< 13 May 15 May >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Graeme Bartlett. Canley (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian club massacres[edit]

Canadian club massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced Hoax article; only reference is from a conspiracy webpage. Tried many, many different Google searches, and one Canadian newspaper. I would be happy to be proved wrong, but I see nothing at all. Total number of people injured by different methods by a single person also seems implausible. Hairhorn (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The reference page, "Untold Massacres", [1], has this story as its only entry. Calling it unreliable would be generous. Hairhorn (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I don't know about this being a hoax, but I definitely couldn't find reliable secondary sources. -Samuel Tan 00:45, 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 Speedy Keep as this nomination clearly has no traction. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia[edit]

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

Virtually no secondary sources in the article at all, and none found either. Last AFD in December '08 was kept by a buttload of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL arguments which had no weight whatseover, with no actual solid reasoning behind any of the "keep"s save for one borderline notable award the site got. Tagged for primary sources since January '09 with no improvements. And for God's sake, if you're gonna say "keep", give a better reason than "it's useful" or "I like it". Like, maybe, some freaking sources or something. (Note: Most of the last nominations were troll nominations, but this one is indeed in good faith.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not clear to me. All but six of the sources is primary, and none seems like a non-trivial mention. Care to enlighten me? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More sources:[2][3][4][5]. Oh, and Jimmy Wales likes it![6] Here's the interview with the show creators about them using Lostpedia (yes, I know, it's hosted on Lostpedia):[7] Fences and windows (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of which seems to be a non-trivial mention save for the Portuguese source. Also, yes, I do hate Lost with a passion, but that's immaterial to this discussion. It's not a case of "I don't like it" but more like "Where the heck are all the freaking sources if it's so supposedly freaking notable?" Don't just tell me it's notable, prove it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:31, 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 no consensus. One two three... 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Dnipropetrovsk fire[edit]

2009 Dnipropetrovsk fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 15:28, 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, SilkTork *YES! 23:11, 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 redirect to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. The content of this article has already been merged. Therefore, a redirect must be kept to remain in compliance with the GFDL. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red matter (Star Trek)[edit]

Red matter (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Term is completely in-universe WP:OR for a substance mentioned twice. Highly dubious that suitable sources will found. Put this on the Star Trek wiki and leave it there. Loodog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

actually it appears as a story element in the comic series preceeding the new film. i'm not a very close follower of trek, but i am a writer; expect red matter to turn up again, like it or not. don't we have some kind of "collection" pages for trek paraphernallia? a list of trekstuff that this would fit on? Lx 121 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no, i mean that realistically, it's a part of the trek universe, likely to be expanded upon. there is a strong group of trekkies working on here, i don't think it's smart to try & pick a fight; especially when there are logical places for the content to go Lx 121 (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as much a fan as anyone here; doesn't mean I can't see the difference between what's appropriate for wikipedia and what's appropriate for memory-alpha.org.--Loodog (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal on this page is to either keep it; a position I cannot support as there is a lack of third party sources, or delete it. To merge the meagre information to the main film article would not be a help, even if it does turn up in future non-canon literature, as there would still only be in universe references for it. And I don't know what you mean by "there is a strong group of trekkies working on here, i don't think it's smart to try & pick a fight". Not wanting to out myself but i've seen the film four times, that does not mean that my view is any more valid, in fact Wikipedia is not written for Trekkies. Although I would support the information in this article being moved to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, then this being a redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "redirect", "merge", and "transwiki" are all considered valid results for AfDs, not just "keep", "delete", and (of course) "no consensus". John Darrow (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you failed to understand my post. The actual verifiable information is so small that merge and transwiki are meaningless, and I can't vote "no consensus". Either the article needs to be kept, deleted or the information moved and this page becomes a redirect. The last option being the best option available. But even with a redirect the actual verifiable information on this page amounts to "red matter makes black holes", anything else is original research. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not have to cast a !vote when you are the nominator. Additionally, WP:OR does not apply here as a reason to delete. This plot device exists unquestionably; it is a matter of determining if it is notable enough to warrant its own article. Sentences like "reminiscent of the mythical red mercury, purported to be necessary for the construction of nuclear weapons" are original research and should be removed, but this does not mean that the topic itself is original research. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is to distinguish from "merge", which I don't think was obvious from my nomination. According to WP:GNG, notability is determined by coverage in sources. My comment that this is WP:OR is not that it should be deleted because it contains OR, but because the article is solely built upon OR, and not any such sources.--Loodog (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect. Red matter exists as a particular topic, but the question is if it is a topic befitting Wikipedia's notability standards. (The answer is no.) The article does contain original research, but the topic itself is definitely not original research. It is indisputable that red matter exists as a fictional topic, but per WP:WAF, fictional topics require real-world context. I agree with you about the lack of such context, hence my support to merge. I disagree with how you are applying WP:OR here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has no sources. It is a repository for WP:OR and built solely upon OR. If a bucket is built of out shit and only collects shit, it's a shitbucket, regardless of its theoretical ability to hold other substances.--Loodog (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of sources here. This even explores the impact of red matter. (Which should go on the Star Trek film article, anyway.) Fictional topics are often repositories for original research, but this does not mean they cannot be converted into encyclopedic articles. Red matter is something frequently mentioned in the media but only addressed as a plot device with not enough real-world context to substantiate it as a stand-alone topic. Shit buckets can be cleaned out (very well, I hope) and filled with useful substance or just recycled into something to use in other items (tying into my aforementioned merge). —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure which links you're talking about. None of them say anything about it other than its name. The string theorist they talk to completely ignores the phrase "red matter" and only talks about causes as known in the real world. The interviewer says "red matter can cause black holes", but this much is obvious from the movie plot. You're not going to get anything more than that from anyone, meaning that to fill this thing to article length requires OR (e.g. you can see because things get sucked in that the red matter must increase the mass of what its injected into.)--Loodog (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • funny i used the same links & had no trouble finding multiple instances of references to red matter. Lx 121 (talk)
  • Whether red matter was mentioned in the links was not what was being debated.--Loodog (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page shouldn't be deleted. It held a major purpose in the movie and needs to have a page about it. Spock5709
And your username shows how unbiased you are. That it "held a major purpose" is not a reason to keep. Is the article covering a notable item, and notable in the real world, not in a Star Trek film. Plus your assertions that it "needs to have a page about it" is not backed up by any policy. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Applying the same logic, let's create an article about Smiley's burgers because it hols a major purpose in American Beauty, or let's create an article about the neural inhibitor chip in Spiderman 2 because it too holds a major purpose. Wikipedia is not a repository of plot devices in movies.--Loodog (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

internal wikipedia link, 2009"]] XD Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No food for thought. AfD nominations have the effect of driving up traffic to all articles. AFD's that involve things (i.e. "Star Trek") that have rabid fanbases behind them, even more so.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ummm, no i'm sorry, but 2000+ hits per day is not "afd traffic". if that were the case, then this debate would be flooded with keep votes. the people who are looking up this page are, by & large, ordinary readers who don't know, or care about internal wikibickerings Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
upon reflection, & counting up the time i've spent on this debate, i think i'm going to quit now, & just go add red matter to the 2 suggested pages, since it clearly belongs there. if the article does get deleted, might i suggest putting up a redirect to the trek materials page? Lx 121 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
someone beat me to it on the fictional matter page. thanks @ User:Xeno; you are a wiser being than i; both for the work & for not getting entangled in here! ha Lx 121 (talk) 11:53, 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 redirect to Social media. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social content[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this is used to mean what it means in this WP:OR filled, unreferenced article. Ironholds (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added external source to show where the term Social Content has been used extensively within the User Generated Content space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IncSlinger (talk • contribs) 18:02, 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, SilkTork *YES! 23:09, 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, and merge in to the Michelle Obama article the little that is relevant. This is obviously not a topic that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Prodego talk 01:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama's arms[edit]

Michelle Obama's arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yes, articles have been written about her arms. No, that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. Maybe a line or two in Michelle Obama. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So far, none of the people who favor deletion have cited any wikipedia policies to justify deletion. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Speedy deletion is for clear cut cases that don't require a debate, and I was just asking for some clarification. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, there's an obvious consensus on the part of the community, which was why I added speedy to my vote. Recognizance (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that do you mean that it is clear from the way the article is written that it's creator went out of their way to make explicit claims of notability as a sort of pre-defense to the inevitable challenges this article would face? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a mind reader. I have no idea what the intentions of the person who created the article were. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, given that you created the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you walked right into that one... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NawlinWiki - I just checked the article's edit history, and it turns out that you are correct. Thanks for telling me. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woops. If the creator of the article even doesn't remember that s/he created it S/he should go with delete considering notability. How funny... lol... --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since he created the article less than an hour before making this remark, I can only assume he was either kidding or being deceptive. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that list is an argument for why this article doesn't fit. I was expecting something like Tina Turner's legs, or something, but that's not even on the list. Most of those articles are on independent subjects that happen to be body parts, like Cromwell's head, which has an article because it's a museum piece, not because it was attached to him. Shadowjams (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shadowjams is right - that category is not a good fit for the article in question here. Just to pick a few, Darwin's tubercle didn't belong to Charles Darwin, it's named after him; The Hands of Che Guevara is a movie; Head of Holofernes is a redirect to a painting; and Geronimo's skull, Medusa's head, Ebey's scalp and Bentham's head don't have their own articles - the category page links to sections of the main articles about these men (and gorgon.) Dawn Bard (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what will happen to her arms after she dies? Drawn Some (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm sad that we can't make cross-wiki categorizations and include wikt:King Charles' Head in that list. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand that, but to claim that it's not notable is absurd. Those aren't all op-eds or blogs, there are serious articles in well-respected newspapers. Don't understimate this woman's influence. It's been more than 40 years since something similar has occurred with the First Lady. Drawn Some (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think most of us voting "delete" here are underestimating her influence at all - this is strictly about whether or not her arms deserve a separate article. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deserve a separate article? They certainly meet notability requirements so they certainly deserve an article. Drawn Some (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is for POV issues. The article is neutral. Drawn Some (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a controversy section. Discussion of whether "Obama's arms have too much muscle and not enough fat" is giving undue weight to tabloid gossip. Recognizance (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Times is a legitimate source, not a tabloid. I realize that newspaper circulcation is in serious decline, but it hasn't gotten that bad - at least not yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is he wasting our time? We're not required to participate in this discussion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This editor seems to have made some good contributions in other areas, but causes trouble in and around articles related to the Obamas. His talk page archives reveal multiple contentious conversations on this topic, and at least two previous deletion discussions: [8] [9]. There have already been blocks and a suggestion of a topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this will require a 7 day debate to get rid of this elaborate piece of garbage is a waste of wikipedia's time. It's a damaging joke. And given that the creator was briefly blocked yesterday (I thought at the time the block was over the top, but am beginning to see why some people's patience with this user might be running thin) for creating Impregnation of Sarah Palin's Daughter (well, actually he created Impregnation of Sarah Palin's Daugher but, whatever) you'd expect him to have a little more of a clue.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there were multiple news articles from multiple major newspapers with "Arnold Schwarzenegger's biceps" in the title, then yes, that would be a legitimate topic for a wikipedia article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this subject is not notable, why are there so many articles about it from major sources? I'm not talking about articles with just a few sentences about the subject. I'm talking about article where the subject is in the title of the article. And if the subject is not notable, then why are there photo galleries about the subject too?

References 

  1. ^ Michelle Obama's right to bare arms, The Boston Globe, March 19, 2009
  2. ^ a b c How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms, CNN
  3. ^ Strong-arm tactics: First Lady of Fitness: Michelle Obama's guns inspire workouts, Chicago Sun-Times, March 10, 2009
  4. ^ How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms, The Seattle Times, March 25, 2009 (This is a different article than the CNN article of the same name)
  5. ^ Michelle Obama Goes Sleeveless, Again, The New York Times, February 25, 2009
  6. ^ All Hail the Leader of the Fashionable World, The Washington Post, January 21, 2009
  7. ^ Michelle Obama and our buff-arm fetish, The Chicago Tribune, February 26, 2009
  8. ^ Michelle Obama: The right to bare arms, MSNBC, February 25, 2009
  9. ^ Michelle Obama bares arms in official White House portrait, Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2009
 10. ^ a b Michelle Obama's toned arms are debated, Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2009
 11. ^ Obama's Choice to Bare Arms Causes Uproar, ABC News, March 2, 2009

External links

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't concur. Quote from above: "The Los Angeles Times is a legitimate source, not a tabloid." Indeed but the article is (a "tabloid piece") and simply said just trivia. We don't write separate "fashion" articles unless it is the subjects main notability (like a model for example). There is a "Style and fashion sense" section in her main article that covers already more than needed (before you "merged" the AFD article into it). Some minor material could be edited there but sure not a full merge and separate section title as it was already rejected. And BTW, there is no need to repeat the article's references as we all know where to find them ;) .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*In that case, since it was done by the article's creator in apparent acknowledgment of the way this is obviously going, may I suggest that we simply redirect to Michelle Obama and close this up, and leave it to the editors of the target article to decide how much of the content to retain. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would be in favour of an article about Michelle Obama's cultural significance. I just don't think that her arms are as notable as her cultural impact. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the main article already states: "She has been compared to Jacqueline Kennedy...". But has Jacqueline any spin-of article about her "body parts"?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy has a spin-off article: Cultural depictions of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. As I wrote above I favor broadening the scope of this article to address Obama's cultural impact. Geo Swan (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. Broadening this article to cover her impact on fashion, or her broader cultural significance, makes sense. Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I think we might have stumbled onto a pretty decent idea here. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus so far is overwhelmingly in favor of deletion, I have added a single sentence about this to the Michelle Obama article, and I have come to accept the fact that this article will almost certainly be deleted. However, I do not regret having started it, as it was well sourced, and I had fun writing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Her arms are "notable" in the sense that they've been covered significantly in reliable sources, but they don't justify a separate article. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:12, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth and Cut Naturists[edit]

Smooth and Cut Naturists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Defunct non-notable organization, no references to provide any proof of notability, there are zero Google hits in Google news, searching the entire history of their news archives. Prod tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the following on the discussion page: This is to answer the verification request about this new page created called Smooth and Cut Naturists. SCN is well known in the UK as a genuine naturist [nudist] website. The SCN Club featured in many editions of the UK publication Health & Efficiency over the past decade and a review of the website was recently featured in the same publication. Google UK has "SCN" and Smooth and Cut" at the top of their listings and our website has now accumulated in excess of three and a half million hits. The American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) library has a complete set of our publications called Ultimate Nudity. I hope this is enough to prove the validity of an entry for Smooth and Cut Naturists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCharles (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what you have to say but should point out that the initial letters SCN are associated by many people in the UK with the well respected Smooth and Cut Naturists organisation and website at www.smooth-naturists.co.uk which gets many hits daily and is top of Google's listing for "SCN". There is mention of SCN in the publication Acorn at http://www.acornsoc.org.uk/theacora.htm and, as previously mentioned in Health and Efficiency back issues.

Wikipedia would not be complete without listing SCN.

If you still think you should delete this important entry I trust that it is for genuine reasons and in no way showing prejudice against naturists/nudists which would be illegal here in the UK.

Chris Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCharles (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel greatly insulted that you regard my genuine article as looking "awfully like spam" and "non-notable". Please know that I am a genuine well respected Englishman giving an explanation (where none should be needed) that SCN is an important organisation/website in the UK and I am very disillusioned that Wikipedia are intending to delete my article. What is the point in an incomplete encyclopaedia? If you cannot accept genuine submissions, what is the point of us taking the time and trouble to write them only to be insulted?

Chris Charles, Dorset, England, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCharles (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris Charles - I'm sorry you're upset about this, and thought I'd take a moment to explain why the article is being considered for deletion. We're not at all saying that your creation of the article wasn't sincere or wasn't in good faith. I believe that the organization existed and I believe it was important to people, as you've said. But Wikipedia doesn't try to have articles about everything that has existed, or everything that had a membership or mattered to someone. We only cover those subjects that are notable, which here means, straightforwardly, those subjects that have been covered substantially by reliable, independent sources. We'd need evidence like newspaper articles about this organization to prove that the article meets that notability guideline. When commenters here say that the subject appears "non-notable", that's what they mean. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonzonoir - I am greatly appreciative to you for explaining the position in a less blunt manner! As you say, my short article was produced in good faith as SCN was, and is, a significant and well known club and website here in the UK. It has featured many times in the naturist (nudist) press because of its importance but you probably won't see this in the US (where I presume you are) with the exception, as mentioned previously, of the AANR archives in Florida which contain our SCN publications.

Clearly as Google is US based (and I suspect because nudity is frowned upon by many in the US) it is unlikely that Google News would feature it. However SCN comes top of Google's web page listing. Similarly newspapers do not feature naturist clubs - except to titillate which we abhor. We would sooner have no mention at all rather than this, as genuine naturism has nothing to do with sex! SCN was last featured about three months ago in the UK magazine called Health & Efficiency (now H&E Naturist) which is available worldwide.

So, if I can't convince you of the importance of SCN and you still feel you must delete my article, please may we compromise by asking you to retain the entry I made under SCN for Smooth and Cut Naturists, with, sadly, no link to my page?

Thank you again for your help.

Chris (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Chris Charles, Dorset, UK[reply]

Hi there - you're welcome. Google News does cover sources worldwide, including major UK newspapers (I'm a Brit too myself, in fact; there's a UK-based portal onto Google News at news.google.co.uk), so I'd expect to be seeing some reference there if notability by our standards existed - though of course, it's not foolproof. The relevant Wikipedia guideline here is then WP:BURDEN, which says that the impetus is on the person adding material to the encyclopedia to justify its inclusion, rather than on those removing it if it's unsourced. If you can find sources we can't, by all means supply the details; then the only question will be whether those sources meet our reliable source standards. I'm not familiar with Health & Efficiency, so can't say offhand whether it would pass muster with our source requirements.
Similarly, since the idea of a disambiguation page is to help users find material on Wikipedia, our manual of style recommends against retaining links on disambiguation pages like SCN to topics not notable enough for articles of their own. Instead, if you can find reliable source citations in third-party publications, you might find other articles in Wikipedia where it would be appropriate to add references to the organization. If you've got good sources, subjects without enough coverage to merit a solo article can still find a place in more general articles. The key is to make sure that everything you add references a good source. You can find out how to do this at our guidelines on verifiability, citation, and reliable sources.
Or, if you're just looking for a place to document the organization's existence online, take a look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for a list of other platforms similar in some respects to Wikipedia where you could publish your material. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:20, 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 00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santino Severoni[edit]

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

Person does not appear notable. I doubt that his job makes him automatically notable; no sources are provided in the article that establish notability; a search in Google News reveals nothing but a few quotes and mentions, and those not even in very reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 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, SilkTork *YES! 22:42, 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. The decision is between a keep or a no consensus; per ChildofMidnight's improvements, it's leaning more towards a keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish John[edit]

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

Unsourced stub. Claims to have been performed by a couple different artists, but no version was ever a single, and there are no sources. Tagged for notability since 8/08 with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:02, 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, SilkTork *YES! 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm a Dead-head, but I'm unconvinced that the Dead playing the song (even on multiple occasions) excuses the "never released as a single" part. "Weak delete" because I'm mindful that the Dead tended to release through unconventional means. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other groups that played the song and the other sources with coverage? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists Dead bands/musicians ("Jerry Garcia Band, Old and in the Way, Grateful Dead") and then "as well as other musicians". It doesn't mention anything about "other musicians" having chart success, either. I've poked around for evidence of it ever being released and couldn't find any; I'd be prepared to change my vote if it were released and charted but right now I think its links to the Dead are its greatest claims to notability. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Chet Atkins signed Johnny Russell to a recording contract with RCA in 1971. "Catfish John," a Russell composition, went to No. 12 in 1972-73, but Mr. Russell's greatest success as an artist was the 1973 barroom anthem "Rednecks, White Socks and Blue Ribbon Beer" which went to No. 4 on Billboard's country singles chart." [10] Also mentioned here in relation to Bob McDill [11]. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This song is clearly notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 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 (WP:SNOW). — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers rape[edit]

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

I declined a G3 speedy nomination of this as it does not appear to be a hoax; but it does not appear to be a viable article: there's no evidence of any coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability or to verify the content. It seems to be just another bar game somebody's made up one day. ~ mazca t|c 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eliska Sursova[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. I had originally put a db-bio tag on it, but it's been here for about two years with a lot of edits. Still, nothing but bit parts, no other notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are clearly the same person. Can we get a deletion discussion going on that one and discuss them together? I would like to give people the opportunity to consider both articles at once and argue for a merge/keep, even though I would personally argue for a delete of both. Cazort (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea - does this discussion need to be closed and reopened with both articles? Or can Elissa Sursara simply be attached to this and then listed at WP:AUSDEL?  florrie  20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion here can count as a "merge discussion" and one of us can boldly merge the page as a duplicate, and then we can just discuss here? Does that work? Cazort (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that a merge would be the best move as, as far as I can tell, it is only a suspicion that the two are the same person (or non-person). One is born in Australia, the other in the US. Unfortunately, no advice has been offered at WP:BLPN. florrie  05:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh ok I didn't check to find those discrepancies. Cazort (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems a little borderline because both (?) actresses appear to have active careers on the rise, but they do not yet appear to have had significant roles in the parts they've played, so I do not think they pass the notability test yet.
It is not at all clear to me that they are the same person. The IMDB entries are very confusing. The actresses have very similar names and are listed as having the same birthday, but are described with very different backgrounds (one New York native attending Brown University, one Australian native attending Yale). They are each credited with roles on Taken, Boston Public, Touched By an Angel and American Gothic -- but on different episodes and playing different parts. I think it is very possible that it is an unusual coincidence of two different actors, and also that it is possible that the IMDB contributors have been confused by the similar names and mixed up the backgrounds. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really good point, they could have just been confused. IMDB is not a very reliable source in cases like this. Cazort (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether confused or not, I spent a good deal of the afternoon trying to find anything reliable on Elissa Sursora and came up empty handed except for contributor sites such as blogs and insubstantial "model directories". Nothing at all on google news and only the same handful of pics repeated over and over. Reams on who she supposedly dated (including Heath Ledger) - but never actually did! So to me, even if Sursara and Sursova are the same person, and whether or not they are real or a hoax, there's simply no reliable sources to support notability.  florrie  16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) PS: I even ran Sursara through the Australian white pages. Not a sausage.  florrie  16:13, 21 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 keep. —Travistalk 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Atlanta[edit]

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

Considering the level of disparity and conflicting viewpoints which discredits this page, I’m submitting a deletion request. I feel this would give justice to all of us as no verifiable history with facts exists on the linkage of the two Universities. History on University of Atlanta is limited as its birth is young. Most information we have tied into this school is taken from assumptions of continuity from Barrington and is without creditable sources.

Have verified with appropriate government and accrediting agency and the information captured is defamatory as the schools stated in history are two different schools. The Accrediting agency is threatened to pursue further if the information is not removed immediately. --Mistro12 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add this to my talk page, generate the facts and place it back on Wikipedia once the information is suitable for the University of Atlanta. In depth discussions have been exchanged, hence, conflicting information continues to remain. Mistro12 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — Mistro12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Legal threats are not grounds for deletion, but could in fact lead to the person making the threats being blocked from editing. If there are two different institutions, split them out into disambiguated articles. Nothing here constitutes a valid reason for deletion. Speedy keep. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI for Mistro12: this is what Drawn Some is alluding to: No Legal Threats Policy --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I recommend not "speedy keeping" but rather letting the discussion run its full course. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unclosed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:11, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather Additional Scenes[edit]

The Godfather Additional Scenes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial and crufty list, no real-world context, blatantly fails OR and V. Relevant and notable information belongs in the main film articles, but there is no call for this kind of article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:18, 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 by PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs). See the deleting admin's comments below (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guy Who Does Stuff Episodes[edit]

List of Guy Who Does Stuff Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't even think this show exists. I put up a CSD tag but it was removed. I am in no mood to keep adding it.

Upon google search, can't find any trace of the show. gordonrox24 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The CSD was for a test page. I can add it again if that is what consensus says.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:57, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JStock[edit]

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

Nonnotable software, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered under Softpedia and Sin_Chew_Jit_Poh. Does that considered a good source?--Yccheok (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. SilkTork *YES! 21:45, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian cartoonists[edit]

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

The entry Syrian cartoonists is currently just a list of Syrian cartoonists. In December 2008 someone placed a notability tag on the article but it has still not been updated into an entry that stands up as a solid entry. This article should either be put into context/explained, merged, or deleted. Alex (talk) 21:01, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indescrignified[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable neologism whose notability is coming soon. Prod removed by author. TheLetterM (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The version of this article at the time of my comment here has devolved into an unambiguous proselytizing screed (in which there is nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just not encyclopedic). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:58, 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 redirect to Joseph Sargent. This was a pretty tough call, but after considering the different opinions, it seems that the sources do not sufficiently establish notability, so the consensus was to delete. Redirecting as a possible search term. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Nelson Sargent[edit]

Carolyn Nelson Sargent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability asserted (i.e. "she is notable for...") but not really demonstrated. Actress with a few bit parts to her credit, but never really made it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the answer would be to merge & redirect to his article then. I saw him mentioned in her article but didn't get that most of her bit roles were under him as director. Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I got that factoid from her Star Trek wiki entry: [16] Hairhorn (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not gong to criticize a Star Trek Wiki as a source because I didn't find much more than IMDB. Drawn Some (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, did you check your newspaper articles? They're not about her, they're about other people, the actress who played Peg Bundy from Married With Children and Jody Foster. And the two organization websites aren't reliable resources if she's affiliated with them. Drawn Some (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that most of the articles are not written specifically about her. But they DO independently verify that she did found the one non-profit, and played a role in the founding of the other. And a quick search will show a large amount of coverage for both non-profits. That seems notable to me, even if it results in only a small article. Cazort (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wait, question, are you saying there is another actress by the same name? Cazort (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn Some -the source is not the show "Married with Children", The article is LA Times "Married, With Children and Moving On", Los Angeles Times, Oct 19, 1997. and to Cazort, there are wrong facts you might want to check out: read the following I just typed in "Please note that I am just trying to get correct information on "Carolyn Nelson Sargent". We tried to change things yesterday and ended up deleting what was already in wikipedia. I am new to this...very very new, and then the wrong Carolyn Nelson still keeps appearing in different areas of wikipedia. For instance look under "The Deadly Years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deadly_Years "Carolyn Nelson" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Nelson Here she is listed as cast, but it goes to Carolyn Nelson a politician. This was noted by a few people, including, Joseph Sargent, many time Emmy winning director, her husband is current Jury President and was a bit surprised to find out from a reporter that it appeared he was married to Carolyn Nelson a politician from North Dakota. I am not trying to do anything wrong here just correct some facts. I am hoping that we can add the correct information on Carolyn Nelson Sargent that is presently under consideration for deletion. Then possible correct the sections such as "The Deadly Years" that brings up the wrong Carolyn Nelson, Carolyn Nelson a politician. I would so appreciate your help on this. Thank you so much. Lasorgente (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasorgente (talk • contribs) — Lasorgente (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The facts have been corrected by correcting the various links in Wikipedia. A Carolyn Nelson disambiguation page has been created, and all internal Wikilinks that previously lead to Carolyn Nelson have been updated to point to either Carolyn Nelson (politician) or Carolyn Nelson Sargent. However, this does not address the inherent notability issues with the Carolyn Nelson Sargent article. If the article is deleted, the links that have been updated will become red-links. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I did not do the research on LA Times, "Married, with Children and Moving on"..that was provided by someone else in this discussion. What I can provide later today is other articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasorgente (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — Lasorgente (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

-Thank you for correcting that. -Regarding notability issues for Carolyn Nelson Sargent: FREE ARTS CLINIC:- I can note many articles that are not on the internet at least as far as i can find, yet exisit in hard copy and possibly archived somewhere. I can however scan and pdf these articles if you would like. 1. Valley News Dec 7, 1980 "A House Built on Love"; ...It was built with Children in Mind-Children who are abused or neglected. ...The impetus behind all of this is the house's owner, Carolyn Sargent, wife of film director Joseph Sargent. As president of the Free Arts Clinic, a non-profit organization that helps abused children communicate wiht adults through art...." etc The Evening Outlook June 1, 1981, Current Living Section- pg A15 -Article Title: "Cliff-side clinic offers hope to abused kids" "...Malibu's Free Arts Clinic. "It has been my dream to build a house on the ocean and have it overrun with children who had never experienced the sea," explains FAC president Carolyn Nelson Sargent who with her husband Joseph, founded the clinic in 1977." etc goes the article. Santa Monica Messenger: A story to Touch Your Heart-"Carolyn and Joe Sargent...SIx years ago Carolyn began the Free Arts Clinic, dedicated to the idea that the arts could set you free, even if you'd had a mom who punished ...etc. "US Magazine Jan 17, 1983, "Miracles in Malibu" Full article on Founding of this project etc. DEAF WEST THEATRE: Ed Waterstreet Founder along with wife Linda Bouve-you can contact then for proof of Carolyn's helping to lay the groundwork and foundations for Deaf West, by going to Deaf West Theatre Website and contacting him. Carolyn's husband Joseph sargent is currently doing a documentary for DWT as well. Done may events, fundrisers etc. (also have articles on this-One is Malibu Surfside, 10/24/1991- Celebrity Haunt to AId New Deaf West Theatre, (at Carolyn's home) etc. MALIBU CITIHOOD: Malibu TImes- a sample article- Can't locate the date"A Night of Fright and Fantasy Benefits Cityhood Effort"-...at the Sargents estate where the Mailbu Committee for Incorportion Fundraisers, events were put on. (if you need more info I will research files) Thank you again. (I have more articles on FAC, etc if you need further proof and notability, please advise) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasorgente (talk • contribs) 19:31, 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 no consensus. Please consider adding the sources to the article, or least dropping them on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Pain[edit]

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

DELETE. The article itself is the #1 case for slow and painful non-notability. JBsupreme (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lots of artists on wikipedia never charted. Popularity and notability are two different things. Hairhorn (talk) 21:07, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bleed Like Me tour[edit]

Bleed Like Me tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Stub, created by blocked sock puppet. No reason the content (such as it is...) couldn't be moved to the main article. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coldfire Studios[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to assert notability. User:Milik was trying to nominate but kept having trouble. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:14, 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. Notability not sufficiently established. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Arthur Krause[edit]

Dr Arthur Krause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod - no indication of Notability and no Sources added that could establish it Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:51, 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 20:10, 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. Wizardman 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Burke[edit]

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

College basketball player (i.e., not a professional), doesn't seem to have done anything especially noteworthy as a college athlete. No sources other than official team page. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could pick out a few of those that are more than passing mentions. Unfortunately sports people are frequently mentioned in game recaps so they generate a lot of hits, but there may not be anything of substance there.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 13:59, 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 20:10, 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. Jamie☆S93 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta Karki[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No indication that the organization is important (appears to be essentially a student club), let alone the founder. No inkling of notability outside of TASON was found online. ThaddeusB (talk) 20:09, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood in the Water: Live in San Diego[edit]

Blood in the Water: Live in San Diego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another case of crystal ball and possible original research. Also, what makes "Metal Storm" a reliable source? Cannibaloki 19:46, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant of crystal ball, an "user" copy and paste the entire section (Untitled twelfth studio album (2008 onward)) of Megadeth main article. Cannibaloki 19:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more... Why the hell was Metallica allowed a massive new article for their new album (Death Magnetic) and Megadeth not. It is because of foreigners such as yourself. Joker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.155.162 (talk) 17:53, 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. It's been stated many times, we don't create the notability, we simply acknowledge what's all ready there. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten J. Pattberg[edit]

Thorsten J. Pattberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Endorsed PROD was removed by IP, so this is brought to Afd) This BLP fails notability criteria for WP:PROF and appears to be blatant Self-promotion through the use of sockpuppets. No references are provided for claims in the lead other than Pattberg's own website and his name mentioned as a participant at a conference. Searches find no hits for publications [23], [24] nor books [25] nor any significant coverage [26], [27] except that the individual was one of a number of staff scientists at the Partner Institute for Computational Biology in Shanghai a year ago. Equally problematic are the apparent sockpuppet SPAs and IPs which are inserting Pattberg's name in several WP articles [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. [34] in an attempt to promote an unpublished book. — CactusWriter | needles 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: casual readers of this page should note that the above paean of praise was writtten by the LP himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • this reinforces the plausible but striclty unproven hypothesis that the recent touting of Mr. Pattberg and his work here on Wikipedia is due to Mr. Pattberg himself. This includes various socks and IPs. Delete all the more, I suppose. Mr. Pattberg's website may be a valuable WP:EL for some article, but it stops there. --dab (��) 09:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt, but maybe repair some of the overtaken areas first..--Buridan (talk) 21:47, 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. I understand that the creator has userfied the content. Anyone may contact me on my talk page if they need a copy. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approaches to anti-oppression[edit]

Approaches to anti-oppression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Contested PROD) This article reads like an essay. It seems to me that an encyclopedia article analyzing the approaches to combat oppression is inappropriate (and possibly POV) when articles like Oppression and Anti-oppressive practice exist to supply the facts and information surrounding the issue of oppression. Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As the user and creator of this page, I would like to contend it. -I am a new user and was not aware that my entry was going to be published and viewed by others automatically this was a fault of my own -as a group we decided to give 'approaches to anti oppression' in terms of interlocking and intersecting as THEY ARE IN FACT dominant appaoraches to the discussion of oppression -our contributed work and content would clarify and add to the enclyclopediatic information specificaly speaking towards the entry entitled 'intersectionality' as there is MORE discussion needed in DEFINING intersectionality. And i also believe that encyclopediatic knowledge that contributes to and INTERLOCKING approach is also needed -I in the meantime need to reformat the content so that it does not read like an essay, but is rather factual and informative regarding the related literary work available. -if after reviewing my points to defend keeping the article as published is not considered and the entry will ultimately be DELETED please allow an 'unpublished' version of the wiki entry to be available for my professor to use as marking or keep it published for the next two weeks PLEASE all of my work will be erased and i am aware that this is my fault but i do promise that it will look like an official/typical wiki entry by the 20th of may. SOCI3430 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC) user SOCI3430[reply]


hi i have userfied the page as USER:SOCI3430/Approaches to anti-oppression with the help of someone else. rgardig this particular page when will it be delted? our group progject submission is tomorrow ! thanks! 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.36.71 (talk)

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

The result was soft redirect to Wiktionary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rah[edit]

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

Both senses of rah are already captured in Wiktionary. If the etymology is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, it would also be appropriate for Wiktionary. See also WINAD. Ringbang (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could be happy with this outcome too, although I'd prefer to move in the absence of encyclopedic content. Do you have any sources which you think could be used to add material that would make this into more of a cohesive article? Cazort (talk) 14:27, 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. Long-established consensus is that the final match of a major national cup tournament is notable. No point in dwelling on this one since there is not a snowball's chance of the page being deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Coppa Italia Final[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2009 Coppa Italia Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Single final match like every year; no significant feature Invitamia (talk) 18:36, 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 keep. I would note that the failure to qualify under one inclusion guideline (like WP:ATH) does not mean that a person cannot qualify under another, such as the GNG. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Manley[edit]

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

High School football player. A lot of state awards, but does not seem to pass WP:ATH, as high school is not the highest amateur level in American football. Greedyhalibut (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sidebar is simply a default response in the infobox that should be fixed. The article does reference and list notable achievements, including 2009 HIAA Combine Offensive MVP, 2008 Honolulu Star-Bulletin Offensive Player of the Year , and 2008 Honolulu Advertiser Co-Offensive Player of the Year. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 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 delete. I'm of the personal opinion that "fully professional" in WP:ATH means something more than simply getting a paycheck, but in any event the consensus here was to delete. I will userfy as requested. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jr.[edit]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodded, but prd removed for meeting ATHLETE. Material pertaining to this criteria was later removed from the article by another editor as unverifiable, so the subject either does not meet ATHLETE or does not meet N because his only notability is being related to another person who is. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last I checked, "fully professional" means earning money to play said sport. Looks like this guy plays a sport for money. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't. Semi-pro athletes also earn money, but don't meet ATHLETE because they haven't played in the top level of their sport, so they are not interchangeable terms. MSJapan (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know if you've heard, but there are other professional basketball leagues besides the NBA. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there's nothing to keep. Did you look at it? Drawn Some (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nothing wrong with stubs. Look at any printed encylopedia and 80% of all articles are about 1-2 sentences. ShoesssS Talk 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that this is just a stub. Deletion discussions, as I understand them, from WP:Deletion, are to focus on whether the article should exist or not; the current state of the article is irrelevant except in the case of WP:COPYVIO, slander, advertisement, or other material that needs to be deleted from the edit history for legal or practical reasons. Cazort (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a misunderstanding of the deletion process: WP:Deletion reads: "It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available." Also, if you look under "Reasons for deletion", you will find that being a stub is not one of them. We seem to be focusing on notability in this deletion discussion...but the relevant reason to delete is, again from that page, "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". It is the subject, not the current state of the article, that matters. Cazort (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a stub to the article. Is there anyway we can suspend this discussion for some time to give editors time to improve the article? Postcard Cathy (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing that makes this a permanent deletion. Since there has been no proof nor claim of notability, it's likely to be deleted, but the closing admin can copy it into your User space for improvement. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:45, 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 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moorea national football team[edit]

Moorea national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a national team. No evidence team exists, not even remote notability. They once played a game and nobody knows the result. That's it. Stu.W UK (talk) 18:08, 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 keep as moot. The current, wholly rewritten article bears such a scant resemblance to the nominated article that this discussion seems beside the point. Kudos to Uncle G for the save. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trinder reaction[edit]

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

Delete unref'd one liner about a chemical reaction without an indication of why it's notable. There are literally billions of chemical reactions, like mathematical equations, and they are not inherently notable, even if they can be verified. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cops & robbers[edit]

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

Non-notable, "unofficial min[i]game" Passportguy (talk) 17:49, 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 G3 by Dank, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferzakerly Kernott[edit]

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

Probable hoax. Churchill's 1930 book 'My Roving Commission' has no reference to Esther Jacobs or 'Ferzakerly'. Worldcat does not know about a British author named Esther Jacobs with this birthdate. The article itself provides no sources to indicate that this person ever existed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 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) 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heisler Beer[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random trivia. There are no reliable sources that are significantly about this fictional beer. The supposed "sources" that are mentioned on the talk page are blogs, discussion boards and Youtube clips, which are not and cannot be reliable sources. The project does not benefit in any way from having a list of every appearance of this non-existent placeholder product. Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that significantly cover the prop house either, despite your disruptive move. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no evidence that Heisler Beer is connected to International Studio Services anyway. It's nowhere on their website. bd2412 T 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken. Please see Beer page at ISS. This indicates that they have several lines of fictional beer. I suppose that Heisler is the most used as it seems similar to Budweiser but the others seem to get some usage too. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I stand corrected. Still, since this is a "fake" brand, how do you know that there aren't a dozen prop houses that provide "Heisler" beer? bd2412 T 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • reply Thats a good point. However, I think the AfD discussion about Morley Cigarettes is relevant to the AfD discussion about Heisler Beer. Dravecky made a good point. The appearance of Heisler Beer in numerous unrelated movies and television (published works) helps establish notability. What I don't want to do is add links and end up arguing about their legitimacy. APS221 (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then, you can offer up no reliable sources that significantly cover this non-existent beer. Got it. Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply/comment Heisler Beer is not the only fictional brand of product produced by ISS/StudioGraphics. I wouldn't mind trying to add other notable fictional brands produced by ISS. Colonel Warden added Jekyll Island Beer (both lager and red ale), which is another fictional beer brand produced by ISS. There are a lot of posts on online message boards/forums and blogs about Jekyll Island Beer and Penzburg Beer. I think many of the posts come from the fact that they were both seen in recent episodes of Lost, and details in the show are frequently scrutinized by viewers/fans. In addition, ISS produces Morley Cigarettes, as well as other brands such as Bilson and Brezza. Both Bilson and Brezza have been discussed online, mostly in reference to their appearance in "Lost." APS221 (talk) 06:33, 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bookarmy[edit]

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

Website still in beta-testing phase Passportguy (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at WP:WEB, too, because you aren't giving any valid reasons to keep, just like the nominator gave no valid reason to delete! Drawn Some (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? That's perfectly valid. Want me to cite the policies it's based on?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, I'm trying to learn and I haven't seen anyone use that argument before. Just point me to the guideline. Drawn Some (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not guidelines. Two of the oldest and most fundamental policies. :)

WP:5P: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers ... " — and Encyclopedia says "An encyclopedia (or encyclopaedia) is a comprehensive written compendium that holds information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." A website containing information on all books in the English language by ISBN is about as encyclopaedic as it's humanly possible to get.

When you're dealing with something fundamentally encyclopaedic (and only then), WP:WEB has to succumb to WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it."—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing that with me. Drawn Some (talk) 22:41, 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xerlin[edit]

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

Cannot find anything significant on Google and appears to be discontinued. Sources provided in article are self-published. Laurent (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article...

The app hasn't been updated in 4 years which is why it seems to be discontinued. I didn't notice that it was mentioned in books though, I've just searched for reviews or news on Google but couldn't find any. Laurent (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really is not too long in terms of open source software. Releases happen as needed when needed and as developers are able to dedicate time. It really isn't considered unusual if a stable or mature project goes long periods of time between releases (even years). Did you happen to check if the source code repository is in active use? Tothwolf (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There haven't been any write transactions since 2005 (since the project is on SF.net actually). With a total of 40,000 downloads over 4 years, it seems to me like a rather obscure project. My own SF project has nearly the same amount of downloads in just 7 months and I wouldn't consider that it's very notable. Laurent (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about obscure, but it is a highly specialized field. There seem to be plenty of references available for this particular software and it has been written about in books related to this field. The article needs editorial work but I see no reason for deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing XML is certainly not a highly specialized field. However, following your changes and addition of the Apple.com source (which I missed in my search), I'm ok with letting it stay on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The apple source was already in the article, I just formatted it and added a citation template. It was linked in external links. Tothwolf (talk) 12:48, 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 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo oil company[edit]

Flamingo oil company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is basically a procedural nomination. I declined a ((db-company)) speedy-deletion tag, since there are claims of notability that disqualify the article from speedy deletion. I'm taking it here for discussion of notability. Jamie☆S93 16:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The originally deleted version was far more promotional than the current revision, copying text from the company's website. Jamie☆S93 17:02, 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 no consensus. — Aitias // discussion 21:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop punk bands[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of pop punk bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Serves as a needless battleground for edit warring. The page has a warning at the top that only bands with articles that explicitly call them pop punk are to be added. We already have something that serves this function, which is Category:Pop punk groups. This list ends up being a seesaw of additions and deletions based purely upon opinions. As it stands, it fails WP:OR, but adding a few hundred citations wouldn't improve it, because it's frankly redundant. Chubbles (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some areas in which both a list and a category make sense. Take List of Japanese baseball players, for instance. This includes many red links, because not all professional Japanese baseball players have articles; there is a Category:Japanese baseball players, but the list includes additional information not in the categories. For this list, however, every red link is automatically removed by editors who watchlist the list (and so, in that sense, vigilance isn't the problem). So then, this article is an alphabetical listing of pop punk bands with articles. And the category is...an alphabetical listing of pop punk bands with articles. The category is much easier to manage and does the exact same thing. Chubbles (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list is currently an alphabetical listing of bands. The category is currently and alphabetical listing of bands. The difference is, a category can never be anything BUT an alphabetical list of X, while a list can show redlinks where articles might need created, might offer explanation of why a specific item is on the list, etc. In short, a list can provide more detail and has more potential than a category can ever have. Just because right now its just a list doesn't mean it can't be more. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list, as it is now, does not allow for redlinks. It has a note at the top saying that only bands with articles are to be added. Editors enforce this regularly on the page. If this note is removed, and red links are allowed to stand on the page, it would then have a purpose, and I would withdraw the nomination. But I can't imagine I'd find consensus on that - those who maintain this list immediately remove bands that are redlinked without further comment and seem to believe they have the right to do so. Also, we haven't solved the gigantic OR issue, here. This list is a big opinion piece about what constitutes pop punk, and bands are regularly added and subtracted based upon today's editors' opinions. Chubbles (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that red links are removed is because the vast majority of pop punk bands that should have an article already do. Editors adding red links tend to be adding their own band or some other random non-notable band. I tend to do a quick google search before removing any red links just to be certain though. Leaving red links in my opinion simply encourages people to waste their time making an article that will soon be deleted... at least in this situation. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markham Vineyards[edit]

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

Not notable BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity of production is not how notability is determined for a company. See WP:CORP. Drawn Some (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not quite true, if production is the primary feature. Bronco Wine Company is notable primarily for being a large producer of non-notable wines, for example. Markham Vineyards doesn't even come close to that level of production, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per AgnesDr. Blofeld (talk) 18:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. Lohr Vineyards and Wines[edit]

J. Lohr Vineyards and Wines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable BodegasAmbite (talk) 14:58, 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 as hoax. wL<speak·check> 15:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extregral[edit]

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

Contested prod. Neologism. No assertion of actual usage. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage is widening within the UK construction industry. Suggest that this word is permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik walsh (talk • contribs) 15:24, 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. wL<speak·check> 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith Park Wine[edit]

Griffith Park Wine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable and article reads like an advert BodegasAmbite (talk) 14:45, 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. Jamie☆S93 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Ricolfi-Doria[edit]

Erica Ricolfi-Doria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable, probably a hoax - other articles created by the same user have been deleted —Snigbrook 14:29, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Decker[edit]

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

Sole author (who has no other contributions) removed sd and prod without comment.90% of article is a cut and paste from http://www.comeracewithus.com/2.html. While there are some references to him (do not be confused by the number of Willy Deckers in the world) he does not meet wp:athlete standards Porturology (talk) 13:53, 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, no indication of the person's notability. Jamie☆S93 15:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Post[edit]

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

I don't think regional reporters often meet wikipedias criteria for notability, I certainly can't find any evidence in the text this reporter is yet suitable to be included with her own page LaurenOats (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:50, 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) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Guo[edit]

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

This page should be deleted. International tours or not, she is simply not a notable or mention-worthy figure in music. I only know of her thanks to linked YouTube videos. Bands I'm in have those, have toured all over California, have thousands of fans and legitimate releases, and we don't have Wikipedia pages (I've tried making them, and they've been deleted for the SAME REASON THAT THIS PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED). Simply put, it's cool to put info about a musician or band that is trying to make it, but if they are not important in music they need not be on Wikipedia. If every session musician or cellist that went to a UC was on this site, there would be no room for actual musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frunobulax19 (talk • contribs) 2009/05/12 18:39:23

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:50, 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. Jamie☆S93 15:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afaf jbara[edit]

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

Sole author removed speedy tag and prod without discussion. Article is a resume of someone falling well below notability standards Porturology (talk) 13:39, 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. Sufficient notability for inclusion could not be found, and the subject lacks "non-trivial" coverage in reliable sources. Jamie☆S93 15:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ausama Monajed[edit]

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

Likely vanity page - Member of a newly formed exile group, only claim to fame is that he attended a general UN meeting Passportguy (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the issue is not scaring away editors. The issue is the notability of the subject. Dlohcierekim 15:30, 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 per G11 by Graeme Bartlett. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine optimization seattle[edit]

Search engine optimization seattle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide. This term isn't picked up online in the context it is used in this article, and it seems pretty spammy as well. ThemFromSpace 10:57, 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. Jamie☆S93 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Włocławek (ketchup)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article makes no claims to importance at all, but products are not covered by A7, so this is not speedyable. Fails WP:N completely though. It obviously exists, but I could not find significant coverage in reliable independent sources in Google[44] or Google News[45]. Fram (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought as well but celery seeds are quite flavorful and 9.2% would be overpowering. Drawn Some (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the mystery ingredient, according to the source listed above by Pgallert, is celeriac, not celery seeds or stalks. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:08, 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 Speedy delete per A9, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miike Snow (album)[edit]

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

Fails both WP:BAND and WP:NALBUMS. Triwbe (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, I've declined the speedy for now; once an article gets to AfD, I don't want to speedy it until/unless there's consensus to do that at the AfD (except for blatant db-attack or db-copyvio), and we only have 2 votes for speedy. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Speedy and afd an still overlap. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:21, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mariah Carey b-sides, bonus tracks, and unreleased songs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Mariah Carey b-sides, bonus tracks, and unreleased songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not important. Many of the informations are already mentioned in other Carey related articles. max24 (talk) 09:31, 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. Jamie☆S93 01:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Creek Winery[edit]

Bent Creek Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: user:Dante Alighieri previously restored the article from an expired prod stating it was notable. --wL<speak·check> 09:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that ethical for an admin to do? Restore a page that they created after it was deleted via prod by another admin? AgneCheese/Wine 16:08, 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. Jamie☆S93 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgravia Vineyard[edit]

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

Not notable and reads like and advert BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:51, 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 G12, copyright violation of [47]. Amalthea 08:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Boy (Rihanna song)[edit]

Silly Boy (Rihanna song))) (delete) – (View AfD) Sources confirm this single was not performed by either artist mentioned] The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:15, 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 without prejudice to recreation if sourced, but at present is either a hoax or breach of WP:CRYSTAL Rodhullandemu 21:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Essential Janet Jackson[edit]

The Essential Janet Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was created with no reliable sources. There is no information available to support assertions such an album is going to be released. Possible hoax. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I had a look for notable third party sources yesterday and couldn't find any. I will keep trying but until then I'm sticking with delete. — R2 08:49, 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. Welcome to our guests. I have closed this discussion as "delete" despite the presence of many keep comments. This is not a vote, but a discussion to determine whether the article meets Wikipedia's policies. I deleted this article primarily because it does not establish "notability" in the sense that we use that term on Wikipedia. For a stand-alone article to exist here, you need to demonstrate that reliable sources (and you can click on the link to see what we mean by that) have written about the subject in a meaningful way - the idea being that we then can use those sources to confirm the information we have, and write a neutral article. While this article had many sources, I did not see any that are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. The participants in the debate who pointed out the absence of such sources appear to be correct, which is why the article has been deleted. I'm sure that there will be those who want to know how to "appeal", you do that by going to deletion review. That is not a second bite at the apple, but instead a review of whether I properly followed policy here. Also, I can provide a copy of this article in someone's user space. The article can then be re-written, and reliable sources added. If an article emerges that meets Wikipedia's policies, the article could then be restored. Thanks for taking the time to read this far. I hope many of you choose to become involved with editing here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Armor of God Broadcast[edit]

Full Armor of God Broadcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can't find coverage of this radio show anywhere outside of its own website. Zeagler (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I explained on the article's talk page, WP:WEB does not apply here because the broadcast is not solely distributed on the internet. (Though even if it were, we'd still need sources of information that go beyond the broadcast's official site.) I've been searching Google and Factiva for some independent coverage that would help the article meet WP:NOTABILITY, but there is none to be found. —Zeagler (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Full Armor of God Broadcast is soley distributed via internet digital distribution by FullArmorRadio.com (including to terrestrial stations), thus Notibility (web) Criteria would seem to apply. It appears that Zeagler is overly knit picking this article. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. What is Zeagler's motive for scrutinizing this page so heavily?173.88.8.29 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.23.76 (talk)
It's not about truth, it's about sufficient independent references to establish notability and to verify the article. Drawn Some (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those would seem to be the very definition of a trivial reference, a directory or schedule listing, maybe with a very brief description. "Less than exclusive" means, for example, an article that is about cat breeds and that has a few paragraphs on Maine Coons that discusses them in detail but also has sections that talk about other breeds as opposed to being solely about Maine Coons. I have no prejudice against the subject of this article and if someone can show me the references I will be glad to change my opinion to keep. The information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable and the subject of articles must be notable and we have guidelines to determine these things. Drawn Some (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast#References Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The kind of references I want – and when I say "I want" I really mean "WP:NOTABILITY calls for" – are the kind where "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Has anyone seen fit to do this? Kuba's hometown newspaper? A Christian music magazine? —Zeagler (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often get comments from listeners about how they like the show as it is different, or asking "Whats the show that comes on at midnight?" If there's a Wikipedia page of it, that's a huge help, I can just reply with a link in the email. If you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me, www.wtgoradio.com or myspace.com/wtgo -Brett Estes69.160.193.252 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you on this point Mr. Zeagler. This is important because the rules seem to be ever changing and this is looking more and more like a witch hunt than a disscussion for the good of Wikipedia. On this note, there still seems to be sufficiant basic coverage if not in depth and excessive coverage enough to warrant that this subject be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Would you consider removing your tag if all additional information goes through you before posting? There is no doubt that much of the information which you removed was questionable and you were right in removing it. However, is total deletion of this article the best thing for Wikipedia, not to mention the moral principal that this subject serves? FYI -The Full Armor of God Broadcast has contacted DecembeRadio for an interview, H20 Artist management has returned the call and an interview is currently being scheduled with the band's manager Eric. Would this help establish some notability in your eyes?173.88.44.186 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Coverage typically means books or articles that discuss the subject. It does not mean an entry in a radio station's schedule. Since radio stations don't put out books/articles, I didn't find it necessary to contact any of them. The homework that I did involved consulting a search engine unlikely to miss a notable web source (Google) and a database of over 14,000 newspapers, journals and magazines (Factiva). —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second question that needs more clarification is what does the nominator mean by “as it has terrestrial outlets”? Taken from the discussion page (Talk: Full Armor of God Broadcast) where the nominator also posted this statement “WP:WEB does not apply to FAoGB, as it has terrestrial outlets – "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." You need to show that FAoGB meets WP:NOTABILITY. —Zeagler” From the statement “as it has terrestrial outlets” it appears that the nominator is acknowledging “coverage” beyond that of the internet. In this case the motion to delete this article needs to again be questioned because the motion and discussion is based on “coverage” versus other reasons.
  • Reply "Terrestrial outlets" does not equal "coverage". —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Notability (Web) Ctriteria has been met and should be sufficiant to establish enough notability to Keep Article.173.88.44.186 (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination statement’s use of “Can’t Find” does not demonstrate what methods were used and what the outcome was. Later comments by the nominator states the use of “Google and Factiva” however, no comments were made showing if the nominator attempted to contact radio stations (which list “The Full Armor of God Broadcast” on their schedule) in regards to this matter. In this case, if the nominator is looking for proof of “coverage” an email/letter/phone call or fax to a radio or radio stations (which list “The Full Armor of God Broadcast” on their schedule) would certainly meet the criteria of “Necessary Homework” and present a more established level of credibility as evidence over “Google and Factiva”.
Later on in the discussion the nominator states “The kind of references I want – and when I say "I want" I really mean "WP:NOTABILITY calls for" – are the kind where "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Has anyone seen fit to do this? Kuba's hometown newspaper? A Christian music magazine?” Again, when looking at this statement was the “necessary homework” done? Did the nominator search “Kuba’s hometown newspaper” or any Christian/Non Christian, Music/Non Music Publications? If the answer is no, then the nominator has to question the “Necessary Homework”. Most libraries or newspaper publishers keep copies of past articles that can be accessed by the public. Many of these publications possibly would not come up during a search (various internet search engines) and would have to be verified by different methods. Also The Full Armor of God’s Broadcast’s email and phone number is public information and easily found on their website. (This would allow the nominator the location of “Kuba’s hometown newspaper” should the nominator wish to research in that manner.) In regards to “A Christian Music Magazine” the article in dispute lists HM’s founder Doug Van Pelt. Were there attempts made by the nominator to reach out to this magazine or to Mr. Van Pelt?
  • Reply I will not carry the entire burden. Surely those involved with the creation of this article, seeing as how they've admitted their connection to the show, have better access to this information than I. Why haven't they come up with anything? —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is noted that the nominator has an established knowledge level of Wikipedia. This is proven by the nominators comment, ”That the subject of this article is Christian doesn't seem to be an issue. I am the nominator, and I am responsible for two good articles in the field of Christian music: DecembeRadio and Satisfied (album). —Zeagler”
The fact that the nominator has written two good articles in the area of “Christian Music” gives several alternative options to deletion that would have been better to see the nominator use from the Wikipedia Guide prior to nominating this page for deletion:
  • (investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.)
  • (consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.)
  • (consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD)
  • Reply These were done. Since I had no reliable sources, there was nothing to rewrite. The article was indeed tagged before nomination, although the editors were quick to remove the tag without establishing notability, and there is no good place to redirect/merge this article. —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thank you for your comments. I respectfully would like to suggest that you consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_metal as the subject matter (Chistian Metal) appears to be in line with "The Full Armor of God Broadcast" (since the show plays Various Styles of Heavy Christian Metal) and would fufill the requirment for redirect/merge. At the bare minimum "The Full Armor of God Broadcast" should at least be mentioned on that page.70.153.164.153 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply A mention at Christian metal may be in order whether this article is kept or not. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss this program's importance to the genre? —Zeagler (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have chosen to post this message as a “comment” and not a “keep”/”delete” because I do not regularly contribute or discuss matters on Wikipedia and hope that this comment is not considered “Sockpuppeting”. However, I do consult Wikipedia on multiple occasions especially in regards to music (both Christian and Non-Christian Music). I do find it a valuable resource and think that efforts to maintain correct information are vital to the success of this resource. In my future visits to Wikipedia, I hope to find this page here, as is, re-written (by author or nominator), or as a redirect as this information can be and is useful to those looking for a specific genre of music, radio show information, radio show history, or other reasons. 70.153.164.153 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — 70.153.164.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment In regard to post by John Carter, aside from Factiva, how can significant coverage be established? Article has references to several radio stations & artists that appear on Wikipedia as well as to internet broadcasters who appear on SHOUTcast. Perhaps not the highest grade of coverage, but shouldn't that be considered significant coverage of at least minium standards, or if nothing less what about Notability (Web) criteria that is met? Please help save this atricle John. I realize it did need to be slimmed down and it has been. My prayer is that you have a change of heart on this matter.173.88.28.69 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realize that the opposition to this article will try discredit the supporters who are posting by asserting that they are not "Wiki Contributors" however many are wiki readers. I submit that they should not be invalidated on these grounds. Also as I have stated before the original issue imposed by User:Zeagler was "Notability". According to WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." Thus, according to WP:WEB which states "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria: 3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;" The Full Armor of God Broadcast article has references to multiple internet broadcasters who have the show name published on the program schedules on websites. This should be satisfactory enough to verify notability as per Wikipedia policy. Syndicated radio shows as a member of the media are not neccesarily known by much literary publication (the media ussually does nto write about the media). So the most valuable place for a syndicated radio show to be published is on the program schedule of radio staions airing the program. According to WP:SOURCES "Electronic media may also be used." So with that noted, according to Wikipedia policy this article certainly has a significant amount of Notability (which was the original reason for WP:DP.

Hence, I motion for this nomination for deletion to be withdrawn and the article to remain on a probationary status pending all further charges to be submitted through the wiki contributors and admin present in this proccess. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'm not withdrawing the nomination, and here's why:
  1. None of the criteria at WP:NOTABILITY have been met.
    • Comment This statment is incorrect. All of The Full Armor of God Broadcast programming is digitally distributed via http://FullArmorRadio.com (as noted on the website). WP:WEB States "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria"173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WP:WEB does not apply to this article. It doesn't matter that the broadcast delivers episodes to its outlets via the Internet. Some of the outlets in turn disseminate the show via terrestrial radio, therefore the show is not solely distributed on the Internet. But even if it were, are any of the outlets respected (as called for by WP:WEB)? Seems they're either small Christian college radio stations, low-power radio stations, or SHOUTcast stations (which anyone can set up).
    • Comment You originally claimed "Can't find coverage of this radio show anywhere outside of its own website. Zeagler (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)" Than you acknowledge that coverage is present just not good enough for you (not based WP:N but your own opinion.) Than you escalate the matter by trying to discredit the stations. Also, some of these stations that Mr. Zeagler considers insignificant small staions are listed on Wikipedia.. Is Mr. Zeagler going to go after them for deletion too?? WP:N "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." The Full Armor of God Broadcast is clearly not high profile, main stream corporate Christian Music Industry sponsored radio. That is not the question here. it is clearly and underground, counter culture entity. It's level of notability is established within it's own scope of UNDERGROUND Christian Metal, not the main stream. Many mainstream artist have endorse the show after acheiving a higher level of notability to honor the street credibility of The Full Armor of God Broadcast. The show is not known for corporate "sell out", thus it's underground appeal and notability.173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. An entry in a radio station schedule does not constitute significant treatment of the subject. Mere name-dropping does not establish notability.
    • Comment PLEASE REFERNCE THIS STATEMENT! WP:WEB "3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;" I do not see where your subjective inturpretaion of this policy applies.173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. That bit about electronic media at WP:SOURCES means one can reference television or radio programs, etc. For example, I can reference this week's episode of NOVA in the article on Hugh Everett III. (A reference to this week's episode of The Full Armor of God, however, will not help to establish the notability of The Full Armor of God.) —Zeagler (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The references to Full Armor of God Broadcast archives are listed only to reference notable guests, which also verifies some additional notability. However according to WP:N Notability does not neccessarily = fame or popularity. Your inturptetaions of Wiki policy are "fast & loose" and you are clearly taking liberties with the verbage to support your desire to have article removed. This is looking more like Ahab and the White Whale than of Wikipedia moderation on your part. It is all written down in clear black & white. You are subjectively picking and choosing what you feel supports your arguement.WP:N " This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content."173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Reply "Give The Devil A Blackeye" is a slogan used regularly on the program and was not directed towards the those pushing for deletion on this discussion in any way, but to encourage those familiar with the program. Please don't misunderstand the nature of the comment. I think it is very important to stay focussed on the essentials here. I do not see ANYTHING about "in-depth coverage" in WP:RS I am not sure why this keeps getting brought up?? Note: at this point User:Drawn Some is citing "in-depth coverage" is required as apposed users prior claims that subject is a "HOAX" and "Viral Marketing Scheme". It appears that Notability has been established according to WP:N, WP:WEB & WP:ORG. Here are the references that meet these guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast#References Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the "Basic criteria" section at WP:N. I refer to WP:RS a lot because the sources being used are either not reliable sources or the content is trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was asked above what would be required to save this article according to the criteria I stated. That is actually fairly simple. If two sources which meet WP:RS criteria are found which provide significant coverage for the subject, it qualifies to be kept. Reliable sources in this context would include either print magazines, online equivalents which meet RS standards, encyclopedia entries of some sort or other, etc. If two of them can be found, that would verify that the article meets notability criteria. They might also be sufficient to have a Wikipedia:Deletion review request allow the article to be restored. Personally, that would be the option I think most likely to succeed here. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh.... what about the references listed on the page? Take the canvassing out of the equation. A list of radio stations the program plays at seems, to me, to be good enough for a list of references for notability, and it's a lot more than some radio shows on Wikipedia have. 5minutes (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references only confirm the show's existence, not its notability. Take the other articles out of the equation. —Zeagler (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Please explain how you came to this conclusion aside from obvious connection with ThemFromSpace based on your user page? The implication seems to be that you don't consider the subject to have enough populatity or fame by your personal standards. WP:N clearly define that "Notabiltiy" is not based on poularity or fame". Subject is not self-published.173.88.39.37 (talk) 20:26, 21 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 01:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Videodamus[edit]

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

Neologism, this is the first use of this term on the internet. Wronkiew (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lots42 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 May 2009

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raison d'être (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Raison d'être (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:BAND. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:19, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Switzerland relations[edit]

Azerbaijan–Switzerland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

although these countries have embassies, the level of relations seems rather non notable outside competing in the same sporting competitions. Only 2 things came from a Google news search an energy "cooperation" agreement and another memo. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why not? that is the test of WP:N, there needs to be significant coverage? sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
established notability? currently only has 1 reference. of course you are welcome to find some more that actually establish notability. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CHF 2.1 billion a year, but what share to Azerbaijan, I ask as many of the richest countries give substantial aid but how much they give to individual countries is significant here. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's also part of the Foreign relations of Switzerland... after looking at the improved versions of the foreign relations articles (which merge content of the Groubani articles into a concise form), I can see where they might be an adequate replacement for many of these. Mandsford (talk) 15:18, 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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germ Warfare (M*A*S*H)[edit]

Germ Warfare (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Like similar noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content, except for rampant off-topic speculation about the possible philosophical ramifications of two different inferred meanings to a joke. It is redundant to the far more brief List of Episodes. The image isn't viable for keeping or merging as it lacks the real world content connection to pass Fair Use terms. Article has been GNG prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others Kudos to the rescuers. Dlohcierekim 14:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have still moved on to start nominating season two. I stand behind this statement. You can argue the chronology, in that you started nominating in season 2 before you finished season 1, but the fact is correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • assertions of notability are a CSD concept and not relevant here as this is AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Struck duplicate. Didn't see I'd already opined. Keeping additional comment though). This AFD was overly hasty and misguided. This is not articles that need improvement. Dlohcierekim 14:34, 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 merge to Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guglielmo Baldini[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional dictionary entry —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dad[edit]

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

This article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. ThuranX (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an accurate assessment. What do you find to be inaccurate about it? Every season one was nominated and a start was made in season two, that escaped notice by most of the people commenting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note there was no discussion about this on the episode page, as is usually the custom. Ikip (talk) 01:16, 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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edwina (M*A*S*H)[edit]

Edwina (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Like my previous noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. ThuranX (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself."
WP:INTROTODELETE Essay "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved."
Was there any efforts to "look for sources yourself" is deletion a last resort? Considering there were no conversation about these 23 episode deletions beforehand? Ikip (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to DGG, I have been joining in a series of these discussions and there was, for many similar episodes, a strong consensus that they were not notable. I see nothing different in this case--no reliable independent sources with significant coverage. I think if you want to argue to keep this you are going to need to argue for notability by finding such sources. Cazort (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "To avoid process wonkery by inclusionists such as yourself." First, I have found labels never help your argument, second, DGG wants all of these articles merged, hardly a hard core inclusionist. Ikip (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing your comment after someone has replied is rude. And seriously, do not create an essay then try to claim it trumps one that has both longevity and clearly demonstrable community consensus just because you wrote yours later. That is beyond ridiculous. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a real problem with editors who call other editor good faith contributions "crap". Does this really help come to a consensus? Just like cruft, "this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Process wonkery is when people follow appropriate policy or guidelines that gets in the way what other people want to do. Dlohcierekim 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a hardcore inclusionist, though I think DGG is, and Ikip? well never mind. However, Switch to keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. To say it's been in need of improvement for 2 years as a reason to delete is just wrong. There is no time limit. And this mass listing of long standing article for deletion has in no way made it easy for the rescuers to meet the artificial time limit imposed by taking them to AFD. Kudos to the rescuers. And I think we need a little more process wonkery if AFD's like this are the alternative. Dlohcierekim 13:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't about numbers of viewers, it's about being documented, receiving significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are pieces of graffiti viewable from major interstates that have "millions of viewers"...but they don't become notable until someone decides to write about them in detail. Similarly for this episode or any TV episode. Plot summaries of non-notable episodes belong on fan wikis, not wikipedia. There is actually a "M*A*S*H" wiki: [52]. If you want to keep this article, show us that it is notable by showing us significant coverage in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is determined by consensus. No one has to show you anything. If most people believe an episode is notable, based on how many millions of viewers it has, than the article remains, as has happened in all the episode articles for other popular series people have tried to delete. The opinions of millions of people, who found it notable enough to watch, is far more important than the opinions of a couple of guys who work for a newspaper or magazine with fewer readers than the show has viewers, who decided for whatever reason to write about it that day. Dream Focus 00:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment notability of the individual episode is not the issue. The media franchise M*A*S*H is notable, and so the issues are its WP:LENGTH and the WP:SPLITTING of it. JJL (talk) 00:47, 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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Story (M*A*S*H)[edit]

Love Story (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Like my previous noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. Article has been prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of process wonkery, why are all these listed separately instead of in a single AFD? Dlohcierekim 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "lacking any assertion of notability or real world content." WP:DEADLINE: "Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. A small number of articles might make Wikipedia 1.0, but the vast majority will not and for the balance there is no deadline."
Your argument would appear to be that since there is no "deadline" that all content of no demonstrable independent notability should be kept until the Heat death of the universe in the hopes that someday, somehow, notability will materialize, hower unlikely that would appear to be in this case.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuttle (M*A*S*H)[edit]

Tuttle (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As with similar noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. ThuranX (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I am forced to repeat that you have moved on into season two for deletions. My characterization is both accurate and verifiable and is neither "baseless" or an example of "alarmism". It is factual. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You, sir, are lying. Your comment specifically implies that well after this article's nomination, and recent relative to YOUR post, I had moved into the second season, when, in fact, it was nominated at the same time as a lot of others. You continue to lie about my actions, misrepresent my statements by redacting yours to make me look like I completely ignore everything you say, and then act as though you have done nothing wrong by such lies. You were cautioned against this sort of behavior, and yet you continue, therefore I can only conclude that you are intentionally acting in Bad Faith. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, but there seems to be a firm consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ringbanger[edit]

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

Like my previous noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. Article has been prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one's proposed an AfD of the article about the series. Is this episode notable? Please explain why here and in the article. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I am forced to follow along behind Richard Arthur Norton to defend myself against his baseless accusations and alarmism. That was nominated at the same time as all these other episodes. Please stop all the nonsense hand-waving and Bad Faith harassment. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes You Hear the Bullet[edit]

Sometimes You Hear the Bullet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Like my previous noms, article contains only a plot summary and infobox, lacking any assertion of notability or real world content. Continuing my reviewing of a few a night. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell all studio movies can be added to Wikipedia and the references are the reviews. What studio movies, let us say post 1950, are not notable? Not every movie wins an award, should we only include award winning movies? And once again, try not to use the essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 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, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annapurna 100[edit]

Annapurna 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Likely non-notable race. No news coverage, couldn't find reliable secondary sources about it. Samuel Tan 01:50, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Finland relations[edit]

Belarus–Finland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination, non resident embassies. most of the talking happens in a Belarus-EU context, as the Finnish foreign ministry reveals. [53]. google news search shows up mostly multilateral and sporting relations. so a revised search shows only minor coverage [54] and the usual double taxation agreement. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jurors of the Eurovision Song Contest 2009[edit]

List of Jurors of the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most of these are bound to be nonentities, and for those who actually are notable personalities, their being Eurovision jurors is not an especially notable characteristic. This is relevant; this list is not. It likely breaches WP:NOTDIR. Also, I invite participants to click these links: Bill Hughes, Paul Edwards, Chris Stewart. Biruitorul Talk 01:40, 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 discussion has gone back and forth, without one side's arguments being significantly stronger. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David J Williams[edit]

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

Non notable author; does not meet the standards of WP:CREATIVE  Chzz  ►  01:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is, in fact, a notable author, with a trilogy published by a major house (Bantam Spectra, for what was claimed to be a record sum advance for a debut novelist) and is notable enough for former Hugo award nominees to call out the author as having brought a special talent to the Sci-Fi genre. He also has Homeworld gaming credit.Bdegroodt (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • reply: The mere publishing of a work by the most famous of publishing houses does not meet the requirements. Of the sources you listed, those that were written in blogs by authors whose work is not widely recognized do not meet WP:V, and the only one I would count as being "non-trivial" is the Sci-fi weekly. Also, try reading the general WP:notabilityand WP:Reliable sources if you have questions about source value. Mrathel (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE:reply Once again your subjectivity is out of hand, SFsite.com has been online since 1996 that is 5 years before even Wikipedia came about, if you consider them an unreliable source or "trivial" than in the same sense so is Wikipedia. As well Richard Dansky from GreenManReview.com is a published author and video game writer whom was featured as GamaSutura.com's 20 Top Game Writers [67] for his writing work on games such as Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six and Cold Fear... is he trivial? By Wiki guidelines for self published sources (which GreenManReview is not self published by Richard anyway) Richard works in a relevant field and has been published by a reliable 3rd party source. Further sources: Student Operated Press [68] / io9.com [69] / SFFworld.com [70] / FantasticFiction.co.uk [71] / GoodReads.com [72] / SFsignal.com [73] All of the prior are reliable sources most of them have been online long before even Wikipedia. I can also go through and see on how many other Wikipedia articles these sources have been allowed as reliable if you need me to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.149.210 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Would like to state for the record that my intention was not to defame the author, but rather to support notability by calling out the fact that some have cited Williams' work as a new take on cyberpunk--or perhaps a sub-sub-genre--which in my opinion futhers the notability requirement. I took time to create this entry out of interest in the author and as a fan unable to find much material on Williams. I thought Wikipedia would be a welcome repository for such an entry, but perhaps I've overvalued the respect for a published author on Wikipedia. Notability feels highly subjective to me and I've tried to meet a reasonable standard for what I feel meets the vague guidlines of Wikipedia's Notability requirement. I'd suggest, having studied the publishing industry, that any author that actually makes it out of the pile of manuscripts that bombard agents and publishers is by definition notable. I'll reiterate, as creator of this entry, my vote to keep this entry.Bdegroodt (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Please denote exactly why the Seattle Times review is the only reliable source and why the others (Scifi.com especially) are not, I have read all Wikipedia standards posted (which are not clear and leave a lot of room for interpretation) and it would seem 80% of the sources I posted CAN INDEED be accepted and with that I am confused to why there seems to be such an adamant refusal to allow them (which is odd if not unsettling). If you could please be very specific as to why EACH ONE is not a reliable source it would indeed help to clarify this whole debacle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.188.9 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article:
  • [74] personal page, 404
  • [75] image of a book cover, ad
  • [76] "A lifelong SF fan, well, at least as far back as he can remember, he decided it would be cool to start a weblog about SF and stuff. So, together with a few friends, he did, and SF Signal was born!" [77]
  • [78] publisher's page, ad
  • [79] "The ISFDB is a community effort to catalog works of science fiction, fantasy, and horror." The bio link is a wiki page, 404.
  • In AfD, but not in the article:
  • ReplyI too would be after similar data. I'm certain the editorial process for inclusion of Williams' work at the ST was rigorous and objective. Dismissing a major print publication out of hand as not sufficient enough to carry a vote for notability seems subjective and lacking in rigor. How about Publisher's Weekly? This is a very important source for librarians across the nation in making buy/pass decisions. A review there seems, again, to pass a reasonable notability threshold.Bdegroodt (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you responding to what I wrote about the Seattle Times?
  • The single paragraph book review in the trade news magazine doesn't have anything biographical in it. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-18t22:02z
  • Reply Duffbeerforme once again this is not about opinions, both myself and Bdegroodt ARE THE ONLY ONES who have brought forth proper evidence to support our cases and every other nay sayer has simply returned nothing but rhetoric, no facts, no objectivity, nothing. You are 100% right this afd is wrong. It should have never been started as even by Wikipedia standards it is clear David Williams is indeed a notable author. My accusations ARE based on the actions of the initial claim that was made without any substance to it and I have clearly proven beyond a reasonable doubt my case and the ones (like yourself, Jeandre, Mrathel, Chzz) have done nothing to prove your initial claim of "non-notability" but are clinging to it with no factual basis hence the accusations of malintent. Yes that is an assumption but so was the initial claim to David Williams being "non-notable". Also Duffbeerforme, what was your purpose for posting in here??? You brought absolutely nothing to this debate and I am still waiting for someone to clearly denote why the sources provided are either not reliable or trivial specifically. Id est, list the outlet and exactly why Wikipedia finds them to be either non-reliable or trivial. This is now the third time I have asked for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.188.9 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Duffbeerforme, I've made no accusations of defamation. If I have, I'd appreciate proof and I'll gladly correct my intended message. Otherwise, I'm uncertain what your vote is for keep/delete. Can I assume it's keep? I believe the guideline for participation in this AfD page is for consensus building only. Without an explicit vote from you it's difficult to count your position. Your a digital hanging chad if you will. I'll reiterate my call for this entry to be kept in Wikipedia and if documentation/references are not sufficient that the entry be moved to a request to increase them and the entry "cleaned up" to meet Wikipedia standards--but not marked for deletion.Bdegroodt (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my feet would feel much more comfortable if I put on some socks. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I would like to respectfully request the Wiki Admins take Duffbeerforme's responses as limited to no value for the sake of this discussion. References to his feet, comfort and socks are in no way related to this discussion.Bdegroodt (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thank Jeandré for the list of sources he has provided. As you can see, there is a lack of information from reliable, third-party sources from which an article can be written on the subject. Despite claims of subjectivity in dealing with the notability issues, the guidelines are quite clear on the matter; in order for an encyclopedic article to be written on a subject, there must be reliable, third-party sources to back up the claims the article makes. If a blog where only a username is given is used, there is no way to verify that content to make sure the person giving it did his or her homework on the matter. Of the sources that meet this criteria, (Seattle Times and Scifi.com), there is not enough biographical information to put together an article on the author. This is in no way a critical judgement of the author's work or value; it is simply an issue of coverage. In the future, more publications by credible sources can be used to fill in the gaps that exist, but at present, I don't think one can find enough reliable sources to meet the requirement of notability. Mrathel (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I disagree. Much of the commentary on each source made by Jeandré is poorly recapped or lazily researched. The author is now a twice published American author of science fiction at a major publishing house. His book is currently in the low thousand for Amazon sales rank (as if this can be any sort of reliable source of an author's value/notoriety, but I'll play along). I'll continue to make my request that this article be marked for clean up, but not deletion. Deletion is not the only potential solution here. Bdegroodt (talk) 22:47, 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 A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LSE celtic society[edit]

LSE celtic society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student group. Google and Google News searches do not confirm its importance. The article does not meet WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:12, 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. 9 days is long enough. Keep. Notability has been established although this stub needs major expansion. (non-admin closure) - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Woods[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP containing no information besides a list of publications. A google search throws up little more information and nothing resembling a WP:RS. HJMitchell You rang? 18:40, 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 00:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to strong keep per very substantial coverage in reliable sources. Definitely notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:17, 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 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Diamonds[edit]

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

No sources, and I can't find anything more than a passing mention in any reliable sources  Chzz  ►  00:39, 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. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Najmuddin(Rehan Razvi )[edit]

Najmuddin(Rehan Razvi ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not at all sure if the subject is notable enough for an article. I am also nominating the following related pages because it is identical, and one should be deleted if not both:

Najm (Film Maker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Michael Johnson (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Films are non notable. Never heard of film-maker or his films. No awards or recognitions. Seems like an aspiring college passout to me. --Deepak D'Souza 04:47, 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 00:26, 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) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stedman[edit]

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

Non-notable person with no apparent reason or justification for having an article on Wikipedia. Laval (talk) 04:55, 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 00:25, 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. Wizardman 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kotula[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, no proof that they are notable for anything other than winning a single event Terrillja talk 04:38, 30 April 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, 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 00:22, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ComboFix[edit]

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

The tool has an assertion of notability on web forums, and is a widely popular security tool, but little documentation is existent online. The reliability of good references, on this tool, are slim to none. The references currently used, though I added some myself, aren't good enough for a Wikipedia standard article. In a nutshell, it's just not expandable and doesn't assert its notability past web forums. blurredpeace ☮ 04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This software is currently being used by both IT professionals (at my Job) and non-professionals as a last resort to remove malware. ComboFix's utility probably warrants it having an entry in the Wikipedia, and the tone of this article (descriptive or explanitory) is valuable, because most of the web-references I have seen only describe the use of the program. -vincent powell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.102.34 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 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, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be KEPT. I'm trying to clean a computer, and I need information like this. The program is recommended by various people, but I want a quick way to find out what it does and whether there is anything negative I need to know about it before I start using it. Wikipedia is a convenient place to find such information. So long as the article is not deleted! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not a good reason to keep the page Eric. If you need the information, you can get it elsewhere. If it doesn't exist in another source, it is unverifiable and unsuitable for Wikipedia anyway. If you need it, it should be available somewhere, that doesn't mean that place HAS to be Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 14 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 00:21, 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Smith[edit]

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

Notability, fails WP:MUSIC and reads as a fansite or promotional piece. It's also a single source material from a myspace page, and doesn't attribute to that site. Sigma 7 (talk) 04:52, 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) 00:21, 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 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toucan (software)[edit]

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

No indication that this is a notable tool/product/program. seresin ( ¡? )  00:21, 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) 23:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Justice[edit]

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

Non-notable golfer. Appears to have played six rounds of golf in two tournaments. I understand that a "pro" is a "pro" but looking at WP:Notability (people), I see: A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. I don't see six rounds of golf as falling under "generally notable", and I can't find any separate reason to support notability.  Frank  |  talk  03:52, 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) 00:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is not surprising that not a lot of online sources are coming up for a golfer who played six rounds in the PGA in the 50s (from what I can tell from the article summaries that is when he played), GNews for "Ab Justice" and "Donald Justice" bring up about three-four pages of sources combined that are locked behind pay walls. It appears that he may have been pretty good on the NCAA scene, the article says he was All-American at Oklahoma State.--kelapstick (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • update I found an article about the 1958 NCAA championship that he was playing in, second round he was in the lead, only thing it was really citable for (with the paragraph that you can preview for free) is his name and where he goes to school.--kelapstick (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The two tournaments were in 1990 (see the second link in the nomination).  Frank  |  talk  21:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well they must be the same person since I doubt that there are two golfers named "Donald M. Justace", even a father/son it would be odd for them to both have the nickname "Ab". If he was playing NCAA in 1958 (per the NYT reference) that would make him about 50-55 by the time he was playing in his two tournaments in the PGA in 1990, that's plausable. Without purchasing the article to see how deep the coverage about him was the cite I have really just proves that he exists and played NCAA golf at Oklahoma state, and was pretty good at it, not much else, but I am sticking with my WP:ATHLETE rationale.--kelapstick (talk) 21:52, 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 delete.  Sandstein  06:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malin GAA[edit]

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

One sentence article, states little other than location and existence of club. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 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 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really convinced. I think, given the GAA structure, we should be looking at them playing in some kind of national championship? I don't see that yet - but they may have and the sources, which for the GAA I find tricky to be honest, may just not be easy to find. I think Div 1B is essentially the second tier provincially btw, which doesn't suggest a high level of play or national notability within Ireland. But if you can source national notability then I'd be *very* happy. Until then I think I'm still with delete Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the sources has them playing a match outside their county on the opposite side of the country (or a different one in fact, considering Antrim is in Northern Ireland). --candle•wicke 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, looks like a provincial championship though doesn't it? Rather than a national championship? If you can find them having won the Donegal championship and therefore technically representing Donegal in the All-Ireland's then I'd certainly say that was significant. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:05, 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. Wizardman 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kwun Leung Vincent[edit]

Lee Kwun Leung Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable painter. Lacks independent references to establish notability or verifiability of this auto-biographical article.Drawn Some (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use http://www.Google.com/translate to translate. There are no independent references that establish notability, see WP:CREATIVE, he is locally known at best, and most of the information in the article cannot be verified by reliable resources even if he were notable. Drawn Some (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question raised above. How is Ta Kung Pao not an independent source? Do you think that the article subject has some influence over its editorial content? If that is the case, then that fact on its own would imply that the subject is notable. And how, when the references are to a national newspaper in a country containing a fifth of the world's population, is the subject "locally known at best"? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are putting words in my mouth as well as focusing on the word "independent". Review the guidelines for artist and you'll see that he lacks independent references to establish notability and to verify the contents of the article. WP:CREATIVE:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. 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.
  4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Regardless of the independence of the references, the guidelines are not met. Drawn Some (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:creative is "Additional criteria". The basic criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people) still apply even if none of the above are satisfied. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:17, 14 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 00:20, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Recordings[edit]

Indie Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I have added sources and rewritten things.Dark Prime (talk) 15:20, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 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. Wizardman 00:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Hannigan[edit]

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

Real author with one published book, which got a few minor reviews. Claimed besteller status highly dubious. Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR Passportguy (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:N Pink cloudy sky (talk) 20:43, 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 00:15, 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harringay Online[edit]

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

Non notable local website, has won one award, which itself doesn't appear to be too notable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Awards/Recognition: The Catalyst Awards are a national award sponsored by No. 10. The awards were presented by Gordon Brown. Here are the awards written up on NESTA's website. We are featured on the European Union's best practice website, particularly because we are considered a model for the development of other sites. We have now also been short-listed for the National eWell-Being Awards. Harringay Online is the only hyperlocal website to get this recognition because it is doing it's job so well. So, I think there's a fair case there for notability in it's class.
2. If the issue is the notability of the class, i.e. hyperlocal websites, I think there's also a good case.
Government departments and well respected research establishments are increasingly focussing on the key role of hyperlocal websites. Local sites like Harringay Online are specifically mentioned as a group in a whole raft of recent guidance from the Department of Communities & Local Government around Coomunities in Control. Government sees them as core to a key part of their agenda. The DCLG have recently awarded £1m to local councils to encourage them to establish more hyperlocal activity.
Just recently Head of the Royal Society of Arts, Matthew Taylor wrote about the issue in one of his blogs. He specifically mentioned Harringay Online and indeed in one of his follow-up comments said "If we had 5,000 Harringay on lines our society would be much richer".
Hyperlocal is an issue for Government and third sector influencers. Harringay Online is a leader in this movement. We've spawned sites in Virginia, Durban and of course in the UK. (For example a nearby local site recently Twittered "@Harringayonline been very inspired by ... your network when rebuilding the East Finchley network"
I'm not clear why its serving a small geographic area is an issue. Size of geography doesn't seem to be an issue for Wikipedia.
3. Impact on the community - the site is aimed at a neighbourhood of 15,000 people. It was started two years ago and has a membership of over 1,500. Any media that has a penetration of 10% within two years should be making some impact on those numbers alone. Staying with numbers, Google Analytics shows that the site gets an average of 250 visits a day from 150 unique visitors - a greater level of penetration than Channel 4 News or BBC's Newsnight. It is rated in the top decile of sites by Hubspots Website Grader tool. Alexa ranks us in the top 3% of websites worldwide (Traffic rank of 1,958,599 out of about 66m active websites. It is number 2 in results on a Google search for Harringay. On a numbers basis, not sure what else would satisfy.
But so much for stats. In terms of local impact, the people in the area are the best arbiters and we have hundreds of testimonials from them - happy to supply. We've also had significant on the ground impacts in the neighbourhood. These can be referenced by local press stories. They include:
- a successful campaign resisting the local opening of betting shops
- a successful movement and campaign to resist a plan from Haringey Council for the nearby Wood Green which would have rerouted traffic through our area
- the biggest summer party ever in the area
- the initiation of a Council sponsored Local Charter for the area to develop a vision and 5 year plan for the area
- the first ever street festival for the area which will involve the closure of one of North London's busiest roads.
- Support and info to support individuals with countless occasions of local action.
4. What other commentators have said:
  • "I'm a great fan of this remarkable local site because of the huge number of digital conversations it generates among residents". Kevin Harris' article, Digital engagement: transparency and power, published on New Start, 31st March 2009. (And another post referencing the same story here
  • Richard - I am trying to do precisely this, having been very impressed with Harringay-Online. I also thought I would try to build up an advice wiki on this issue and will copy and paste your great advice over to it now. I hope that is OK. http://onlinecommunitybuilder.pbwiki.com/
Posted by: Paul Johnston | Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 12:43
That's a brilliant example Paul. A really, really, brilliant example. So many participants, activity.
Posted by: Richard Millington | Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 13:14
Discussion on Richard Millington's Fever Bee
  • "The key aspect to all of this is to start to open up and explore the new connections and to create an information and conversation flow between residents and councils (or council staff) and then creating and developing new opportunities to communicate out. There is a huge potential to support these environments which also foster social capital. A great example of this is Harringayonline, which is not a council lead initiative." Carl Haggerty on Carl's Notepad, February 6, 2009
Happy to go through my files and find stronger examples if these aren't enough.
I hope this helps. The reason the article should stay, quite apart from it's notability is that it is a an example for other to follow. It is a leader in its field and it should be as easy as possible for people to find. No one is making any money out of it. It's a 100% community not-for-profit venture.
hjuk (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Keep, per above. CF90 (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here's another reliable source from a couple of days ago. And, also a reference in The Guardian

To get an idea of what reliable sources are allowed as references for websites, I had a look at Category:British websites. It seems that many have fewer references than this one. So, it's hard to work out what's acceptable. In terms of the sources we do have, let's just review them:

  • The European Commission's own website
  • A UK Government website, in the form of NESTA
  • A mention in the Guardian newspaper
  • A Press Association website, in the form of Commmunity Newswire.
  • The well-respected regeneration & economic development magazine, New Start.
  • The Royal Society of Arts Website in an article written by the Chief of the Society.
  • A host of mentions in other smaller well-respected specialist sites.

There's no two-page spread in the FT, but let's be realistic, for a hyperlocal website, this is substantial verifiable sourcing from a whole range of reliable sources. Please explain what's missing.

As to the web stats, they're all verifiable. Alexa is the most referenced guide to website performance and is open for public scrutiny. Google Analytics stats are also verifiable - happy to give access to those.

hjuk (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walter Delve 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Walter Delve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tedder (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Tedder, this is my first lengthy contribution. Although a regular user of Wikipedia I haven’t been a contributor. I work in the community in the borough of Haringey and am an avid supporter of hyperlocal. I became aware of this debate through a watch I have on items on the borough across the web - http://twitter.com/wikiwars/status/1719153087. I wanted to step up, support the inclusion of articles on hyperlocal on Wikipedia in general, but on Harringay Online in particular. I’ve read the AFD guidance and whilst not an expert editor, It seems to me that this article meets the notability and reliable sources criteria. So, I’m a firm, if novice, keep. Walter Delve (talk) 07:38, 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 00:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Ryan[edit]

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

Still no verification as to the independent notability of this character. seresin ( ¡? )  00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thats embarassing. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Nobody, you might want to retract that. I support deletion, and I've actually bothered looking for and presenting sources rather than just asserting that they exist (see above), and I couldn't find anything substantial to work with. That doesn't mean that it can't be done, but so far this AfD is simply a talking shop. Fences and windows (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found and added somewhat to the actual article (I am the only one to edit it since nomination) and now going through the remarkable number of sources available on Google News to see what can be added in the way of a reception section. That interview you cite could be helpful in the production section and anyway, I was not directing my comment at you, which is why I didn't say "all"; rather it was a reply to comment directly above mine. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for snapping. Good luck with expanding it. Fences and windows (talk) 03:51, 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. The subject does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gu[edit]

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

All contents are from the blog of this person, contributed by a Wiki user who has the same user name as this person's pen name. Wikipedia is not a personal resume posting service.--Mongol (talk) 23:29, 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) 00:05, 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 (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Meer Dilmurad Khan Khoso[edit]

Sardar Meer Dilmurad Khan Khoso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any third-party refs. Ironholds (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Keep:

I believe the story is based on history and have a contact with the family, so will suggest they document more fully. Please keep. Also deals with long ago history so zero risk of distorting or hurting reputation of living people, organizations or national interests. BJMorrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.36.186 (talk) 19:24, 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) 23:58, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alawode Oladele[edit]

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

Questionable notability under WP:BIO. I can find no evidence that this individual is any more notable than any other doctor. There is some laudatory coverage on sites promoting medical organizations he is connected to, including a little biographical information. There is also a biography article (http://www.publichealthleaders.org/alumni/bios_04_05/oladele_alawode.htm) that appears to have been written by the individual. There are enough sources that I would ordinarily assume notability, but so many of the sources are advertisement-like that I am concerned, and have nominated for AfD. Despite any possible presumption, I personally believe that the individual is not notable, despite some coverage in sources. Delete. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:05, 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) 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. You can see him give a talk at GSU here. Fences and windows (talk) 01:49, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life Saver bottle[edit]

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

non-notable product Pjacobi (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just added a lot of that info to the article.Grundle2600 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where? The linked Daily Telegraph article? Or the website the company that sells this product: Lifesaver Bottle USA? Splette :) How's my driving? 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this also needs to be moved to "Lifesaver bottle" if the result of the AfD is keep. Drawn Some (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One link to a tabloid Daily Telegraph and another to Treehugger makes this article 'well sourced'? Splette :) How's my driving? 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is The Daily Telegraph, not The Daily Mail. The former is a respectable broadsheet newspaper, not a tabloid. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ups, sorry I mixed up the two. Splette :) How's my driving? 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you put this in quotation marks it gives only 22 results. Is that notable? Remember, notability includes significant coverage and notability is not temporary... Splette :) How's my driving? 21:51, 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 Procedural close, created by abusive sockpuppet. However, the concerns raised in the legitimate other opinions should be adressed, probably best by merging this article back. Otherwise, a new AfD may be the best solution. Fram (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redcaps in popular culture[edit]

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

I nominated this article for several reasons. The most pertinent being that the article is nothing more than a a list of useless trivia. Entries relating to popular fiction should be about how that subject impacted popular fiction with one or two notable examples. The article itself was even made in bad taste without proper discussion on the Redcap (which was not overly long), and the author making the page without listing citations. If notability can be established for this article as is, then by all means keep it, otherwise I believe the article itself should be deleted with a few notable examples being merged back into the main page.Hyacinth99 (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC). — Hyacinth99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

struck comments per blocked socketpuppet results. - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar/Archive. -- Banjeboi 10:11, 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 Procedural close, created by abusive sockpuppet. However, the concerns raised in the legitimate other opinions should be adressed, probably best by merging this article back. Otherwise, a new AfD may be the best solution. Fram (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manticore in popular culture[edit]

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

I nominated this article for several reasons. The most pertinent being that the article is nothing more than a a list of useless trivia. Entries relating to popular fiction should be about how that subject impacted popular fiction with one or two notable examples. The article itself was even made in bad taste without proper discussion on the Manticore (which was not overly long), and the author making the page without listing citations. If notability can be established for this article as is, then by all means keep it, otherwise I believe the article itself should be deleted with a few notable examples being merged back into the main page.Hyacinth99 (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — Hyacinth99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck comments of blocked sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar/Archive. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 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.
More