incident ten years ago [27] where both nations had UN peacekeeping forces in Serbia, and the Lithuanian guy and the Luxembourgian guy both had the "L" beaten out of them by some overzealous Serbian cops... speaking of trivia, another news article notes that there are nine world nations that begin with "L" and these are two of them. Be the 10th caller to name the rest of them and I'll be impressed. Mandsford (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability test. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Luxembourg which now contains the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Luxembourg. Most of these articles are merge candidates, and as such do not belong at AfD. Rklear (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reasonable sources that discuss these relationships. Hipocrite (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under criteria G7 (one author who has requested deletion) Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Ninja series[edit]

Whilst I believe Nitrome to be a very good games developer, I don't think this series warrants its own articles. There is very little information here that doesn't or couldn't appear on List of Nitrome Limited games, and reliable sources aren't around. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 14:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's in exactly the same situation:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 14:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMO very few online flash games are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, and this is not notable enough to be one of them. a little insignificant 15:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detete as Creator: I wasn't sure about the notability guidelines regarding this article subject. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scenic Route[edit]

Claims to have won an award, but I cannot find widespread coverage. Notable ?? Passportguy (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's going on with the article? Are you trying to delete the non-notable band or the redirect or both or neither? Drawn Some (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Someone else must have deleted the page and changed it to redirect after I posted the AfD. I don't have a problem with the redirect, so I guess we can close this discussion for now. Passportguy (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Looks like someone attempted a redirect to try and save this page. I think that's unnecessary, delete it.~~ a little insignificant 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well if it's the band that needs to be deleted restore that version and continue the AfD or it will just get re-created. Drawn Some (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply OK. Ive restored the text, so we can now continue with the AfD. Passportguy (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks, that's better. I'd consider this one notable, I found two sources of the award online, on in a news blog and one on a band bio. [28] [29] The second one appears to be a reliable source. a little insignificant 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If one can only just find a trace of the award : does getting that award really convey notability ? Passportguy (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication award is a major music award. lacks coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marthese Portelli[edit]

Politicial candidate for the EP, not currently an MEP. Seems to fail WP:Politician Passportguy (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:POLITICIAN being a candidate does not confer notability, and no other notability appears from the article or from a news search. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established --rogerd (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Milroy-Sloan[edit]

This is a violation of Wp:BLP1E - in 2001, she accused Neil Hamilton (politician) (along with his wife and a friend) of rape (they were found innocent). She was then sent to prison for three years for attempting to pervert the course of justice. I don't think this makes someone notable, and there's nothing in this article - apart from a trivial statement saying that she was previously charged with ABH - that isn't covered in the accused's article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with proposer. --Holkingers (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a fascinating individual but WP:ONEVENT. She deserves a place in a criminal database but not here. Drawn Some (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neil Hamilton (politician)#After the scandal as it fails WP:BLP1E but is a likely search term. Dpmuk (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dpmuk - might be searched for but doesn't need an article. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all pertinent info to the Neil Hamilton and Christine Hamilton pages to keep the facts about her criminal activities and conviction clearly in the public domain. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - WP:BLP1E. —Snigbrook 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is already named in the Hamiltons' articles, which is sufficient. I'd like her to have the chance to put this behind her, return to anonymity, and not be defined as a person for this incident. I got the impression she was not well at the time.qp10qp (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and also remove the subject's name from the articles where it is mentioned, per the general spirit of WP:BLP. The incident is worth mentioning in the articles about those people (sorry, but I hold them in such contempt that I can't bring myself to write their names), but this subject's name doesn't add anything to our understanding of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Beni[edit]

Unsourced BLP. Prod was contested. Prodreason was "Fails WP:Athlete inclusion criteria as it seems he never played in a fully professional team. No significant media coverage found, so WP:Notability guidelines are not met either." I agree with the prodreason. The player has a good number of games in the Victorian Premier League, but that is not a fully professional league. As it stands now te article is not notable enough for inclusion. Rettetast (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the editor who placed the prod on the article, so my reasoning is per the prod. Camw (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RELIABLE and WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. John Sloan @ 18:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Victorian Premier League is professional and is considered as the second highest mens soccer league in Australia. 21:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC:

Can you please provide a reliable source showing that the VPL is a fully professional league? That would certainly change things, but I was under the impression that it was semi-professional, with most players deriving the majority of their income from other sources. Camw (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VPL players average only $10,000 - $20,000 a year but a majority of them have played for a professional club or in the defunct NSL. VPL players should be able to have an article even if they haven't played in the NSL because the VPL is regarded one of the highest leagues in Australia behind the A-league.

This player doesn't seem to have played in the NSL, so that argument doesn't apply. If the player does not meet the WP:Athlete guideline (playing in a fully professional league) then they need to meet the WP:Notability guidelines which state that the subject must have received significant coverage from reliable sources, and as far as I can see, this player hasn't. Camw (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Aihara[edit]

Non-notable author of Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga. Being the author of one book does not meet WP:Notability (people). Extremepro (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1. The page Wikipedia:Notability (people) says that one is notable if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - So far I am finding reviews for Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga - 2. I did a Google News search and, in Japanese, here's an article about Koji Aihara appearing at a local convention: http://namba.keizai.biz/headline/760/ (Use Google Translator to see what the article says) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WorldCat confirms that his one book is not considered significant as only a few libraries hold it. If anyone can show reliable sources that provide significant in-depth coverage of Mr. Aihara to establish notability please provide them and notify me on my talk page and I will re-evaluate, I simply do not see them. Drawn Some (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/51181258&referer=brief_results - 17 libraries in North America hold the English version. Keep in mind that there are other language versions that may be held by other libraries. Lemme see how many hold the Japanese version. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing searches for the Japanese versions
  - 2006 edition: No results [30]
  - 1990 edition: Japan foundation, Sydney library [31]
- So does this mean no libraries in Japan have this book? I doubt it - Does Worldcat support Japan? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is this statement from Daigaku Press Center: http://www.u-presscenter.jp/modules/bulletin/index.php?page=print&storyid=164: "編集者、ライター、マンガ原作者。相原コージと組んだ『サルでも描けるまんが教室』（89年小学館）では、マンガを創作の視点から解き明かし、同書を60万部のベストセラーへと導く。著書、『私とハルマゲドン』（96年太田出版）他。" - Google translator reads: "Editors, writers, comics authorship. KOJI Aihara, and his classes at a monkey can draw Manga (Shogakukan 89 years), from the perspective of creating a cartoon解KI明KASHI, lead to the best-selling book of 60 million. The book, Armageddon, and I (96 Ohta Publishing)."
Comment: Links to several Japanese articles that mention Aihara:
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out that 17 libraries is pretty insignificant especially considering that only half or less are considered "important" libraries. I was just using WorldCat as a check, like an Amazon sales ranking or Google hit number, it's not a criteria in the guideline for notability for an author. On Gruesome Harvest, which was an AfD yesterday, WorldCat revealed that it was held by dozens of major libraries and that it had a fairly high sales rank and those factors "jived" with the claim of notability. That was a book, not an author. My use of WorldCat (and Amazon) in here were just to confirm that the author was not notable, his book is not considered significant. Had I found that it was widely-held or more popular in sales I would have continued looking for resources to prove his notability. Even on Amazon Japan his (co-authored) book ranks 69,000 and not very high in its specialty areas. I will again point you to WP:NOTE and WP:RS regarding the need for significant in-depth coverage, not just trivial mentions. Drawn Some (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - But those 17 libraries cannot possibly be the only ones with his book; those are 17 libraries with the English version, but you also need to measure the Japanese version, and somehow Worldcat isn't coming up with a list for that. Let's take a look at Gruesome Harvest and the Worldcat results.
    - Gruesome Harvest (Keeling 1947): http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2015178&referer=brief_results - 66 libraries (the ones listed are mostly North America with some in South Africa and Namibia)
    - Gruesome Harvest: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/85913732&referer=brief_results - 2 libraries in Europe
  - I didn't see any listed in Japan (then again, this is an English language book) - But your reply did not have an answer to my question: "Does Worldcat support Japan?" - Please use a Japanese title as a comparison. If Woldcat does not gauge how the book is used in Japan, then how could it be used to support the point?
  - Why not follow up on what the Daigaku Press Center said? Surely there could be a source that expands upon what it says, yes?
  - From the look of the Daigaku Press Center release, the author wrote multiple books. This particular book isn't his only one.
  - The Japanese article has a sourced statement: "元来はスピリッツのページが空いてしまったため、穴埋め企画として「従来の漫画賞のパロディ」として始まったが、予想を超えた多数の応募があり、多くの人気作家を生んだ。2001年から掲載雑誌の『ビッグコミックスピリッツ』で「スピリッツ賞」が始まったため、消滅した<ref>『COMIC GON!』4号（ミリオン出版）を参照</ref>。"
  - WhisperToMe (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I checked WorldCat and Amazon to confirm that the author wasn't notable as the lack of significant in-depth coverage of reliable sources shows. I'm sorry that I mentioned it, because it seems to have sidetracked you from trying to prove that the author is notable according to WP:NOTE using WP:RS. I just went the extra steps to make sure that I wasn't making a mistake in concluding that the author is not notable. I take the deletion of articles very seriously and try to be thorough in research before forming an opinion. If you find reliable resources providing in-depth coverage or otherwise have information that satisfies the guidelines established for notability later in the week, please notify me on my talk page because I am always willing to consider firm evidence that others uncover. Drawn Some (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this artist seems to mainly work in the yonkoma format, which does not usually attract as much critical attention. Nevertheless, he has an entry in Manga Design, which I have added to the page, and Paul Gravett's book also covers Even A Monkey.... Hopefully this will do something to combat the WP:HOLE problem which seems to have been why this article was nominated for deletion. --Malkinann (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As WhisperToMe already explained, the person has worked on at least one series that has already been determined notable, and that makes them notable as one of the creators. Dream Focus 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very week keep do to his work on Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga, which barely scrapes by WP:CREATIVE. I would prefer to see more coverage as him as a person. Otherwise, this article has not hope of expanding. I would be amendable to a merge/redirect to Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga. --Farix (Talk) 00:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga shows multiple reviews of that work, and new links in article shows actual commentary on his his worl -- passes WP:CREATIVE. That said, a little more biographical info would be nice, but as being a stub, even a permastub, is not a wikicrime, that's irrelevant to an AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. This one, I should definitely have checked for references of my own before nominating. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PETEC[edit]

Contested prod. Organization whose only assertion of notability is a number of patents and scientific papers, none of which were specified in the article. The deprodder stated that the group was mentioned on some web site, but the site in question is currently "under construction." Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cooperates with World Bank in Lighting Africa. --Nopetro (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a hasty prod, followed by a far-too-hasty AfD. I think there might even have been a speedy in there too that was simply wrong (patent claims are a perfectly adequate claim of notability sufficient to deflect a speedy, even if they're not an adequate demonstration of it to leave an article in place long-term)

The organization appears very likely to be notable, and sourceable as such. I'm confident the article's creator will demonstrate this in due course. If they don't, then we remind them of the need, if they still don't, then we look at deleting the article.

Would the nominator please learn that WP:AGF applies to article creators too and allow them some time to work on the article, when it clearly is still being worked upon. There is no rush here. This isn't a WP:BLP violation, or anything that might have real urgency behind it. Article creators, especially those new to the game, do use main articlespace as a workspace and we do see "works in progress" placed there. It is a mistake for AfD nominators to act over-hastily in that situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would disagree that this is not notable, and it clearly is still being expanded and improved. I would suggest a personal sandbox, but new article creators who don't use them are not neccessarrily in the wrong. a little insignificant 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie^☆S93 17:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bashkortostan national football team[edit]

Fails WP:N. This is a state team that competed in a domestic competition, not a 'national' team. The Spartakiad competition appears to have been relatively low profile, and open to anyone who wanted to enter. Stu.W UK (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable. Giant Snowman 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. John Sloan @ 18:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, failure of WP:N --Angelo (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pubes[edit]

No third party reliable sources to verify notability - nonsense in parts (something about a mouse, the mayor and a guillotine??) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 11:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~A7 Doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Weak delete per below, not much in the way of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Can't A7, they have some notability. So far, an album review comes up, but they don't have much else. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A fair amount of (local) coverage found in the Riverfront Times (e.g. [32], [33], [34]), but little from elsewhere. It isn't an A7 but there isn't enough there to be kept unless someone can dig up one or two decent sources.--Michig (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to establish other than local or MySpace attention. I admit, "Built out of discarded railroad ties and those plastic bags that hold newspapers, Holtzman and Henry managed to decapitate several local rats before the machine collapsed in on itself" (especially since it seems to say that two real-life persons were constructed of inanimate objects) is curious, but I don't see anything to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Deor (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable band. Probably the best in STL currently. 04:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generip (talk • contribs) — Generip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 19:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marquee Mall[edit]

New article about Marquee Mall. Not much information to justify creating an article. Maybe consider re-adding the article when the mall has been officially opened? Seems a rather pointless article to create at the current time. Neu_tralle 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTALBALL Drawn Some (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Absolutely no sources found for a mall supposedly opening this year. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All that's here is that it's under construction. Once it finishes, put a new one in its place. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep per changes. Good job. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete Should be tagged as ((db-corp)). Does not meet WP:N guidelines, and is WP:CRYSTAL. Has no content to show that even without references that it could possibly be notable. Hellno2 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep has been sufficiently improved to be kept. Hellno2 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. change to neutral - it exists, though it seems a bit CRYSTALly still. The name seems to be "Q Mall" in one source and "MarQuee Mall" in the other.JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2 Cites for WP:N found. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has sources, and is of a size far larger than many malls in other countries for which articles have been kept at AfD, so the claim that it "has no content to show that even without references that it could possibly be notable" is untenable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaeksoft WebSearch[edit]

Claims but fails WP:N in my opinion. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure about this nomination and hope I found the right channel to have it discussed. There are some issues, let me list them:

Written like an advert by the sole author of the software
Not-notable product from an equally not-notable company
Sources questionable, the first is a list where authors can add their products, and the second one did receive criticism for COI.
Orphan

Pgallert (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My TW template timed out in the process. I believe I have now manually completed the process, can someone check, please? --Pgallert (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nomination. Not a notable piece of software. References given are to a listing, and to a website for a technology used in this software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn advertising. Gigs (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reliability of Wikipedia. Many of the keep arguments were based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or the fact that what he did was notable (WP:BLP1E). Some of the information may be selectively merged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Fitzgerald (hoaxer)[edit]

He is only notable for one (relatively minor) event, so there shouldn't be an article about him per WP:SINGLEEVENT. There's currently a proposed merge but I'm not even convinced it's even worth mentioning anywhere. Laurent (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. The concept is not new, and there's no place on WP for an article on such a hoaxers (even though the faulty information came through this site). Ohconfucius (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minutiae about one-event person. Punkmorten (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T DELETE This is a significant discovery. These reporters get paid an awful lot of money for what? to get there articles off wiki. A disgrace and with people who are struggling to survive due to no work being available I think this should be kept!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.119.117 (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 89.234.119.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- This is not a discovery. Journalists are not perfect and sometime some of them don't check their sources. Here it happened to the Guardian, which is quite rare. They found out about it, they apologized for it and explained what happened, so let's move on. Laurent (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second this event you called minor yet for such a minor event by an irish student it has received world wide press from places such as USA and Australia. It is living proof that if one journalist is doing I am certain there are more doing it. Fair play to the guy for highlighting this. Big deal they apologised but in actual effect the man reponsible should be sacked. No place for lazy journalism like that in this world!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.125.114 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC) — 86.45.125.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - notable for a single event, being a mild piece of Wikipedia vandalism that was picked up by various news sources before other editors removed it. No coverage for anything beyond this one event, no recognised and enduring contribution to his chosen field (vandalism? hoaxes?), no notable awards, not cited by his peers, no substantial body of work, not a groundbreaker in any apparent way (Wikipedia having been vandalised by people doing "experiments" for some years). Fails every point of WP:BIO. No doubt a great guy and a surprisingly successful experiment, but simply not notable enough for a standalone article. Euryalus (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be the event itself that is or is not notable, not this person. Drawn Some (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many examples of hoaxes that are less notable than this, yet included in Wikipedia. Aaronwinborn (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considered WP:OTHERCRAP? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is more the hoax that is notable than the hoaxer it's such a new hoax that the hoax itself doesn't have a name. If someone wanted to read about it on Wikipedia they'd probably look for it under Shane's name. I don't have a problem with merging the article into another article. But which article - one on journalistic ethics, media hoaxes, internet hoaxes, Wikipedia? I think this hoax is pretty important because of a few things:

It speaks to the veracity of information on our beloved Wikipedia (both that the information may be invalid and that the community is remarkably good at spotting false info and removing it).
It speaks to the veracity of information of the internet in general, and the way that information and mis-information can spread rapidly.
It speaks to the fact that Wikipedia's own criteria for validation can be circumvented with the writers of print sources use Wikipedia as a source in the first place.
It made the news all around the world (I read about it when it was the featured news piece on the front page of yahoo.com).

Well, that's my position. Kevin Rector (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We can still redirect Shane Fitzgerald (hoaxer) to whatever page the event is mentioned on. I still fail to see the point he made though. Any serious journalist knows that the internet in general, and Wikipedia in particular cannot be used as a primary source of information. In that case, only one journalist made a mistake (the rest were bloggers who have no obligation to check their source or be reliable) - can we really make a general case out of it? Laurent (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that there is some discussion on the notability of this article on the talk page. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, then redirect to either Reliability of Wikipedia#Other or Wikipedia#Reliability and bias (as suggested on the article's talk page). It's the event that's potentially notable, not the person - and the event is already mentioned in one of the suggested redirect targets. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, and redirect to (well....): Reliability of Wikipedia#Other would be my choice. As a biographical article, it can't help but not pass WP:BLP1E, as it is the event, rather than the person, who is the main subject of reportage and subsequent notability. An article on the hoax itself would probably would not be appropriate as the hoax itself is unlikely to be the subject of any ongoing discussion in reliable sources. But there are enough reliable sources for a passing mention in the Reliability of Wikipedia article. (Personal observation: for any essay writers out there, there is a Wikipedia essay waiting to happen on the pitfalls for journos using Wikipedia as a primary source.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Other. While Mr. Fitzgerald himself may not be notable as a hoaxer, his tricks did attract significant news coverage as an example of Wikipedia's prominence as an online reference source. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This man is notable for the status of the MSM outlets he "exposed" and because he was testing a view, previously suspected, that MSM journalists frequently use unreferenced Wiki (and likely other) info and present it as fact. His name has been published in MSM outlets across the globe and he is discussed daily on the net and elsewhere. I beleive the deletion proposal contains a hint of sour grapes. Sarah777 (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, for those who disapprove of what Fitzgerald did I wouldn't fancy becoming notable on Wiki from my early twenties as "Sarah (hoaxer)". Hard to shake that off :) Sarah777 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a few reasons. Firstly, WP:BLP1E. Secondly, it wasn't really a notable event. Thirdly, this is just targetted vandalism. Lots of people do that every day, why draw out this one? That's really the clincher for me - why should we have an article specifically about someone who's done nothing more than vandalise Wikipedia? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a notable event, it made the news around the world, it's not one of the thousands of vadalisms Wikipedia faces, it was a significant misinformation that led to notability. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely. This person, did something that effected several major newspapers--read by millions of people--and then other newspapers reported on what he did. It's notable. I wanted to read about it. It caused a ton of discussion. If the event was worthy of news coverage, it is not a stretch for the individual whose name was repeatedly mentioned in that coverage to have a Wikipedia entry. I suspect that some of the hesitation to give him a page is due to the fact that he gamed Wikipedia (even though the whole story confirmed that Wikipedians were more investigative than professional journalists). This article should continue to show that Wikipedia is a place to read about subjects, one which is as if not more verifiable than some professional sources, and about more topics than they are capable of covering.12.40.50.1 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, there should be more information added, such as his year of birth, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, there should be less information since he is only known for one event. Creating an entire article about this event is already undue weight, let alone a biography of Fitzgerald. Laurent (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename if kept regardless of how notable the incident is, this is a classic BLP1E case, because Shane Fitzgerald isn't notable for anything but this incident. It should be about the event (if there should be an article at all), not the person. 140.247.125.131 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reliability of Wikipedia#False biographical information. His only claim to fame is vandalising Wikipedia. Not a notable person. Fences and windows (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reliability of Wikipedia. Not notable for anything else, clearly BLP1E. Snappy (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EmanciPET[edit]

Article makes no assertion of Notability. Several editors have attempted to improve article, however it remains an orphan .....Todd^#661 09:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Umm... I dunno, just because. :) I have a soft spot for animals and I'm already going through this same trauma at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chako Rescue. I guess i'm just an advocate for animal advocacy articles! Seriously though, I have a hard time deleting non-profit organizations based on no assertions of notability.. they're not TRYING to be notable, they're NOT-FOR-PROFIT... but i dunno... kind of a weak argument, but whatever. Maybe Wikipedia should have a "Commendability" guideline in addition to "Notability"... now that would be nice. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 10:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. The test is not the worthiness of the work they do, but whether anyone outside the Austin area is likely to have heard of them. Google news search yields a fair number of hits - but all that I saw in the results that are from reliable sources seem to be announcements of local events or local coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable admirable local organization even if the name is deceptive. Drawn Some (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Scouting in Wales. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st Cathays Al Huda[edit]

Non-notable recently founded local Scout unit. jergen (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Easily passes WP:GNG per the multitude of reliable sources in the article. See this article from the BBC, this article from the South Wales Echo, this article from Children & Young People Now, this article from the National Secular Society, and this article from the Times Educational Supplement. Would the nominator care to explain why they nominated this article for deletion when these sources were already present in this article? Cunard (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge to Scouting in Wales#Cardiff and The Vale of Glamorgan Scout Area (CATVOG) per below. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. I don't believe it should be necessarily deleted, but the information can certainly be merged into one of the articles on UK_Scouting. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this article is not a good option. See my comment below. Cunard (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local branches of national organizations are not usually notable, and even if this one is, see WP:ORG:

Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process.

Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This cub scout group is clearly notable. Did you even look at the sources I listed above? Those five sources prove this group's notability per WP:ORG. ~~Merging this article is not an option because that would result in undue weight in the parent article.~~ Cunard (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which parent article do you think it should go in? The undue weight has to do with POV, which is not an issue here, that is absolutely irrelevant. Drawn Some (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should go in any parent article. Why should this article about a notable Scout unit be merged? It passes the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've wrongly interpreted the guideline. See my comment below to Bduke. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not got time now to study this, but the appropriate merge target would be Scouting in Wales, which covers all Scouting in Wales, but not Guiding, if a merge is agreed. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have had some time to study this and think about it. We have had lots of articles on Scout Groups (BTW, it is a Scout Group, not a Cub Scout Group, and it has Beaver Scout, Cub Scout and Scout sections) and almost all of them have been merged. A Group has to have a long history to be notable enough for a separate article. This article already contains material that is promotional advertising, which should be removed. It is a newish Group. What else can be said about it? I support merge to Scouting in Wales, where it has been mentioned for quite a long time. The first Scout Group, back in 1908, if it could be identified, might be notable enough for an article and would probably have a long history to add details. However I do not think the first Muslim Group in Wales, any more than the first Catholic, or Church of Wales Group is sufficiently notable. Yes, it has had some press notice, but is this enough for a proper article? The quote from WP:ORG, given above, really does fit this situation. It should be merged for now, until this material gets too large. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Group has to have a long history to be notable enough for a separate article. Wrong. See Category:Companies established in 2009 and Category:Organizations established in 2009. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST argument does not apply here. Articles do exist for recently-founded companies and organizations that pass WP:ORG.
This article already contains material that is promotional advertising, which should be removed. Please do not make such patently false accusations about my article writing. I saw this scout group at CAT:CSD and decided to rescue it. I have no connections with this scout group and certainly do not wish to "advertise" this group on Wikipedia. If you have any issues with the tone of the article, please quote the sentences or phrases that are promotional. I can find nothing.
It is a newish Group. What else can be said about it? I wrote 9 sentences about this scout group. This article is decently-sized. Merging it into another article would unnecessarily increase the size of that article. This article is long enough to stand on its own.
The first Scout Group, back in 1908, if it could be identified, might be notable enough for an article and would probably have a long history to add details. However I do not think the first Muslim Group in Wales, any more than the first Catholic, or Church of Wales Group is sufficiently notable. Again, your WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST argument does not apply here. The first Catholic Wales Group may or may not deserve an article, but that all depends on whether news organizations have covered it. That's different from this scout group, which has received much coverage.
The quote from WP:ORG, given above, really does fit this situation. It should be merged for now, until this material gets too large. Wrong. You and and Drawn Some have wrong interpretations of the guideline. The guideline proposes that local chapter articles are split from their parent articles when they have grown too long. However, it does not deny the creation of a local chapter article (like this one) that passes WP:ORG. The quote above proves that a separate article is warranted. The general notability guideline is met. Please don't base the reason for merging this article on what has happened to articles about non-notable scout groups that have been merged/deleted. I repeat, this scout group is notable and passes the guidelines, so it should not be merged. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Group meets four times every week at the Roath Park Community Centre in Roath" is just advertising, whether you intended it that way or not. It is certainly not encyclopedic. Other parts get close to that. More importantly, what you call WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST, I think is merely reflecting the consensus that has built up over about three years in the Scouting WikiProject over the question of separate articles on Scout Groups and other units. This is a real consensus that many editors have contributed to. I really do think the best outcome is to expand the sentence in Scouting in Wales, which I added when I merged all the articles on separate Scout Areas in Wales, into that article. I did not come to that conclusion lightly. This Group may well be the best Group article that has been written over the years. All the others have been merged, except for one or two that have notability outside of Scouting. This is not an easy decision. However I still do not think it is best left as a stand-alone article. Even the Queer Toronto Scouting Group is now a redirect. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Group meets four times every week at the Roath Park Community Centre in Roath" is just advertising, whether you intended it that way or not. Please explain why. After taking another look at that sentence, I still cannot see what is promotional or unencyclopedic about it. That sentence is not promoting the company; it gives facts about how many times and where the scouts meet. If I wanted to advertise the camp, I would write: "The scout group meets many times every week at the large, spacious, fun, air-conditioned Roath Park Community Centre in the beautiful city of Roath."
Other parts get close to that. I would like more specific examples. When I write articles, I include only relevant, encyclopedic content that informs the reader. I don't believe that I did anything different here.
More importantly, what you call WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST, I think is merely reflecting the consensus that has built up over about three years in the Scouting WikiProject over the question of separate articles on Scout Groups and other units. This is a real consensus that many editors have contributed to. Where is this consensus? Is it implicit in all AfD debates? I doubt this. Your fellow Scouting members have agreed with merges for all the scout articles they see because nearly all scouting organizations are non-notable and lack reliable sources to prove their notability per WP:ORG.
I really do think the best outcome is to expand the sentence in Scouting in Wales, which I added when I merged all the articles on separate Scout Areas in Wales, into that article. Why? An article about this notable scouting group is much better than one small paragraph crammed into a large article about numerous organizations.
I did not come to that conclusion lightly. Neither have I.
This Group may well be the best Group article that has been written over the years. If this is so, this article should not merged. It is well-sourced and neutrally written.
All the others have been merged, except for one or two that have notability outside of Scouting. The others have been merged because they lack reliable sources to prove their notability per WP:ORG.
This is not an easy decision. However I still do not think it is best left as a stand-alone article. What is wrong with it being a stand-alone article? All you have cited in this deletion debate is that previous consensus has determined that all scout articles, even those that pass WP:ORG, should be merged. I disagree with such a consensus. You should explain why this particular article should be merged.
Even the Queer Toronto Scouting Group is now a redirect. This is another WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I disagree that that notable scouting article was merged, but that is for another debate.
Since you like using WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, I'll use one here too:

I took at look at the most recent AfD debate about scout articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouting gijsbrecht van aemstel and saw that the members of this WikiProject automatically vote merge instead of evaluating each scout group's individual notability. The comments range from merge even if notable, the oldest Finnish and Indian troops went back into their national articles to Scouting and Guiding in the Netherlands redirects to Scouting Nederland as the only national Scouting organization. As best I see, this is a local group of Scouting Nederland. The valid replies that that scout article passed the notability guideline were ignored. The fact that multiple news organizations wrote articles about that scouting group was vastly ignored. A good article could have been written about that topic, but no, all the voters ignored this, even when Antivenin (talk · contribs) volunteered to rewrite it. There are serious problems with the "implicit consensus" that has been established in this WikiProject. My respect for the Scouting WikiProject's judge of articles has considerably dwindled, so I do not accept the consensus that you have mentioned above.
One of the replies was: Could you explain the rationale behind merge even even if notable ? Isn't notability the main criterion?. I pose this same question to you. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scouting in Wales where it should be a paragraph with refs. Trivia like when it meets should be removed. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scouting in Wales. WP:GNG does say that coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee for a separate article. Editors at the Scouting WikiProject have reached (and reaffirmed) a longstanding consensus that although a local unit or Scout camp may have multiple reliable sources, it is not appropriate for a standalone article but, rather, should be included in the larger Council or Association article of which it is a part. I see no reason to make an exception in this instance. JGHowes ^talk 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus is to merge, I would like you, Rlevse, Drawn Some, Ohconfucius, or Bduke to answer this question: why is merging this article more beneficial to the encyclopedia than leaving it as a separate article? Cunard (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of a merge is that the reader doesn't have to go to several different articles to understand the topic of Scouting in Wales, of which this particular unit is a part. For another, it makes Scouting in Wales more comprehensive. Thirdly, it provides better context for the reader, especially in light of the cited source's mention of sectarian bifurcation of the larger Association. JGHowes ^talk 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining why this scout article should be merged. The above voters did not. After reviewing your arguments, I concur that merging this article is the right way to go. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above comments. Wim van Dorst (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merge as per above comments.-Phips (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme 3D[edit]

software with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what should one do so his article won't be deleted? User:Gecko89 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Find Reliable, third-party sources per Wikipedia:Notability, as you've been told. Please change your signature; it displays you as User:Gecko, which you are not. Ironholds (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected Gecko89's sig links Marasmusine (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no indication of notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - long, bullet-pointed lists of Features are usually a bad sign. Does not pass our notability threshold. Marasmusine (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find anything that can establish notability here. MuZemike 18:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trains of Secunderabad Railway Station[edit]

listcruft. A complete list of every train that goes through a particular station is far too much detail for en-wiki; secunderabad-railway-station.wikia.com maybe. Ironholds (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory .....Todd^#661 09:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Holy Moses! This is classic cruft which gives trainspotters their reputation. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository Ohconfucius (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information already contained at Secunderabad Railway Station. This must be one of those POV forks. Drawn Some (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move any information to Secunderabad Railway Station that is not already there. Priyanath ^talk 01:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Any usable information is/can be covered in Secunderabad Railway Station. Abecedare (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Thank you to those who ultimately provided sources. JBsupreme (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Groundlings[edit]

DELETE. Sources include a PR Newswire, Youtube, and a local clip from Los Angeles Times Entertainment. Doesn't seem notable to me. JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - one of the top improvisational comedy troupes in the country, springboard for any number of internationally famous actors and comedians, the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. They even had their own TV series. I'm rather amazed that the article is in as poor shape as it is but the subject easily passes WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep That this article would even come within a mile of discussion of deletion is astonishing to me. It is a HIGHLY notable company in its field, and the article was a pretty decent article until someone got the notion that much of the information in it could be deleted and THEN the article be put up for deletion for non-notability, when much of the notability had been deleted by that person! Definite keeper, with its pre-messed with content. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Many of the sitcom and sketch comedy stars of the last two decades (and even some comedic actors who have switched to drama) have come from this troupe. It's the LA equivalent of Second City and the Upright Citizens Brigade, and there should be no doubt in retaining this article at all. Certainly a candidate for expansion, but in no way for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 08:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - plenty of Google news hits on the subject. --Holkingers (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Keep, Keep. One of the top comedy groups in the world. The list of alumnae alone ensures notability.Rhinoracer (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources, Sources Sources. If its so incredibly notable, sure there is more than a PR Newswire and some spartan coverage to rely upon. JBsupreme (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not well sourced" does not equal "no sources exist". Otto4711 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put your money where your mouth is guy. If sources cannot be coughed up then you can bet your bottom dollar this article won't stick. JBsupreme (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source already if everyone's clamoring to keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another very poor AFD nomination. If you want sources, how about these: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Google found them, why didn't the nominator?--Michig (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recommend closing per WP:SNOW, the sources found by Michig are more than enough to pass the notability and verifiability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben White[edit]

Non-notable rugby league player. Absolutely no effort seems to have happened to establish notability, and that violates the WikiProject Rugby league notability essay rule 9 when it presumes he is notable based upon the team he plays for. Also no references, the first page of Google search "Ben White rugby league" is some dodgy pages, while a Google News search the exact same sees a result for a rugby league player for Cardiff in England, not AMNRL (America). The Windler talk 06:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree with the nominator's reasons, as, however much emphasis is used on the word "guidelines", and however legalistically the document is written, this is an essay, not a guideline, so can't be claimed to overrule WP:ATHLETE. Also the very first non-Wikipedia Google hit using the obvious search terms is a non-dodgy site confirming that the subject plays for this team. I do, however, think that this should be deleted as failing WP:ATHLETE, the AMNRL not being fully professional, and the general notability guideline, with no evidence of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I removed the WP:PROD tag from this article last year because a similar case had just been kept at AfD, but I don't believe that that "keep" reflects current consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to use guidelines, I forgot that the WP:ATHLETE is a guideline and not rules which then I presumed guidelines was under that, I meant essay, as in not a guideline but consensus reached by the WikiProject. I was trying to emphasise that you could discredit the essay in the AFD if necessary, but just to help put a rugby league persepective on WP:ATHLETE where WP:RL judges that not playing in a first-grade competition is equivalent to not playing in a professional league as in WP:ATHLETE. The Windler talk 10:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Treasure (company). Nja²⁴⁷ 08:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuhiko Kikuchi[edit]

Queried speedy deleted: the query was "he designed notable games". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and therefore non-notable WP:BLP. I don't see why articles like this shouldn't be speedied, really, but for some reason Wikipedia's deletion policies are too tight to let that happen. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Treasure (company) Marasmusine (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Marasmusine as a plausible search term as a member of that company. Otherwise, notability is not inherited. MuZemike 18:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Samia[edit]

Non-notable rugby league player, sources from Google and Google News suggest a small incident with a touch judge, as well as a few international games for Lebanon. While the WikiProject Rugby league believes players that are internationals are notable, they need sources to make them notable as themselves not just by the fact they play for an international team. The article is also out of date, the external link is dead, he has not played one game for the St George Illawarra Dragons, (which was contested in the prod as being a professional team which it is, but he hasn't played for). Notability seems to be based around the fact he has played for these teams and not why. See WikiProject Rugby league guidelines. The Windler talk 06:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE by playing in a fully professional league. A ridiculously over-legalistically worded essay produced by a Wikiproject doesn't override a guideline. I would, however, commend the rugby league project on being strict about inclusion, in contrast to a project that tries claim notability for thousands of sportspeople who fail WP:ATHLETE. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Surely an international cap counts as competing at a professional level. decltype (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEWFood[edit]

This article describes a proposed product that is both controversial and unverifiable. Wronkiew (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While controversial now, the proposed product could be the only food alternative in the oncoming food shortage. Spirulina products based on fecal matter are already a reality. Reuse of food fibre from fecal waste is not impossible as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.7.43 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 May 2009

I cannot find any news or scholarly coverage on fecal spirulina food, nor does the article cite any references. As a proposed name for a product that doesn't yet exist, notability seems doubtful. Hairhorn (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the second link, under 'External Links' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.7.43 (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't scroll down quite far enough... and your first link is broken. I can accept that the technology exists, but your link says nothing about Singapore, NEWFood or the WHO, other than the fact that the WHO likes Spirulina. Hairhorn (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wronkiew's reasons. Get rid of it. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article so, pardon if i'm not very good at it, you mentioned "but your link says nothing about Singapore, NEWFood or the WHO" What should I add about these 3 subjects? Or gaive me an idea of what I should add? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.99.252 (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, try Category:Waste management or Soylent Green but hoaxes aren't appreciated. Drawn Some (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable original research, as is the claim of a food shortage so severe that people will be reduced to eating processed sewage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is verifiable, note the decline in food stocks and increases in prices as well as dropping food production due to climate change. Increasing carbon footprint and expectations for living standards are raising this faster than ever. Also try these links :

http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:NnkK65ZT6MMJ:mmcconeghy.com/students/supcarryingcapacity.html+capacity+of+earth&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=my&client=firefox-a http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:W71Ed4qsEeYJ:dieoff.org/page28.htm+populations+capacity+of+earth+%2B+UN+statement&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=my&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.41.249 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, more links that about food, but not NEWFood. Nothing in here verifies the main claims of the article. Further, total worldwide food supply has never been the issue in famines, there has always been more than enough, it is just not distributed evenly, although that doesn't mean that that will always be the case. Your article would have better footing if you could provide at least one news report backing up any of the claims at the top of the article, although you'd still be stuck with an article based around a proposed name for a non-existent product. Perhaps we could wipe the unverifiable content and merge with Spirulina (dietary supplement). Hairhorn (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tightly controlled Singaporean media are not permitted to cover items that could affect 'civil order'. Updates will be made if project proposals for the NEWFood Sewage Recycling Factory progress any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.96.121 (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin swaby[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable artist; appears to be vanity article mhking (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Swaby is an Artist worth of note on Wikipedia. referenced in the link at USA today an obviously reputable source of Swaby's notoriety as for his interview with minorprogression.com

Swaby was also recently hired by the EYE booking agency of Los Angeles California to create posters for Mike Watts up and coming events and shows and his work has been excepted by their comity following the approval of Mike Watts himself.

I ask that you leave the entry up for a type of probational period allowing others to contribute their creditable knowledge of the artist therefore offering this artists name the right to have itself approved by the general public not just the verification of oneself (MHking) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WildOrganisms (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC) — WildOrganisms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. He is also the article creator[reply]

The articles for deletion process lasts seven days. That should be ample time for you to improve the article and show the subject to be notable. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also please take the time to do some menial research to justify you're assumptions of another humans importance in sub-cultures you may not be familiar with --76.103.138.255 (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC) — 76.103.138.255 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Google News has nothing, and the only hits on a normal search are social networking sites and something about high school basketball. No indication of notability per WP:ARTIST. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. WP is not Myspace. Article on a non-notable artist written by a single purpose account. Likely WP:COI. Article is not adequately sourced. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, self-promotional spam. Drawn Some (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Why can't this artist have representation on wikipedia? Are only mainstream artists whose works sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars worthy of inclusion? That seems really silly and elitist to me. His artwork is fresh and original and mention of him exists beyond MySpace- see Trendhunter magazine and USA Today links below:

http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/stickfigureart http://content.usatoday.com/topics/article/Sam%20Brown/0eWg7PQ4NR38k/3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.33.186 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC) — 64.183.33.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:ARTIST. Maybe one day he will satisfy notability requirements for Wikipedia and then he can have an article. Drawn Some (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colleciton of information--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "USA Today" link looks to be someone using the USA Today website as a version of Digg. It just links to the Trendhunter (and what is that exactly?) article. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable; Post your resume on LinkedIn, not Wikipedia.--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a resume, it is posted as a short set of facts. nothing in this gives any representation of an Resume. reform your idea of resume and educate yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.138.255 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC) it is also a gross inconsideration due to the fact that this [48] is eligible for entry Wikipedia is an internet based free encyclopedia that was intended to outstretch the hands of the more primitive versions of encyclopedias, yet has given a certain few the ability to remove something people think is relevant beyond your knowledge of the subjects and sub-cultures in which you have no understanding of. you are too elitist to dig deeper than a google search. is this the only means of finding information you all have? if USA today is more understated than your cheap google search for knowledge than wikipedia within itself is a false not-notable datebase. --WildOrganisms (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comparing an aspiring artist to a notable part of popular culture serves no purpose. We include articles on the criteria of verifiability and notability, and each articles stands on its own merit. In this case, Swaby was mentioned in a blog (not a reliable source), and then on TrendHunter. The "USA Today" article is no such thing, it is a stub syndication of the TrendHunter entry. One source isn't enough to establish notability. The only other non-social network or blog comment I can find is a listing at [49]. This biog falls under the guideline at WP:CREATIVE. Read that, and you'll see that this article doesn't cut it. Sorry. While we can wish Swaby good luck in his career, we have to wait until he has been recognised further. Fences and windows (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete it is absurd that all of you are in a sense ganging up on one persons reputation as well as demeaning and essentially denoting the possibility that this person may hold a certain place in relevance for his work in his medium. the USA today link is substantial in the mere fact that it is allowed on the corporations site all-together. stop trying to remove value from someone else name to make yourself feel important. important people do not take Wikipedia seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.138.255 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must be pretty unimportant, because you seem to be treating this as a life or death matter. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, update AfD vote to Speedy Delete under WP:SNOW --mhking (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its called proper litigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.138.255 (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and CLOSE - The only !votes for keep are by SPAs, with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS type arguments.. Delete and close.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 11:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck double !vote--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 11:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt–Estonia relations[edit]

another random combination. non resident embassies. The Estonian govt notes that trade is very very low and there are 3 minor "co-operation agreements." Also some of the high level meetings have happened at Egypt-Europe forums not bilateral meetings. lastly almost all coverage has been in a multilateral context. [50] not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant independent coverage of the topic (as opposed to visits, which are generally but news). - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of the article topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Next to nothing in the news "egypt+and+estonia"&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&um=1 and "estonia+and+egypt"&btnG=Search&hl=en&ned=us&um=1. I'm Talinn' you, there can be no de-Nile about a lack of news. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hahah, now we won't have plays on words. in a Syria AfD, someone once said "syria-ously"!LibStar (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails to establish how these relations are notable enough to warrant an article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - too much content for an entry in the table in Foreign relations of Estonia - but does need better sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any reliable sources that address this relationship in a fashion that might help to establih its notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing other than directory entry. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable soruces that adress this relationship. Hipocrite (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Belgium relations[edit]

whilst they have resident embassies, I could find no evidence of notable relations except on the football field [51] LibStar (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; in-depth independent coverage is not there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of the topic as a whole, only news items of individual events and football. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing I found that wasn't football was some niceties-- President Aliyev stopped by Brussels, and Belgium's top-ranking General came to Baku Aliyev receives Belgian Armed Forces Commander, and President Aliyev proclaimed that "political relations between Azerbaijan and Belgium have become strengthened" which I'd translate as "Thanks for stopping by". Mandsford (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sporting events do not international relations make. Not notable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Azerbaijan which now holds the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as effectively nonexistent/WP:NOTDIR, with optional redirect per Aymatth2. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reasonable coverage of this topic. Hipocrite (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Monday Night Baseball. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Monday Night Baseball[edit]

A person who has a chronic habit of unneccessarily splitting pages without discussion split this page from Monday Night Baseball. I merged them and left a note on the talk but was reverted without discussion. Since that article is only 6kb and this is only 5kb, there is absolutely no reason why they should be split. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Split wasn't discussed or neccesary and the title is not a plausible redirect when we already have the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back together, shouldn't have been split. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put it back Makes zero sense out of context. I'm not even going to try to quote a policy or guideline, this is just silly. If there was some POV fork or argument this is not the solution. Drawn Some (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge - per Drawn Some and Ed Fitzgerald. Rlendog (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulat Abdullayev[edit]

This Russian diplomat fails WP:DIPLOMAT - his role in events is not discussed in sources, and there are almost no reliable secondary sources that even mention him. Fences and windows (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did someone check in Cyrillic alphabet/Russian language? Drawn Some (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked and all I find are similar pages to those in English - mini-biogs listing his diplomatic postings. Someone else should look too though. Fences and windows (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are ambassadors fairly notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Fences and windows (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My understanding is that WP:DIPLOMAT pertains more to non-ambassador diplomats-- there many be many career officers who never become ambassador, but who might be involved in many important events. Ambassadors are probably more like WP:POLITICIAN. Note, for example, Mary M. Ourisman. Avram (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ambassador does not hold a political office. They are a diplomat. The existence of another page about a non-notable diplomat isn't a good reason to keep this one. Fences and windows (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it may vary some by country, but at least in the United States ambassadors are political appointees, confirmed by the Senate. Avram (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fences and windows since the article makes no claim of importance or significance and a Russian language search was performed. Drawn Some (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page updated. I have updated the page with more sources, mainly more reliable sources that confirm his role as ambassador, but also one that shows his role in working with international organizations. The decision of whether to keep this article will probably come down to whether the "importance" (whatever that means) of the country matters for deciding if ambassadors are notable-- it seems that reasonable people can differ on that. I have trouble seeing how this case differs from the (clearly notable) case of John R. Beyrle, or indeed most of the ambassador articles for U.S. ambassadors, which seem to, as a rule, be considered notable. Avram (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ambassadors, rep[resenting the top of their profession, are notable, as for other professions. The question is whether this also holds for mio=nor nations, and it certainly holds for the representative to or from a major nation like him. From one minor nation to another, I think they;d still be notable, but I wouldn't be quite as sure of it. DGG (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am keeping my delete even though he has been an ambassador. It is still WP:DIPLOMAT that applies, not WP:POLITICIAN, ambassadors are diplomats just as poodles are dogs. Based on the updated information he is still not notable. With 200 countries there could be 4,000 ambassadors, although there aren't that many, and there is nothing anywhere to indicate that they are inherently notable and that WP:DIPLOMAT can be ignored. To try to do otherwise is ignoring Wikipedia guidelines, and I find it very disturbing. Drawn Some (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ambassadors from major countries such as Russia are going to be inherrently notable, whilst Ambassadors from Mali are likely going to be harder to make notable. Sorry, but it's the way of the world; Russia being a world power, and a member of the UNSC, etc is going to have a higher profile. Abdullayev has written books unders pseudonyms, and I have included one of those which I have found, and has also been a member of influential Russian think tanks and the like. The guy is notable --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aervanath (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ties That Bind (2009)[edit]

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NF. No awards or substantial coverage. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one minor award but I don't see any evidence that any of the criteria for notability in WP:NF are met. Drawn Some (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. No independent critical reviews to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for sourcing per reviews in genre-specific reliable sources that allow the film to {just) meet the criteria of WP:NF Dread Central. As for Dread Central, it was founded in 2005 [52] and is now part of the Crave Online network of websites. They have editorial oversite with staff including Joshua Siebalt, Steve Barton, Jon Condit, Debi Moore, Paul Nomad, Andrew Kasch, Buz Wallick, Heather Wixson, Scott A. Johnson, Morgan Elektra, Joe Knetter, Dave Manack, Bill Johnson, and K.W. Low [53], and is itself quoted in sources such as St. Petersburg Times,Joblo.com], and Fangoria... which allow for them to be considered as reliable sources in context to what is being sourced. Not bad for a 14 minute horror short that is just now making the festval rounds Lancaster Area Film Festival, Terror Film Festival, Reel Festival for Women, Garden State Film Festival. In 2 weeks there will be more reviews. And comments: WP:NF] was not written with just-released, minor, independent, films being considered, as many of the attributes to consider refer to events which cannot happen for another 5 years. So we need fall back to WP:N and consider WP:GNG... in which case this one "just" slips in. And in reading "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" one sees that this allows consideration of genre-specific awards at genre-specific festivals. WP:NF lists some "major" awards, but also specifically states that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". So using common sense, genre-specific awards, major for their genre, would qualify. Not everything is the oft praised, always hyped, and finacially lucrative Academy Awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A bunch of listings that show it has made the round at some film festivals and a single review doesn't make for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this one meets basic notability requirements of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, please point them out because I couldn't find them. Drawn Some (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksey Vysotsky[edit]

The article has had a notability tag for a few months now. Searches on Google (news, scholar, &c.) reveal nothing to establish notability. Nothing in the body of the article suggests he's especially notable. Alexrexpvt (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The language (such as the clumsy use of the incorrect pronoun in "It is demobilised in 1959 in a rank of the colonel.") suggests that this is an automatic translation, which indicates that there is a host of hidden problems less obvious to someone who can't read the original. The Russian Wikipedia article appears well-referenced, and I will assume that he is significant enough for an article, but this article is probably not useful. Regardless of whether this page is deleted or not, the article would need to be restarted from scratch. --Hegvald (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a direct translation of the Russian Wikipedia article, and as Hegvald says, appears to be a machine translation. I've listed it for cleanup at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the article, notability would be as an author & journalist. As is frequent with machine translation, there is more information in the Russian article than was "translated" in the enWp article: for example, a biography: "on the war years of Alexei V. Vysotsky, and his wife Alexandra Ivanovna Vysotskaya," p. 113-130 in The Young Guard by Evdokimova E. Alexey and Alexander, Collection «Danko». - Moscow:, 1975. 3rd ed. (To have managed as a Jew to have risen to Colonel in the Soviet Army, during the 1950s is a significant accomplishment, but not necessary encyclopedic.). DGG (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My Russian is rusty but I'll work on it a bit. He is clearly encyclopedic - even in an Anglo/Amer-centric encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I'll have to find some spare time so give me a couple of days. La Chaim or Hа здоровье - Williamborg (Bill) 01:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finished editing & still a Keep - Give this version a read. Hа здоровье - Williamborg (Bill) 15:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. War hero, Jewish Colonel in the Russian army, and author of 4 books is sufficient. Uncle of, subject of a song by, and producer of first professional quality recording of Vladimir Vysotsky, in addition, is something that would probably qualify by itself. --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. My count is two deletes (including poster), three keeps (four of which combined into one, and the other keeps by Paul Erik and Renaissancee). It's been relisted once, and therefore closed as no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snob Scrilla[edit]

Non-notable singer-songwriter. The references in the article are not to reliable sources (required by WP:BAND. A Google news archive search (all dates) provides no non-trivial coverage (although the name does hit some reliable sources). Bongo matic 15:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No signs of notability yet. Looks like he's just getting going. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Meets the folowing criteria; 1 (MTV, Youtube, Record Stores, Rolling Stone etc), 2 iTunes Australia Hip-Hop Chart @ #3, 4, was the supporting/opening act for Faker's 2008 Tour. He is compliant with more than one which all you need is one, and he meets more than one, the references are there . - Holeshot07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holeshot07 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 09:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to have just enough coverage to pass. I would not be against revisiting this if, in 6 months' time nothing else seems to have developed (while the iTunes chart doesn't count, it is an indicator that the song could well end up on a "real" chart, and the song just came out). TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Line With Guidelines. It may seem weak to allot of people, and there is no way for me to prove this, but he is popular in Australia, just the other day he was played on Nova(Radio Station), you will see more and more and more of him, this guy is not trying to get popular on wikipedia, he is allready signed and selling music, performing and so on, this is so people can gather more information about him, hence an encyclopedia, it complys with the wikipedia guidelines, as far as I know that it, there is no, in between, either you comply which he does on more than 1 criteria, or you dont, leave the page - Holeshot07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holeshot07 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 211.27.22.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User passes WP:MUSIC And to the posts here he is quite popular down in Australia, and has had multiple hits. Renaissancee (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestion of hits in the article. Can you provide details? Bongo matic 22:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. He's really taking off and I think there's quite a lot of curiosity about him being an American MC in Australia. I for one came to Wikipedia looking for more information on him (re-located by holeshot07as user must of forgotten to place it below).--211.27.22.30 (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) — 211.27.22.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Complies with Guidelines. This has gone on long enough, blind freddy can see its inline with wikipedia guidelines, if the precious "elders" of wikipedia would open their eyes and stop pulling rank and let this pass through, time to take off the tag on the page. It complies, end of story.- Holeshot07
I added a couple of references. His co-writing of the song "Running Back", which apparently went double-platinum and hit #3 on the charts, does confer some notability based on sources. I'd lean towards keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Family Catholic Academy[edit]

Non-notable non-secondary school. Bongo matic 15:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per entry, it's actually a non-notable primary school. (edit: Can't read. Saw the above as "primary", not "non-primary") tedder (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary school with no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Inverness, Illinois#Education per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now created the Education section and added the limited encyclopaedic information available. TerriersFan (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary/middle school with no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management#Johnson diversity and inclusion. The section in S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management is almost an exact copy of this article so it might have already been merged. Per GFDL concerns redirecting is the safest thing to do. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Diversity and Inclusion[edit]

Article is extremely vague, reads like a press release, does not establish notability, and has not been substantially revised since its creation in 2006. It's been tagged with several problem templates in the past, but has received no attention since then. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Cornell University. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire content of the article is already at S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management#Johnson diversity and inclusion, where it should be; a section of a larger article on the school, rather than one aspect of its policies. I wouldn't oppose making this article a redirect there, but I don't think it's a likely search term. --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MTV Roadies Hell Down Under. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nauman Sait[edit]

Bio seems to fall under WP:ONEEVENT and does not appear to have any notability beyond winning a reality TV show. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very very weak keep, if not then Merge/redirect to MTV Roadies Hell Down Under - as stated by Salih, its a pretty clear example of WP:ONEEVENT if its based solely on his appearance on said realith show, though representing your state in Indian cricket is a fairly big thing, I don't know enough about domestic cricket in India and its professional status and whether he therefore might scrape by WP:ATHLETE - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not state anything here:) Salih (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise, I'd forgotten Mufka's name while typing, looked up in the edit box and yours was the first name I saw. - Chrism would like to hear from you 21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bold merge sounds like a plan. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two weeks there's no consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premadasa Hegoda[edit]

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:TEACH - notability (or even existence) of Japan-Lanka Cultural Exchange Society cannot be verified by another source - no reliable sources for other claims of notability Hekerui (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources from Sri Lanka may be hard to come by. Are there any editors who have access to that region's media and sourcing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's an expatriate living in Japan so there are likely many more sources in Japanese than in Sinhalese. Badagnani (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's absolutely no references except for a little quote at the bottom, and few results show up on Google searches. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the sources indicate this is a highly notable musician, with an international reputation, and probably the most notable sitarist from Sri Lanka. Badagnani (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per research on g-hits Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A few more references not listed in the article: [54] tells a fair bit of his story. [55] [56] are short pieces about his performances and that he is the head of the Asian Education, Culture and Natural Environment Preservation Japan Support Center. Considering the amount of coverage that English language web news would tend have about a Sri Lankan musician in Japan, I thik that should be sufficient. --GRuban (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Sramek (banker)[edit]

Completely non-notable student. He's been mentioned, not as the primary subject, on a single day a few years ago due to the novelty of his A-Level grades. The rest of the article has been supported by his own LinkedIn profile, articles written by him, and his own websites. Doesn't meet any notability criteria. Bastin 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

KEEP - Completely incorrect. Since then he has been featured in the national / international media (including CNN International) many times for various different things not related to the A-Levels episode. I quickly pieced the article together using his profile but will now amend using other sources. Gurtbeiller (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) — Gurtbeiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Pffft. That isn't 'featured'. 'Featured' would be with the main subject being related to the individual or event - in those cases, he is mentioned as one of numerous people; at best, he is a minor subject, less notable than the main subject, whilst, at worst, he is an object used to describe or enlighten the main subject. Not everyone that appears on TV is notable (Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article about me - explain that!), particularly if they appear as objects and not subjects. That is, G20 meeting = notable; people that have opinions on G-20 ≠ notable. The fact that you have edited only the article on Jan is either a bizarre editing interest or a demonstration of a conflict of interests. If you are the subject of an article, or know the subject, could you please disclose this? Bastin 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So what do you have to say about http://www.thegatewayonline.com/article.php?id=139 then? An article all about just him, not written by him, written in a national publication that has its own Wikipedia page too. Gurtbeiller (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability, particularly the part that states that multiple sources are required: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". Not to mention that being profiled in a student newspaper probably doesn't suggest notability, either.

On the other criteria (any one of which is grounds for deletion, may I add), it seems to me that he falls under WP:BIO1E. None of the rest is notable in the slightest.

Still perplexed as to why you have an interest. Please illuminate. Bastin 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete

This is not notable..... the articles you have cited are either written by Jan or by his friend D Langer. You or your friends cannot start pages about you...... that does not make a person notable. Ono6767 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)— Ono6767 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the independant sources a notable person would have. In the end this is a resume. Edward321 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an outstanding student but non-notable. If he continues on his present path he may be notable some day and I wish him well. Drawn Some (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, he has no sources, only a resume. His philanthropy and Sport recognitions have no verifiability whatsoever as well. Renaissancee (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009
'Delete clearly a remarkable student but not notable for anything other than his GCSE results at this stage. - (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ran full 7 days and no-consensus reached Nja²⁴⁷ 08:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SQEP[edit]

Google search of SQEP does not yield any result indicating that it stands for "Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person". Mblumber (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an dic-def with no Notability provided. There are a lot of possibile meanings including Software Quality Evaluation Plan or Soil Quality Evaluation Program as well as the meaning Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person so at best, a Dab should exist here. But I think that the Dic-def trumps any possible Notability this definition may have. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Exit2DOS2000, this does not have article potential any more than SWF or LTR. Drawn Some (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know how Mblumber did his Google search, but the results showing the usage are available.

I just searched "SQEP", and beside the wikipedia article, there were no hits referring to "Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person". I guess what I mean to say is that this might make a better disambiguation page, rather than its current form. --Mblumber (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As stated above, it can be found on a Google search quite easily. Though, I'm not entirely convinced that it needs it's own article, As it seems like a pretty localized and specific acronym; It just sounds like something else you can put on your resume. Renaissancee (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heavily used in the highly-regulated engineering field where I sometimes work as a contractor. Linuxlad (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is used a lot, does that make this definition Notable? All the mentions of it I found were using the term, not talking about the term. Does it mean that this (is/will be) more than a simple Dic-def. There are a lot of other meanings to this Acronym, so wouldn't it make sense to make it a Dab page here, then interwiki it to Wiktionary for those that are straight up definitions only? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. Yes I can find the term being used but that's all. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telekinesis![edit]

Does not meet WP:BAND Chzz ► 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would tend to agree with the nom. Un school 02:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Fails to pass WP:BAND. Renaissancee (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this AfD about this album or about the band which made it, or both? The article seems to be about an album but the nom mentions it not passing a guideline for bands. Rnb (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I guess albums are covered under WP:BAND, which I hadn't realized. Rnb (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The album has been reviewed by numerous reliable sources, which lends to the album's (and artist's) notability. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Twasnow. The band seems borderline notable, so their album can be either kept or merged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Should this really be up for debate? The band passes the criteria for notability under WP:BAND, and therefore so does this album. Besides, this album has national reviews across the country (ie Billboard Magazine, All Music Guide, Pitchfork Media, two articles in Spin Magazine here and here, Drowned In Sound, The Austin Chronicle, Nashville Scene, Nylon Magazine, two articles in PreFix Magazine here and here, and also Stereogum. (Fulmerg (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Forgot to add that yesterday Rolling Stone named Telekinesis as a "Breaking" band here (Fulmerg (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Not all of the above references are useful, but I think enough are to establish notability. Rnb (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it stands makes credible claims of notability, and the additional material seals the deal. Alansohn (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tango: Zero Hour[edit]

non-notable album Chzz ► 02:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. After 20 years "in the public eye", you'd think that there would be at least some claim of notability, but there's not. Un school 02:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources that have been added make this now clearly notable. Un school 08:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, coverage in the The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, The Village Voice, Spin, Option, and others indicates this album is quite notable (source). I also have no idea what Unschool's reason is supposed to mean. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was a reflection of my surprise that there was not one attempt in this stub to assert notability. This is rather common when editors create articles about albums that were released, say, this morning before lunch, but it is rare for me to encounter an article about an album more than 20 years old which doesn't at least attempt to assert notability. Un school 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I am completely open to this article's preservation. If you would be so kind as to provide some links to those impressive sources that supposedly have covered this album (and not just that one apparently non-notable source you gave us), then I would be happy to reconsider my position. Un school 02:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are unaware that I created this article less than one hour before it was nominated. Usually I might take my time building an article, but it seems Chzz was feeling urgent. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should also familiarize yourselves with the notability guideline for albums: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for becoming part of the rapid bandwagon. I generally disapprove of AfDs being started on articles (other than patent nonsense) upon their creation. I came here to comment on another article that I saw had been nominated that I had been considering nominating myself for over two months. Anyway, once I got here, I just began to comment on other articles as well, and obviously didn't give the due consideration I should have. Anyway, you've got 7 days to make it right, and it's on my watchlist, as is any AfD I comment on, and I'll be back to see if you've brought this to an acceptable level. If so, I'd love to change my mind. Cheers. Un school 04:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure on what planet this is non-noteable. Also, is failure to claim notability in the article in itself even grounds for deletion? Hairhorn (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any official album of Piazzolla would be considered notable. But Hairhorn, in general, yes, articles have to claim some importance or significance for their topic. This could really be closed without further discussion because it is so clear-cut. Drawn Some (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info... I was just puzzled because I have also read.... I don't remember the exact wording... that articles should be deleted based on the subject's potential to be a good article, not so much on the article as written. Hairhorn (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable and verifiable sources added to article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jobwa[edit]

Not a separate tenent of Buddhism; possible to merge, but little content Chzz ► 02:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Non-notable belief or opinion (Nom reasoning changed; I t hought that it claimed to be a part of Buddhist; I see now that this is not the case) Chzz ► 10:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete At best, not notable belief. At worst, vandalism. Unable to locate WP:RS to substantiate the article's content. I find nothing on Google to connect +Buddhism +Jobwa.
- The ref in the article mentions the subject, Jobwa, as a stick dance.
- No relevant G hits for author of the book that this appears in.
- No Ghits for the book.
- I don't understand the nom statement. If this is a tenet of Buddhism, it would need a source. If the nominator desires a merge, then the thing to do would be to source and propose a merger. (I had originally tagged for CSD as an attack, and it was thus deleted. Recreated, I PRODDED.) Still awaiting sourcing. Dlohcierekim 02:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as garbage I've already deleted once before and consider a block of the user. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment-- my PROD is still on the thing, and I still stand by my PROD. Not sure how that affects this. ;). If other eyes find suitable sourcing and notability I missed, willing of course to change to keep. My hope remains that this turns out to be legit, but with sourcing in another language. cheers Dlohcierekim 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Marshallese stick dance described in the reference is certainly notable[57], but I can see no evidence of the existence of the actual subject of the article, let alone of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we determine this content is deletable, I'll be willing to correct the thing to the dance. Dlohcierekim 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an FYI, an article shouldn't be both PRODed and sent to AfD. The AfD process overrides PROD, so I removed the tag. (Also, previously deleted pages are not normally eligible for PROD). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generation "We..."[edit]

This is a marketing term, not a notable generation. Many other neologisms have been deleted or merged from Wikipedia. In my opinion http://www.nationaljournal.com/campaigns/2007/articles/0309nj1.htm is probably the only citation worth merging into Generation Y and from the article it is clear that the authors are not seriously proposing Generation We as a title for a generation, it's just a title for the article Kevin143 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the nom's statement, "not a notable generation" is probably not what he meant to say, after all, is it even possible to call this particular generation, in its entirety, as notable or not? Nonetheless, I've looked at all the sources, and it does appear to me to be more of a marketing gimmick than anything. That may change some day, but for now, this just doesn't cut it, so I'm voting delete. Un school 02:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, delete. i mean who is really gonna use this term? Mimzy1990 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is ever going to use the term 'Generation We...'? This is a marketing term. I agree, delete. 67.207.41.202 (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eh, nobody ever calls this Generation Y (or We). Not sure if we need to start now... Renaissancee (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried deleting this and redirecting it to Generation Z ... why can't i? isn't there consensus now it's bs? Mimzy1990 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:AFD page. In particular the sections "What to do after an AfD discussion has passed" and "How an AfD discussion is closed". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism/marketing term (WP:NAD) --IllaZilla (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was kept. -- User:Docu 00:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)~~

~~The result was overturned at DRV to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

The result was page turned into a disambiguation page. -- 02:40, 2009 May 28

Estonia–Luxembourg relations[edit]

another random combination, non resident embassies. very little third party coverage [58]. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Prime Ministerial and Presidential visits, growing trade and cultural contacts, four bilateral agreements, see here. Luxembourg is one of the Benelux countries, so it is natural to have the ambassador reside in Brussels. Also significant coverage in the Estonian media [59]. --Martintg (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you speak Estonian? I note many of these articles in that search were in a multilateral context. similar thing happens in a French language search [60] yes there is a mention of president and PM visits but not anything else. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if it's natural to have an embassy for Benelux countries in Brussels, then why does Estonia have one in the Netherlands? LibStar (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- first, we need secondary sources to establish notability, per WP:GNG. Second, claiming state visits as evidence of notability is rather odd; these happen literally every week of every year, yet here they go unnoticed in general. Why make an exception for AfDs of this series of nonsense articles? Would we ever, for instance, mention the visits in the subjects' biographies, or mention any of the other visits happening all the time anywhere else? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can count on one hand the number of times a US president has visited Australia in the last 100 years, so presidential visits are hardly an every day event. --Martintg (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the US president being the most powerful person on Earth is a lot more notable than the Luxembourg Prime Minister visiting. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No offense to anyone but there is a double standard emerging on these articles in general. Many claim (not naming names) that State Visits can't help determine these articles notable but no policy can confirm this notion, others say they are but once again no policy can confirm that. What we need is a honest to god policy on bilateral relations so that way we don't waste resources here at Afd with constant article after article going up on the block. Secondly I quote WP:PRIMARY, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable person." So basically Primary sources can be used (in some instances) another notion that keeps being dismissed despite the fact that almost every article on Wikipedia in some way or another uses primary sources. I continue WP:GNG is a official guideline of wikipedia, something that should be looked at to help us choose when to use a primary source or not but when it comes to policy WP:PRIMARY part of WP:V I believe, outweighs WP:GNG per WP:PG. Per this the notion that primary sources can never be used is absurd. As I reiterate what I said at the beginning I am not mad at any user in particular, instead I am mad we have yet to have any clear policy on this something we need before constantly deleting these articles or even keeping them. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a rough consensus against making a special standard for bilateral relations. WP:MILL is the main criteria I'm using for help in deciding how notability applies to these. I ask myself "Is this relationship exceptional"? A few visits with heads of state, an embassy, some normal trade... that stuff doesn't seem exceptional to me, when compared to other bilateral relations. Bilateral relations are pretty easy because they are a commodity. There's literally 20,000 of them for us to compare against. If you had to rate this one on a scale of 1 to 20,000, where would it land? In the top 100 most notable relationships? Top 1000? One like this is probably in the long tail of stuff that doesn't much matter. Gigs (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exceptionalness is a rather subjective measure. How many Americans can name the Australian Prime Minister, let alone take note of a visit by the Australian PM? Martintg (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most Americans wouldn't be able to find Australia on a map of the world much less know that it has a Prime Minister. (See here.) So don't you think asking them to NAME the Australian Prime Minister is a bit much? They probably know that Australians speak English because of Australia in popular culture. Drawn Some (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they spoke Strine. The things you learn at AFD! Edison (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Notability means the same thing as exceptionalness. We have no objective standard for notability, and any proposal for one would be rejected quickly. Gigs (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for or against keeping this particular article, but I must dispute the claim that notability means the same thing as exceptionalness (shouldn't that be exceptionality?). This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. If every subject in a particular class passes the notability guidelines then we can have an article on every one of them, not just the exceptionally notable ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another random combo. What's next? Antarctica–Mexico relations? --Unionhawk ^Talk 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Soybean-Stringbean relations, I think. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of the topic to back up this random combination of countries. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Luxembourg which now contains the content, in the usual way. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here other than directory entry. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that cover this supposed relationship and the two countries themselves have dispensed with the inconvenience of an exchange of ambassadors altogether, suggesting there's a reason there are no sources on the relationship: It barely exists at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie^☆S93 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul O'Driscoll[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paul O'Driscoll

This article is about a former football (soccer) player and coach who doesn't appear to meet our general notability guideline and our notability guideline for athletes or our policies on verifiability and biographies of living people. He has never played or coached at the professional level and he hasn't recieved the independant coverage required to meet our notability guidelines. Furthermore, this BLP has been uncited since 2007 and my online searches can't verify any of this material. Them From Space 01:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Them From Space 01:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. John Sloan @ 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:ATHLETE and WP:N, namely. --Angelo (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Raymond[edit]

This player never made a appearance in the Australian Football League seniors and has been delisted. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not had a notable career at semi professional level either. Jevansen (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Delete - These articles fail very notability test available. WP:ATHLETE states: People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. None of these people have competed at a professional level. Alan16 ^talk 08:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. One (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any player who has been delisted without playing a game in the AFL (which as far as I can tell is all of them). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I outta[edit]

Non-charting song from a non-notable mixtape with lack of coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:NM. — Σ xplicit 01:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~WP:Csd#A9~~ No indication why this track is notable specifically. Gigs (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to A9, an article can only be speedied "where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted". The article's artist is T-Pain, therefore, this article does not meet that criteria. — Σ xplicit 01:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. Gigs (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Explicit. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-charting single, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable song from a non-notable mixtape. Fails WP:NSONGS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys just suck it up. It's a good song from a good artist, so just leave it ALONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.2.44 (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- User:Docu 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations[edit]

Fails WP:N for lack of multiple, reliable sources on the topic. The one salient point, the presence of embassies, is already documented at Diplomatic missions of the Philippines and Diplomatic missions of Romania. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable embassy-only relation. Gigs (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete noting that this is a 2nd nomination. Only minor agreements, otherwise close to no coverage, only mentions in a multilateral context. [61]. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gigs. Note: this was previously listed in a group listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations, which closed as no consensus with liberty to relist individually. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete The 2 relevant articles about foreign relations of the 2 countries seem to cover the subject. Edison (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, there's quite a bit that can be found on a Google news search, and I'm not surprised. The Philippines has 90 million people, Romania has 20 million, but there's also been cooperation between the two. President Iliescu and President Arroyo cooperated on bidding for spots on the UN Security Council, and they were both non-permanent members there during the same term; "philippines+and+romania"&cf=all:
President arrives in Manila today (2002)
Romania vow to back each other's bid for non-permanent seat in UNSC (2002)
RP, Romania affirm ties (2006)
Romania explore more trade cooperation (2003)

Anyway, I think there's enough here to support an article. Mandsford (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with addition of material identified, notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. We still don't have significant coverage of the relations as such; instead, we've been given trivial news bits synthesized from passing newspaper mentions about scattered events. Are we really expected to call these "relevant relations"? What contextual importance do they confer upon the topic of "Philippines–Romania relations"? Can you really say this functions as a topic with the trivia that's been dug up? Rather than work with the assumption that all details of the relationship are notable (patently false), it should be clear that only the relationship as such, about which nothing substantial has been said and which is already recorded in the embassies lists, is even possibly notable, but that a mere statement of its existence would never validate a separate article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial is a subjective word, that shows the users own biases to affairs outside their own area of interest. Events are notable when reliable sources take notice of them, not when a Wikipedian declares them notable. Wikipedians don't determine notability, the reliable sources do. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the existence of AfD shows that Wikipedians do determine notability. In all the discussions I've been in, I've noticed that they're wrong, except for those occasions when they share my opinion. Whether something is notable is a matter of opinion, and since people have differences of opinion, Wikipedians do (collectively) make that call every day, and an administrator then agrees with one side or the other. To a lesser extent, whether something is "reliable" is a matter of opinion (Biru and I disagree on whether a government press release would be independent or reliable). "Verifiable", of course, is a matter of fact. Mandsford (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, you've made this argument before, and it's a red herring. No one is against these articles because "they don't interest" him, but rather because they make no sense, because they are about nothing of contextual significance, because no one could possibly expand on such subjects without veering into trivial nonsense (which is, objectively, what we're dealing with), and because they set a slippery slope. These all go against Wikipedia rules, but you appear not to care. Please try to construct an argument that relates to what I said, not what you'd like for me to have said. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's your personal opinion that the topic is notable, and this vote shows the user's own biases toward affairs in his own area of interest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Everyone is posting their personal opinions whether the topic is notable or not. They wouldn't just mindlessly be repeating someone else's would they? Some believe its notable, some don't. That's why we have AFD to discuss it. Dream Focus 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a sentence which says "In 2003 the Philippines and Romania agreed to explore areas for cooperation in trade complementation." and if you read the reference it's mainly memos of understanding which are weak agreements. secondly the announcement was made by a "Trade Undersecretary" which is junior minister position. If it was an actual agreement made by the Presidents it would be a lot more noteworthy. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And, further to that, is there any evidence this "exploration" produced anything, or even happened, in the intervening six years? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of the stated article topic to establish notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are significant relations between the two countries as shown here and here for example. Smile a While (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since i find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any depth beyond the extremely trivial and ephemeral.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their support of each other for seats, shows there must be something going on between them. Dream Focus 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very interesting. How about some non-trivial coverage of the actual topic, as opposed to bits of trivia--an internal maneuver at the UN we'd never dream of covering outside this series of nonsense articles--you happen to consider evidence of "something going on between them"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Romania relations[edit]

Fails WP:N; no multiple, independent sources provide in-depth coverage of the topic. That both are EU members is recorded at, well, EU members - and more accurately, as Romania didn't join in 2004, as asserted here. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since they are both EU members, I took a little longer than I usually do with these to try to dig up something, came up empty. Gigs (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be no coverage of actual bilateral relations, everything is about EU expansion. [62] LibStar (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge How about merging/splitting relevant info to Foreign relations of ... articles for each individual country, thereby avoiding combinations of 203 sovereign countries taken 2 at a time articles like this? Edison (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask what is there to merge, they don't even have resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Information (such as it is) can be merged into the new class of articles, but this specific article is non-notable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources pertaining to the overall article topic. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Malta which now holds the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Foreign relations of Malta where the content has already been boldly merged. Smile a While (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Per Aymatth2, the imporatant information in this article has already been moved to Foreign relations of Malta so this has become a pointless, empty argument over a redirect. Ikip (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pointless, empty argument over a redirect is purely your opinion. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments here are also opinion. Ikip (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss this relationship. I have no objection to a redirect after it's deleted. My experience of making a redirect on these sorts of things without an AFD that comes down "delete" is, ah, that it's not popular. So don't see anything pointless or petty to settling the question of what's to be done with this article right here before us.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Wagner[edit]

CV puffery--probably self-created--regarding a minor entrepreneur, bolstered by snippets about companies he's been involved, not about himself. CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history speaks not to the companies but specifically to my role in their performance, which I emphasize in each section. There are hundreds of self-created pages, and since I have been a part of the growth of the Internet since the early 1990s', which is inherently of relevance, feel the page should not be deleted. Thank you so much for your consideration and I hope that you conclude it is not puffery, but a listing of facts supported by a lot of researched and presented support references. Thanks! :-) -RW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucmba (talk • contribs) 02:50, 8 May 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) 00:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the comment above, can we conclude that this is indeed a WP:Autobiography? The Wired Article does indicate some notability. I would recommend a weak keep with a serious rewrite by an independent editor. Ronald Wagner should not edit this article thereafter. If this is not possible, then redirect to his current company. Symplectic Map (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I really hate these autobiographies of marginally notable people. There is some indication of notability in the sources. But, since very few people see them, it's easy for the subject of the article to WP:OWN them. I have removed some likely unverifiable material about Wagner's birth and education. Gigs (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: reads too much like a resume as it is. Since there is nothing actually written but job titles, I have to go read all the references to see if he is notable, and I'm not in the mood for that, so I can't say. But it would definitely need to be written as an actual article.--Susan118 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that sounded a little obnoxious, but my point was, that no one should HAVE to read the sources to get the point of an article. --Susan118 (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a lede, but that's an editing issue. Gigs (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads just like a resume, and that's it. We're not a resume service. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unadulterated, self-admitted vanity article. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no one seems interested in even trying to make it look like an article. Yes I realize the decision to keep or delete is based on notability, and not how good the article is, but as mentioned above, this isn't a resume service, and that's what the "article" looks like, even if there are footnotes. --Susan118 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per consensus generally, and possible confusion between people of same name on the one keep Nja²⁴⁷ 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Young (TV Presenter)[edit]

Nothing to indicate why this person is notable enough to be encyclopaedic. Lacks any links to his importance or even his existence. Holkingers (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Wiki articles have had this "Nicholas Young" character included as a presenter, but no references appear to exist anywhere on the internet to verify the claims. Most edits made by the user AspireT180 in March 2009 immediately after creating this page. Looks like a pretty clear hoax.Bonusballs (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided quickly to back it up. The fact that I can't find anything connecting him to any of the shows mentioned is somewhat suspicious. --Susan118 (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having Googled a bit for "Nicholas Young" and "Nickelodeon" was an actor on their show The Tomorrow People, and acts as a host for other things as well. Dream Focus 21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dreamfocus, you're confusing him with Nicholas_Young_(actor) - he's nearly 60 years old! The Tomorrow People was made in the 1970s and remade in the 1990s, and only ever shown on the American Nickelodeon - whereas this article is talking about Nickelodeon UK. The actor is, in any case, not a host on either network. Given the obvious hoax nature of every other edit made by the user who created this page, I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that this page is entirely untruthful. Bonusballs (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a hoax, can't it be speedily deleted, as opposed to waiting the 7 days? --Susan118 (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) 10 days is enough. Weighing the arguments, I don't think a consensus has been reached. (non-admin closure) - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvola[edit]

Non-notable set of software icons. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Very notable icon set. Used in practically all templates on Wikimedia projects, and anything powered by MediaWiki, for that matter.--Unionhawk ^Talk 14:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable due to its extensive usage in Wikipedia and various Wikimedia projects. —BMRR (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment My gut feeling is that this is notable but some discussion about the sourcing (or lack thereof) is needed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitteh sez "WANT SAUCES PLZ" for notability and verifiability or Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say Keep if sources can be found, but a quick search I did didn't turn up much. --Susan118 (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I really want to keep this too, but that's just my systematic bias talking. ;) Gigs (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thought did cross my mind that maybe myself and others who want to keep it, are using our own definitions of notability and not Wikipedia's. It seems there should be a place for it somewhere on Wikipedia, though.--Susan118 (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a set of software icons...not really notable enough for it's own article. --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: delete the article and the icons. Non-notable icons have no place here. Get some notable from Billy G. NVO (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly constitutes a "notable" icon? Must a newspaper or magazine article have been written about it? And if you delete all of the icons, aren't you going to break about a zillion Wikipedia templates? —BMRR (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: These are very much notable and are used not only by Wikipedia, but by other projects as well. Tothwolf (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this [63] is enough to establish WP:N for open source software articles it should be more than enough to establish notability for a freely licensed icon library. Tothwolf (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A great icon set, but does not meet general notability guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and David Vignoni page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip Ikip (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge with David Vignoni there are 129,000 articles with Nuvola icon, 34,000 with Nuvola and "David Vignoni" Ikip (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - extremely common app, used at many colleges. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The problem is that this article appears to be a repository of Nuvola icons with very little to describe them as would befit an encyclopedia. I don't know if an article about icons is really necessary on Wikipedia. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- User:Docu 00:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Belarus–Croatia relations[edit]

another random combination. non resident embassies. 3 minor bilateral agreements including the usual double taxation one [64]. no coverage of relations except on the football field [65]. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for utterly lacking significant coverage in independent sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone searched in Belorussian and Croatian? Some of these like Tuvalu/Vatican City are absurd but there is a possiblity that these countries have significant relations. Drawn Some (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just volunteered. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent sources to back up the topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge How about merging relevant info to Foreign relations of ... articles for each individual country, thereby avoiding combinations of 203 sovereign countries taken 2 at a time articles like this? Edison (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the future please search through the official government webpages for both nations involved, searching for the name of the other. This shows three pages of results. The tax agreement alone makes them have a notable relationship. Dream Focus 03:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, a tax agreement in itself is not proof of significant relations. many bilateral combinations have been deleted with tax agreements. a trade agreement is much more significant and notable. many of those sources are multilateral not bilateral, some are even Eurovision which is zero evidence of bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall there ever being an agreed upon policy on which types of relationships are notable and which are not. Some were originally against trade agreements, as I recall. Anything that involves millions of people, is surely notable. Dream Focus 04:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say and I'll let others discuss, one taxation agreement does not make for notable relations. as for countries with millions of people, just say 2 such countries trade but there trade is like the 150th largest out of all countries they trade with, that is not notable, even if it technically affects millions of people. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is when the media take notice of an event, not some arbitrary cut off point in a ranking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for realizing these sources cover events, not the topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And when you string events together into a prose narrative you have an article. And when you string events together and arrange them alphabetically or chronologically you have a list. It is fun and easy, try it. It will make you feel good inside. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so one mention in a newspaper is good enough for Wikipedia? does Wikipedia report every event reported in the media? see WP:NOT#NEWS. LibStar (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS concerns creating an article based on one event. So when trade minister X is mentioned in a news event he or she' doesn't get their own article. When President X visits country X, that visit doesn't get its own article space. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sources above are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the absence of reliable sources that establish this is a notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the additional material described in the article, establishing notability. Article will benefit from further expansion. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above demonstrating notability. There's probably much more in Belarusian and Serbo-Croatian. --Oakshade (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially nonexistent. WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GNU_GRUB#Variants. SilkTork *^YES! 21:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GRUB4DOS[edit]

No notability indicated, no reliable third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-30t16:22z 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

(my 2c, suggest to keep the article GRUB4DOS) My suggestion is to keep the article: reasons are:--

Notability: this seems to be notable as a potentially important extension or adaptation of an important free software GNU GRUB into a new field of application to a widespread operating system.

Reliable third party sources: The external source cited is gna.org, which seems to be independent of the grub4dos authors, and hosting a number of free-software projects. This looks reliable under WP:RS.

Information (Googleability and linkablitiy from other articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panarchy (talk • contribs) 11:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terry0051 (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD notice was not placed on article page. Notice added. It also seems that this is a contested prod with the following reason given by contributions: Ridicoulous to delete a factual entry about a FOSS project. Matt (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNA is like sourceforge, anyone can create that. Gigs (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This could potentially be merged into this section here. Timmie.merc (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kangutkar[edit]

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:TEACH, search turns up nothing notable in independent 3rd party reliable sources. Hekerui (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established through reliable secondary sources. In particular, there are no sources for statements like "now the only full time Hindustani classical musician in Scotland" in the lead. Given that this is true, it's questionable if it's notable. Symplectic Map (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Symplectic Map. - DSachan (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found a few news articles mentioning the subject but the coverage was trivial and not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:MUSICBIO. Abecedare (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 diplomatic missions in Russia. SilkTork *^YES! 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Singapore in Moscow[edit]

~~fails WP:ORG. WP:NOTDIR applies here too. No significant coverage of this [66]~~ LibStar (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now support Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Russia. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Malaysia in Moscow to List of diplomatic missions in Russia. The reason for this, is that the building is a Brezhnev-era building (by my eye, perhaps NVO can confirm this) and there isn't anything that notable; I can't find heritage listings for it. The "organisation" however is entirely notable, but this belongs in Russia-Singapore relations. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of office buildings and this structure does not appear to be notable. Edison (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep permanent diplomatic missions in all major countries are notable. Thearticle is for the mission, not merely the building, and the architectural quality of the building is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 03:44, 9 May 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) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and is an improbable search term Drawn Some (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and please let's end this meme about inherent notability for random office buildings just because they happen to be in Moscow. WP:N still applies, and as significant coverage is lacking (and an actual article could never be written about this), other solutions are warranted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N not met Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect For reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Malaysia in Moscow to List of diplomatic missions in Russia. Edison (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep part of series of 'embassies' articles (not about buildings; read and understand); no reason to target this one for deletion. Hmains (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what are they about, and how can this ever be validated as a separate article? - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Maghiaru[edit]

fails WP:BIO. very little third party coverage. [67] LibStar (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of significant coverage of the subject. The sources cited here are a self-published radical journal and Maghiaru's organisation's own website. The article was started by a now-banned activist. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two point acupressure[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is the same content:

While there are 3 sources listed as references, when looking only 1 actually describes either Two point acupressure or Collateral meridian therapy. 1 doesn't exist, and the other is a list of "related articles". Related to what is not certain, but not these articles. Upon searching, the only source I could find was the working link, and that is a letter to the editor of a journal. These pages describe a non-notable technique that has not been the subject of independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Atmoz (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People start these offshoot schools all the time, and the vast majority of them never receive independent in-depth coverage. This appears to be one such. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one Google Scholar hit. Would be a single-source article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mecannibals[edit]

These fictional one-timers are only mentioned on 42 websites; absoluteastronomy.com, acronyms.thefreedictionary.com, alanaditescili.net, alternativehealth.co.uk, amazon.co.uk, amplifeyeforums.com, angelfire.com, answers.com, arcanum-alcove.blogspot.com, buscalibros.cl, doryoku.org, en.allexperts.com, everything2.com, fightingrobots.co.uk, forum.idwpublishing.com, forums.sirstevesguide.com, geocities.com, geocities.jp, groups.google.com, tfarchive.com, tfg2.com, tformers.ru, tfw2005.com, tfwiki.net, theindianpress.com, thenoiseboard.com, todocoleccion.net, tplist.millarworld.net, transfans.net, transformerland.com, transformers.net.ru, transformers.whathuh.com, transformers.wikia.com, transformers.wikicomplete.info, uberpedia.org, unicron.us, wapedia.mobi, webkinzinsider.com, wiki.cypee.com, wikien.info:, wikifish.com, and www7a.biglobe.ne.jp which are all either information agglomerators or fansites. One book mentions them, the HCA Comics Dallas Signature Auction Catalog #823. My proposed deletion for non-notability was contested. Resurr Section (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are mentioned at 1060 websites. They apparently were only in three issues of the Transformers comic book. They were notable enough to be mentioned in the book you referenced. Even that passing mention, makes them notable, as I'm sure the many websites talking about them as well. Out of all the characters in the Transformers comic book, the book mentioned them, showing this as an example of someone's artwork. Their story was redone and reprinted in a book also. Transformers Cybertron Redux Dream Focus 16:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good try at deception, but if you switch to the next page of your Google Search your 1060 somehow becomes 100. Also note that being in a book in the Transformers universe (a primary source) does not make anything notable. Resurr Section (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? I search for something, and Google gives me the option of clicking on result pages 1 to 10. I click on 10. That's what the link was to. If I was going to attempt deception, I would've linked to page one. To make sure the results are valid though, I clicked to 10. Anyway, if you click to include emitted results, it brings the entries to 1,050. My other reasons for keeping it still remain, regardless of how much fan chatter there is about the character, or where it is located at. Dream Focus 20:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of the links returned are secondary sources that demonstrate notability for these toothy red balls. The reason I know that is that I checked them all, including the omitted results, so that there would be no chance that I overlooked anything. You, on the other hand, have given us no sources. Why on Earth do you think I listed the 43 sites? To counter Google hit arguments that people would otherwise make. Sadly, it seems that I was wrong, since the argument was made anyway. Resurr Section (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources discuss these fictional creatures in any manner that would justify a separate encyclopedia article about them. In as much as they're notable to the comics series, they'll get a mention in an article on the comics series.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Resurr Section. Much more thorough research than I would have done, some of them are so obviously not reliable sources I wouldcn't have checked. The subject of an article must be notable and the information in the article verifiable or it isn't encyclopedic. Drawn Some (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per R.S. Iowateen (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, per nominator. Isn't there a list somewhere we can dump this? Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waco Jesus[edit]

Does not meet notability as per WP:BAND shirulashem (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the references mentioned in regard to criterion 1 of the music guidelines? = Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references are published materials. shirulashem (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 09:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have been published on the web. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently not meet the general notability guideline. So far, I not found any reliable source talking about this band.--Cannibaloki 15:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vikash Maharaj[edit]

This article is the recreation of Pt. Vikash Maharaj, which was speedy deleted, and was duplicated in Pandit Vikash Maharaj (b. 1957), which I made into a redirect and nominate as well. I searched the internet and could not find reliable third party sources that support a criterion of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO. All I could find were mentions of performances, either trivial ones or written like press releases, but nothing to source the article information with, apart from the self-released press kit from which the article info is mostly taken. There is an album, but self-released over Amazon.com and CD Baby. The allmusic entry contains nothing except a mention of this album. It's unhelpful that the creator/editor is the subject's son. I love Indian classical music, but this article is a vanity page. Hekerui (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Hekerui (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a redirect:

Keep - Seems notable. Badagnani (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? You need to explain yourself. Hekerui (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per our notability guidelines, as per the text of the article, indicating that this is a notable artist. Badagnani (talk) 01:39, 11 May 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) 00:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established through reliable secondary sources. It is currently an entirely unsourced BLP with POV problems. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has a fair amount of news and book coverage. I'm not convinced that that is enough for notability, but we seem to keep articles on Western Anglophone popular musicians and bands based on much less. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions in the two books are trivial and Maharaj's son's quest to save Bismillah Khan is noble but not notable. A substantial number of articles are about other people with the same name. Hekerui (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one keep was qualified enough that the delete's had more grounding and consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 08:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Channel Protocol[edit]

does not establish notability. [68] returns a few related hits but a lot do not appear to be related and those that are do not appear to qualify as reliable sources. of course, who knows what consensus will decide - maybe for the purposes of this afd forum posts will be considered reliable sources. also, i don't like it. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looks like an attempt at marketing by throwing unnotable cruft up on WP; the only references I can find to this protocol are in a 2002 working draft of a smartcard API, and a few scattered queries about java cards here and there. --moof (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Google Scholar search gives me 34 scientific papers mentioning the term in connection with smart cards. I am getting the impression that this technology is still actively developed and probably in current use in credit cards by Visa and Mastercard. As it seems to be the main standard of GlobalPlatform (also under AfD), this Google News search also seems to be relevant.

All this said, the article is in a sad state. It seems to contain very technical information that may be important to some experts, but it makes a very bad job of establishing context. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would say the technical information in this article is also highly suspect. they use the term ICV to mean initialization chaining vector. all IV's are chaining, pretty much by definition, and to call it an ICV instead of an IV is ultimately very unhelpful. IV is the industry standard term - ICV is just a term that globalplatform made up. was a two letter acronym not enough for them? maybe they hoped that others would pick up on globalplatform's new acronym and that eventually textbooks would start calling it ICV instead of IV and credit globalplatform in the process? after all, why bother innovating when you can just hijack existing concepts with your own rebranding of that same concept?

let's face facts - even if you assume that this is notable (and i'm not even really convinced of that as i can't help but wonder if the links you've found are just bogus journals), this article is crap and there's no way to salvage it into a good article. of course, if the article isn't flat out deleted, people are liable to try, all the same, instead of doing what needs to be done - instead of starting the article from scratch Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:01, 12 May 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) 00:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever else this is, it is an elaborate specification of how-to information apparently related only to the borderline notable GlobalPlatform walled garden, and absolutely unintelligible without adequate context. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalPlatform[edit]

the article does not establish notability nor do any of the links at "GlobalPlatform". also, there are WP:COI issues as the creator of the article appears to be a representative of this organization. but then again, maybe consensus will decide notability standards don't apply in this case. guess we'll see. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously passes WP:CLUB, as 1) it is international in scope, and 2) it is covered to some (limited) extent in at least two books by respected academic publishers and is in the focus of numerous peer-reviewed publications. (Example: [69].) See also this Google News archive search.

The article has a severe problem with marketing speak. I did some editing, but more is needed. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:21, 12 May 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, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep minor level of notability established. JJL (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International in scope and notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muon neutrino (talk • contribs) 08:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- why would anyone risk being banned by engaging in sock puppetry with one-shot accounts, like yours, when their victory was already assured? Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Harriet Eddy Middle School; redirect Elizabeth Pinkerton Middle School and T.R. Smedberg Middle School to Elk Grove Unified School District. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T.R. Smedberg Middle School[edit]

Lacking reliable sources to establish notability for a primary school (or general notability guidelines). tedder (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as T.R. Smedberg Middle School:

Additionally, I've done this as an AFD rather than simply merging/redirecting because my merges were reverted without comment twice: revert1, revert2. tedder (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Elk Grove Unified School District; these schools are not notable, even though one is a Blue Ribbon school. JJL (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Have we looked for any reliable sources though?, if none can be found id support a redirect merge Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harriet Eddy Middle School as a Blue Ribbon school which is a standard of notability. Merge/redirect Elizabeth Pinkerton Middle School and T.R. Smedberg Middle School to the school district per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harriet Eddy Middle School, which has been honored by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, and includes multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Merge/redirect Elizabeth Pinkerton Middle School and T.R. Smedberg Middle School to the parent article for Elk Grove Unified School District. Alansohn (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep T.R. Smedberg Middle School as its own Wiki page as there is enough information and not minimum like E.P.M.S. or H.E.M.S.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reppinsactown (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homestead Bicycles[edit]

Subject appears to be entirely non-notable by its own description; appears to be entirely self-promotional (author's user name is "Alden Olmsted" backwards); all external links/references provided mention nothing of Homestead Bicycles. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I don't see what the big deal is, article checks out when I followed the bmx23 mag link, as well as the Brian Foster wiki link. I typed in the Homestead Bicycles name on the Sonoma News website and got to the page, but it asked me to purchase the pdf, although it allowed me to view parts of the article. The bigger problem I see is that someone should create a specific page of bmx histories. So many companies came and went during that time...--Hilding II (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hilding II (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete As a failed small business it pretty much is the definition of non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Advertising. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain I'm not sure of the importance of the company, but it is primarily advertising, so it is not a candidate for speedy. DGG (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Small business gone bad. Renaissancee (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11 - can you say, advert?--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, DGG? I told you. And you just had to revert me. Nobody will let me speedy anything anymore. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ad that needs a fundamental rewrite. Them From Space 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Torture (US law definition)[edit]

Harsh Wardhan[edit]

Charles Pierre IV[edit]

Linglewood Lodge[edit]

Andrew Phillips (actor)[edit]

Lorna Bennett (actor)[edit]

Catriona Renton[edit]

Symbolic logic (books)[edit]

Days Gone Bye[edit]

Jack Gordon (entrepreneur)[edit]

List of ship launches in 1870[edit]

Tatarstan football team[edit]

Algebra of systems[edit]

AJC Easter Carnival[edit]

Edgar Cervantes[edit]

Lady Margaret Boat Club[edit]

Brian Quintana[edit]

Robert (Bob) Kennedy[edit]

Alan Theisen[edit]

Breakaway Ministries[edit]

Graysian theory[edit]

Quadminton[edit]

Use of the name Helaman in Book of Mormon[edit]

Mas que alcanzar una estrella (album)[edit]

Cubis[edit]

Flash Element Tower Defense[edit]

Proper Dos[edit]

Right Now UK Tour[edit]

Oguzhan Özyakup[edit]

Like a Surgeon (Ciara song)[edit]

Monopoly of Initiative[edit]

Christian Kupke[edit]

Harry Benjamin Syndrome[edit]

Lithuania–Luxembourg relations[edit]

Final Ninja series[edit]

The Scenic Route[edit]

Marthese Portelli[edit]

Nadine Milroy-Sloan[edit]

Brendan Beni[edit]

Koji Aihara[edit]

PETEC[edit]

Bashkortostan national football team[edit]

The Pubes[edit]

Marquee Mall[edit]

Jaeksoft WebSearch[edit]

Shane Fitzgerald (hoaxer)[edit]

EmanciPET[edit]

1st Cathays Al Huda[edit]

Xtreme 3D[edit]

Trains of Secunderabad Railway Station[edit]

The Groundlings[edit]

Ben White[edit]

Tetsuhiko Kikuchi[edit]

Frank Samia[edit]

NEWFood[edit]

Justin swaby[edit]

Egypt–Estonia relations[edit]

Azerbaijan–Belgium relations[edit]

History of Monday Night Baseball[edit]

Pulat Abdullayev[edit]

The Ties That Bind (2009)[edit]

Aleksey Vysotsky[edit]

Snob Scrilla[edit]

Holy Family Catholic Academy[edit]

Johnson Diversity and Inclusion[edit]

Nauman Sait[edit]

Premadasa Hegoda[edit]

Jan Sramek (banker)[edit]

SQEP[edit]

Telekinesis![edit]

Tango: Zero Hour[edit]

Jobwa[edit]

Generation "We..."[edit]

Estonia–Luxembourg relations[edit]

Paul O'Driscoll[edit]

Phillip Raymond[edit]

Like I outta[edit]

Philippines–Romania relations[edit]

Malta–Romania relations[edit]

Ronald Wagner[edit]