< 16 May 18 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 G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lemos[edit]

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

It appears we are the only source online for this battle [1], and the sole creators of this article have basically been going about creating what appear to be a major hoax/POV-push related to Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia (see earlier AfD). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker's Holiday, you are wrong. Wikipedia is not the only source for this Battle. Please see all references cited in the article, some of them are available online. Please also bear in mind that, being an event part of Spain's history, it has been published mostly in Spanish. Qqtacpn (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I quite don't understand. You have just marked for deletion all of my articles, which are perfectly noted and referenced. It looks pretty arbitrary to me to just label them for deletion, when most encyclopedias in Spanish language include them (Gran Enciclpedia Gallega, Enciclopedia Garcia Carraffa, Enciclopedia Espasa, etc.). (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Again, I have provided enough bibliography. To just ignore it and say it belongs to the realm of fantasy is arbitrary. Just to mention a recent example, Brian De Toy, Ph.D., arguably the highest living authority in military historian (Professor at West Point Academy), has published on this particular campaign. See, for example, Dr. De Toy, Brian (2009): "Defeating Napoleon’s Designs: Littoral Operations in Galicia, 1809", International Journal of Naval History. You can even read it online at http://ijnhonline.org/volume7_number3_Dec08/article_detoy_dec08.htm#_edn2. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That is not a source. Provide a source which actually mentions these people and battles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. [2] - "Lopez De Prado, Baron of Lemavia Location: Chicago, IL," which just happens to be where the perpetrators of the Barbaro hoax came from. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About 8 million people live in the Chicago area. To make you points even more absurd, I do not even live in Chicago. The truth is, you just labeled a bunch of articles for deletion without verifying the sources. As a proof, I have just pointed out a number of articles that mention this battle in particular.
Dr. De Toy, Brian (2009): "Defeating Napoleon’s Designs: Littoral Operations in Galicia, 1809", International Journal of Naval History http://ijnhonline.org/volume7_number3_Dec08/article_detoy_dec08.htm#_edn2].
The Battle of Monforte de Lemos http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html.
List of civilians assassinated on April 20, 1809 in the parish of Penela http://club.telepolis.com/apenela/HISTORIA.htm
With all respects, please read the articles before arbitrarily marking them for deletion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You'd have a better case if I didn't check the first one, and discover that the word "Lemos" doesn't appear in your link. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday, your arguments are once again baseless. I understand you are not familiar with the geography of Spain. Monforte de Lemos is part of Galicia! What about http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html? This is taken straight from one of the best well known books in Spanish on the Peninsular War. It dedicates an entire epigraph to the Battle of Monforte de Lemos ... Please just acknowledge you have been overzealous, it's fine, I understand (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Having checked up on things: All the most contentious descriptions are completely unjustified by the sources you provide. The section on "Outcome of the Battle" has nothing even resembling its description in the source cited, which lacks the words "Monforte" and "Lemos" completely. It would appear to be completely made up, or, at best original research on your part. The sentence "Pillage and butchering of civilians by the French followed at large scale" is cited to parish records. This appears to be at best original research, and at worse a hoax. Some of us read foreign languages. Show us a decent source that discusses the battle and justifies the facts in the article. Don't give us sources that talk in general terms, and ask us to accept this as justifying very specific claims cited to them when these claims do not actually appear in them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parish record from the 19th are public official documents, preserved in Archives and Libraries, microfilmed and available to the public in general. This is not original research, anyone with good will can go to the sources and read it (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Again please read the sources, which I have provided in the article. If you want to start with a website, read http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html. Can you find "Batalla de Monforte de Lemos" there? This is the kind of stuff that a newspaper from Galicia will laugh about, once they know you called this battle a hoax ... (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]


I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:10, 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 superseded by complete overhaul of the article without reference to the original topic. The original article has for all intents and purposes been removed from the article, consistent with the unanimous wishes of the contributors to this discussion. non-admin closure by nominator,  Skomorokh  00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, Arizona[edit]

Hell, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unverified article; the existence of the subject has not been confirmed by reliable sources and has been questioned on the talk page.  Skomorokh  23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --Jmundo 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterboarding in the 21st century[edit]

Waterboarding in the 21st century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unless I'm mistaken, this is an exact duplicate of Waterboarding, with a few section cut out. I don't see the point: either cut them out of waterboarding (or drastically shorten them), or keep a single article. Since waterboarding isn't (yet) overly long, and since this seems an unlikely redirect target, we may as well delete. Biruitorul Talk 23:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started this page, it was stuff that was agreed to be split from waterboarding, then one editor re-added to waterboarding what was cut from it. Seeing as the article is under arb com probation, 1rr and stuff i've not edit warred and now trying to delete the stuff one section at a time. I've also provided sources for stuff that could be added to this article that is not in Waterboarding at the moment, but as most editors in this area prefer to troll rather than work its been slow going. (Hypnosadist) 00:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed some more from waterboarding (as much as i can without the cries of censorship ringing out hopefully). (Hypnosadist) 00:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21st century stuff needs to be moved from waterboarding to this article. there have been some objections, mainly from Badagnani, that have slowed down the process.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 05:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I withdraw this until the conflict gets worked out? I'd be glad to - only the key point is the duplicated content should go. - Biruitorul Talk 15:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, if you could give us a month or so that would help. (Hypnosadist) 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. To be honest I hadn't read the talk page discussions before making the nomination, but that's fine - I now withdraw this debate and you are free to close it. - Biruitorul Talk 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. A borderline case, but with at least two distinct media references, I see no evidence that the company is inherently non-notable. However, there does not appear to be consensus in this case. RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medtral[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The only reference is an article in the Washington Post - that's a good reference, but not sufficient to meet WP:CORP. Previously tagged as being written like an advert, but tag removed with little improvement to the article. gadfium 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, not speedy material but defiantely fails WP:CORP. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added sources asserting notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 05:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't see where the added external links refer to the subject. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All these articles appear to come from the same source. They demonstrate one independent source, not many.-gadfium 19:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I read them. They are published in different periodicals and the content is not substantially the same for each. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (A7). (non-admin closure) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DWIFL[edit]

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

Non-notable "lifestyle". KuroiShiroi (contribs) 22:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FileQube[edit]

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

Non-notable web service. Article's creator seems to be affiliated with the company, as evidenced by his username and the blog post here. Brianga (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if we take a look at this article, we see that other hosting companies are just as notable as this one. T3chl0v3r (talk) 01:35, 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. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Methods (Strauss)[edit]

Legal Methods (Strauss) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable textbook being spammed, see my talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Drawn Some (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that there is no assertion of importance or significance, no independent resources, and the article is primarily the table of contents or outline of the book. Drawn Some (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I am the creator of the article. My understanding is that the concern being discussed here is notability, not copyright.
  • Just in case copyright 'were' an issue, I emailed a copyright professor in my law school (I have never taken copyright so I can't make the assessment myself). He responded, "[displaying the TOC in this fashion] comes down to a fair use question; though on balance, because it is so clearly educational and non-commercial, I highly doubt it would be infringing." I understand that copyright is a fuzzy area of law, so this doesn't mean he's right. But I hope that, unless you get a contrasting second opinion from another copyright expert, those concerns will be allayed.
  • Actually, I can't come up with arguments for why this content is notable. Would you mind if I moved the content to my userspace? I created the article because I thought it would help students (like me) to study for upcoming exams that rely on this casebook. The article serves double-duty as a wikified list of the cases that are most prominent in the law school curriculum, organized according to subject. Thus, it benefits Wikipedia as a to-do list of which articles to improve. That is why I would like permission to keep this content on my userspace. Thanks. Agradman (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just userfy it yourself and let the AfD run, someone else may see why it is notable under the guidelines? Drawn Some (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll userfy it and let the AfD run. But my inclination is to delete (not notable.) My professor wrote the casebook and I don't want him to benefit from free advertising. Agradman (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see anything in the article to indicate that this book is notable. I'm also very worried by the comment, in the article, by the article creator in this and other articles that every legal case should have a Wikipedia article. The vast majority of legal cases should not have a Wikipedia article. If the creator wants this then they should consider starting a legal cases wiki separate to Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 02:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • pardon me, I agree that only important cases should have articles (and that the vast majority of cases don't deserve articles). But I also think that the cases taught in law school almost always meet that threshold of importance. We are only taught cases that either made precedent, or contributed to the creation of a precedent, or else are notable because they summarize the existing law so articulately that they are often referred to as reference texts. I think that under this heuristic for notability, you will see vastly more false positives (cases that seem at first to be not notable because the author of the article wasn't articulate, as happened with me writing Chysky) than false negatives (cases that are not notable, even though they were included in a law student's casebook).
  • Incidentally, could I ask the admins on this page to stop making me feel as though I were some kind of juvenile prankster or vandal? Drawn Some called me a spammer; Canterbury Tail, I can't complain about your tone, but please be aware that it's off-putting not to be addressed in the first person when you are giving me advice. Look, we share the priority of improving Wikipedia; in my case I want to make it a valuable resource for law students and others who are trying to learn the law. I will always be open to persuasion if you disagree with me about how I go about doing that. Agradman (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't believe you're a spammer, I think you're a very good intentioned editor who is just new to Wikipedia and the way things work. I nominated the pages for deletion as I don't believe, personally, that they are notable. Others may disagree and in that case that is perfectly fine, that is why we bring the articles into a discussion space like AfD.
With law case articles, and I'm no expert on law, the articles need to be inherently notable in themselves, and need to be written in a way to be accessible to the general populace and readership. Placing articles in a law case format isn't really the way to go, as there is no context, no reason to believe they are notable (see WP:Notability, and the average reader stumbling across the articles will not know what they are about or why they are here.
As I said above, every court case isn't inherently notable, and neither should Wikipedia be an repository for all such information. Wikipedia is a reference work yes, but it's a general encyclopaedia, not a law specific reference work, and as such I don't believe that a lot of these cases articles should be on here. We shouldn't be building a whole section of the project for law students to use as an online linked reference source, that kind of project is best done on it's own elsewhere outside of Wikipedia. Now these are just my opinions, and others may disagree, which is why we bring things to these discussion areas. Canterbury Tail talk 10:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made the page slightly different (and created an article for the author, Peter L. Strauss). Again, I have no attachment to this article, so I'm neutral whether you delete it. -The creator, Agradman (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Cricket Club[edit]

Hilton Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An amateur cricket team who play in Derbyshire County Cricket League Division Four South, cricket notability guidelines consider clubs in ECB Premier Leagues as notable, this league is four divisions below that level Jpeeling (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep as this seems like this is heading for WP:SNOW. Although I still believe it needs better sources to prove notability, others seem to disagree so I'll leave it at that. Tavix |  Talk  02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian repeated place names[edit]

List of Australian repeated place names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Delete This is a trivial/unencyclopedic list of a non-notable intersection. What is so notable about the fact that there are ~35 place names what have doubled words in it? Tavix |  Talk  20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York, New York isn't in this category, that's the city and state. Walla Walla or Ty Ty are more like what you're looking for. Drawn Some (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean that there's a state called New York and a city called New York? When did they start doing that? Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it original research to look for sources that explain the function of reduplication in Australian locality naming? Toponomy is a valid field of research and who is to say that there is not previously published thought on this topic. It's only OR if editors choose to make their own assumptions about reduplication based on their own interpretation of the data in the list. I don't think that was the intention the editor meant in the sentence you quoted. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your rationale is that you are assuming that there is some published material of this subject. Have you gone out and actually done the research? I have yet to find good sources that prove why this list is notable.
  • And likewise, you make the opposite assumption that the sources don't exist. As mentioned, I am not calling for original research, I am inviting people to find those sources. Eauhomme (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean sources like this one for example. That was a 30 second google search, heaven knows what one would find if one was to visit a library! -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there's more at here! -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is it unencyclopedic other than in the sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It is a list of place names derived by reduplication which is a common theme in Australian toponomy, especially in names derived from Australian Aboriginal languages. This connection is not trivial, but one of encyclopedic relevance.
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with my vote. The list is purely trivia and the claims you have just stated are not even mentioned—let alone referenced—in the article. The article is comprised solely of a list that provides no information on why the subject is notable, and many of the place names have no information for their meaning. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problems with the article can be corrected through the editing process, that is not a reason to delete. I see at least two other possible articles relating to common indigenous toponymic methods. List of Australian places ending in "up" -up such as Dwellingup, Cookernup, Balingup and Tambellup, and List of Australian places ending in "bah" such as Murwillumbah, Mooloolaba, Moranbah, Queensland and Toowoomba, Queensland. Both are other common derivations from Indigenous Australian laguages and it would only be a very narrow definition of the term "encyclopedic" that would exclude them. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I believe even if this article was fixed up, it would still remain unencyclopedic trivia; hence the basis for my vote. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OSE? Please base your rationale off of this article and not other random repeated word articles that are actually notable. Also, who said encyclopedias are fun, that is impossible! (failed attempt at humor) Tavix |  Talk  11:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "other stuff exists", the most overused allegation on Wikipedia. Did I use that as a rationale to keep? NO! Anyone who says "off of" has no understanding of Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi anyway. Lighten up ... WWGB (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure being fun is a reason to keep either. You used OSE to suggest deletion for a notable article that has nothing to do with the notability for this article. Tavix |  Talk  21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your proof being...? Remember this isn't a vote but a discussion. Tavix |  Talk  21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming conventions and aboriginal names in particular are the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources as here [7] mate. If you don't like the focus just on double names you could merge, but seems a reasonable enough subtopic to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Comment' Where's your proof that the article is mere trivia? I have pointed out above the reasons why this is not a trivial intersection despite the claims in your nomination. IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:17, 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. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Zakrzewski[edit]

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Kapoor[edit]

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

While there is a claim of fame, I can't find sources in a good faith gsearch to back this up. Also a search of the website given as a reference turns up 0 hits, and a gnews search turns up 0 hits for this Anant Kapoor. Because this is 12 years ago, dead tree sources in India may exist showing notability, so bringing to AfD instead of prodding. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peopletizing[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is a non-notable neologism - for example the book from which it originates doesn't have a page & has an Amazon sales rank of 1.7M. Even if it was somehow notable it would still fail WP:DICTDEF. ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Page's author (who appears to be the book's author - Chad L. Coe) wrote the following when contesting the PROD - "This word has been used for over 5 years now. In Deerfield IL. many people use the word and concept of it on a regular basis. We are in the process of creating a group on Facebook and Linkedin as well. I understand that via the web there are not many other users of it. There are more and more everyday. Please allow us to have it on Wikipedia." --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FoxyProxy[edit]

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

I can't fidn any reliable sources that show notability. Iowateen (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X factor discography[edit]

X factor discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not suitable subject matter for an article- contestants release albums and singles, not the show. For the most part, the show has nothing to do with the release. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Town[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic and non-notable article of a real-estate developer. The article seems to be created as an advertisement as a way to showcase their projects. Tavix |  Talk  18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.   JJ (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DCBMMA[edit]

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

I originally prodded as made-up, but I see now that this martial art is now merely non-notable (or of limited notability in the Hull area). No Ghits or references to suggest otherwise. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shunner[edit]

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

A classic case of a non-notable neologism, I feel. The term isn't even listed in the Urban Dictionary, so the chances of getting a listing here are remote. Of course, that's neglecting the fact that it is probably 100% something made up this afternoon, indicators of which include the rambling nature and the lack of any references, but more importantly the probably self-attribution of the term ("Crame", the surname of the supposed starter of the phrase, also appears in the article creator's username). Need more be said? The only thing that surprises me is the evident literacy of the authors. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INewsit[edit]

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

I have been unable to find any independent, relaible sources which could be used to form the basis of a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article about this six month old website. Third party sources are a requirement of the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for web content, the only sources I can find are the one's given in the article which are just links to the website itself, an advertisement, a Facebook page and a page in Arabic which (from judging from an online translator website) appears to be a similar advertisement. Guest9999 (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of this page. This page should not be deleted. the reason and created it was because it is now one of the major Citizen news websites. I use to contribute to CNN's I-Report but now am a regular contributor to iNewsit. I have now added the link to the Alexa Ranking statistics in the references. The site has been ranked around the top 200,000 sites in the world and it has been very useful for me as a student journalist as one of my videos was purchased by a news agency in the middle east thanks to iNewsit. I have also added another third party article mentioning some controversy surrounding iNewsit in the references now. Hope that is ok.

Moghul (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Moghul[reply]

I could not find much else in the mainstream media about iNewsit, TheDailyClarity is another journalist/blogger who contributes to many Citizen News websites(very well known in this community). Why do you say TheDailyClarity is not a reliable source? I found out about iNewsit from ijnet which is a totaly independant organisation for journalists to network. The reference on their(www.ijnet.org) site and the arabic site are totally independent and are not advertisments by iNewsit. These organisations actually research different opportunities and will only publish somthing if its worthwile. Moghul (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)moghul[reply]


I understand where you were coming from, but the problem is trying to find many references for this kind of thing is extremely hard as most media will not talk about their competitors due to the fear of promoting them at the same time. Most of the discussions about iNewsit are on forums etc. Most similar initiatives are owned by large media organisations such as CNN and these organisations will try and avoid mentioning one of their competitors. I wanted to write about a few other smaller and less well known Citizen News websites but I could not find anything about them anywhere at all except on forums. Is it worth me writing about them and referencing forums or will those new articles be deleted if I do this? I Am quite new to wikipedia but love the fact that I can contribute to this amazing knowledgeable. Feel free to add any information to my iNewsit article. Moghul (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Moghul[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Furr[edit]

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

This article is tagged as a hoax. There is no mention of Joseph Furr in the cited pages of the article's reference Encyclopedia of Urban Legends ([10]; also no mention of a Joseph Furr anywhere else in this book). I have access to Informa's online archives and I viewed the full pdf for the reference "Mechanisms of Acute Human Poisoning by Pesticides"; it also includes no relevant information to substantiate the article. I can find no verifiable references to substantiate the subject's existence. Suggest deletion as unverifiable and a probable hoax. Muchness (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A wikipedia hoax, not an urban legend hoax. Good call, a well referenced article but every ref is a hoax. These are hard to spot. See here for one of the ref,a nd no story there. Look here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:46, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Air Taxi[edit]

Yellow Air Taxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unscheduled air-charter service lacking significant coverage in secondary sources to support WP:COMPANY ttonyb1 (talk) 16:30, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jagger/Richards[edit]

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

This article says absolutely nothing that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards don't already say. It is almost identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John/Taupin, a redundant article on a similar songwriting pair which was also deleted as being purely redundantly redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to G N' R Lies. The Helpful One 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Used to Love Her[edit]

Used to Love Her (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, never released as a single, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:13, 23 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, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deathcursed[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Upcoming, unrecorded album. Lacks verifiable information, and the title is also unconfirmed from what I can see. Amalthea 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 23 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Austin (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Useless dab. These people aren't exactly known as Mary Austin, so no dab is really needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, a hatnote can be used on the more common Mary Austin to find the other article. You would not need a disambiguation for that purpose. Tavix |  Talk  11:06, 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. Jamie☆S93 19:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kushrem[edit]

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

Bringing this article to AFD as it's been tagged as a hoax. I can find no evidence that this instrument exists outside of WP mirrors (Google search). Suggest deletion as either a hoax or an instrument with insufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines. Muchness (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 23 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. One two three... 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co.[edit]

Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A court case, but no claims of any reason it is notable. Not all court cases are notable, only those that act as a precedence. There are millions upon millions of court cases, 98% of which do not deserve an article. Wikipedia isn't a collection of court cases, but an encyclopaedia of articles on topics that are notable. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did it myself after the spammer contacted me. Drawn Some (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I hate to be referred to here as a "spammer" :) . I have responded at that page.. To summarize what I said there: I actually concede that the article Legal_Methods_(Strauss) is not notable. So I ask for permission to move the content to my user page. My classmates have found the page useful as a "portal" to the cases that we have been discussing in class. And I inquired with a copyright professor at my law school, who wrote back in an email, "[displaying the TOC in this fashion] comes down to a fair use question; though on balance, because it is so clearly educational and non-commercial, I highly doubt it would be infringing." I understand that copyright is a fuzzy area of law; so this doesn't mean he's right; and I have never taken copyright so I can't make my own assessment. But I hope that, unless you get a contrasting second opinion from another copyright expert, that will not be a concern.
  • Keep. (I'm the creator of Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co.)
  • I must admit: I am guilty of being lazy and inarticulate. "Arma virumque cano" is quite correct that my recent articles have been poorly written, and I have not invested the effort necessary to explain the notability of the content (I will start getting into the habit of developing these articles on my user space before posting them here).
  • I know the topic of this article (biting a nail in a pie) must seem silly and childish. Haverly v. United States is another example of a case that is exceedingly mundane-seeming; there, I invested a little effort to show how the law uses really mundane events as a vessel for a highly complex and profound question of law.
  • In the present instance, Chysky v. Drake Bros. is part of the 1930s progression of cases that is called the "products liability" synthesis and led to a transformation in how people are liable. These seemingly non-noteworthy cases are important because they were all cited in MacPherson_v_Buick_Motor_Co., which is perhaps one of the most important cases in American law. Justice Cardozo relied on these cases in crafting his argument to determine whether a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser. This created the law of product liability. I will add this statement to the page. Agradman (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles on inherently notable cases always have the potential to be improved beyond "legal brief" quality. The question we're asking is, "Is the case notable." JD Caselaw (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I agree that only important cases should have articles (and that the vast majority of cases don't deserve articles). But I also think that the cases taught in law school almost always meet that threshold of importance. We are only taught cases that either made precedent, or contributed to the creation of a precedent, or else are notable because they summarize the existing law so articulately that they are often referred to as reference texts. I think that under this heuristic for notability, you will see vastly more false positives (cases that seem at first to be not notable because the author of the article wasn't articulate, as happened with me writing Chysky) than false negatives (cases that are not notable, even though they were included in a law student's casebook)."
Chysky is part of a progression of cases that influenced the products liability synthesis that emerged in the 1930s. These cases influenced Judge Cardozo's argument in MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. that a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser, and thus contributed to the modern law of product liability.

It clearly mentions why it is notable at the top of the article. Dream Focus 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that information was missing when the article was AfDed. However there is still not references to support that notability. Is there evidence that it influenced the decision, and the results of this case directly impacted the judge in that later case? Needs to be reliably referenced, not just because the article creator's law professor said it was so. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I have added two citations to scholarly sources. (this has been a good experience, I had no idea there was such a high standard for new articles. In the future, I'll try to develop articles on my page until I can establish good citations for them.) - the creator, Agradman (talk) 20:32, 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 no consensus. One two three... 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Palestine[edit]

Students for Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Students for Palestine" is hardly a notable organisation that is worthy of an encylcopedic article. A Google search will only come up with their blog, the Wikipedia article and an article on a "Green Left" political activist website that says that the group has more than 20 members. SirThomasMitchell (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobit, problem is that "Students for Palestine" is also an umbrella campaign which has thousands of members who sign petitions, go on marches etc. It's not the same as this organisation, which seems to have sprung off the back of the SfP campaign, but has only a few members. The first of your news items (the Monash one) is about someone who was active in the campaign, not someone who was a member of the organisation that the article is about. Tricky one. If the rest of your references relate to the Aussie organisation, then yes, you're right, it is notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, then we should have an article on the main group and a section of it on this one I guess. Still think we should keep. Hobit (talk) 20:59, 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 speedily deleted by Dsmdgold (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sil Yanku[edit]

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

Unremarkable person. No assertion of notability. Even the author questions the subject's notability. Google only turns up myspace and twitter. It's me...Sallicio! 14:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same things (and it does intrigue me when authors create articles with problem templates). TPH placed a speedy on the Jonny Lupo article. Which I also second that motion, as well.--It's me...Sallicio! 18:59, 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 redirect to Law & Order (franchise). Ill, make a redirect so that the content can be merged. Consider this closure a merge then. Tone 19:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Ledger (Law & Order)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
New York Ledger (Law & Order) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional information, no notability out of universe. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually the standard for notability still requires verification. The piece could do with some references.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even as such, what exactly needs to be said beyond "This series was set in the fictional New York Ledger"? What even can be said, beyond tedious in-universe minutae? Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glory hunter[edit]

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

If you cut out all the WP:OR, and content that belongs on the sports page of a tabloid newspaper (which club has glory hunter fans this season), all this article's content boils down to one specific application of a very old word which has the general meaning "someone who takes part in an activity in order to share in the glory." Its application to someone taking part in a football fan activity is no more notable than its use elsewhere (eg referring to a military activity[18], angling [19], falsifying claims of heroic behaviour [20], in industry and commerce [21], in charity activities [22]. The list is long - you get the point. All this warrants is a sidenote in the dictionary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Colloquial use of the term has meant that it has become synonomous with football. The page is an excellent addition to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.215.152 (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to mark this keep? I would have thought the half dozen sources I provided in the nomination were conclusive evidence that the term is 'not synonymous with football. Do you want another half dozen - General Custer's nickname "Glory Hunter" referenced in a song by the band Armored Saint[23], "glory hunter" used for a gold miner or panner [24], the term used as a name by a hacker with a penchant for the social networking sites of the rich and famous[25]. Here's a military example from wwII - from a first hand account [26]. Should I start on dictionaries next?
Uncle G, if you want to redirect this article to Bandwagon fan, be my guest. Do we need a consensus that the two terms mean the same thing though?Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 23 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 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium-Kyrgyzstan relations[edit]

Belgium-Kyrgyzstan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Belgium has no embassy in Kyrgyzstan. Coverage is mainly about multilateral relations [27], French coverage even less coverage. [28] LibStar (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the search, I'd like to see those who always vote keep try to rescue this...LibStar (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no argument here appears to me. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 22 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Songfacts[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable third party sources, fails WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Time[edit]

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

From the phrase, "There are no references" being included by the article's creator, I assume that there is no way to make this page remotely verifiable. Most of the synopses look like they're either original research or copied from the producer's website. The article's creator removed the PROD tags without explanation, and refuses to stop creating more articles in the same style. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 23 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. One two three... 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CHERUB (organisation)[edit]

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

The article is written in an entirely in-universe style and thus fails WP:IN-U. The entire article is written as an historical account and an incautious reader may easily be deceived into believing it is a real organisation. All the sources, save one, are self-references, booksellers or fansites so fails WP:NB in that there are not multiple reliable sources, but admittedly, only marginally failing. The one reliable source does discuss the in-universe organisation in a more than trivial way, but not in enough depth to source the entire article so failing also WP:V. SpinningSpark 11:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article. Firstly, you seem to cite WP:IN-U as deletion rationale, when in fact it is part of the Manual of Style. Perhaps cleaning the article up would be a better action that heading for deletion?
As for WP:NB, the CHERUB series is one of the most popular young adult series around. The Recruit alone has won eight separate awards. With regard to WP:V, it's always difficult to find sources about a novel's concepts beyond the original creator. There are no fansites - the sources are mainly from the original books and the series's website, but these are both written by the author. Alongside this are sources from Waterstones, the Telegraph and Powell's Books (two admittedly are booksellers but I don't see how this limits verifiability).
The concept of the CHERUB organisation is key throughout the novels, and is the sort of thing people are likely to come to Wikipedia to to investigate. Whilst there are in-universe issues to overcome, the article is far from disrepair, in my eyes at least. Greg Tyler (t • c) 11:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited (WP:NRVE), admitting the author and/or the books are notable in no way confers notability on any of his fictional constructs. SpinningSpark 12:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In-universe style is not grounds for deletion, although it can be grounds for re-writing the article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 23 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 Helpful One 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singa goody[edit]

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

Promotional article about a single fast food stand. No notability demonstrated beyond local mentions. ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note in your recent edit summary you say "i don't see a previous speedy which was turned down". The earlier speedy deletion request was declined here and I think there was at least another turned down on the basis that speedy deletion had already been declined with the suggestion that it should be taken to AfD. You can consider my removal of your tag as declining the speedy deletion as well and I've explained the reasoning. I recognise you are keen to see this article deleted but you should realise that getting it deleted via an AfD is a stronger signal that this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia rather than the opinion of a single administrator deleting it under the speedy deletion criteria and so makes it more difficult for it to return without addressing the concerns that have been raised. We might as well give Dreams20 (talk · contribs) the opportunity to comment on these concerns now an AfD has been created. Adambro (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The reliable sources are here: 1- http://yzone.omy.sg/index.php?articleID=11890&option=com_article&task=detail&type= Singapore press holding OMY article mentions Singa goody as the 1st local Halal fast food place. Means Singapore's style fast food . 2- http://www.singaporehalaldirectory.com/cocode-80095612-dirid-76-coname-SINGA+GOODY-CompanyProfile_MG.aspx Halal directory showing Singa goody being a Halal fast food place. Singapore did not have any Halal fast food before Singa goody. So its the first. 3- Maple tree bulletin. http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:3Tygo3100W0J:www.mapletree.com.sg/get_blob.aspx%3Ffile_id%3Dec9_June%252008%2520e-bulletin.pdf+singa+goody&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg The above justified my claim of Singa goody being the 1st local halal fast food.

My references are from these reliable sources, from Singapore's newspaper and organisation. Some articles don't even have any references or uses their own homepage as references. Just 3 reference to justify my claim. Thanks a lot. Warmest Regards. Dreams20 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that it seems all of the sources are questionable. A trivial mention of the company here and there doesn't estabish notability nor does it meet the standards of verifiability that are required. Many of the links listed in the "References" section aren't appropriate. I've already removed one which was simply a link to a forum where the business was discussed. Most of the others are simply directories with basic contact information. There remain two fundamental problems the notability of this particular business hasn't be adequately established and much of the content is unsourced even if we were to consider all the current links to be acceptable. Finally, other articles with similar problems existing does not justify this one being kept. Additionally, I consider Dreams20's claim not to be associated with the business to be potentially suspect, particularly considering all the images they uploaded which don't look like something an average customer would have or create so there is possible a conflict of interests here which makes the requirement for good sources all the more important. Adambro (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images are taken down from their bulletin and i scan it. Look at the quality of the picture, if it will to be from the shop owner shop will they upload pictures with these quality. Please examine carefully. I have typed other articles and edited a few and posted some pictures. Ok, some references are from forum and i added them to show that I have done my research. Please post me more qns. I seriously find it weird. And one thing to note, some pages of similar organisation do not even have references to start with and my page has 3 reliable ones. I have more, if u need it. Pardon my typing as I am writing new articles now too. warmest regards. Dreams20 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the images could well be copyright violations then... Adambro (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

of course, seek permission before I upload. Dreams20 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with deleting the images but some images that I posted are taken when i dine there. Ok, let be more focus, in the first place, the article was up because it was the 1st of its kind. And hence, several admin accepted it and went on to help me with setting it up and editing.Dreams20 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Adambro for posting me and giving me some light. However, I thought it should be fair for all articles? "Finally, other articles with similar problems existing does not justify this one being kept."? Dreams20 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles with similar problems should be deleted or the problems resolved, just as needs to happen with this article, but we've got to start somewhere so there are always going to be articles with outstanding problems whilst other articles are being deleted due to similar problems not being sorted. Adambro (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see many and they all followed the guidelines as stated like mine. regards. Dreams20 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i just need to know what errors are there with the article and i adjust it accordingly. I have deleted the pic as requested. FYI, the paragraphs are edited by admin before to make it non-marketing. I have typed several pages and I saw this page getting into deletion just because someone has vanadilised my page and it leads to so many issues going on. Initially, it was deemed as fine. Like I say, the page is under 1st of its kind to be included in wikipedia, that is why i took it up for writing into wiki. Dreams20 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is that the article fails to meet the notability criteria which states that: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." This is not the case here. The subject has not been the "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". What we have in the sources you cite are merely trivial mentions, some of the sources are merely directories or review sites and some don't even seem to mention the company. All the content is certainly not verifiable, the extensive section listing all the food they serve being the prime example. Adambro (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

like i say, the article is on because it is the 1st of its kind. It met one of the criteria under one section of being the 1st of its kind. Unique. If u are talking about secondary sources, they are many bulletin and print materials. However, if you want to talk about reliable secondary sources, i gladly refer you to almost all other related food cafes eatries. They don't even have reference and their references is their own website. At least the article I did up has more than 3 references. Like i said, some of the reference i put up is to show where i read my info from...some may be reviews from others but some are reviews and writings from respectable organisations. If refer me to a wikipedia article that has met what you mention. I can show you many which i followed and are accepted for many many years already.Dreams20 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i be back again. I am rushing an essay for my school now. Dreams20 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't accept that being the "first local Halal fast food outlet in Singapore" is enough to disregard the established notability criteria which requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". I note that rather than demonstrating why the current sources should be considered reliable or appropriate, you instead suggest that other articles don't have proper references. I would again suggest that other articles having similar problems is not a reason to not deal with any articles with problems, either by addressing the issues or deletion. We've got to start somewhere. None of current sources are enough to support this article. Of the three you previously highlighted, this is simply a directory listing, this is merely a trivial mention which provides only a tiny amount of information about the subject, and this doesn't really add up to "significant coverage". Adambro (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you misinterpret what i was trying to mean. I am trying to draw your attention that food articles cannot give as solid evidence as compared to Historical, factual as well as famous being. My article being a food article should be placed in the sasme catogory as other food articles. It is impossible to expect a food article to be shaped like a factual article. Reliable sources does not mean long sources. Reliable sources should come from respectable organisation or prints and my articles have references from respectable organisation. Like i say, other FOOD article do not even have similar references and as solid as mine. What i am driving at, is not other food articles shuld be deleted but I meant food articles have reliable sources for food articles whereas factual articles have factual reliable sources. Its difference. You cannot compare apples with oranges. Dreams20 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally hope that all articles on Wikipedia could be described as "factual". The notability criteria are well established and have the acceptance of the majority of the community so to disregard the fundamental criteria of a requirement for a subject to have coverage, beyond trivial mentions, in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, is going to require an extremely compelling argument. So far, it doesn't seem that has been the case. With regards to your distinction of food articles, I am sure that there are a great number of properly sources articles related to the subject and equally a great many that aren't, just as is the case with all subjects. That doesn't mean they are acceptable though and shouldn't be deleted if they can't be brought up to the required standards. Being a "food article" does not, and is never going to, exempt such articles from the most basic of notability criteria. One food outlet is only going to be considered notable enough to merit a Wikipedia in extremely limited and exceptional circumstances. This isn't one of them. Adambro (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What i am trying to mean a reliable and a notable one is not determined by its length but by its reputation or respectability. Being a food article, means the article will mention about the stall's uniqueness as well as speciality. The references present may be short but it is equally reliable. The topic is short that is why the references are short. I don't understand why length and reliability should be placed side by side and compare like that. I need to know which food article has sources that are notable? I don't see any. Most food article don't even have and I have been browsing and researching. Basically, I hardly find one. Please show me an example.Dreams20 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not suggested that the length of the content about Singa goody has any bearing on whether that source can be considered reliable. The length is independent of whether a source is able to be described as reliable but to meet the notability criteria, there must be more than trivial mentions and that has to be from a reliable source. Someone could write a thousand word blog post about Singa goody but that wouldn't be an acceptable source because whilst it would constitute significant coverage, a blog isn't generally accepted to be a reliable source. Equally, if a highly respected newspaper like the The New York Times for example made a brief mention of the company in one of its articles that wouldn't be acceptable either. Whilst it would be from a reliable source, the coverage would be trivial.
You again seek to compare the article with other, unnamed articles also related to the topic of food but it isn't appropriate to do so. As I've said, I am sure there are many examples of articles across every subject area which do not meet the notability requirements. Their continued existence is not a signal that the community consider them appropriate but rather simply a consequence of the enormous nature of this project. Where there are other articles with similar problems to this one, if they aren't addressed then the article will be deleted. There are many food articles which are concerning notable subjects and are properly referenced. You will find though that those are the ones that meet the notability criteria. You won't find many articles about single fast food outlets because they aren't notable. Adambro (talk) 15:34, 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. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Forces of Satan Records artists[edit]

List of Forces of Satan Records artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely redundant. Only four bands and they're already listed with more detail in the main article Forces of Satan Records. A separate list at this point is unnecessary. Maybe when the record label becomes more notable and expands its lineup to more than just 4 bands it can be split off into a separate list. OlEnglish (Talk) 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 23 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 Helpful One 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pencak Silat[edit]

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

Okay guys, long text:

The article is (in my opinion) a copyright violation. The CopyVio was created in October 2007, when the article was “constructed” by copypasting sentences or complete sections from various sources and mixing it up with (hopefully) self-written stuff. Yesterday I discovered this and requested a speedy deletion.

It was declined, and the Admin told me that it would be better to go step-by-step through the article, find the sentences/sections that are CopyVios and remove them. His reasoning was that even if the copyvio-sections were removed, the article would still have enough “substance” to keep on existing, and that since 2007 certain parts of the article that initially were copyvios have by now been changed by several users so that they can’t be called copyvio anymore.

I did as the Admin said, but well, almost the complete article is CopyVio. And, if you compare the current version with the first one, you see that the difference is actually not that big. Approximately 90% of the article are still the same.

Take a look please at the very first version with copyrighted material. It is structured into 4 major sections: Introduction, terminology, history, styles & techniques.

Now, again, please compare this with the current versionand you’ll see that basically all of the copyvio stuff is still in there. If you remove it, all that's left is half an introduction and three paragraphs of the "History" section. Thus my suggestion is to delete the whole article and let it restart, hopefully under the supervision of someone who knows what is allowed in the Wikipedia and what not. DavidDCM (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the notability of Pencak Silat and would be among those that would re-create a new article. I just think that a complete re-start would be easier than trying to safe the text fragments of the current article (which are potential copyvios, too). Btw, I made a version with the copyvios being marked red: [33] --DavidDCM (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable the copyright material should just be removed even if it leaves a stub with only history. How would deleting it be easier, I don't get that part. Just delete everything except the part you know isn't copyvio, hit edit button, highlight, backspace, type "remove copyvio" in edit summary, hit save page. If someone later replaces it warn them about adding copyrighted material. Drawn Some (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, you convinced me that deletion is not the proper way for this article. I'll try to work on the article in the next few days. I only ask for one more advice: Should I completely remove the "History" section or keep the white part of the text? I could not find a source for that part, but maybe the website it was copypasted from does not exist anymore. It was added to the article at the same edit as all of the copyvio (red) stuff, so I think there's a reasonable suspicion that it might be copyvio as well? Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. --DavidDCM (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed all known copyvios (found two more sources in the meantime, so the article has been cut down even more).--DavidDCM (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow, this article is nominated for deletion? I am very surprised. Pencak Silat is a sport by itself. And is very well known among people in South East Asia. It is also in the SEA Games since 1980s. I don't think it should be deleted only because it contains copy vio materials. I shall give a hand to rewrite it if you need me to. (: Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy if someone would support me building this article up again. :) But in regards to your surprise: Every article can be deleted if certain criteria are fulfilled. Being well known does not mean that an article can not be nominated for deletion. Even the article United States could be deleted if one of the criterias for deletion would be fulfilled. --DavidDCM (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think what DavidDCM want is to do a partial deletion of the article back to completely non-copyright violation version. Thus, in order to do that, the article needs to be deleted to have a fresh start and reupload together with the history section without the copyright violation. If the copy vio entries are still in the history section, editors can easily revert or put back again the copyright paragraphs or sentences to this article. I think a history purge on the article is needed, just a history purge which needs the article deleted and recreated. ax (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I know of an article where the history section purge is used. Polytechnic University of the Philippines article has lot of copy vio entries back then. Garion96 dealt with the article. He was able to delete the copy vios as well as the edits on the history section of the said article, but was able to retain the part of history section where there is no copy vio left. I do not know how to elaborate it more, but the article is still there although parts of the history section's edits with copy vios were gone and I was able to have a fresh start on the article. Of course, be sure to have a copy of the present state of the article, because as I see it, it has been rewritten without the copy vio. ax (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, not notability is the issue, for the third time. Please read the discussion before you post. What WP:Cleanup has to do with this is beyond my knowledge. --DavidDCM (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BEFORE which emphasises that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Also see WP:Copyright problems#Alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful for you to withdraw the nomination. JJL (talk) 03:34, 23 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 Open Hearts (2002 film). Cirt (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Hearts (2011 film)[edit]

Open Hearts (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested ((prod)) with no reason given. Pretty blatant violation of WP:NFF. Matt (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 23 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... 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Salonen[edit]

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

Fails both basic and additional criteria for notability. Also issue of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO1E. This article is about some custody battle involving a child, so there is also a privacy of names issue too. Martintg (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However there is not even a corresponding Finnish Wikipedia article at present, so why should there be an article in English wikipedia when there is absolutely no English language sources. Custody battles are a sad but mundane fact of life and child abductions where one parent returns to the old country with the child are unfortunately quite common, particularly in immigrant societies like the USA and Australia. --Martintg (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Europe, there's a general principle that child custody cases are to be decided under jurisdiction of the child's original residence country. Because of this, these issues are very infrequent between two different EU countries. Unfortunately, Russia is not a signatory to the relevant treaty, and child custody battles go sour between EU citizens and Russia's citizens at a considerably higher frequency. Maybe an overview article of the issues titled something like Child custody battles involving international marriage with citizen of Russia would be appropriate. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. One event. Peltimikko (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The media continues the issue for a second week (The Yellow media don't have anything better to publish right now...). Peltimikko (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not Wikinews. There are millions of news subjects every year, some of which you don't remember the year after like this. One child under a trunk. In reality, thousands of people are smuggled with human trafficking every month. --Pudeo' 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please discount that vote as it is obviously sock of Roobit,a permabanned Black Hundredist troll. --Miacek (t) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sock accusations against User Roobit (talk · contribs) were false, the real sockmaster was Bloomfield (talk · contribs). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never known Bloomfield (talk · contribs) to engage in anti-Estonian hate speech previously. Judging by the tone of the rant, it is definitely Roobit (talk · contribs). Martintg (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also, it is not Bloomfield's style to start with a rant on a talkpage, then copy it over. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin might want to disregard the arguments of the IP for being formulated in a disruptive way. Also the IP is probably a sock of a blocked user Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with User:Phil Bridger in this. The publicity of this single event will eventually die down, while the Wikipedia article will remain indefinitely. Therefore if the article is kept with a new name, then at the very least the redirect must be deleted. --Martintg (talk) 09:25, 22 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 Michael Martin (politician). While there is substantial support for a merger, the support for deletion makes it clear that an article shouldn't exist at this title; the content is there under the redirect for anyone wanting to merge. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of British MPs calling on Speaker Michael Martin to resign[edit]

List of British MPs calling on Speaker Michael Martin to resign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Okay, this might be a news story but a list of people involved in it is unnecessary. This list isn't notable. This should at the very most have 1 section in Michael Martin (politician). Computerjoe's talk 09:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Michael Martin (politician), this is where the main content about this seems to be. Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament is already 91k long, and very likely to expand. Martin451 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate place to merge it (if that is the decision) would be Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament, as the interesting thing about it historically is how MPs came to be calling in public for the resignation of the Speaker. --Merlinme (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dateline-- London, May 19 (AP)-- Michael Martin, Speaker of the British House of Commons, resigned today. Asked to comment, Mr. Martin said, "It was that blasted Wikipedia article. When I saw all those blue-linked MPs on the list, I felt that I could not do otherwise."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article is a POV fork. The majority of information in it duplicates the main article on this subject—Nanking Massacre controversy. Some text was actually copied verbatim from the latter. So, I see no justification for its continued existence. (If someone thinks that some parts of this article could be merged into Nanking Massacre controversy, I am ready to provide a copy of the text for the personal use.) Ruslik (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre[edit]

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted PCPP (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article that violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Most of the article's content is well covered in Nanking Massacre controversy, and only a fringe minority of historians deny the the occurance of the Nanjing Massacre. WP is not a promoter of fringe theories. Furthermore this article is written in a manner than gives weight to the denialist claims with little refutation from mainstream historians, making it seem as the Nanjing Masscre denials are undisputed, especially the photographs section, which violates NPOV. Last of all the tone of article heading higly suggests that the massacre is fabricated, instead of being a concept held by a minority.--PCPP (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing to delete after examining in more detail. Comparing the ledes of the two articles, it is now clear to me that this is a deliberate fork of the Nanking Massacre controversy article and not an accidental duplication. The almost identical sentences could only have come from the original article (borne out by the edit history). SpinningSpark 17:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart form each other. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive193#Arma_virumque_cano AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is hopelessly redundant; only one article is necessary to describe these Japanese fringe theories. If this article is to be about the denialist POV, what on earth is Nanking Massacre controversy supposed to be about? It is instructive to note that there is only Holocaust denial to describe the denial of that particular atrocity—this one doesn't need two. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the denialist points should themselves be assessed in context, although it’s not absolutely necessary that this should be an independent article. Many of the denialist arguments are simply repeated again and again and again in the current article as rebuttals to claims made. That’s unnecessary. The cure would be to restructure the article to identify the main denialist arguments and offer mainstream rebuttals (which are almost entirely absent), but since this would require a total restructuring and rewrite of this article, I don’t see that it cannot be achieved in the Nanking Massacre controversy article. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Arimasa is an uncooperative editor it is best dealt with in other ways than giving him a toy article to play with. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Giving him a chew toy was an easy way to buy time so that the controversy article could be written in peace, primarily by Richardshusr. Now that it is largely settled into place, Arimasa's POV thrusts can be better parried. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose early close of this AFD with result being Merge any salvageable text and then redirect ***

The current consensus is 20 for Delete, 5 for Merge and 5 for Keep. Given the close parallels to Nanking Massacre controversy, Merge is effectively the same as Delete. It seems to me that 30 opinions is a lot for an AFD and I doubt that additional time will change the outcome of this AFD. We can just delete the article and then re-create it as a Redirect. If anyone wants to try and salvage some of the text, I'm an admin so I can restore the text of the deleted article to their userspace for them to pick through at their leisure.
--Richard (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn. --Richard (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily a bad idea but it's rather an odd one. First, by your own reckoning the most popular vote ("!vote") accounts for under 70%, low as a "consensus" even as the word has been bizarrely extended by WP. Secondly, "merge" might very well not mean the same as "delete" (if it meant delete, I'd wonder why people saying it didn't instead say "delete and redirect"). Thirdly, this AfD is neither particularly long nor (rather surprisingly) at all rancorous. And lastly, somebody might later complain if the AfD had been cut short. -- Hoary (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nanking_Massacre_controversy A lot of information was split, the article too long otherwise. Dream Focus 11:01, 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. Closed early per WP:SNOW, and by extension WP:IAR. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Oldroyd[edit]

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

Subject has explicitly requested deletion via OTRS (2009051710005054). PeterSymonds (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the sourced content to mobile phone mast, delete the rest as a courtesy to Ms Oldroyd.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete. 1 Event, reasonable request for a BLP. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 11:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 23 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-deleted (G7) by Anthony Appleyard. Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of León-Sable[edit]

Order of León-Sable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

More of the same undocumented and unfindable hoaxing as Battle of Lemos, House of Lemavia and Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who then was a gentleman?, first you accused me of being from Chicago, and I have proven you wrong (follow my IP address). Second, you said there were no references to these battles, and I proved you wrong again sending you the article of Dr. Brian De Toy. Third, you asked for a website (as if websites were the only acceptable source in Wikipedia), and I even sent you a link extracted from a history book fully dedicated to the "Batalla de Monforte de Lemos" ( http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html). Fourth, you said this was a hoax, and I pointed out websites citing the list of people killed that day ( http://club.telepolis.com/apenela/HISTORIA.htm). Fifth, you started to nominate a whole bunch of articles for deletion without reading any source. Sixth, every time I prove you wrong, you keep shooting in the dark for the next "nice try". Please, I understand where you are coming from, but as a new contributor I find hard to believe ONLY VETERAN CONTRIBUTORS CAN WRITE? This would be the end of Wikipedia.

A hoax? This link comes straight from the Ministry of Culture of Spain. These are protocols of nobility about the House of Lopez de Prado, another article you nominated for deletion without ever reading it:

http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=2&txt_id_fondo=184080

I hope this answers all your questions and we can keep working together. (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

How does any of that cut-and-pasted response, which you seem to prefer rather than addressing questions appropriately, have anything to do with the suject of this discussion in particular? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:08, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of music featured on Doctor Who[edit]

List of music featured on Doctor Who (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this article contains a lot of original research.

(PROD tag removed) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 23 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. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXTension Port[edit]

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

Contested prod with the reason that it is a longstanding article and should be sent to AFD for discussion. As in my reason for prodding, I cannot find anything that can establish any verifiability of this Nintendo feature. All the information given are from unreliable sources, and nothing by those who edited the article have been able to provide anything about this port. Because of the non-verifiablility, there is no logical place for a merge or redirect; also, this port may refer to several consoles. We have tried at WT:NIN to see where this can fit, but we couldn't find anywhere in which it could. MuZemike 07:36, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Budget[edit]

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

Can't find any google news results of WP:RS. Nothing else obvious. No indication of notability in article. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kanonkas :  Talk  16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lemavia[edit]

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

Undocumented hoax, related to Battle of Lemos and Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop doing this. There is more than enough references listed in the article which you can check yourself. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Point to specific pages, not general websites. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited dozens of books, all well known and available at the Library of Congress. Since when is a requisite for an article to be based on websites? (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by PMDrive1061. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AppleiPod[edit]

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

Article already Exists. See Apple Ipod SKATER Speak. 06:25, 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.

Orice jenkins[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia[edit]

Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, written entirely from primary sources, appears to have been created solely to push an extreme POV Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker's Holiday, the article states well known facts, documented in the sources provided. Like in the case of the Battle of Lemos, being an event part of Spain's history, it has been published mostly in Spanish. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Had you used any encyclopedias, that would be one thing. However, this article is cited exclusively to Parish records and similar, except for one reference in a background section of dubious connection. You can write an article on pretty much anyone who lived in the last five centuries with such sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite don't understand. You have just marked for deletion all of my articles, which are perfectly noted and referenced. It looks pretty arbitrary to me to just label them for deletion, when most encyclopedias in Spanish language include them (Gran Enciclpedia Gallega, Enciclopedia Garcia Carraffa, Enciclopedia Espasa, etc.). (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

None of these articles show up in the Spanish Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was nom withdrawn, speedy keep. Dlohcierekim 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Aloys Zötl[edit]

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

prod was contested. I am unclear as to why this artist is considered notable. Unless article can be improved to the point that his notability is made clear to those of us not familiar with his work, I suggest article be deleted as nn artist. If he is truly notable, someone should be able to tell us why. Postcard Cathy (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn, request speedy keep.Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand what Phil is saying BUT (of course there is always a but): The purpose of an encyclopedia is to tell you what is notable about the person, not send you to another source to find out if he is or is not notable. Other sources, the way I see it, are if you are interested enough in the subject to learn more than an encyclopedia can give you. If there is notability about the subject at hand, it should be in the article. Even if it is summarized in only one or two sentences. No one has taken the time or the effort to do that here. If it isn't said, I can't help but wonder if he really is as notable as you two say he is. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such sources and statements have been added with more to follow. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With recent additions, I am clearer now on why this artist is important and would not contest the decision to keep this article. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenora Claire[edit]

Lenora Claire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While some new references have been added and some unsubstantiated claims dropped (and user LenoraClaire seems to be inactive at the moment) the major flaws of the article -- and the fatal ones -- remain.
  • The sources are almost entirely one of two types: trivial, passing mentions or mentions in unreliable sources (zines, blogs, gossip sites)
I believe that the best possible sources have been found based upon the great deal of effort users LenoraClaire and DogTownClown have expended (and one of them -- LenoraClaire -- is the subject -- I am sure she will know of any and all relevant press/refs)
  • The article has grave verification issues (this is related to the first problem)
  • The subject fails to meet WP:CREATIVE standards of notability as a model and a writer and a curator.
There are no compelling reasons to give this article a pass from normal notability standards. I know DogTownClown argues Claire is unusual and interesting. Maybe she is; but we need more than that to warrant an encyclopedia article I am afraid. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? They all seem aimed at showing that she fails known critera for notability. You seem to just say that shes unusual and interesting (see below). And then garbnish that with OTHERTHINGSEXIST for good measure. Its really hard infact to get a handle on what your arguments are as they chop and change akll the time (here Angelyne is the benchmark, there shes too high). 12.162.2.182 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. When you write magazine articles, a good portion of them will be about noteworthy people - artists, actors, musicians. There are thousands of working journalists who have written more articles about people more noteworthy. That doesn't make them worth an encyclopedia entry. As for 200 being more notable than a dozen, so what? Hairhorn (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assume that her writing is the most noteworthy accomplishment. That is your opinion. Another opinion might hold that she is more noteworthy as an cutting-edge art curator in the cut throat LA art world, who happens to also be a journalist. Dogtownclown (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you're going to concede that the writing isn't notable, you can probably stop debating me... Hairhorn (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't notable at all, did I do that? I said that I don't consider it the most noteworthy accomplishment. I do think it's notable that she seems a jack-of-all-trades, a renaissance person, many faceted, etc. Dogtownclown (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note: I think she would not be notable if she were just a writer, or just a model, or just an art curator, or just a celebrity of sorts in the LA art/film world, but the fact that she is all of these things makes her a little unusual and interesting, ie noteworthy. Dogtownclown (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only addressed a narrow issue about journalism, there's no point debating me with points about curating or other achievements. Also, do minor, non-noteworthy achievements add up to make one noteworthy one? This debate has gone on before. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mai_Griffin. Hairhorn (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Weekly article is the THIRD REFERENCE listed. http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-10/la-vida/world-of-wonder-gallery-where-camp-meets-vamp/ - quite amazing that you "cannot see" it.Dogtownclown (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Please tone down the personal abuse, rudeness, and rhetoric. Other editors have also asked you. It does nothing for your cause and indeed hurts it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added another reference from the Los Angeles Times which shows this woman is in fact a mover and a shaker in LA art scene. These are high profile events that she is producing in the second largest city in the US. Dogtownclown (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
From the page you linked: "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia." Dogtownclown (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Also for the page you linked: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article.... 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."Dogtownclown (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the second paragraph on the page you linked WP:BIO "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy", again, I believe that the article meets the criteria for a biography stub.Dogtownclown (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The qualifiers "significant" and "in-depth coverage" are not found on the page you linked - reliable sources Dogtownclown (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Ok, from WP:BIO, this is close to what you were saying Drawn Some: "notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

Notice that the qualifiers are "significant", "interesting", "or unusual enough".... not all 3 together, but any one of the three.

Also, "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy" (in other words, it's not a hard and fast rule). Dogtownclown (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Scroll down just a wee bit in WP:BIO to the part that says "Basic criteria" as a section title. It's okay to ignore rules and policy and guidelines but only for good reason. It also liable to get reversed by consensus, which is what is happening now, someone created an article that probably didn't meet notability requirements and editors are deciding whether or not it should stay. Like I said, show me the reliable sources etc. as above. Drawn Some (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "good reason", as I see it, would be that this is an "interesting" person, and a person "unusual enough" to be included (2 of 3 notability requirements), in my opinion. There are reliable sources posted in the article, I've even added some myself. As far as someone thinking it "probably didn't meet notability requirements", that has been addressed as well - from WP:NOTE: "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia." and "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article.... 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." Also, keep in mind that "consensus" is decided by the weight of arguments, not on the number of people raising concerns. Dogtownclown (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Clean up[edit]

I've spent a little time doing some research and editing/pruning the article. I've also added some information and sources which bolsters the article's notability, it is clearly "interesting" and "unusual enough" to be included in this encyclopedia as a biography stub - in my opinion. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment -- appreciate the hard work - as I'm sure everyone does - but some of the refs being added aren't really reliable sources from the wikipedia perspective (online mags/websites). Lots of non-reliable refs and cites may look impressive but still don't establish notability. For a pretty good summary of what is needed I would review the comments of Ricky81682 and others. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in turn, some of the references are good. I added a Los Angeles Times article (a reliable source) as well as a mention of Claire in a book which uses her as one of 3 examples of "goth" fashion models working in the world today. Dogtownclown (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been flagged for rescue[edit]

"All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. Improvement is the opposite of deletion. An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron

I agree! Anyone want to help? Dogtownclown (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who tagged the article for rescue, I'd advise would-be rescuers that the best way to save this article is to find and provide evidence of third party coverage of her in respectable publications. Examples of this would be a story found via a Google News search for "Lenora Claire" which devoted multiple paragraphs to Claire's work, or a scan of an article about Claire in an offline reputable magazine. Making unsubstantiated claims that the subject has been featured in reliable sources does not impress anyone, nor do claims about the subject's importance. From the debate so far, it's clear that those favouring deletion have made the stronger case thus far, and I say that as an editor sympathetic to rescue efforts. Regards,  Skomorokh  21:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing the clean-up team should do is confirm her age, IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source for that. Drawn Some (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I can only assume that it is not possible (given that the attempted clean-up has left this untouched). I think that this is merely another indication of lack of notability. A truly notable person's birth date/place could be quite easily confirmed from reliable sources with little effort. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Aren't birth dates usually published in biographies or autobiographies? Isn't it highly unusual for a news article or an interviewer of any sort to mention someone's birth date, especially a woman? The date of someone's birth seems pretty trivial in my humble opinion. 166.77.103.133 (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the LA Weekly articles (there are several online and a couple linked in the article) does devote a few paragraphs to Claire's work - http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-10/la-vida/world-of-wonder-gallery-where-camp-meets-vamp/ . Is the LA Weekly not considered a reliable source? Many of it's writers, including the one who penned this article, also write for the Los Angeles Times (Lina Lecaro has since 2000). Hell, some of these writers have won a Pulitzer Prize. As far as I can tell Lina Lecaro is one of a handful of experts on the LA fashion, art, and music scene. Dogtownclown (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Can someone explain to me how the above is not a reliable source. I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know. Thanks. Dogtownclown (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(1) I believe the LA weekly is reliable, which is defined at WP:RS. However, our concern is that coverage of her isn't particularly significant, and the tone doesn't indicate that it is independent or particularly professional (but that's a matter of judgment). (2) is your argument now that because she's written with people who have won Pulitzer Prize, that's adequate? That's not particularly strong, especially considering you earlier said that the number of articles she's written isn't significant. Is she famous as an article, a writer, a model, what? There are very specific standards for all of those types of notability. Claiming she's generally well-known isn't productive (3) the WP:SPA designation isn't an insult, it just indicates that you aren't someone who seems to have a grasp of the entire encyclopedia, especially the policies as a whole. These rules have been built up over years and years of discussion, and they are somewhat complex. (4) Please stop with the "there are several sources out there" arguments, and your general antagonism. Your tone and rhetoric isn't helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering the question. There seems to be some confusion... I was indicating that some writers for LA Weekly are Pulitzer winners because I thought people were saying that the LA Weekly isn't a reliable source. I didn't say that Claire wrote anything with a writer for the paper. My argument is that she seems to be a notable person, a person of interest, an unusual subject - from what I read, those are a legitimate criteria for determining if a person is noteworthy - a step or two above whether she's famous or well known (right?). Dogtownclown (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that she seems to be a notable person, a person of interest, an unusual subject. Based on what? We don't go on mere speculation and gut feelings. That falls under original research and would be a nightmare in terms of consistency (as the early years of this project were), so we go by, "are there independent third-parties that discuss her significantly?" -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing it on what I read in the LA Weekly articles referenced in the wiki entry, the writer claims things such as "(Claire's) show gave the gallery its first taste of real media frenzy". I'm not basing it on a gut feeling, there seems to be some real excitement about what this lady is doing. Dogtownclown (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, generally, an encyclopedia focuses on people who are notable because of what they have done, not on what they may do. I have to follow the group that disagrees about her notability, although probably a little biased since I both am from the LA region, am used to people like Claire, and am dealing with another article that has both the same COI concerns and the same notability issues. However, you are still free to have your opinion and you are free to try to convince anyone else who comes here of that. Again, though, assume good faith with others and keep the rhetoric down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that direct links to images at the LA Weekly (like here like this citation) are really frowned upon and make the LA Weekly looks like a reliable source and more like an unreliable blog. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky81682, Could you clarify your comment here? I am attempting to help clean this up where I can, but not sure what you saying here. Ericboyd (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to kindly disagree once more with your assessment that the subject isn't noteworthy. I don't believe that I or the article I just quoted implies that her notability rests on what this woman "may do" but on what she has done. She is causing a stir, at this very moment, in the LA art scene. Los Angeles is not an easy place to gain attention, as you should know, everyone and their mother is fighting for the spotlight. The fact that an "expert" on the art scene in Los Angeles (the LA Weekly writer) is gushing about her speaks volumes, in my opinion. Dogtownclown (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Note that this is a discussion and not a vote. There have been times where the closing admin ignored the "votes" and overruled based on which person had the better arguments. There's still plenty of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think these criterea are the relevant ones:WP:CREATIVE
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
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.
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
Comment I think its pretty hard for an editor to say that the subject of this article satisfies any of the above statements.Fini12 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you bring up Angelyne, who has a wikipedia article of course, and whose only achievement has been purchasing billboards of herself. I'd argue that this young lady Lenora Claire is far more interesting and has accomplished more in just a few short years than Angelyne's 30 years of doing absolutely nothing. As I understand it, being a "success" isn't a requirement for being a person of interest on wikipedia, I think the lack of success on Angelyne's part goes towards proving that. Dogtownclown (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument for keeping an article. Whether Angelyne does or doesn't deserve a place in the wikipedia has no bearing on this article's validity. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it doesn't. But it might show something else... Angelyne's wiki page has only 2 references. One from the entertainment section of LA Times (Claire has an LA Times reference from the same section of the paper, with the same amount of info - as well as a few from the LA Weekly) and Angelyne's only another reference is from TMZ, which is not being considered a reliable source for Claire. Just a thought to consider. Dogtownclown (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if you think the Angelyne article unencyclopedic or wanting in some way, you are free to edit it or indeed to bring it here as an AfD. This; however, is not a discussion about the Angelyne article (although a news search reveals more than 3 LA Times articles fully about the woman) it is about the validity of this article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc." Dogtownclown (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree again Bigdaddy1981. The validity of Angelyne's article is relevant to this discussion. Please re-read the above, "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." This intro paragraph from the page you wanted me to read specifically says legitimate comparisons shouldn't be disregarded simply for the reason, the exact reason, you are stating that they should be disregarded for. Dogtownclown (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although I think a discussion of Angelyne is best done on that article's talk page; I will say that I am hesitant to compare Angelyne to Lenora Claire. A google books search turns up a chapter on Angelyne in "Claims to Fame" by Joshua Gamson (Univ. of Cal. Press), an entry in something called "Jane & Michael Stern's Encyclopedia of Pop Culture", and more than passing reference to her in John Waters' "Crackpot". Moving on to news media, I can find a score (can't be bothered to count them) of articles in the LA Times alone with the first several (stopped reading them) being entirely about her. This all within about 10 minutes of searching. So, I don't really think that a comparison to Angelyne is all that helpful to the current debate and the presence of (even a poor) article on Angelyne sets no precedent for one on a (frankly) lesser light like Claire.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just located a book, the 2009 update of the wildly popular "L. A. Bizarro: The All New Insider's Guide to the Obscure, the Absurd, and the Perverse in Los Angeles", previously a best-selling book in LA - #1 Non-Fiction in the LA Times - which features Lenora Claire, and actually dedicating a story to her. The pages aren't available online, do I need to scan these pages in and post them on the web? Or how does this work exactly? Dogtownclown (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Nope, that would be a copyright violation. Free feel to just cite the pages in the article, and mention the diffs here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon shows that book as still unreleased --- publication date September 2009 --- but I'll take your word that Claire will be mentioned in it when it comes out. I wonder though if "featured" isn't overdoing it given the one page mention. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Im not really sure what improvements have been made (aside from the largely cosmetic changes you made recently). No one still can show any notability, just a dense tangle of trivial mentions in largely unreliable sources - sure it looks well referenced but overwhelmingly the refs are online blogs, zines and gossip columns. Moreover, some of the references aren't even relevant! Two of the ref that purport to show that she's been in televsion programs have nothing to do with that. I really can see no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage. I cannot see she is notable as a model, a writer, or a curator -- or all three. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:NOTE: "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia" and "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." Dogtownclown (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, its looks like ten new sources have been added by others since the Nom. Now granted you'd be within your rights not to count them as improvements if this was an article for say a leading politician , as the sources arent generally of the highest quality. However Wikipedia:Reliable sources advises.
Sources like the books or latimes have editorial control, and they can reasonably be regarded as trustworthy for the subject at hand, which is an LA popular culture celeb with some global reach. If you dont like the sources what better ones are there for popular LA (sub) culture? I still think this article easilly passes our notability criteria. The only problem that hasnt been resolved is that the subject hasnt apologized for her rude comments about some of our editors who were acting in good faith. I suggest that any local US based editor could fix this problem, as going by the sources I read the subject would likely accept a spanking if she was approached in the right way. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the global reach? I agree that these are likely the best sources available (given that a major editor of the article is user LenoraClaire and Dogtownclown apparantly somehow has access to unpublished books mentioning the subject); however, with few exceptions, all are trivial mentions, not about her, or of totally unreliable nature (zines, websites, etc). Perhaps one day Claire will have sufficient notability re. Angelyne and others but at the moment --- no. The most notable thing she's done seems to have been the Golden Girls parody and that was judged NN. In any case, I think I have exhausted my interest in this article . I am glad you see that editors who object to the article are working in good faith btw. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some global reach as in the appearance for France's Canal Plus, and the trans US appearances that show she's more than a local LA personality. Im sorry you've lost interest here and we wont have the chance to convince you this one's a keeper. At least thanks to your attention the article is vastly improved! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Almost the entirety of the article is sourced directly or indirectly to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement doesn't make sense to me. Can you put it in layman terms? Dogtownclown (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason the subject gets any press is that she gives good quote. The press is all "here's a good quote." Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not completely true. Many of the press mentions, as well as the book mention, are about the stir she's causing in the LA art world. Dogtownclown (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you read the refs. The MTV article isn't about her -- she is merely interviewed as a participant in a show. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I removed the reference from the section it didn't apply to, but I kept it as a reference to her own art being curated, by another curator, for a show. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a best seller if it is not yet released? Also, the reference to her at Fronteirs says she is an Editorial Assistant not an editor and is currently there? Are you sure about all these references? I think quality is better than quantity. Fini12 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an updated printing of the book, which previously sold out. Also, the claim is that she's on the editorial staff, an editorial assistant is on staff. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh -- well maybe this one will be a best seller, but you can't say it is a bestseller --- because it hasnt even been published yet! Fini12 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording I used in the article itself is pretty clear, "in the 2009 update to the bestselling book L. A. Bizarro: The All New Insider's Guide to the Obscure, the Absurd, and the Perverse in Los Angeles." Dogtownclown (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, feel free to reword things or add improvements, I'm not married to all the changes I've made. :) Dogtownclown (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:NOTE: "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." In other words, I don't think we are required to wait for "greater accomplishments" to determine that this young lady is doing some notable things in the LA art world. Or that she herself is pretty unusual and interesting - ie, noteworthy. Dogtownclown (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed typo. Dogtownclown (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the wiki article I made it absolutely clear she is in "the forthcoming 2009 update" to the book. And the fact remains that this book is a quintessential guide to any and all colorful persons, places and things in LA. I doubt that the authors would have mentioned her at all if she were not notable. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- reading the back on forth on this book I have the following take. The book is unpublished and basing the subject's inclusion in it on a conversation you had with the author (and please, don't take this the wrong way as I am not questioning the truth of your representations here) raises a huge verification problem here. I think the best thing is to remove the source and when it is release add it back. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a problem, the information can be verified once the book is released and then I will restore the book citation. Dogtownclown (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood what I was saying. I said that no one is claiming that she's famous or important on a world-wide scale. Please read my previous comment again. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guy said she was a local celeb with "some global reach" not that she was world famous. I can't put words in his mouth, but that's the way I read it. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who questions if I am notable as a model I'd like to think that appearing on billboards in Times Square, having my face in the NBC window in Rockefeller center, appearing on subway ads all over NYC, as well as having my face in Vanity Fair Magazine, Variety, and multiple commercials for the USA Network Character project would qualify. If anyone would like they are free to visit my Model Mayhem profile and see all of my other modeling credits which include nation wide ads for Hot Topic as well. I have also appeared in over 30 music videos. As a writer, I was on staff at Frontiers magazine (easily verified) and have interviewed a wide range of celebrities. As a curator I honestly can't think of anyone in the art world who is written up from a wide range of media as TMZ and NPR. All of which can be found on the internet. My IMDB verifies the tv programs I have done as well. I've also been a guest multiple times on Sirius radio for Maxim magazine and Out Sirius Q. I also appear in multiple books such as American Character for the USA Network, Faces of Sunset Blvd, Vacation Standards, and the update to LA Bizarro. As a performer I've opened for the Dresden Dolls and played on stages all over LA. Again, anyone who took the time to google would know this. So if I appear in books, magazines, television, radio, ad campaigns, and perform wouldn't that qualify for a wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoraclaire (talk • contribs) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reading a description of the USA Character project (http://www.usanetwork.com/characterproject/#/about/press) raises some questions in my mind to say the least. The theme of the project is that America is full of characters and the project seeks to celebrate "average joes" rather than professional models. Being photographes as part of this would seem to undermine claims of notability rather than increase them. Also, your "model mayham" site is not valid as a source. It would never be possible to verfiy the information in an article if it was based on materials controlled by the subject. After all, you are free to oput anything you want up there. 12.162.2.182 (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I understand the only things that are acceptable to "prove" facts here are news articles in mainstream newspapers, books published by major publishers, and the works/opinions of scholars. Photographic evidence is not acceptable - maybe someday it will be, but for now it's not. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A friendly warning (which you're probably aware of already) Lenora: this place frowns highly upon people writing their own wiki pages apparently. Thanks for your input above, when I find a little more time I'm going to try verifying the things you've offered. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well said Dogtown. Looks to me like you've already established that while Claire may not yet be an A list celebetrity, she is fairly widely known and easily meets our inclusion criteria. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and fame are not the same thing. Claire is neither. From reading the comments above its pretty clear that Claire's boosters (one of whom busrt in here claiming that another editor had a vendetta) and herself (who trolled it seemed for said boosters on her Twitter site -- see above) cannot come up with enough to create verifiable evidence of notoreity. She claims fame as (amongst otherthjings) a writer and curator so its clear that WP:CREATIVE is the crierion (indeed DogTownClown says that without her curating and writing she wouldnt be notable 'cause shes a Renaissance person). She fails that with flying colors. There seems to be a strong consensus that she is NN but as FeydHuxtable says --- thats for the closing admin to say. I dont envy his job given the masses of rep[etive "responses" this AFD has created. 12.162.2.182 (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of any participants not familiar with the DGGs excellent reputation, its worth clarifying that when he says whats presented here isnt remotely reliable, he can only be referring to unsourced information on this talk page. He cant possibly mean the review in the LA Times, an awarding winning broadsheet with one of the highest circulations in the US. Nor can he mean the extensive review of Lenora's curating work in the Daily Sundial - while thats a university paper, its financially independent and has won professional awards, and DGG is himself on record as saying college papers are considered reliable. ( I just searched for "university paper reliable source" and DGG came up in the second result)
No ones disputing that Lenora likely has promotional intent, but equally hopefully no one judges her for that as US society positively encourages its artists to self promote, and anyway the key issue is whether the subject is noteable , as seems to be the case per coverage in multiple reliable sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:08, 25 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 01:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lutheran Church of the Redeemer[edit]

The Lutheran Church of the Redeemer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable congregation; no coverage in reliable sources, not a historic building, no notable clergy. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Jars of Clay (album). –Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Song for a Savior[edit]

Love Song for a Savior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, no sources, didn't chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:17, 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 Jars of Clay (album). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid (Jars of Clay song)[edit]

Liquid (Jars of Clay song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, didn't chart, no reliable source coverage. Unlikely redirect term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 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 redirect to Jars of Clay (album). Cirt (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Alright (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I'm Alright (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. No idea what Christian CHR chart that is, but it ain't Billboard and is therefore not a "major" chart per WP:MUSIC. Without the chart position, there's no trace of notability for this song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's kind of implied, since (as far as I know) no other U.S. singles chart is verifiable through an archive. And what chart is this by anyway? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 10:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet availablility is not required for notability. Rlendog (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the chart is in the hardcopy magazine from 1990, that should be adequate. Just because the chart isn't on the internet doesn't make it non-notable or non-verifiable. Rlendog (talk) 21:12, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homelessness in popular culture[edit]

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

Textbook example of how not to do "in popular culture". Listy, unsourced, no correlation besides that each tangentially touches on homelessness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I learn something new every day. Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. "The problem is, far too many of us can't be arsed to write a proper article." Yes, quite. Also a note to fellow members of the Article Rescue Squadron: we rescue articles, we don't just vote keep. There are many more sources out there if we look for them, but those I've found should be a start on rewriting this. Fences and windows (talk) 01:33, 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 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne Live Acoustic[edit]

Avril Lavigne Live Acoustic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Exclusive-release album, no reliable sources. Sold only at Target for a short period and didn't get any critical reviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:02, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BusJunction[edit]

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

non notable travel website Gilllnnm (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all you like but please only !vote once. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 17 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) 00:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion to merge elsewhere can take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of political hip hop artists[edit]

List of political hip hop artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

wp:or - This list is a subjective opinion regarding what constitues 'political rap', and such a cetegorisation is not verifiable from reliable sources  Chzz  ►  06:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it would be a lot of work categorising them; but could one not use this list to fill out the e4xisting cats on your political hip hop page. For instance some may be socialists, other nationalists etc. Just a thought. BTW thanks for the info re. the reason for the pages creation -- I think thats always useful to know in these dabates. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it helps, I've removed the groups without sources from the list. Some were sourced from their WP articles, I've decided to leave those in for now. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 23 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 00:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs I Have Known[edit]

Pigs I Have Known (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This no doubt charming book does not appear to be notable. The worldcat entry for the author (who, by the way, may be notable) shows that this book is held by 17 libraries worldwide—an indicator of non-notability. An all-dates Google news archive search draws a blank. A web search generates catalog listings and several mirrors of the current and previous versions of this article. There are no editorial or even user reviews at the Amzon UK page for the book. Bongomatic 08:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Helpful One 15:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic and Other Misdemeanors[edit]

Magic and Other Misdemeanors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure plot summary, fails WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sounds like a reason to improve, not delete... Hobit (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, not convinced of notability of series or author, so delete. Dlohcierekim 18:00, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chilltime[edit]

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

nn social networking website Gilllnnm (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 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 Already boldly redirected.. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video Flow[edit]

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

Non-notable block of music video programming. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 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 Much Music. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much Mega Hits[edit]

Much Mega Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable block of music video programming. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Thailand Universe runners-up[edit]

List of Miss Thailand Universe runners-up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Flunks WP:DIRECTORY. No discernible notability of topic Scheinwerfermann (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 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 redirect to Fiji Mission to the European Union; nothing to merge, this is substantially a duplicate of that page. Flowerparty☀ 00:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Fiji to Belgium[edit]

Embassy of Fiji to Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, nothing particularly notable about this embassy. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, and where is the guideline that says all embassies are notable? Fails the significant coverage test. [64]. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it is not notable, certainly say the US Embassy in Moscow would be notable...but this one? LibStar (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. because you think high schools are notable therefore embassies are? all high schools are not notable. most high schools I've seen on wikipedia have been redirected. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated below, the view of the wikipedia community is that high-schools are notable. I think it odd that the community can hold that view yet reject an embassy to a major country as NN. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I think the default notability of high schools is absurd. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the community determined that most high schools are notable, a decision I hate and work against. Its middle/elementary schools that are usually redirected. In the case of embassies we can establish notability using primary sources, per WP:SELFPUB which allows one to use a self published source ie. the embassies website so long as it does not make any out of the ordinary claims. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your comments. i'm not sure if embassy websites can establish notability, depends on the depth of information it contains. If it's just address, bio of ambassador, what's great about their own country, how to get a visa, then it's not useful for establishing notability as per WP:N. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I think about you are starting to have a pretty good point, some embassies may not be notable just like some high schools are not notable. I guess this is another topic that needs discussing. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a reasonable idea to me -- merge. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then it should meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, WP:ORG has nothing to do with this, we need to determine how notable this is and go from there. --Marcusmax(speak) 15:46, 24 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 Twitter. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twestival[edit]

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

I'm in two minds about this. I'm sure the Twitter-fans will call it a "revelation" and "one of the most important moments in internet history" but I'm not really buying it. Some people from the internet got together and...well, that's where the story ends. There are various mentions of this is reputable sources but I'm still doubting the article's worth. Hence, I'd like to know what the community thinks of this article and its future. Greg Tyler (t • c) 11:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Transportation Proposals[edit]

Innovative Transportation Proposals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Originally included self-published original research (which I have removed). Now it reads a little advert-ish. Doesn't seem like there is much here to be saved that isn't already in the main articles already referenced. JCutter (talk) 05:27, 3 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 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding brief comments about many other speculative systems, and intend to e-mail the progenitors of these systems so that they may update and augment these. This way, the referenced article can become a living source for those interested in innovative and speculative transportation systems. Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Al Attar[edit]

Basem Al Attar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not currently meet the notability guidelines for politicians and there is no evidence of meeting the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Jennex[edit]

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

Nonnoteworthy schoolteacher currently running for office (Nova Scotia general election, 2009). Election press-release type bio; I added {advert} and {notability} tags, which original poster removed without comment or changing the article. Hairhorn (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she wins, it should be patently obvious that she should hold a wiki entry, though I agree with the deletion prior to the results (she looks to have an edge on the incumbent) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.67.194 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Mansion (Knoebels)[edit]

Haunted Mansion (Knoebels) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced article on a specific amusement park ride with no real assertion of notability (it comes closest with "The Haunted Mansion is constantly awarded for it status as best traditional darkride by DAFE and Amusement Today", which this web page [not cited in the article] does seem to claim). The whole thing seems to be original research (for example, "The first stunt is...a scary-looking man who pulls-open a door while a automatic sound clip say [sic] "Welcome" in an eerie tone"), though it appears that the web page I linked to above was probably the source for much of the article. Unreferenced or not, I just can't see the notability here. A good rating by an online darkrides-enthusiast group just doesn't cut it. --Miskwito (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals and a lack of reliable sources means that she does not meet the primary notability criterion either. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Favazza[edit]

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

I cannot see evidence to support notability, per WP:CREATIVE or WP:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Note, I have removed a large number of external links, see diff. I have searched on Google News (no hits), Google Scholar (no hits), Amazon.com (no hits). The standard Google search only appears to show blog sites etc, I can see no reliable sources there.  Chzz  ►  18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RookChat[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that notability. It was nominated for VFD in 2004 and the result was keep. For some reason, the discussion got moved to the talk page of the article. Iowateen (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Cancer Access to Life-Saving Early detection, Research and Treatment (ALERT) Act[edit]

21st Century Cancer Access to Life-Saving Early detection, Research and Treatment (ALERT) Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bill introduced in the US Senate. Has received some coverage: Tyler Morning Telegraph and CNN. But it's not law yet, and there are lots of bills introduced that never go anywhere. Coverage is not substantial enough to make it noteworthy, thus it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Atmoz (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kein Engel[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of a Lost Moon[edit]

Shades of a Lost Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Shades of a Lost Moon is a demo recorded by Swedish band Draconian. According to WP:NALBUMS, Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources--and this album is not an exception to the rule, as I not found any reliable and relevant source to reach its notability. Cannibaloki 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

In Glorious Victory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Closed Eyes of Paradise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frozen Features (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dark Oceans We Cry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ansiklopedika[edit]

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

Turkish online encyclopedia claims to "one of the the most popular general reference work on the Internet in Turkish language". I don't speak Turkish, but the Google translation doesn't support that claim. Has not been the subject of third-party reliable sources. Atmoz (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "It serves" etc. I assume you mean that Ansiklopedika provides this service. I don't think that anyone involved in this discussion means to deprecate Ansiklopedika as such - certainly I don't. This discussion regards deleting the en.wikipedia page of that name. Cnilep (talk) 13:49, 23 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 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Murphy (podcaster)[edit]

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

Article was nominated once for deletion in 2007 and kept with the assertion that material added during that AFD satisfied notability concerns, However, a review of that sourcing indicates that it does not. One is an obituary in his hometown paper, one is to an XM Radio page that no longer exists (Joe Murphy is not found in a search of the XM site), one confirms his nomination for a podcasting award (he did not win) and one is a band's blog (not a reliable source). There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person, rather there are many blogs and podcasts that offer tributes following his untimely passing. Wikipedia is not a memorial and the gentleman does not pass WP:N or WP:BIO. Otto4711 (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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 redirect to Papa Roach discography. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caca Bonita[edit]

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

The EP is extremely rare and is not covered at all in reliable sources. Therefore, it fails WP:NALBUMS. Timmeh! 23:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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.
More